(07-17-2018 09:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]. Heck, he said today he still thinks that there could have been others who were involved with the election interference.
Do we have evidence that that ONLY Russia was involved in election interference? Or is that just another opinion presented as fact?
What would it matter if others were involved? Or were not?
Your comment suggests there's reason to believe that non-Russian related outside actors were involved in the operations that focused on influencing the 2016 election. We know that these activities happened, and all the evidence that has been released points to Russia being the actor behind the activities. You're using a lack of evidence to suggest that there may be evidence out there.
That logical leap is gigantic. But I guess after the birther issue, I shouldn't be surprised that Trump, and many of his followers, do not need actual evidence to try and push a narrative.
Your defense is akin to me saying the moon is made of cheese because we don't have evidence that there isn't some cheese on the moon.
Why do you insinuate that I am a birther? Is that necessary to push your narrative?
speaking of not needing actual evidence to push a narrative, have you heard of the collusion theory? And speaking of narratives, what is the collusion narrative?
I have heard many people here and elsewhere say lots of countries meddle in elections, including us. Is that not enough t say there may be others?
No need for the sly character assassination. Just tell us why no other countries could possibly have done anything. Only Russia, and only with Trump.
(07-17-2018 10:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]I shouldn't be surprised that Trumpthe Democratic Party followers, and many of histheir followers, do not need actual evidence to try and push a narrative on 'collusion'.
Fixed your snark. I'll eschew making a return implied snark and just let this one stand on its own....
Quote:Your defense is akin to me saying the moon is made of cheese because we don't have evidence that there isn't some cheese on the moon.
Still waiting for that evidence of collusion between Don and Vlad. Just saying.
But I'm sure there is a 'major' difference between the two.....
(07-17-2018 09:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]. Heck, he said today he still thinks that there could have been others who were involved with the election interference.
Do we have evidence that that ONLY Russia was involved in election interference? Or is that just another opinion presented as fact?
What would it matter if others were involved? Or were not?
Your comment suggests there's reason to believe that non-Russian related outside actors were involved in the operations that focused on influencing the 2016 election. We know that these activities happened, and all the evidence that has been released points to Russia being the actor behind the activities. You're using a lack of evidence to suggest that there may be evidence out there.
That logical leap is gigantic. But I guess after the birther issue, I shouldn't be surprised that Trump, and many of his followers, do not need actual evidence to try and push a narrative.
Your defense is akin to me saying the moon is made of cheese because we don't have evidence that there isn't some cheese on the moon.
Why do you insinuate that I am a birther? Is that necessary to push your narrative?
speaking of not needing actual evidence to push a narrative, have you heard of the collusion theory? And speaking of narratives, what is the collusion narrative?
I have heard many people here and elsewhere say lots of countries meddle in elections, including us. Is that not enough t say there may be others?
No need for the sly character assassination. Just tell us why no other countries could possibly have done anything. Only Russia, and only with Trump.
Didn’t mean to insinuate you fell for the birther lie - unfortunately, plenty of other Trump defenders fell for that nonsense, and Trump was pretty much the source of it.
And regarding collusion, there is enough evidence to suggest the Trump campaign may have collided with Russia. The fact that Trump Jr took a meeting with the explicit hope that he would receive dirt on Clinton is enough evidence to justify an investigation into the campaign’s involvement. That meeting was not about adoptions as the campaign multiple times tried to cover up and obscure (another piece of evidence justifying the investigation). And then there is the Trump campaign changing the party’s platform on Ukraine...
Remember, the investigation is looking at the entire campaign, not just Trump himself as you often like to suggest.
(07-17-2018 10:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]I shouldn't be surprised that Trumpthe Democratic Party followers, and many of histheir followers, do not need actual evidence to try and push a narrative on 'collusion'.
Fixed your snark. I'll eschew making a return implied snark and just let this one stand on its own....
Quote:Your defense is akin to me saying the moon is made of cheese because we don't have evidence that there isn't some cheese on the moon.
Still waiting for that evidence of collusion between Don and Vlad. Just saying.
But I'm sure there is a 'major' difference between the two.....
See my response to OO regarding just one line of evidence that supports the investigation into the Trump CAMPAIGN. I’ve maintained for a long time that I think his campaign is likely the issue and Trump most likely was not directly involved.
With all of the news coming out about how the NRA was targeted by Russia to help Russia gain influence in the US, it seems like they were focused on using ancillary, but important and powerful figures to push influence, rather than focus on top dogs of the party.
Yep, that investigation into the Trump CAMPAIGN has been a smashing success I'd say. Cant seem to be able to count the numbers of actual collusion-related charges that have come forth --
(07-17-2018 09:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]. Heck, he said today he still thinks that there could have been others who were involved with the election interference.
Do we have evidence that that ONLY Russia was involved in election interference? Or is that just another opinion presented as fact?
What would it matter if others were involved? Or were not?
Your comment suggests there's reason to believe that non-Russian related outside actors were involved in the operations that focused on influencing the 2016 election. We know that these activities happened, and all the evidence that has been released points to Russia being the actor behind the activities. You're using a lack of evidence to suggest that there may be evidence out there.
That logical leap is gigantic. But I guess after the birther issue, I shouldn't be surprised that Trump, and many of his followers, do not need actual evidence to try and push a narrative.
Your defense is akin to me saying the moon is made of cheese because we don't have evidence that there isn't some cheese on the moon.
Why do you insinuate that I am a birther? Is that necessary to push your narrative?
speaking of not needing actual evidence to push a narrative, have you heard of the collusion theory? And speaking of narratives, what is the collusion narrative?
I have heard many people here and elsewhere say lots of countries meddle in elections, including us. Is that not enough t say there may be others?
No need for the sly character assassination. Just tell us why no other countries could possibly have done anything. Only Russia, and only with Trump.
Didn’t mean to insinuate you fell for the birther lie - unfortunately, plenty of other Trump defenders fell for that nonsense, and Trump was pretty much the source of it.
And regarding collusion, there is enough evidence to suggest the Trump campaign may have collided with Russia. The fact that Trump Jr took a meeting with the explicit hope that he would receive dirt on Clinton is enough evidence to justify an investigation into the campaign’s involvement. That meeting was not about adoptions as the campaign multiple times tried to cover up and obscure (another piece of evidence justifying the investigation). And then there is the Trump campaign changing the party’s platform on Ukraine...
Remember, the investigation is looking at the entire campaign, not just Trump himself as you often like to suggest.
You seem to have fallen for something yourself.
Explain to me, why does the search for dirt imply collusion? And why do you think the democrats eschewed searching for dirt, when they paid for the Steele dossier? The inanity of this line of attack astounds me.
Of course the democrats look for dirt. All politicians look for their opponents problems. Who told you that the democrats were pure?
The Democrats are still looking for dirt, to this minute And only three years after they started, they have precious little.
The birther thing was stupid. The child of an american citizen is an American citizen regardless of where they are born, so kenya, Indonesia, Hawaii, the North Pole, New Zealand, it didn't matter. About as stupid as the collusion conspiracy theory you believe in, especially if you are basing it off a 15 minute meeting that resulted in Jr. walking out. Where is the "working together" that collusion means?
Birther conspiracy theory = collusion conspiracy theory
As for Trump being the source of it, I went to wikipedia to see if they could pinpoint the originators, and got this:
From the start of March 2008, rumors that Obama was born in Kenya before being flown to Hawaii were spread on conservative websites, with the suggestion that this would disqualify Obama from the presidency. In April of that year, anonymous e-mails from supporters of Hillary Clinton repeated the same rumor,[31] including a Clinton Iowa campaign worker, who was fired for sending the e-mail.[32][33] These and numerous other chain e-mails during the subsequent presidential election circulated false rumors about Obama's origin, religion, and birth certificate.[34][35]
On June 9, 2008, Jim Geraghty of the conservative website National Review Online suggested that Obama release his birth certificate.[36][37] Geraghty wrote that releasing his birth certificate could debunk several false rumors circulating on the Internet, namely: that his middle name was originally Muhammad rather than Hussein; that his mother had originally named him "Barry" rather than "Barack"; and that Barack Obama Sr. was not his biological father, as well as the rumor that Barack Obama was not a natural-born citizen.[37][38][39]
In August 2008, Philip J. Berg, a former member of the Democratic State Committee of Pennsylvania, brought an unsuccessful lawsuit against Obama, which alleged "that Obama was born in Mombasa, Kenya."[40][41]
In October 2008, an NPR article referred to "Kenyan-born Sen. Barack Obama.
so Democrats and NPR, as well as others in the full spectrum of left to right were involved. I am sure Trump will be pleased you gave him sole credit.
(07-18-2018 12:00 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Yep, that investigation into the Trump CAMPAIGN has been a smashing success I'd say. Cant seem to be able to count the numbers of actual collusion-related charges that have come forth --
Being that the investigation isn’t over, it’s hard to say anything about the success of it.
I provided why there is enough evidence to start an investigation - care to actually address what I said and why Don Jr and other campaign officials meeting with a Russian representative with the explicit goal being getting information on their opponent is not sufficient to start an investigation into possible collusion between the campaign and Russia?
(07-17-2018 09:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Do we have evidence that that ONLY Russia was involved in election interference? Or is that just another opinion presented as fact?
What would it matter if others were involved? Or were not?
Your comment suggests there's reason to believe that non-Russian related outside actors were involved in the operations that focused on influencing the 2016 election. We know that these activities happened, and all the evidence that has been released points to Russia being the actor behind the activities. You're using a lack of evidence to suggest that there may be evidence out there.
That logical leap is gigantic. But I guess after the birther issue, I shouldn't be surprised that Trump, and many of his followers, do not need actual evidence to try and push a narrative.
Your defense is akin to me saying the moon is made of cheese because we don't have evidence that there isn't some cheese on the moon.
Why do you insinuate that I am a birther? Is that necessary to push your narrative?
speaking of not needing actual evidence to push a narrative, have you heard of the collusion theory? And speaking of narratives, what is the collusion narrative?
I have heard many people here and elsewhere say lots of countries meddle in elections, including us. Is that not enough t say there may be others?
No need for the sly character assassination. Just tell us why no other countries could possibly have done anything. Only Russia, and only with Trump.
Didn’t mean to insinuate you fell for the birther lie - unfortunately, plenty of other Trump defenders fell for that nonsense, and Trump was pretty much the source of it.
And regarding collusion, there is enough evidence to suggest the Trump campaign may have collided with Russia. The fact that Trump Jr took a meeting with the explicit hope that he would receive dirt on Clinton is enough evidence to justify an investigation into the campaign’s involvement. That meeting was not about adoptions as the campaign multiple times tried to cover up and obscure (another piece of evidence justifying the investigation). And then there is the Trump campaign changing the party’s platform on Ukraine...
Remember, the investigation is looking at the entire campaign, not just Trump himself as you often like to suggest.
You seem to have fallen for something yourself.
Explain to me, why does the search for dirt imply collusion? And why do you think the democrats eschewed searching for dirt, when they paid for the Steele dossier? The inanity of this line of attack astounds me.
Of course the democrats look for dirt. All politicians look for their opponents problems. Who told you that the democrats were pure?
The Democrats are still looking for dirt, to this minute And only three years after they started, they have precious little.
The birther thing was stupid. The child of an american citizen is an American citizen regardless of where they are born, so kenya, Indonesia, Hawaii, the North Pole, New Zealand, it didn't matter. About as stupid as the collusion conspiracy theory you believe in, especially if you are basing it off a 15 minute meeting that resulted in Jr. walking out. Where is the "working together" that collusion means?
Birther conspiracy theory = collusion conspiracy theory
As for Trump being the source of it, I went to wikipedia to see if they could pinpoint the originators, and got this:
From the start of March 2008, rumors that Obama was born in Kenya before being flown to Hawaii were spread on conservative websites, with the suggestion that this would disqualify Obama from the presidency. In April of that year, anonymous e-mails from supporters of Hillary Clinton repeated the same rumor,[31] including a Clinton Iowa campaign worker, who was fired for sending the e-mail.[32][33] These and numerous other chain e-mails during the subsequent presidential election circulated false rumors about Obama's origin, religion, and birth certificate.[34][35]
On June 9, 2008, Jim Geraghty of the conservative website National Review Online suggested that Obama release his birth certificate.[36][37] Geraghty wrote that releasing his birth certificate could debunk several false rumors circulating on the Internet, namely: that his middle name was originally Muhammad rather than Hussein; that his mother had originally named him "Barry" rather than "Barack"; and that Barack Obama Sr. was not his biological father, as well as the rumor that Barack Obama was not a natural-born citizen.[37][38][39]
In August 2008, Philip J. Berg, a former member of the Democratic State Committee of Pennsylvania, brought an unsuccessful lawsuit against Obama, which alleged "that Obama was born in Mombasa, Kenya."[40][41]
In October 2008, an NPR article referred to "Kenyan-born Sen. Barack Obama.
so Democrats and NPR, as well as others in the full spectrum of left to right were involved. I am sure Trump will be pleased you gave him sole credit.
Did you skip the entire section on Wikipedia labeled Donald Trump? I never said Trump was the only person who pushed this theory - Trump however, especially later in the lifetime of this conspiracy theory - was one of, if not the, most vocal proponents of this crazy theory.
Are you refuting that claim? Or just pointing out that other people fell for the same, insane theory?
OO, the act of investigating an opponent is par for the course. The act of taking information from an unknown source, especially one of foreign nature, isn’t. In that case, you can’t be certain of the veracity of the information or the motives of the individual. And it’s not a great leap of logic to think that someone bringing dirt to a campaign, as opposed to say a news source, would be looking for something in return. Going to a campaign is a clear signal that the person doesn’t care about just getting the information to the public - they clearly want to weaponize it and see that info as having value, this likely wanting something in return.
In comparison to the DNC eventually hiring Fusion GPS, which used Steele, I think the act of actively trying to get opponent research, as opposed to having it dropped in your lap, potentially in exchange for something, is a big difference.
(07-17-2018 02:29 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]I personally have no problems with letting sovereigns be sovereign. I do have an issue with naked aggression being used to stop a freely elected government from being closer to the West, as was Ukraine's velocity to NATO.
Not a vindication of 'only the United States has the right to use aggression to defend its national interests' in the slightest. If the freely elected government of the Ukraine wished to 'head back to the sunny relationship with Moscow', more power to them. But, that isnt what seemingly happened, is it?
To the extent of 'nuclear war'? No. But, with that analogy I dont think I am the one arguing extreme results here, would I be?
I noticed you studiously avoided the Ossetia and eastern Ukraine issues, but, Ill let that pass.
I wasn't avoiding them, I just didn't see enough distinction, for purposes of the point I was making, between Russia's actions there and in Crimea. But if you'd like, I'll mention all three.
Russia's intervention in Crimea, Ossetia, and eastern Ukraine followed the WEST sponsored 2014 coup that REPLACED the democratically elected government with one more friendly to the West. You've got the history very wrong there. What Russia reacted to was the overthrow of a government friendly to them, by a coup that NATO backed. Following this, they secured the bases in the Crimea before NATO could. That's Russia's perspective.
I'm not arguing moral justification, I'm arguing moral equivalence. Russia used military and diplomatic means to protect its own national interests in nearby countries. That's what other nation-states do, including the United States, using the same methods. To me, to be particularly morally outraged when Russia does it would be hypocrisy. I'll never understand the cognitive dissonance of educated and intelligent people such as yourself on the subject.
I guess it is somewhat easy to pass off any revolution as a (pick your bugaboo)-backed coup.
I very much agree with the fact that there was a revolution there that replaced the previous government. Cant argue against that. But the leap to "west sponsored coup" is a rather dramatic one, one must say. And somewhat unsubstantiated, tbh.
Just saying.
And further, perhaps when you kind of make up the basis of an event, that doesnt help your statement about other's supposed 'cognitive dissonance'.
Again, just saying.
There are a lot of assumptive premises in your comments, Frizz. Lots of them.
I will agree that NATO and the West very much courted Ukraine to be closer to the West. No doubt. But to characterize the events on the scale of Nov 2103 - Feb 2014 and the *entire* Euromaidan movement (protests with literally hundreds of thousands of protesters) as a 'Western-backed coup' is strangely disingenuous. Or was *every* single member of the 500k - 900k sized rallies at that time all secretly 'coup plotters'?
Sorry, the size of the protesting crowd and the timing really seems to indicate a true popular uprising and protest. The popular sentiment was one of absolute reform. Your painting of this as a western-backed western-hatched 'coup' just doesnt ring true.
Now if Russia felt 'penned in', well, tbh, that is a different and independent question. But to characterize the entire Euromaidan movement that effectuated the change in the Ukrainian Government between Nov 2013 and Feb 2014 as a 'coup' just doesnt seem to fit. But hell, just write that off to us stupid 'cognitive dissonancers' we are..... Its always a coup plot I guess.....
Edited to add:
Putin's statements were very clear on the 'nfw' Ukraine *or* Georgia goes NATO. I am *not* disputing that they feel emphatically about that. That much is crystal clear. I do, however, seriously doubt your characterization of of the total Euromaidan as a 'NATO-backed coup'.
Believe whatever helps you sleep at night about NATO's virtue and clean hands in this. When you want the truth, the information is available. The point I was making was that Russia's actions and motives were no better or worse than any other country, including our own, in similar circumstances.
That point I was originally making to RiceLad, who was asking what NATO did to provoke Russia to occupy the Crimea, and who did studiously avoid responding to my reply.
(07-17-2018 02:29 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]I personally have no problems with letting sovereigns be sovereign. I do have an issue with naked aggression being used to stop a freely elected government from being closer to the West, as was Ukraine's velocity to NATO.
Not a vindication of 'only the United States has the right to use aggression to defend its national interests' in the slightest. If the freely elected government of the Ukraine wished to 'head back to the sunny relationship with Moscow', more power to them. But, that isnt what seemingly happened, is it?
To the extent of 'nuclear war'? No. But, with that analogy I dont think I am the one arguing extreme results here, would I be?
I noticed you studiously avoided the Ossetia and eastern Ukraine issues, but, Ill let that pass.
I wasn't avoiding them, I just didn't see enough distinction, for purposes of the point I was making, between Russia's actions there and in Crimea. But if you'd like, I'll mention all three.
Russia's intervention in Crimea, Ossetia, and eastern Ukraine followed the WEST sponsored 2014 coup that REPLACED the democratically elected government with one more friendly to the West. You've got the history very wrong there. What Russia reacted to was the overthrow of a government friendly to them, by a coup that NATO backed. Following this, they secured the bases in the Crimea before NATO could. That's Russia's perspective.
I'm not arguing moral justification, I'm arguing moral equivalence. Russia used military and diplomatic means to protect its own national interests in nearby countries. That's what other nation-states do, including the United States, using the same methods. To me, to be particularly morally outraged when Russia does it would be hypocrisy. I'll never understand the cognitive dissonance of educated and intelligent people such as yourself on the subject.
I guess it is somewhat easy to pass off any revolution as a (pick your bugaboo)-backed coup.
I very much agree with the fact that there was a revolution there that replaced the previous government. Cant argue against that. But the leap to "west sponsored coup" is a rather dramatic one, one must say. And somewhat unsubstantiated, tbh.
Just saying.
And further, perhaps when you kind of make up the basis of an event, that doesnt help your statement about other's supposed 'cognitive dissonance'.
Again, just saying.
There are a lot of assumptive premises in your comments, Frizz. Lots of them.
I will agree that NATO and the West very much courted Ukraine to be closer to the West. No doubt. But to characterize the events on the scale of Nov 2103 - Feb 2014 and the *entire* Euromaidan movement (protests with literally hundreds of thousands of protesters) as a 'Western-backed coup' is strangely disingenuous. Or was *every* single member of the 500k - 900k sized rallies at that time all secretly 'coup plotters'?
Sorry, the size of the protesting crowd and the timing really seems to indicate a true popular uprising and protest. The popular sentiment was one of absolute reform. Your painting of this as a western-backed western-hatched 'coup' just doesnt ring true.
Now if Russia felt 'penned in', well, tbh, that is a different and independent question. But to characterize the entire Euromaidan movement that effectuated the change in the Ukrainian Government between Nov 2013 and Feb 2014 as a 'coup' just doesnt seem to fit. But hell, just write that off to us stupid 'cognitive dissonancers' we are..... Its always a coup plot I guess.....
Edited to add:
Putin's statements were very clear on the 'nfw' Ukraine *or* Georgia goes NATO. I am *not* disputing that they feel emphatically about that. That much is crystal clear. I do, however, seriously doubt your characterization of of the total Euromaidan as a 'NATO-backed coup'.
Believe whatever helps you sleep at night about NATO's virtue and clean hands in this. When you want the truth, the information is available. The point I was making was that Russia's actions and motives were no better or worse than any other country, including our own, in similar circumstances.
That point I was originally making to RiceLad, who was asking what NATO did to provoke Russia to occupy the Crimea, and who did studiously avoid responding to my reply.
Well if thats the case I'm pretty much in awe of 900,000+ coup plotters all working in concert. <clap>
(07-18-2018 06:17 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]OO, the act of investigating an opponent is par for the course. The act of taking information from an unknown source, especially one of foreign nature, isn’t. In that case, you can’t be certain of the veracity of the information or the motives of the individual.
And that differs from the Steele Dossier, exactly how?
Quote:In comparison to the DNC eventually hiring Fusion GPS, which used Steele, I think the act of actively trying to get opponent research, as opposed to having it dropped in your lap, potentially in exchange for something, is a big difference.
Lolz..... this is the fastest tango I have ever seen to distinguish 'getting dirt'.
Dirt that is supplied by active enemies through 'active research' is amazingly distinguished by dirt supplied by active enemies through 'their volition'.
Yeah -- makes *all* the difference.... Last 10 secs says it all....
(07-18-2018 06:17 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]OO, the act of investigating an opponent is par for the course. The act of taking information from an unknown source, especially one of foreign nature, isn’t. In that case, you can’t be certain of the veracity of the information or the motives of the individual.
And that differs from the Steele Dossier, exactly how?
Quote:In comparison to the DNC eventually hiring Fusion GPS, which used Steele, I think the act of actively trying to get opponent research, as opposed to having it dropped in your lap, potentially in exchange for something, is a big difference.
Lolz..... this is the fastest tango I have ever seen to distinguish 'getting dirt'.
Dirt that is supplied by active enemies through 'active research' is amazingly distinguished by dirt supplied by active enemies through 'their volition'.
Yeah -- makes *all* the difference.... Last 10 secs says it all....
So you’re saying that a campaign being willing and eager to meet with a representative of a hostile country with the promise of information on their opponent is not a piece of evidence supporting an investigation into collusion between those two parties?
Funny thing, that is not what your original sentence (bolded above) says, is it? Please state where I have ever indicated that it is 'not evidence of any sort'? Would love to see where I have to clear up any apparent misconception, since I dont believe that is what I said at all. I look forward to that so I can work harder to be clearer...
It is no more, nor any less 'evidence' than the act of 'asking' a foreign party for that same level of dirt. That is why your supposed distinction of the 'polarity' is just flat out stupid.
(07-18-2018 08:24 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Funny thing, that is not what your original sentence (bolded above) says, is it? Please state where I have ever indicated that it is 'not evidence of any sort'? Would love to see where I have to clear up any apparent misconception, since I dont believe that is what I said at all. I look forward to that so I can work harder to be clearer...
It is no more, nor any less 'evidence' than the act of 'asking' a foreign party for that same level of dirt. That is why your supposed distinction of the 'polarity' is just flat out stupid.
That’s why I was asking for clarification. Your responses haven’t been about the original question, which was about evidence for a collusion investigation, they were focused on either trying to minimize the distinction I made or were a commentary on the current status of the investigation.
Neither of which focus on whether or not that meeting is something that would warrant an investigation into collusion between the Trump campaign and the country that was behind stealing and releasing documents related to the DNC.
Sorry you think my distinction is stupid, in the context of the original question, it doesn’t really matter.
So can you clarify where you stand on whether or not that meeting Trump Jr eagerly took is evidence to support an investigation into their campaign?
(07-18-2018 06:17 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]OO, the act of investigating an opponent is par for the course. The act of taking information from an unknown source, especially one of foreign nature, isn’t. In that case, you can’t be certain of the veracity of the information or the motives of the individual. And it’s not a great leap of logic to think that someone bringing dirt to a campaign, as opposed to say a news source, would be looking for something in return. Going to a campaign is a clear signal that the person doesn’t care about just getting the information to the public - they clearly want to weaponize it and see that info as having value, this likely wanting something in return.
In comparison to the DNC eventually hiring Fusion GPS, which used Steele,[b]who got it from suspect Russian sources{/b] I think the act of actively trying to get opponent research, as opposed to having it dropped in your lap, potentially in exchange for something, is a big difference.
I don't buy your premise at all. Do you really think the Dems actively sought out Stormy Daniels or the Access Hollywood tape? BS. Who did they hire for that? Did they interview every hooker and porn star to see if Trump had slept with them? Did they have investigator interview people from 10 years ago to see if they had a tape of a bad joke? If somebody calls up and says "I have something on Trump", the normal reaction is "Well, let's see it". So when they went to the Dems, they wanted to collude? No way.
"Let's see it" I think was Trump Jr.'s reaction. And when it turned out to be a sham, he walked. BFD.
But Jr. WALKED. How is that collusion? Collusion is working together. If it means ignoring each other my ex-wife and I are in collusion.
But for discussion's sake (is this a a discussion?), let's say there is a difference. WHAT IN HADES DOES IT HAVE TO DO WITH COLLUSION!!!!! yes,, I yelled, because this inanity being repeated is so exasperating. I'll ask again, in my indoor voice, what does it have to do with collusion?
In either campaign, when presented with dirt from on unknown or unreliable source, the normal procedure should be to have some people check it out. You don't just run to the papers with with it. Of course, the Dems failed in this respect with the Steele dossier. But it is what they should have done. maybe they didn't care about the veracity. Hmm.
Meeting with somebody to see what they have is not a crime, and refusing to do business with them is not collusion. If it is, then you and I should stop colluding right now.
(07-18-2018 06:17 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]OO, the act of investigating an opponent is par for the course. The act of taking information from an unknown source, especially one of foreign nature, isn’t. In that case, you can’t be certain of the veracity of the information or the motives of the individual.
And that differs from the Steele Dossier, exactly how?
Quote:In comparison to the DNC eventually hiring Fusion GPS, which used Steele, I think the act of actively trying to get opponent research, as opposed to having it dropped in your lap, potentially in exchange for something, is a big difference.
Lolz..... this is the fastest tango I have ever seen to distinguish 'getting dirt'.
Dirt that is supplied by active enemies through 'active research' is amazingly distinguished by dirt supplied by active enemies through 'their volition'.
Yeah -- makes *all* the difference.... Last 10 secs says it all....
So you’re saying that a campaign being willing and eager to meet with a representative of a hostile country with the promise of information on their opponent is not a piece of evidence supporting an investigation into collusion between those two parties?
No, it is not. Are you saying that just because you hire a couple of intermediaries to get dirt from Russians on an opponent your hands are clean?
I think if somebody from Idaho calls either campaign promising dirt on their opponent, and they meet, and reject the Idahoan, it does not mean that campaign is in collusion with Idaho. Even if the Idahoan is from the JayCees.
(07-18-2018 06:17 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]OO, the act of investigating an opponent is par for the course. The act of taking information from an unknown source, especially one of foreign nature, isn’t. In that case, you can’t be certain of the veracity of the information or the motives of the individual. And it’s not a great leap of logic to think that someone bringing dirt to a campaign, as opposed to say a news source, would be looking for something in return. Going to a campaign is a clear signal that the person doesn’t care about just getting the information to the public - they clearly want to weaponize it and see that info as having value, this likely wanting something in return.
In comparison to the DNC eventually hiring Fusion GPS, which used Steele,[b]who got it from suspect Russian sources{/b] I think the act of actively trying to get opponent research, as opposed to having it dropped in your lap, potentially in exchange for something, is a big difference.
I don't buy your premise at all. Do you really think the Dems actively sought out Stormy Daniels or the Access Hollywood tape? BS. Who did they hire for that? If somebody calls up and says "I have something on Trump", the normal reaction is "Well, let's see it". So when they went to the Dems, they wanted to collude? No way.
"Let's see it" I think was Trump Jr.'s reaction. And when it turned out to be a sham, he walked. BFD.
But for discussion's sake (is this a a discussion?), let's say there is a difference. WHAT IN HADES DOES IT HAVE TO DO WITH COLLUSION!!!!! yes,, I yelled, because this inanity being repeated is so exasperating. I'll ask again, in my indoor voice, what does it have to do with collusion?
In either campaign, when presented with dirt from on unknown or unreliable source, the normal procedure should be to have some people check it out. You don't just run to the papers with with it. Of course, the Dems failed in this respect with the Steele dossier. But it is what they should have done. may they didn't care about the veracity.
Meeting with somebody to see what they have is not a crime, and refusing to do business with them is not collusion. If it is, then you and I should stop colluding right now.
The DNC was involved with Stormy and the Access Hollywood tape? I believe that news organizations broke both of those things...
And we have evidence that previous presidential nominees told the intelligence community when they were also contacted by a foreign government with the promise of dirt of their opponent. They didn’t accept the invitation.
I’ve never suggested the meeting itself was collusion - I’ve argued that the meeting, and subsequent cover up, is evidence to suppprt an investigation. Sorry, but when you decide you may be willing to play dirty, you can’t get mad that people want to make sure you didn’t go through with it.
(07-18-2018 06:17 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]OO, the act of investigating an opponent is par for the course. The act of taking information from an unknown source, especially one of foreign nature, isn’t. In that case, you can’t be certain of the veracity of the information or the motives of the individual. And it’s not a great leap of logic to think that someone bringing dirt to a campaign, as opposed to say a news source, would be looking for something in return. Going to a campaign is a clear signal that the person doesn’t care about just getting the information to the public - they clearly want to weaponize it and see that info as having value, this likely wanting something in return.
In comparison to the DNC eventually hiring Fusion GPS, which used Steele,[b]who got it from suspect Russian sources{/b] I think the act of actively trying to get opponent research, as opposed to having it dropped in your lap, potentially in exchange for something, is a big difference.
I don't buy your premise at all. Do you really think the Dems actively sought out Stormy Daniels or the Access Hollywood tape? BS. Who did they hire for that? If somebody calls up and says "I have something on Trump", the normal reaction is "Well, let's see it". So when they went to the Dems, they wanted to collude? No way.
"Let's see it" I think was Trump Jr.'s reaction. And when it turned out to be a sham, he walked. BFD.
But for discussion's sake (is this a a discussion?), let's say there is a difference. WHAT IN HADES DOES IT HAVE TO DO WITH COLLUSION!!!!! yes,, I yelled, because this inanity being repeated is so exasperating. I'll ask again, in my indoor voice, what does it have to do with collusion?
In either campaign, when presented with dirt from on unknown or unreliable source, the normal procedure should be to have some people check it out. You don't just run to the papers with with it. Of course, the Dems failed in this respect with the Steele dossier. But it is what they should have done. may they didn't care about the veracity.
Meeting with somebody to see what they have is not a crime, and refusing to do business with them is not collusion. If it is, then you and I should stop colluding right now.
The DNC was involved with Stormy and the Access Hollywood tape? I believe that news organizations broke both of those things...
And we have evidence that previous presidential nominees told the intelligence community when they were also contacted by a foreign government with the promise of dirt of their opponent. They didn’t accept the invitation.
I’ve never suggested the meeting itself was collusion - I’ve argued that the meeting, and subsequent cover up, is evidence to suppprt an investigation. Sorry, but when you decide you may be willing to play dirty, you can’t get mad that people want to make sure you didn’t go through with it.
Just a thought, but if I were running a campaign that the media was friendly toward, i might suggest that they take it to the press. Just a thought, but no more inane than the stuff you are presenting as suspicious.
So you know for a fact that Trump Jr. KNEW she was a representative of the Russian government when he met with her? Or is this another opinion presented as fact? Did she come in and say Vlad, my boss, wants you to have this info? I would guess people really in collusion with Russia would take the info, not walk out in disgust.
First time you have mentioned a "cover-up". Always it has been about taking the meeting. Is there some wiggling going on?
I get a call from a friend, saying I should meet with this guy who has some interesting investment opportunities. I take the meeting, and when it turns out the guy has nothing and is in fact misrepresenting himself, I walk, and never see him again. According to Prosecutor Lad, I am now in collusion with the scammer. Not only the scammer, but the government of the country he came from.
Cover up - not telling the world that you had a nothing meeting with a scammer and walked out?
Yeah, good logic.
If this is evidence of a conspiracy to you, you will be seeing them everywhere.
heck, back in my Rice days I had a part time job meeting people in their houses to try and sell them vacuum cleaners. I guess every one that took my meeting was in collusion with me.
(07-18-2018 08:24 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Funny thing, that is not what your original sentence (bolded above) says, is it? Please state where I have ever indicated that it is 'not evidence of any sort'? Would love to see where I have to clear up any apparent misconception, since I dont believe that is what I said at all. I look forward to that so I can work harder to be clearer...
It is no more, nor any less 'evidence' than the act of 'asking' a foreign party for that same level of dirt. That is why your supposed distinction of the 'polarity' is just flat out stupid.
That’s why I was asking for clarification. Your responses haven’t been about the original question, which was about evidence for a collusion investigation, they were focused on either trying to minimize the distinction I made or were a commentary on the current status of the investigation.
Neither of which focus on whether or not that meeting is something that would warrant an investigation into collusion between the Trump campaign and the country that was behind stealing and releasing documents related to the DNC.
Sorry you think my distinction is stupid, in the context of the original question, it doesn’t really matter.
So can you clarify where you stand on whether or not that meeting Trump Jr eagerly took is evidence to support an investigation into their campaign?
Well Lad, I'm not the one continuously making the huge massive distinction between going to someone who says they have dirt, and paying someone (who pays people unknown) for the same stuff, am I?
Quote:I think the act of actively trying to get opponent research, as opposed to having it dropped in your lap, potentially in exchange for something, is a big difference.
And yes, that is an absolutely and fundamentally stupid distinction when you stop and actually quiz yourself on the nature of what is being investigated.
As to the 'question de jour' that you are so apparently anxious to ferret out, asked, and answered. Many times here. Perhaps go back and look it up elsewhere in this thread.