advertisement


Trump Part 17

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
As an academic, used to rigour in writing, I'm surprised you would use such an unqualified form of words here. If it were me, rather than 'clearly there was no collusion...' I'd feel more comfortable arguing that 'there was insufficient evidence to prove collusion...'.I have a problem with the 'clearly' and with the 'no collusion', just to spell it out.

It's not a trivial or pedantic point. A large part of the Mueller report relates to the obstruction of justice, where the report seems (I haven't read it in forensic detail) pretty unequivocal that obstruction took place, and there is enough evidence to prosecute a case. So, on the one hand, we have proof of obstruction, and on the other we have insufficient proof of collusion. Your claim ('there was clearly no collusion') doesn't admit the possibility that the 'insufficient proof' derives from the 'obstruction'. So I'd give you a C for this, sorry.
Click to expand...
It’s also puzzling that someone would go to such lengths, placing themself in legal jeopardy, to block investigation of something they keep telling the world they didn’t do.
 
Ciunas Audio said:
So as long as you guys keep claiming "no collusion" I will challenge you - get used to it
Click to expand...

said in a "sassy" voice, i presume.

once again, for your authoritarian little mind: i am not saying "no collusion". i am saying "trivial collusion". you are going on and on and on about a difference in value judgment and mispercieving is as a dispute over facts.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
As an academic, used to rigour in writing, I'm surprised you would use such an unqualified form of words here. If it were me, rather than 'clearly there was no collusion...' I'd feel more comfortable arguing that 'there was insufficient evidence to prove collusion...'.I have a problem with the 'clearly' and with the 'no collusion', just to spell it out.
Click to expand...

you have re-defining the scope, which is why you are having problems. i said no collusion of the WW-II espionage fantasy realm, as presented by the likes of maddow and twitter hordes. i'm pretty comfortable with that.

we should rename this thread "mountain of displaced anger and mis-attribution".
 
matthewr said:
2. The phrase "of the sort CNN, MSNBC and the others were hyping for over 2 years" could be replaced by "which the Whitehouse wishes to reduce to simplisitic notions of secret agents so they can deny it". This is pretty much the Trump talking point they use to claim the report exposes it all as a big hoax and fake news.
Click to expand...

why would you replace it? i am actually talking about CNN, MSNBC and the others like them -- that is what they presented. the fact that the absurd narrative suited the whitehouse in the end is irrelevant.
 
vuk said:
said in a "sassy" voice, i presume.

once again, for your authoritarian little mind: i am not saying "no collusion". i am saying "trivial collusion". you are going on and on and on about a difference in value judgment and mispercieving is as a dispute over facts.
Click to expand...
OK, then can we agree that Mueller's report only found "insufficient evidence" of a very specific charge of collusion with the Russian IRA & GRU in election interference - that leaves a whole slew of uninvestigated collusive activities (are these part of the 20 or so on-going investigations?) which you seem to categorise as "trivial collusion". Again, you seem to be incapable of keeping an open book on Trump in his collusive activities, proffering instead premature conclusions which minimise his guilt - exactly the same as all Trump apologists
 
Ciunas Audio said:
OK, then can we agree that Mueller's report only found "insufficient evidence" of a very specific charge of collusion with the Russian IRA & GRU in election interference - that leaves a whole slew of uninvestigated collusive activities (are these part of the 20 or so on-going investigations?) which you seem to categorise as "trivial collusion". Again, you seem to be incapable of keeping an open book on Trump in his collusive activities, proffering instead premature conclusions which minimise his guilt - exactly the same as all Trump apologists
Click to expand...

again, you seem incapable of refraining from attempting to read my mind.

when i see some facts, i will comment. i pretty much convinced there is plenty of financial criminality in trump's past and i have always argued that it should have been the focus of investigations. i strongly suspect some of it involves russians (and germans, for sure). i don't think any of it has to do with giving away military secrets that would allow russia to invade and take over the USA in the middle of the night.
 
matthewr said:
PS How about them Raptors? :)
Click to expand...

now we finally get to something serious. it's sort of a mixed blessing because watching the games is almost unbearable. 15 point lead late means little, so "relaxing" in the way a football match allows (and we know how well that can work out) is impossible.

i am hoping the collective hate for golden state will have a helping, unconscious hand. 3-point shooting is ruining the game.
 
vuk said:
again, you seem incapable of refraining from attempting to read my mind.
Click to expand...
It's your statements I'm reading, not your mind - why you say what you say I have no idea

when i see some facts, i will comment. i pretty much convinced there is plenty of financial criminality in trump's past and i have always argued that it should have been the focus of investigations. i strongly suspect some of it involves russians (and germans, for sure). i don't think any of it has to do with giving away military secrets that would allow russia to invade and take over the USA in the middle of the night.
Click to expand...
So you are convinced that "trivial collusion" occurred of a financial nature? I presume you consider "giving away military secrets that would allow russia to invade and take over the USA in the middle of the night" rises to the level of 'very serious', for you? I'm interested in where in this range you cross over from trivial to non-trivial? Does selling parts of US foreign policy qualify? Does turning a blind eye to murder qualify? Does turning a blind eye to Russian interference in past & future elections qualify? Does the over-ruling of security clearance denials for his staff qualify? Just a few that come to mind immediately & I realise I'm missing many

You present financial criminality as if it's a one-sided arrangement - there is always some advantage for both parties in such criminality. What quid pro quos would you accept as non-trivial?
 
Do you consider it trivial if the collusion with Trump was/is to clear the way for Saudi (& israel) to wage war on Iran?
 
matthewr said:
1. We don't know if there was no collusion of the Putin has compromised Trump variety because the counterintelligence information is still not known other than to Mueller and the intelligence agencies.
Click to expand...
Mueller and the intelligence agencies would hardly keep any such evidence to themselves.

matthewr said:
we can be sure that much of the Steele Dossier was reasonably accurate.
Click to expand...
Huh?! :rolleyes:

matthewr said:
2. The phrase "of the sort CNN, MSNBC and the others were hyping for over 2 years" could be replaced by "which the Whitehouse wishes to reduce to simplisitic notions of secret agents so they can deny it". This is pretty much the Trump talking point they use to claim the report exposes it all as a big hoax and fake news.
Click to expand...
They were saying Trump is a Russian agent. Putin's puppet, controlled by the Kremlin.

matthewr said:
3. There is a bunch of proof pointing to pre-election collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia essentially trading sanctions relief for election, ahem, assistance negotiated via Manafort. Much of this proof is literally in the Mueller report and can be read by anyone.
Click to expand...
You keep talking about proof which you keep saying is in the Mueller report, yet you never actually present it here. Why? Can you not just copy and paste it here so we can read it?

matthewr said:
There is a reasonable case for criminal charges against the Trump campaign and members thereof for aiding and abetting of election fraud and computer crimes -- by any definition, a collusive crime.
Click to expand...
Do you have evidence of this, or is it just stuff that Seth said which you're repeating here as fact?

matthewr said:
E.g. Papadopulous is a blabbermouth and extremely eager to ingratiate himself with the Trump campaign but we are expected to believe that when he finds out the GRU has hacked the DNC emails he doesn't tell Trump? A reasonable person would, I think, assume that this means Trump knew about the hacking (although Mueller cannot prove it) and then at the very least encouraged it which is (apparently) enough for aiding and abetting.
Click to expand...
What hacking?
 
Some records are worth buying just for the album cover. Ditto for The New Yorker magazine.

cK33y3S.jpg
 
The right wing created the "Tea Party", fed it with conspiracy theories and nurtured them to vote and campaign against their own interests - then the GOP found that their servant had become their master.
So it is also with rabid Euroskeptism - nurtured by the Tories, but now completely in charge of them.

Interesting times on both sides of the Atlantic. The right wing completely consumed and dominated by its self-created nuttery. The only difference is that in the US the left wing opposition is less fragmented than in the UK.
 
Hook said:
Some records are worth buying just for the album cover. Ditto for The New Yorker magazine.

cK33y3S.jpg
Click to expand...

i'm very impressed at how he captured trump's vain personality and appearance so well with just the lower part of his face. steve bell should consider an apprenticeship.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top