Who do you believe?

[Bengalzona]

(10-02-2019, 08:31 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Um...what?

"Know"?

Is this an exercise in epistemology?

[CJD]

(10-02-2019, 06:16 PM)ballsofsteel Wrote: Didn't Trump jr. and Jared meet with the Russians in the Trump tower? Its my understanding that they tried to get dirt on Hillary but were to stupid and incompetent to get it done.

I don't have a full breadth of understanding about the first part of the Mueller Report (I didn't read it in its entirety and instead focused my reading on the 2nd part because I didn't want to spend my time reading something that came to basically no conclusions) but the way it was summarized to me, Russia offered and they accepted. It isn't collusion unless you go out of your way to seek it, I guess. If someone came to you and offered you information, it isn't collusion so much as you being the benefactor of their interference. Basically, a colluder needs to be an active participant in the interference.

That's just what I've been told, so I can't guarantee that is what the report says.

[BakertheBeast]

(10-02-2019, 10:22 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I don't have a full breadth of understanding about the first part of the Mueller Report (I didn't read it in its entirety and instead focused my reading on the 2nd part because I didn't want to spend my time reading something that came to basically no conclusions) but the way it was summarized to me, Russia offered and they accepted. It isn't collusion unless you go out of your way to seek it, I guess. If someone came to you and offered you information, it isn't collusion so much as you being the benefactor of their interference. Basically, a colluder needs to be an active participant in the interference.

That's just what I've been told, so I can't guarantee that is what the report says.

Oh, I didn't realize that Russia came to them first, that makes a difference. When you think about it, if someone came to you with dirt on your opponent why not take it. Why did Russia offer to help Trump? What did they want out of it?  Btw, what did the so called dirt consist of?
Bottom line is they shouldn't of accepted any "help" from a foreign gov., especially one like Russia.

[6andcounting]

(10-02-2019, 08:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm going to go far out on a thin limb and wildly guess he's talking about comments made by Peter Strzok. 

(10-02-2019, 08:55 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: That was what I was assuming, but I just wanted to check.

Yeah

[hollodero]

(10-02-2019, 05:18 PM)Millhouse Wrote: And Russia could have interfered back in 2012 to help Obama for all we know too.

Yeah but honestly, that seems to be far less likely. First, there's no evidence for that, unlike in 2016's case. And Russia meddles in many election, not just in the US. And they always support the nationalists and right-wing populists.

And really, for the one guy that claims Russia is innocent: Loving Trump is one thing, but every love can go too far. Believing Russia does not run propaganda campaigns against the west and the US in particular defies reality, all intelligence reports, the Mueller report and several case studies from other countries. Ignoring this is dangerous.

[hollodero]

(10-02-2019, 05:57 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Which people have the hardest time letting 2016 go and focusing in 2020:

a. Hillary
b. Trump
c. Democrats
d. Republicans
e. American people
f. None of the above

But when it comes to Russian propaganda, focusing on 2020 does not go without looking at what happened in 2016. One can not simply "let that go". With that logic, every event can be deemed irrelevant as soon as it happened, and that's not the sensible approach. One example would be hardening the elections, which seems quite necessary to me and is a legitimate topic stemming directly from 2016 incidents. 

Also, one might ask who cares most about Hillary these days. The answer is not "democrats".

[CJD]

(10-03-2019, 06:23 AM)BakertheBeast Wrote: Oh, I didn't realize that Russia came to them first, that makes a difference. When you think about it, if someone came to you with dirt on your opponent why not take it. Why did Russia offer to help Trump? What did they want out of it?  Btw, what did the so called dirt consist of?
Bottom line is they shouldn't of accepted any "help" from a foreign gov., especially one like Russia.

I'm reading a summary of the first part of the report now. It says "senior representatives of the Trump Campaign met in Trump Tower with a Russian attorney expecting to receive derogatory information about Hillary Clinton from the Russian government." I'm not sure exactly what derogatory information means, but it goes on to say "The Report provides no evidence that more significant information was exchanged during the meeting." They also muse:

Quote:Why did the Russians not offer more at the meeting? Former intelligence officials have assessed that the publicly reported facts (which are now included in the Mueller Report) are characteristic of Russian intelligence tradecraft, that the Russians would want to dangle the prospect of more valuable information and would observe whether the campaign reported them to federal authorities or instead welcomed the offer and wanted more. (Another former intelligence official assessed that the meeting was a Russian intelligence operation not designed to collude, but rather designed to sow political turmoil upon its discovery.)

https://www.justsecurity.org/63838/guide-to-the-mueller-reports-findings-on-collusion/

As for what they wanted out of it, the article mentions:

Quote:At the June 9 meeting, the Russian delegation raised the issue of overturning the Magnitsky Act, a statute that imposes financial sanctions on Russian officials. In response, Trump Jr. “suggested that the issue could be revisited when and if candidate Trump was elected.”

So that's likely what they wanted. I guess you could call it a quid pro quo...



So in terms of being approached and not seeking it out, this seems to have been the case for the Trump Tower Meeting. There was evidence that Donald Trump Jr. was the one who coordinated it and told his father that it was a meeting to obtain dirt on Hillary, but there's no proof that Trump Sr. knew it involved Russia at the time that it was scheduled.

But the back channel to Russia, the advance knowledge of Wikileaks releases, the sharing of internal polling data, the "Russia if you're listening..." moment, the Moscow Trump Tower deal, and the Flynn connection to Russia were all a bit more proactive, so I'm not sure if those would fall under that same umbrella.

[BmorePat87]

(10-02-2019, 05:57 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Which people have the hardest time letting 2016 go and focusing in 2020:

a. Hillary
b. Trump
c. Democrats
d. Republicans
e. American people
f. None of the above

g. the US intelligence community

because they cannot focus on safeguarding the 2020 election without fully understanding how the 2016 election was attacked

[GMDino]

(10-03-2019, 07:51 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I'm reading a summary of the first part of the report now. It says "senior representatives of the Trump Campaign met in Trump Tower with a Russian attorney expecting to receive derogatory information about Hillary Clinton from the Russian government." I'm not sure exactly what derogatory information means, but it goes on to say "The Report provides no evidence that more significant information was exchanged during the meeting." They also muse:

https://www.justsecurity.org/63838/guide-to-the-mueller-reports-findings-on-collusion/

As for what they wanted out of it, the article mentions:

So that's likely what they wanted. I guess you could call it a quid pro quo...



So in terms of being approached and not seeking it out, this seems to have been the case for the Trump Tower Meeting. There was evidence that Donald Trump Jr. was the one who coordinated it and told his father that it was a meeting to obtain dirt on Hillary, but there's no proof that Trump Sr. knew it involved Russia at the time that it was scheduled.

But the back channel to Russia, the advance knowledge of Wikileaks releases, the sharing of internal polling data, the "Russia if you're listening..." moment, the Moscow Trump Tower deal, and the Flynn connection to Russia were all a bit more proactive, so I'm not sure if those would fall under that same umbrella.

And most of the reason why they couldn't prove anything was all the obfuscation by Trump and his minions.

Essentially they "played dumb".  Not sure how much of that is playing.

[Belsnickel]

(10-03-2019, 07:06 AM)6andcounting Wrote: Yeah

Except there was no evidence there was any action taken by either of those agents to do anything about the election and Strzok's testimony indicated it was about the American people not electing him, not anything related to the FBI. The idea that they took any action within their official capacities to tip the election, let alone that it is a known thing, would most appropriately be called fake news.

[6andcounting]

(10-03-2019, 09:16 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Except there was no evidence there was any action taken by either of those agents to do anything about the election and Strzok's testimony indicated it was about the American people not electing him, not anything related to the FBI. The idea that they took any action within their official capacities to tip the election, let alone that it is a known thing, would most appropriately be called fake news.

I'm glad the testified that they didn't do anything illegal. lol

I don't know how much sway they could have had, but it's the fact that the FBI agents investigating him are discussing the "insurance policy" they have against him and going back and forth saying "[Trump's] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!", and "No. No he won't. We'll stop it." Doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in the work of those investigating Trump.
 
They also discussed how the timing of their investigation will affect Trump before admitting “You and I both know the odds are nothing. If I thought it was likely, I’d be there no question. I hesitate in part because of my gut sense and concern there’s no big there.” You don’t investigate until you have the truth and sit on the truth because you don’t like the outcome if you’re being impartial.  

[*bfine32*]

(10-03-2019, 06:37 PM)6andcounting Wrote: I'm glad the testified that they didn't do anything illegal. lol

I don't know how much sway they could have had, but it's the fact that the FBI agents investigating him are discussing the "insurance policy" they have against him and going back and forth saying "[Trump's] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!", and "No. No he won't. We'll stop it." Doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in the work of those investigating Trump.
 
They also discussed how the timing of their investigation will affect Trump before admitting “You and I both know the odds are nothing. If I thought it was likely, I’d be there no question. I hesitate in part because of my gut sense and concern there’s no big there.” You don’t investigate until you have the truth and sit on the truth because you don’t like the outcome if you’re being impartial.  

Many will scale their personal burden of proof based on their personal bias. I'm just glad my personal bias allows me to do nothing to support that dude. 

[jj22]

Russia interfered. And the fact Trump supporters still in 2019 don't know what's real from fake Hillary news pushed by Russian bots shows how influential it was in their vote.

But Trump defenders have long turned on American Intel and Law Enforcement agencies (so much for those blue lives), so them seeing the point that Trump has turned on America and chosen Russian talking points, and Putins word is useless.

Even as the admit America was attacked, they attack America's Intel and America herself by making claims Putin makes stating America interferes too (so she gets what she deserves. These are Americans!). These are his talking points they use to attack America with.

Good luck with that.

[Dill]

(10-03-2019, 06:37 PM)6andcounting Wrote: I'm glad the testified that they didn't do anything illegal. lol

I don't know how much sway they could have had, but it's the fact that the FBI agents investigating him are discussing the "insurance policy" they have against him and going back and forth saying "[Trump's] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!", and "No. No he won't. We'll stop it." Doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in the work of those investigating Trump.
 
They also discussed how the timing of their investigation will affect Trump before admitting “You and I both know the odds are nothing. If I thought it was likely, I’d be there no question. I hesitate in part because of my gut sense and concern there’s no big there.” You don’t investigate until you have the truth and sit on the truth because you don’t like the outcome if you’re being impartial.  

Just a quick note here. There is NOTHING Strzok et al could have done to insure Trump was not elected--except go public with the knowledge his campaign's Russia contacts had drawn surveillance.   The incriminating comments are no different from things my worried wife said to me in 2016.  

[Belsnickel]

(10-03-2019, 06:37 PM)6andcounting Wrote: I'm glad the testified that they didn't do anything illegal. lol

I don't know how much sway they could have had, but it's the fact that the FBI agents investigating him are discussing the "insurance policy" they have against him and going back and forth saying "[Trump's] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!", and "No. No he won't. We'll stop it." Doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in the work of those investigating Trump.
 
They also discussed how the timing of their investigation will affect Trump before admitting “You and I both know the odds are nothing. If I thought it was likely, I’d be there no question. I hesitate in part because of my gut sense and concern there’s no big there.” You don’t investigate until you have the truth and sit on the truth because you don’t like the outcome if you’re being impartial.  

Seems like quite a few words that imply, but avoid saying explicitly, that this:

(10-02-2019, 07:26 PM)6andcounting Wrote: We also know FISA warrants were used against Trump and that members of the FBI were using their power to try to stop Trump's presidency.

was bullshit. Someone was talking big to impress his lady friend and no evidence exists he did anything that introduced his biases into his investigative work.

[Dill]

(10-02-2019, 07:26 PM)6andcounting Wrote: Russia interfered - as proven by the Mueller report.

Yes, and by the CIA.

(10-02-2019, 07:26 PM)6andcounting Wrote: The Mueller report also concluded no American was part of Russia's effort to interfere.

????? Flynn meeting with Russians to promise reduction of sanctions?  Papadopouos, Trump jr? Manafort?

(10-02-2019, 07:26 PM)6andcounting Wrote: We also know FISA warrants were used against Trump and that members of the FBI were using their power to try to stop Trump's presidency.

Side note : Search "Trump fisa" on Google and "Trump fisa" on Duck Duck Go and tell me Google hasn't completed scrubbed their results.

No. This we do not "know."  It is just SAID on a certain news network and by certain of Trump's supporters.

We do KNOW that Comey's decision to announce he had reopened the investigation into Hillary's emails hurt her chances for election and helped Trump. That's one big chicken bone in the throat for anyone swallowing the FBI coup d'etat.

[*bfine32*]

(10-03-2019, 08:09 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: was bullshit. Someone was talking big to impress his lady friend and no evidence exists he did anything that introduced his biases into his investigative work.

You mean like talking big when he was referring to the American People when he said "we"? Dude was stroking his ego and anyone should know exactly who he was referring to when he said "we" in that conversation. 

[hollodero]

(10-03-2019, 09:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You mean like talking big when he was referring to the American People when he said "we"? Dude was stroking his ego and anyone should know exactly who he was referring to when he said "we" in that conversation. 

Yeah, also no one should really care that much to make a fuzz about some FBI agent's words years after spoken privately. Yeah, he should not have sent those messages. Also, there's no hint at all his work was influenced. Which makes all that so irrelevant these days it really starts to hurt.

...so much for "letting things go". All Dems should stop complaining about everything shady around 2016 and move on, while all non-Dems can still argue ad infinitum about such highly desicive things like non-existent severe FISA abuses and inappropriate text messages and all kinds of years-old non-stories.

But probably best to invite Strzok to Congress again to slam him for betraying his wife. Like the classy folks do.

[fredtoast]

(10-03-2019, 08:03 PM)Dill Wrote: Just a quick note here. There is NOTHING Strzok et al could have done to insure Trump was not elected--except go public with the knowledge his campaign's Russia contacts had drawn surveillance.   The incriminating comments are no different from things my worried wife said to me in 2016.  

Also Strzok was removed from the case long before any of his comments became public.  If the FBI was out to get Trump they would not remove agents for talking like they were out to get Trump.  But this is another great example of how the right wing echo chamber trains it members.

No evidence that Strzok did anything improper in the investigation, but the mere fact that he said something bad about Trump makes him guilty.

No evidence that Hunter Biden ever did anything improper, but the mere fact that his father is opposed to Trump makes him guilty of something.

All the echo chamber has to do is "raise a question" to make their minions believe their is guilt.

[*bfine32*]

(10-04-2019, 09:04 AM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah, also no one should really care that much to make a fuzz about some FBI agent's words years after spoken privately. Yeah, he should not have sent those messages. Also, there's no hint at all his work was influenced. Which makes all that so irrelevant these days it really starts to hurt.

...so much for "letting things go". All Dems should stop complaining about everything shady around 2016 and move on, while all non-Dems can still argue ad infinitum about such highly desicive things like non-existent severe FISA abuses and inappropriate text messages and all kinds of years-old non-stories.

But probably best to invite Strzok to Congress again to slam him for betraying his wife. Like the classy folks do.

Hell, I was among the first to concede that Strzok was just "talking big" to get laid. I just balked at the assertion that he was referring to the "American People" when he used the term "we" as that takes away from the assertion he was merely 'talking big". He was referring to him and his.