Cont: All things Trump + Russia Part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
sunmaster14 said:
Look, I appreciate that you want to use me as a foil to make yourself look more objective, but, ... well, actually I don't appreciate it.

In the context I made that statement, it was absolutely reasonable. Gathering evidence of financial crimes does not require no-knock search warrants in the middle of the night. I would have thought this was easy to understand, but maybe you need a financial background to fully appreciate how difficult it is to cover up financial improprieties by flushing a baggie down the toilet.
Click to expand...

There couldn't possibly have been any physical evidence I guess. Nothing on a computer?
 
sunmaster14 said:
Look, I appreciate that you want to use me as a foil to make yourself look more objective, but, ... well, actually I don't appreciate it.

In the context I made that statement, it was absolutely reasonable. Gathering evidence of financial crimes does not require no-knock search warrants in the middle of the night. I would have thought this was easy to understand, but maybe you need a financial background to fully appreciate how difficult it is to cover up financial improprieties by flushing a baggie down the toilet.
Click to expand...

Doesn't it depend what the financial crimes are? If it is a minor fraud, maybe not.

If it involves links to organised crime, then yes they might.
 
Argumemnon said:
Did you just admit that you're not looking objective?
Click to expand...

I don't think it's any secret that I'm politically right of center, and that I support the Republican party (which is not the same thing as being thrilled with everything they do). I never tried to deny that. I'm just saying that it looks to me as if Emily is going out of her way to call me out in order to restore her reputation as a centrist. The criticism that she is defending Trump is probably getting under her skin. Quite understandably, since her defense, such as it is, is merely an expression of critical reasoning, and not actually support for Trump's policies or rhetoric.
 
Donald Trump legal defense funds
This is turning out really swell.

As a further thought, can Donald Trump use the 2020 re-election fund to pay for lawyers to save his first term? :D
 
Tero said:
Donald Trump legal defense funds
This is turning out really swell.

As a further thought, can Donald Trump use the 2020 re-election fund to pay for lawyers to save his first term? :D
Click to expand...
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but he is doing so. Some of his defense funds come from the RNC and others from his reelection campaign, far as I've heard.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
sunmaster14 said:
And, yes, I believe we will find out shortly who is right. I'd wager that CNN will be making an embarrassing correction to its headline and subheadline in the next few days.
Click to expand...

sunmaster14 said:
They'll probably try to sneak in a retraction on late Friday afternoon. That's what the NY Times would do.
Click to expand...

Friday afternoon is quickly approaching with no correction in sight...
 
President Trump early Friday called reports of Kremlin-linked groups buying Facebook ads to sway the 2016 election part of a "Russia hoax."

"The Russia hoax continues, now it's ads on Facebook. What about the totally biased and dishonest Media coverage in favor of Crooked Hillary?" Trump tweeted referring to former Democratic rival Hillary Clinton.

Facebook has told investigators that it discovered thousands of political ads published on its platform over the past two years were linked to fake accounts based in Russia.

Alex Stamos, Facebook’s chief security officer, made the revelation in a blog post Wednesday. Stamos said that 470 inauthentic accounts spent about $100,000 to buy roughly 3,000 ads. He added that the accounts have since been suspended.

On Thursday Facebook announced it would turn over the ads to congressional investigators.

Trump has expressed his doubts of Russian interference in the 2016 election, often suggesting Democrats are using the Russia probe as an excuse for losing the presidency.
Click to expand...

http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...russia-hoax-continues-now-its-ads-on-facebook

Yup Russia definitively did not support Trump or even interfere in the election in any way. It's all a witch hunt! A hoax! Russians didn't buy those ads it was democrats trying to defame the friendly Russians! BAD!
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Friday afternoon is quickly approaching with no correction in sight...
Click to expand...

It may be that CNN is even more dishonest than I had already thought. No matter though. I think it's clear now that Facebook was not in fact served with a search warrant. Do you disagree?
 
sunmaster14 said:
It may be that CNN is even more dishonest than I had already thought. No matter though. I think it's clear now that Facebook was not in fact served with a search warrant. Do you disagree?
Click to expand...
Well, fake news never prints retractions, do they? They just cover it up with more fake stories about something else. And look what's on CNN right now - stories about something else!
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Is that even possible ?



I have seen claims they were served a warrant, and no one but you is calling that fake news.
Click to expand...

I have never seen a claim that wasn't derivative of CNN's claim (which only appeared in the headline and sub-headline of that single article on Sep 15). Have you?
 
TheL8Elvis said:
The claims I have seen refer to WSJ and CNN.
Click to expand...

Right, although WSJ never made the claim. Only CNN did, and only by way of headline. Nothing in CNN's article actually made the claim either.

Now let me ask you something. Do you believe that Mueller served a search warrant on Facebook? If so, would you like to bet money with me on it?
 
sunmaster14 said:
Look, I appreciate that you want to use me as a foil to make yourself look more objective, but, ... well, actually I don't appreciate it.
Click to expand...
That was unnecessarily offensive. I actually do object to your approach , and on the same grounds with which I object to most of the non-evidentiary conclusions that have been reached by others.

sunmaster14 said:
In the context I made that statement, it was absolutely reasonable.
Click to expand...
It makes a reasonable hypothesis. But 'reasonable' by itself isn't evidence, and a reasonable hypothesis shouldn't be considered sufficient to reach a conclusion.


sunmaster14 said:
Gathering evidence of financial crimes does not require no-knock search warrants in the middle of the night. I would have thought this was easy to understand, but maybe you need a financial background to fully appreciate how difficult it is to cover up financial improprieties by flushing a baggie down the toilet.
Click to expand...
No, I follow that part. And I agree that these are scare tactics. What I don't agree with (and quite strongly at that) is your conclusion that scare tactics and fishy behavior are sufficient for you to confidently conclude anything other than "that was odd".
 
sunmaster14 said:
I don't think it's any secret that I'm politically right of center, and that I support the Republican party (which is not the same thing as being thrilled with everything they do). I never tried to deny that. I'm just saying that it looks to me as if Emily is going out of her way to call me out in order to restore her reputation as a centrist. The criticism that she is defending Trump is probably getting under her skin. Quite understandably, since her defense, such as it is, is merely an expression of critical reasoning, and not actually support for Trump's policies or rhetoric.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's getting under my skin... but it has been for months now. But your insinuation is off base. It's just as much well-poisoning as what's been done by those who've dismissed be as a Trump Supporter. You've simply taken the position that EC can't possibly have an actual objection and an actual point with respect to your methodology... EC can only be doing this so she looks better. It's just as baseless an accusation, and just as lacking in logic and objectivity. It's not materially different then Argumemnon condemning me as a liar with every other breath :rolleyes:

I end up agreeing with you on somewhere around 60% of topics. I end up agreeing with Argumemnon on around 60% of topics. You and Argumemnon agree on maybe 40% of topics. But throw politics into the mix, and it's magically all 'us' and 'them', and it's awfully convenient to forget that the other person shares a fair number of your own views.

ETA: Your casting of my post as an attempt to clear my name also leaves me with the impression that you believe I'm a Trump supporter.
 
Last edited:
Emily's Cat said:
<snip>

ETA: Your casting of my post as an attempt to clear my name also leaves me with the impression that you believe I'm a Trump supporter.
Click to expand...

Not a supporter, but I do see you as an anti-anti-Trumper. That's how I see myself too, although I do support almost all of Trump's nominations to date (for both cabinet positions and federal courts), and I think his stance on immigration is very refreshing.
 
Emily's Cat said:
That was unnecessarily offensive. I actually do object to your approach , and on the same grounds with which I object to most of the non-evidentiary conclusions that have been reached by others.


It makes a reasonable hypothesis. But 'reasonable' by itself isn't evidence, and a reasonable hypothesis shouldn't be considered sufficient to reach a conclusion.



No, I follow that part. And I agree that these are scare tactics. What I don't agree with (and quite strongly at that) is your conclusion that scare tactics and fishy behavior are sufficient for you to confidently conclude anything other than "that was odd".
Click to expand...

I hate to say I told you so to people, but ... well, actually I love to do it. Here is total vindication of my "unsupported" conclusion by one of the most experienced federal prosecutors alive today:

There is no other way to interpret the brass-knuckles treatment of Manafort, a subject in a non-violent-crime investigation who is represented by counsel and was cooperating with Congress at the time Mueller’s Gang of 17 chose to break into his home. Did they really think they couldn’t have gotten the stuff they carted out of Manafort’s residence by calling up his well-regarded lawyers and asking for it? After he had already surrendered 300 pages of documents to investigative committees?

Besides scaring the bejesus out of him with the search warrant, prosecutors reportedly also told Manafort that they intend to indict him. Must mean they have a case, right? So, if Manafort is such a threat to obstruct justice that they needed to break into his home and grab the evidence before he could destroy it, then why hasn’t he been arrested yet? I mean, how could Mueller responsibly allow so dangerous a criminal to walk the streets?

I’m betting he’s not in cuffs because the point of this over-the-top exercise was not to investigate Manafort; it was to demonstrate to Manafort’s very concentrated mind how miserable the prosecutors can make his life if he doesn’t wave the white flag, pronto, and give them whatever he’s got on Donald Trump — which, by the way, had better be something.
Click to expand...

Do you see what it's possible to figure out using logic and reason applied to publicly available information? This isn't rocket science, frankly, although it is somewhat like brain surgery.
 
sunmaster14 said:
They'll probably try to sneak in a retraction on late Friday afternoon. That's what the NY Times would do.
Click to expand...

TheL8Elvis said:
So when no retraction happens by Saturday, will you have been wrong , or merely mistaken ?
Click to expand...

TheL8Elvis said:
I'll circle back Saturday ... try not to spend too much time between now and then trying to come up with reasons why you're not actually wrong !
Click to expand...

So yeah, here it is saturday ... and no retraction.

This is my shocked face.

I missed this gem earlier:
sunmaster14 said:
Well, I don't think I would be mistaken even in that case. The evidence for a warrant is poor and doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It may be true anyway. The only way I would be mistaken is if somebody points out something I missed in any news articles currently published that makes the claim a legitimate one.
Click to expand...

Even if a warrant exists, you still wouldn't be wrong, because you decided the evidence was poor ???

:rolleyes:

sunmaster14 said:
Right, although WSJ never made the claim.
Click to expand...

Right, although I never claimed they did either.

sunmaster14 said:
Only CNN did, and only by way of headline. Nothing in CNN's article actually made the claim either.

Now let me ask you something. Do you believe that Mueller served a search warrant on Facebook? If so, would you like to bet money with me on it?
Click to expand...

Yes, and no.
 
Last edited:
sunmaster14 said:
I hate to say I told you so to people, but ... well, actually I love to do it. Here is total vindication of my "unsupported" conclusion by one of the most experienced federal prosecutors alive today:
Click to expand...

Again, my shocked face....

TheL8Elvis said:
OF course you think it's unfair, Republicans are being investigated. I'm glad to see you staying on message with the Andrew McCarthy talking points though ... based on his your arguments, you seem to be a big fan.
Click to expand...

BTW, please take not that McCarthy doesn't take issue with the facebook warrant, or the fact that Manafort is probably guily AF ... just with the methods.
 
Q

TheL8Elvis said:
So yeah, here it is saturday ... and no retraction.

This is my shocked face.
Click to expand...

I guess your understanding of CNN's lack of journalistic integrity was deeper than mine. Congrats, or something.

I missed this gem earlier:


Even if a warrant exists, you still wouldn't be wrong, because you decided the evidence was poor ???

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Yes, because it was clear that CNN did not actually confirm the existence of a search warrant, but simply misinterpreted the WSJ article. That's one of those things that somebody skilled in the art of critical reasoning can pick up on.

Right, although I never claimed they did either.
Click to expand...

Well, you at least that you did not know that they didn't. Otherwise you wouldn't have noted references to the WSJ article by other sources.


Yes, and no.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't believe your first answer, but I do believe your second. Just in case you aren't being disingenuous, what is your reason for believing that Mueller served Facebook with a search warrant? It would have been pretty important news. Don't you think somebody would have confirmed it by now? After all, Facebook is actually allowed to disclose the existence of search warrants thanks to a legal victory on the effectiveness of "gag" orders attached to warrants. See here.
 
sunmaster14 said:
I guess your understanding of CNN's lack of journalistic integrity was deeper than mine. Congrats, or something.
Click to expand...

Or it's just that we could all see that you had no factual basis for thinking they would need to retract anything.

I don't need congrats for not jumping to stupid conclusions.

sunmaster14 said:
Yes, because it was clear that CNN did not actually confirm the existence of a search warrant, but simply misinterpreted the WSJ article. That's one of those things that somebody skilled in the art of critical reasoning can pick up on..
Click to expand...

So how did you pick up on it ? Because you already noted, no one besides you is making this claim.

Oh yeah, I know, you pulled it of your ass as far as I can tell.

If it was so easily discerned, I would think others would be noting it too. But they aren't ... hmmm

sunmaster14 said:
Well, you at least that you did not know that they didn't. Otherwise you wouldn't have noted references to the WSJ article by other sources.
Click to expand...

Are you a *********** mind reader now too ????

I said specifically about the claims of the warrants existence "The claims I have seen refer to WSJ and CNN." And they do.

Feel free to believe what you want about what you think i know about the WSJ cliam, based on more evidence-free reasoning.

sunmaster14 said:
Well, I don't believe your first answer, but I do believe your second. Just in case you aren't being disingenuous, what is your reason for believing that Mueller served Facebook with a search warrant? It would have been pretty important news. Don't you think somebody would have confirmed it by now? After all, Facebook is actually allowed to disclose the existence of search warrants thanks to a legal victory on the effectiveness of "gag" orders attached to warrants. See here.
Click to expand...

I think so because CNN confirmed it, and I have no reason to not believe it.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Or it's just that we could all see that you had no factual basis for thinking they would need to retract anything.

I don't need congrats for not jumping to stupid conclusions.
Click to expand...

I laid out my reasons in detail. You have not even attempted to rebut them. I assume it's because you can't.

So how did you pick up on it ? Because you already noted, no one besides you is making this claim.
Click to expand...

Actually, I'm not the only one. There are other sharp-eyed skeptics out there. Or here rather.


Oh yeah, I know, you pulled it of your ass as far as I can tell.
Click to expand...

Pulling something out of one's ass refers to stating a conclusion without providing persuasive reasons for that conclusion. That is not the case here. Rather, I think your ass-pulling insult properly refers to your own rebuttal. Nyuk.

If it was so easily discerned, I would think others would be noting it too. But they aren't ... hmmm
Click to expand...

Well, I provided one example. But sometimes this stuff flies below the radar for a while, particularly when other news breaks. That's probably why CNN hasn't retracted yet.

Are you a *********** mind reader now too ????
Click to expand...

Shallow minds are rather easy for deeper ones to read.

I said specifically about the claims of the warrants existence "The claims I have seen refer to WSJ and CNN." And they do.

Feel free to believe what you want about what you think i know about the WSJ cliam, based on more evidence-free reasoning.
Click to expand...

It makes no sense to cite sources which cite the WSJ article, since we are all agreed that the WSJ made no such claim that it confirmed the existence of a search warrant. Only CNN has arguably made the claim, although it was actually in the headline, which the reporter on the article usually isn't responsible for.

I think so because CNN confirmed it, and I have no reason to not believe it.
Click to expand...

Well, one reason is that CNN didn't really confirm it, did it? At least not in a way that is considered remotely standard in journalism. Another reason is that if CNN really had such a scoop (which no other news source has), you might think CNN would be touting the story over and over again. The fact that CNN hasn't written a single word about the search warrant since the Sep 15 article (which was last updated on Sep 17) speaks volumes to me. Why doesn't it to you?
 
Last edited:
sunmaster14 said:
Not a supporter, but I do see you as an anti-anti-Trumper. That's how I see myself too, although I do support almost all of Trump's nominations to date (for both cabinet positions and federal courts), and I think his stance on immigration is very refreshing.
Click to expand...

Y'all be funny!

Anti is whatcher call yer negative. Anti-anti is a double negative.

Do the math.
 
quadraginta said:
Which one(s?)?
Click to expand...

Cracking down on illegal immigration and (hopefully) building a wall (which will work, no doubt about that).

Perhaps even more importantly, changing our legal immigration system, so that we give priority to educated, skilled, or otherwise culturally compatible people who will contribute to the economy and assimilate to American society.
 
sunmaster14 said:
I hate to say I told you so to people, but ... well, actually I love to do it. Here is total vindication of my "unsupported" conclusion by one of the most experienced federal prosecutors alive today:



Do you see what it's possible to figure out using logic and reason applied to publicly available information? This isn't rocket science, frankly, although it is somewhat like brain surgery.
Click to expand...

It's not a vindication though. It's another person who shares your view of it. And I agree that it's plausible. But at present, neither you nor the person you quoted have any actual evidence. It's a plausible hypothesis that casts doubt on the similarly plausible hypotheses made by other people.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Yes, because it was clear that CNN did not actually confirm the existence of a search warrant, but simply misinterpreted the WSJ article. That's one of those things that somebody skilled in the art of critical reasoning can pick up on.
Click to expand...

:confused: Your quote here indicates that there was a warrant, or at least assumes there was one.

Dammitalltohell. Now I'm busy arguing against one the very few people who hasn't taken to calling me a bigoted deplorable Trump supporter! Damnit sunmaster, just admit you were incorrect with respect to the warrant so we can go back to arguing on the same side of this fiasco!

:D
 
Emily's Cat said:
:confused: Your quote here indicates that there was a warrant, or at least assumes there was one.

Dammitalltohell. Now I'm busy arguing against one the very few people who hasn't taken to calling me a bigoted deplorable Trump supporter! Damnit sunmaster, just admit you were incorrect with respect to the warrant so we can go back to arguing on the same side of this fiasco!

:D
Click to expand...

You're conflating the Manafort search warrant (which is undisputed) with the alleged Facebook search warrant (which is still imaginary).
 
Russia ran thousands of Facebook ads to play Americans against each other:T
The batch of more than 3,000 Russian-bought ads that Facebook is preparing to turn over to Congress shows a deep understanding of social divides in American society, with some ads promoting African-American rights groups including Black Lives Matter and others suggesting that these same groups pose a rising political threat, say people familiar with the covert influence campaign.
Click to expand...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...011242-a21b-11e7-ade1-76d061d56efa_story.html
 
^ Robert Parry gives this latest Washington Pest fake news rubbish the appropriate treatment: WPost Pushes More Dubious Russia-bashing

Robert Parry said:
[...] And, yes, I know that some people feel that the evidence-lite and/or false allegations about “Russian meddling” are the golden ticket to Trump’s impeachment. But the unprofessional behavior of The New York Times, The Washington Post and pretty much the entire mainstream media regarding Russia-gate cannot be properly justified by the goal of removing Trump from office.

Ethically in journalism, the ends – however much you might wish them to succeed – cannot justify the means, if those means involve violating rules of evidence and principles of fairness. Journalism should be a place where all sides get a fair shake, not where some get a bum’s rush. [...]
Click to expand...


Write that behind your ears, "Bob" and cohorts.
 
Last edited:
Emily's Cat said:
:confused: Your quote here indicates that there was a warrant, or at least assumes there was one.

Dammitalltohell. Now I'm busy arguing against one the very few people who hasn't taken to calling me a bigoted deplorable Trump supporter! Damnit sunmaster, just admit you were incorrect with respect to the warrant so we can go back to arguing on the same side of this fiasco!

:D
Click to expand...


Good luck with that.
 
From the new progress update in my sig:

CJ Hopkins said:
[...] Now, despite what the Russian propagandists will tell you, this recent outbreak of fascistic behavior has nothing whatsoever to do with these people’s frustration with neoliberalism or the supranational Corporatocracy that has been expanding its global empire with total impunity for twenty-five years. And it definitely has nothing at all to do with supranational political unions, or the supersession of national sovereignty by corporate-concocted “free trade” agreements, or the relentless privatization of everything, or the fear that a lot of people have that their cultures are being gradually erased and replaced with a globalized, corporate-friendly, multicultural, market-based culture, which is merely a simulation of culture, and which contains no actual cultural values (because exchange value is its only operative value), but which sells the empty signifiers of their eviscerated cultural values back to them so they can wear their “identities” like designer brands as they hunch together in silence at Starbucks posting pictures of themselves on Facebook.

No, this discontent with the political establishment, corporate elites, and the mainstream media has nothing to do with any of that. It’s not like global Capitalism, following the collapse of the U.S.S.R. (its last external ideological adversary), has been restructuring the entire planet in accordance with its geopolitical interests, or doing away with national sovereignty, and other nationalistic concepts that no longer serve a useful purpose in a world where a single ideological system (one backed by the most fearsome military in history) reigns completely unopposed. If that were the case, well, it might behoove us to question whether this outbreak of Nazism, racism, and other forms of “hate,” was somehow connected to that historical development … and maybe even try to articulate some sort of leftist analysis of that. [...]

Luckily, we don’t have to do that (i.e., articulate such a leftist analysis of any such larger historical forces). Because there is no corporatocracy … not really. That’s just a fake word the Russians made up and are spreading around on the Internet to distract us while the Nazis take over. No, the logical explanation for Trump, Brexit, and anything else that threatens the expansion of global Capitalism, and the freedom, democracy, and prosperity it offers, is that millions of people across the world, all at once, for no apparent reason, woke up one day full-blown fascists and started looking around for repulsive demagogues to swear fanatical allegiance to. [...]
Click to expand...
 
As delightful as the talk of immigration policy has been, the topic of this thread is Trump and Russia. Please remember Rule 11. If there's a tangential point you wish to address, please find or start a new thread. Thank you for your anticipated compliance.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Loss Leader
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom