The Mueller Probe
jamie said:
Paul - have you commented on Trump needing the sanctions to be lifted in order to get financing from VTB Bank? And Flynn telling Russia not to worry about the sanctions?
Also - the old thread is hard to find - I can't figure out a keyword that doesn't load 9,000 other Trump related postings of your ;-)
Jamie,
There was no deal to get financing. Probably what I wrote was something like "there was no deal, nothing happened."
The Buzzfeed article makes it pretty clear that Trump Tower Moscow was a figment of Felix Sater's imagination.
Here's a good take on the Cohen story by long-time Moscow correspondent of the Christian Science Monitor, Fred Weir:
https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2018/1206/Trump-Tower-Moscow-doomed-by-cultural-divides
paulsurovell said:If you think I've said that, please show me what gave you that impression.
You've repeatedly called it a hoax.
DaveSchmidt said:
paulsurovell said:No, I don’t know that. Two quick search results:
I think you know that no one has "insisted" that Russiagate is a hoax or that Assange deserves support.
paulsurovell said:
Trump is wrong about almost everything, but he's right about one thing -- the Russia investigation is a hoax.nan said:If either comment was meant to grant room for alternative positions — and not to be “emphatic, firm or resolute” — I’m afraid I missed the spirit.
Exactly. You can hate Assange all you want, but if you value a free press you MUST support him. Any other stance is a akin to signing on to totalitarianism and defiantly supporting Trump.
ETA: I didn’t search further, if anyone should wonder.
You're getting worked up over the fact that I expressed an opinion emphatically. Obviously you can disagree, rebut, express any "alternative position" you like. That's what I would expect you to do (and what I thought you've been doing for quite some time).
paulsurovell said:
jamie said:Jamie,
Paul - have you commented on Trump needing the sanctions to be lifted in order to get financing from VTB Bank? And Flynn telling Russia not to worry about the sanctions?
Also - the old thread is hard to find - I can't figure out a keyword that doesn't load 9,000 other Trump related postings of your ;-)
There was no deal to get financing. Probably what I wrote was something like "there was no deal, nothing happened."
The Buzzfeed article makes it pretty clear that Trump Tower Moscow was a figment of Felix Sater's imagination.
Here's a good take on the Cohen story by long-time Moscow correspondent of the Christian Science Monitor, Fred Weir:
https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2018/1206/Trump-Tower-Moscow-doomed-by-cultural-divides
"There was no deal to get financing" is irrelevant.
Trump would be looking at it as a real estate guy. Deals are in various stages, and some stages depend on contingencies. "Trump Tower Moscow" would be a better "deal" if sanctions were removed (and that pesky Magnitsky Act junked). Nothing says that other details couldn't have been worked out pending that.
And those other details could be the kompromat, by the way. Just as bad as a "pee tape".
dave23 said:
paulsurovell said: If you think I've said that, please show me what gave you that impression.You've repeatedly called it a hoax.
Why don't you reproduce the full exchange. It will make more sense.
I never said -- as you suggested -- that Mueller's sentencing memos were made of "whole cloth" or that the sentencing memos (which have nothing to do with collusion) are "a hoax."
paulsurovell said:
You're getting worked up over the fact that I expressed an opinion emphatically. Obviously you can disagree, rebut, express any "alternative position" you like. That's what I would expect you to do (and what I thought you've been doing for quite some time).
Not worked up. Just backing up the paperwork behind my trademark a few comments ago, which you appeared to question.
paulsurovell said:
jamie said:Jamie,
Paul - have you commented on Trump needing the sanctions to be lifted in order to get financing from VTB Bank? And Flynn telling Russia not to worry about the sanctions?
Also - the old thread is hard to find - I can't figure out a keyword that doesn't load 9,000 other Trump related postings of your ;-)
There was no deal to get financing. Probably what I wrote was something like "there was no deal, nothing happened."
The Buzzfeed article makes it pretty clear that Trump Tower Moscow was a figment of Felix Sater's imagination.
Here's a good take on the Cohen story by long-time Moscow correspondent of the Christian Science Monitor, Fred Weir:
https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2018/1206/Trump-Tower-Moscow-doomed-by-cultural-divides
And you take Peskov at his word? Hmm, interesting. Has Russia ever lied or been deceptive about anything in your book?
President Trump got up at dawn today and went on a major rant on Twitter. I think he was bothered by news that Mueller is issuing some more documents today.
The whole thing reads like a "Greatest Hits" from "Who colluded more: Hillary or Trump, or Bill and Boris?"
Start here and work your way up -
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1071001119697108992
Robert Mueller and Leakin’ Lyin’ James Comey are Best Friends, just one of many Mueller Conflicts of Interest. And bye the way, wasn’t the woman in charge of prosecuting Jerome Corsi (who I do not know) in charge of “legal” at the corrupt Clinton Foundation? A total Witch Hunt...
....Will Robert Mueller’s big time conflicts of interest be listed at the top of his Republicans only Report. Will Andrew Weissman’s horrible and vicious prosecutorial past be listed in the Report. He wrongly destroyed people’s lives, took down great companies, only to be........
.....overturned, 9-0, in the United States Supreme Court. Doing same thing to people now. Will all of the substantial & many contributions made by the 17 Angry Democrats to the Campaign of Crooked Hillary be listed in top of Report. Will the people that worked for the Clinton....
....Foundation be listed at the top of the Report? Will the scathing document written about Lyin’ James Comey, by the man in charge of the case, Rod Rosenstein (who also signed the FISA Warrant), be a big part of the Report? Isn’t Rod therefore totally conflicted? Will all of....
...the lying and leaking by the people doing the Report, & also Bruce Ohr (and his lovely wife Molly), Comey, Brennan, Clapper, & all of the many fired people of the FBI, be listed in the Report? Will the corruption within the DNC & Clinton Campaign be exposed?..And so much more!
And not only that -
We will be doing a major Counter Report to the Mueller Report. This should never again be allowed to happen to a future President of the United States!
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1071055923848855553
I like the addition of "and his lovely wife Molly" in the middle of Trump's rant against his list of enemies.
South_Mountaineer said:
I like the addition of "and his lovely wife Molly" in the middle of Trump's rant against his list of enemies.
I think he's got a legitimate beef against Molly. She worked for the firm that hired Steele to write a fraudulent document that slandered him.
paulsurovell said:
South_Mountaineer said:I think he's got a legitimate beef against Molly. She worked for the firm that hired Steele to write a fraudulent document that slandered him.
I like the addition of "and his lovely wife Molly" in the middle of Trump's rant against his list of enemies.
I meant that he puts the compliment in, while ranting against her.
Or maybe he meant it sarcastically, since he insults women's looks as part of his rants.
paulsurovell said:
dave23 said:Why don't you reproduce the full exchange. It will make more sense.
paulsurovell said: If you think I've said that, please show me what gave you that impression.You've repeatedly called it a hoax.
I never said -- as you suggested -- that Mueller's sentencing memos were made of "whole cloth" or that the sentencing memos (which have nothing to do with collusion) are "a hoax."
"Trump is wrong about almost everything, but he's right about one thing -- the Russia investigation is a hoax." Sep 21, 2018 at 10:09pm
DaveSchmidt said:
paulsurovell said:Not worked up. Just backing up the paperwork behind my trademark a few comments ago, which you appeared to question.
You're getting worked up over the fact that I expressed an opinion emphatically. Obviously you can disagree, rebut, express any "alternative position" you like. That's what I would expect you to do (and what I thought you've been doing for quite some time).
If this is what you mean by your trademark:
DaveSchmidt said:it's flawed, because no one is suggesting that "Russiagate is a hoax" or "Assange deserves support" are "certainties." They are positions (or arguments) based on "forms of analysis."
Wait-and-Seers (TM) are open to discussing guesses, speculation, hunches and most other forms of analysis and things we don’t know. What Wait-and-Seers resist is the insistence that any of those things (e.g., Russiagate is a hoax or Assange deserves support) be accepted as certainties at this point.
Therefore, in a corrected version of your Trademark, a Wait-and-Seer should be open to discussing those positions/arguments among the possible explanations of "things we don't know."
paulsurovell said:it's flawed, because no one is suggesting that "Russiagate is a hoax" or "Assange deserves support" are "certainties." They are positions (or arguments) based on "forms of analysis."
Oh, go on.
dave23 said:
paulsurovell said:"Trump is wrong about almost everything, but he's right about one thing -- the Russia investigation is a hoax." Sep 21, 2018 at 10:09pm
dave23 said:Why don't you reproduce the full exchange. It will make more sense.
paulsurovell said: If you think I've said that, please show me what gave you that impression.You've repeatedly called it a hoax.
I never said -- as you suggested -- that Mueller's sentencing memos were made of "whole cloth" or that the sentencing memos (which have nothing to do with collusion) are "a hoax."
That's right, but it doesn't mean that the sentencing memos are hoaxes. When a general proposition is a hoax not everything within the proposition is a hoax.
For example, Colin Powell showed photos of trucks in his UN speech. The photos were not a hoax. When Powell contended that the trucks were used for chemical weapons decontamination, that was a hoax.
paulsurovell said:
dave23 said:That's right, but it doesn't mean that the sentencing memos are hoaxes. When a general proposition is a hoax not everything within the proposition is a hoax.
"Trump is wrong about almost everything, but he's right about one thing -- the Russia investigation is a hoax." Sep 21, 2018 at 10:09pm
For example, Colin Powell showed photos of trucks in his UN speech. The photos were not a hoax. When Powell contended that the trucks were used for chemical weapons decontamination, that was a hoax.
Okay, following along those lines - What part of the "Russia investigation" is not a hoax?
Other than things like names of people, the fact that there was an election, etc.
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:Okay, following along those lines - What part of the "Russia investigation" is not a hoax?
dave23 said:That's right, but it doesn't mean that the sentencing memos are hoaxes. When a general proposition is a hoax not everything within the proposition is a hoax.
"Trump is wrong about almost everything, but he's right about one thing -- the Russia investigation is a hoax." Sep 21, 2018 at 10:09pm
For example, Colin Powell showed photos of trucks in his UN speech. The photos were not a hoax. When Powell contended that the trucks were used for chemical weapons decontamination, that was a hoax.
Other than things like names of people, the fact that there was an election, etc.
I just said that the sentencing memos are not hoaxes.
nohero said:
Oh please, let's not argue over the meaning of "Wait and See".
What we're learning is that "Wait and See" excludes some outcomes from consideration under the guise that they have been presented as "certainties."
DaveSchmidt said:
paulsurovell said:
it's flawed, because no one is suggesting that "Russiagate is a hoax" or "Assange deserves support" are "certainties." They are positions (or arguments) based on "forms of analysis."Oh, go on.
That's not very "Wait-and-see" of you.
Waiting for Tebow
An absurdist comedy
DaveSchmidt: What do you think of the Mets outfield next season?
paulsurovell: Guessing about what we don't know isn't waiting-and-seeing.
DaveSchmidt: I think it is. It's part of the discussion. What I don't get is certainty.
paulsurovell: I'm not certain. I'm emphatic.
DaveSchmidt: You sure?
paulsurovell: Don't get worked up.
DaveSchmidt: You didn't say that. The playwright twisted your words.
paulsurovell: He can't help himself.
DaveSchmidt: I agree. It all depends on the health of Cespedes.
Curtain.
Kellyanne Conway's husband chimes in
Don't you loosers understand? As Individual 1 said this morning -
"AFTER TWO YEARS AND MILLIONS OF PAGES OF DOCUMENTS (and a cost of over $30,000,000), NO COLLUSION!"
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1071389414239162369?s=21
What’s your name?
Donnie.
Hi, Donnie. And what do you want to be when you grow up?
I want to be Individual 1 of the United States.
Paul - what do you believe Flynn's "substantial cooperation" with the Mueller probe entails? Merely self incrimination on his lies?
What do you believe is in the redacted text of the latest sentencing memos?
DaveSchmidt said:
Waiting for Tebow
An absurdist comedy
DaveSchmidt: What do you think of the Mets outfield next season?
paulsurovell: Guessing about what we don't know isn't waiting-and-seeing.
DaveSchmidt: I think it is. It's part of the discussion. What I don't get is certainty.
paulsurovell: Where do you get "certainty" from? You got a problem with people expressing themselves emphatically?
DaveSchmidt: You sure?
paulsurovell: It's what I've been doing here for 10 years. Don't get worked up.
DaveSchmidt: You didn't say that. The playwright twisted your words.
paulsurovell: He can't help himself.
Nan: Ouch!
DaveSchmidt: I agree. It all depends on the health of Cespedes.
Curtain.
Original Off-Off Broadway script before edited for run at New Amsterdam Theatre
jamie said:
Paul - what do you believe Flynn's "substantial cooperation" with the Mueller probe entails? Merely self incrimination on his lies?
What do you believe is in the redacted text of the latest sentencing memos?
With regard to Flynn's "substantial cooperation" I like Michael Isikoff's take:
https://twitter.com/aaronjmate/status/1070688839851798529
I don't see anything in the redactions that appears to relate to Russiagate. Show me one if you disagree.
paulsurovell said:
paulsurovell: Where do you get "certainty" from? You got a problem with people expressing themselves emphatically?
OK, so you’re not certain. And yeah, I kinda do, especially when they’re not certain.
Rentals
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
No, I don’t know that. Two quick search results:
If either comment was meant to grant room for alternative positions — and not to be “emphatic, firm or resolute” — I’m afraid I missed the spirit.
ETA: I didn’t search further, if anyone should wonder.