The Mueller Probe
DaveSchmidt said:
paulsurovell said:Because “Yes” alone applies to the hand I was describing.
Why not say enough evidence to answer "Yes" or "No" -- since we're waiting to see?
(Since there appears to be no hope of helping you understand this concept you keep bringing up as anything other than a Catch-22 or disingenuous hypocrisy, I’m afraid I’ll be reading right over it from now on. Just a heads-up.)
But that hand could have said "Yes or No" consistent with the argument. But "No," even in a two-sided, balanced hypothetical seems to be taboo.
paulsurovell said:
But that hand could have said "Yes or No" consistent with the argument. But "No," even in a two-sided, balanced hypothetical seems to be taboo.
Holding your cards is contingent on a "Yes." "No" means you don't have the cards, which was the first hand I granted from your post.
You're making this harder than it needs to be.
DaveSchmidt said:
paulsurovell said:Holding your cards is contingent on a "Yes." "No" means you don't have the cards, which was the first hand I granted from your post.
But that hand could have said "Yes or No" consistent with the argument. But "No," even in a two-sided, balanced hypothetical seems to be taboo.
You're making this harder than it needs to be.
Or, there could be a solid hand of "No's" debunking all allegations of collusion.
I think what makes this hard, is your Resistance to acknowledging the possibility of "No Collusion."
Sorry, whatever you "granted" from my post was lost in translation. Could it be restated more emphatically?
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:I provided the full text of the letter above. His guilty plea involved another letter to Congress, not about the election. He wasn't accused of lying in the letter in which he denied collusion with Russia to influence the election. I'm sure that many of the 70 hours were devoted to getting him to admit to lying on the collusion letter. But he didn't, and Mueller didn't have any evidence to confront him with.
paulsurovell said:No, Paul, that's not how it works. That Cohen memo from the Mueller team, about the testimony to Congress, is describing cooperation, and they are not opining on anything else regarding the testimony to Congress. SDNY team is the one going after Cohen for not being truthful with respect to what they're dealing with.
It means -- Cohen helped us confirm that Trump did not collude with any Russians to influence the 2015 election, consistent with Cohen's statement to Congress of September 2017, which we found to be truthful (except for the one sentence about when Felix stopped pitching his Moscow Trump Tower fantasy to Cohen).
You should also parse what Cohen actually wrote in that letter, because it's not a complete "Trump did not collude with any Russians" statement.
I don't know where you're getting your talking points. They're good enough for your average Trump "true believer", but the conclusion isn't supported by the available documents.
Your suggestion that I use "talking points" sounds like what psychologists call "projection." You let the cat out of the bag when you mention listening to Rachel Maddow's podcast. Not surprising.
Edited to Add:
Pro Tip: When you can't find where someone is getting his/her talking points, that means they are not using talking points.
What I wrote was "I don't know where you're getting your talking points." If those are your own ideas, so be it. My opinion on who would find the points convincing, and how their not supported, remains the same.
The "full text of the letter above" is beside the point. The sentencing memorandum had one purpose, and that purpose did NOT include detailing everything in Cohen's statement to Congress that was not true. So whatever solace you find in Cohen's statements which the Special Counsel didn't say were lies, it doesn't matter. And, as I pointed out, when you read what Cohen actually wrote, there's still room for it all to be true and for Trump to have colluded.
That's why your argument is not convincing. Maybe you should look for some talking points.
As for your "projection" comment. There was no cat, there was no bag to let the cat out of, because what I wrote was, "I'm almost finished hearing last night's 'Rachel Maddow', where she helpfully reads relevant portions of the Manafort and Cohen filings from yesterday." It has nothing to do with "talking points", it was long quotes from the source documents. Finding out what's in the source documents is useful in reaching an opinion, instead of approaching every new situation with the "no collusion" mindset.
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:What I wrote was "I don't know where you're getting your talking points." If those are your own ideas, so be it. My opinion on who would find the points convincing, and how their not supported, remains the same.
nohero said:I provided the full text of the letter above. His guilty plea involved another letter to Congress, not about the election. He wasn't accused of lying in the letter in which he denied collusion with Russia to influence the election. I'm sure that many of the 70 hours were devoted to getting him to admit to lying on the collusion letter. But he didn't, and Mueller didn't have any evidence to confront him with.
paulsurovell said:No, Paul, that's not how it works. That Cohen memo from the Mueller team, about the testimony to Congress, is describing cooperation, and they are not opining on anything else regarding the testimony to Congress. SDNY team is the one going after Cohen for not being truthful with respect to what they're dealing with.
It means -- Cohen helped us confirm that Trump did not collude with any Russians to influence the 2015 election, consistent with Cohen's statement to Congress of September 2017, which we found to be truthful (except for the one sentence about when Felix stopped pitching his Moscow Trump Tower fantasy to Cohen).
You should also parse what Cohen actually wrote in that letter, because it's not a complete "Trump did not collude with any Russians" statement.
I don't know where you're getting your talking points. They're good enough for your average Trump "true believer", but the conclusion isn't supported by the available documents.
Your suggestion that I use "talking points" sounds like what psychologists call "projection." You let the cat out of the bag when you mention listening to Rachel Maddow's podcast. Not surprising.
Edited to Add:
Pro Tip: When you can't find where someone is getting his/her talking points, that means they are not using talking points.
The "full text of the letter above" is beside the point. The sentencing memorandum had one purpose, and that purpose did NOT include detailing everything in Cohen's statement to Congress that was not true. So whatever solace you find in Cohen's statements which the Special Counsel didn't say were lies, it doesn't matter. And, as I pointed out, when you read what Cohen actually wrote, there's still room for it all to be true and for Trump to have colluded.
That's why your argument is not convincing. Maybe you should look for some talking points.
As for your "projection" comment. There was no cat, there was no bag to let the cat out of, because what I wrote was, "I'm almost finished hearing last night's 'Rachel Maddow', where she helpfully reads relevant portions of the Manafort and Cohen filings from yesterday." It has nothing to do with "talking points", it was long quotes from the source documents. Finding out what's in the source documents is useful in reaching an opinion, instead of approaching every new situation with the "no collusion" mindset.
A "no collusion" mindset means -- I will assume there is no collusion unless shown evidence that collusion occurred and given the absence of any evidence after 2 1/2 years of DOJ, media and Congressional investigations, I am confident (90%) that no collusion occurred.
Your mindset is -- I will assume that collusion occurred and will interpret every allegation, rumor or innuendo from that perspective. And by all means I will not acknowledge that there is no evidence of collusion, nor acknowledge that Mueller may report no evidence of collusion.
Paul - since you seem to be the resident expert on plea deals, perhaps you can give up the heads up in regards to Maria Butina and if you have any information about Russia's connection to the NRA.
jamie said:
Paul - since you seem to be the resident expert on plea deals, perhaps you can give up the heads up in regards to Maria Butina and if you have any information about Russia's connection to the NRA.
Aaron Mate has been calling the Butina case for a long time. We should find out tomorrow:
I see your aaron mate and raise you an emptywheel:
paulsurovell said:A "no collusion" mindset means -- I will assume there is no collusion unless shown evidence that collusion occurred and given the absence of any evidence after 2 1/2 years of DOJ, media and Congressional investigations, I am confident (90%) that no collusion occurred.
Your mindset is -- I will assume that collusion occurred and will interpret every allegation, rumor or innuendo from that perspective. And by all means I will not acknowledge that there is no evidence of collusion, nor acknowledge that Mueller may report no evidence of collusion.
Where you get into trouble is when you try to tell someone what he or she actually thinks.
I don't assume collusion occurred. Unlike you, I also don't assume no collusion. That's called having an open mind or, if you will, a "wait and see" position. In the meantime, if some set of facts comes out and someone (like Paul) says that it doesn't point towards collusion or crime (or even points the other way), since this is a discussion board I find it interesting to engage in discussion, and suggest otherwise. And for my troubles I receive juvenile insults and misrepresentations of my view which I find personally insulting.
Trump says, "NO COLLUSION". Fine, I guess that's evidence of no collusion. There are other facts which I think justify having an investigation. Trump and his business dealings and the interactions of his inner circle with Russian interests are NOT an open book. They are obviously being secretive about Russian dealings, see Cohen sentencing memos. It's appropriate to wonder why, and appropriate to support the continuation of the Mueller probe (and any other probe going on in other US Attorney offices). "Where there's smock there's fire" as the new saying goes.
A review of Mr. Surovell's threads on this topic show an evolution. We're long past the time that GOP efforts to simply torpedo the Mueller probe (efforts which he supported) would pass the "laugh test". We're now at the "It's not a crime" stage. But we don't know it's a crime until all the material that Mueller has comes out in a report. Anyone who doesn't want a final report to be publicly released can't be said to be interested in the truth, imho.
paulsurovell said:
jamie said:Aaron Mate has been calling the Butina case for a long time. We should find out tomorrow:
Paul - since you seem to be the resident expert on plea deals, perhaps you can give up the heads up in regards to Maria Butina and if you have any information about Russia's connection to the NRA.
https://twitter.com/aaronjmate/status/1072293970661789701
One reason I like to watch or listen to the Rachel Maddow program is when she takes a pile of facts and shows them in context (like the academic she is). I don't know what will happen in the Butina case (although apparently she's signing on for full cooperation). But there are disparate facts which when viewed together suggest a closer look. She was insinuating herself into GOP circles and the NRA; she facilitated an NRA officials' trip to Russia; the NRA had boatloads of money to help Trump in 2016, significantly more than they spent on Romney against Obama; the NRA doesn't have much money now, and is cutting back; Butina's Russian money-bags just suddenly "retired" from his finance job in Russia.
What does it mean? I don't know. But it may be the set-up to an interesting story. Or it may be nothing. The best thing to do is let the professionals do their jobs, and we amateurs sit and watch what happens.
Of course, there will be an element which will make up excuses, shout "DEEP STATE!", and engage in "whataboutism" (Uranium One redux, anyone?) in efforts to derail any such investigation. Such people should be rebutted and mocked. Not ignored, because they want to be the loudest voice in the room to get what they want.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Because “Yes” alone applies to the hand I was describing.
(Since there appears to be no hope of helping you understand this concept you keep bringing up as anything other than a Catch-22 or disingenuous hypocrisy, I’m afraid I’ll be reading right over it from now on. Just a heads-up.)