Who Meddled more Putin or Trump? The Collusion Thread visits Venezuela
If I may state the obvious - Mueller is not looking for evidence of any voter shifting, so we will never get that evidence from him.
The people who continually shout that "there is no evidence ...blah blah blah" are either stupid or deliberately trying to confuse the issue. Paul bemoans the confusion of Americans over the Russia probe, but his fellow travelers contribute much to that confusion.
Mueller's eventual findings will provide much in the way of providing the basis for further research into how the meddling affected the vote, as it probably did. But that time is not now.
Also, Paul's contention that Uranium One is blowback is ridiculous. The genesis of that conspiracy theory far preceded any knowledge of Russian meddling.
Paul - Do you still maintain that Russia didn't interfere in the election?
(Foolish question. "There are no allegations against Putin or Russia.")
Do you think that Prigozhin was operating without any funding by the Kremlin?
You've dismissed the conclusions reached in the Intelligence Community Assessment. The indictment yesterday against Prizozhin jibes with the finding in the Intelligence Community Assessment. I pointed that out yesterday.
drummerboy said:
Paul bemoans the confusion of Americans over the Russia probe, but his fellow travelers contribute much to that confusion.
drummerboy has literally become a J Edgar Hoover/McCarthyite
bub said:
An indictment is not an editorial, Paul. If actually swinging the results of an election is not part of the offense, there's no need for it to be in the indictment. How Mueller would know for certain, and how we are ever going to know, that it swung the election is beyond me.
I don't want to have to worry about whether it did or didn't. And if there is a foreign program of false flag trolling, I'm gonna have to worry about it.
Question: How many mere internet trolls form business entities to conduct their trolling? A guy acting on his own could just sit in the stereotypical "mother's basement" to spew venom.
paulsurovell said:
jamie said:The indictment appears to be credible -- 13 Russian trolls who didn't affect the outcome, who didn't collude with the Trump campaign. Not much of anything, certainly didn't "undermine our democracy."
And what are your thought on Mueller's indictments? Completely bogus or legit?
What is Greenwald's take? You and VIPS seem to have more access to the intelligence then the Mueller team does, please share.
Like what I posted from WaPo recently (below).
Here's what Greenwald said:
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/964615346983489536
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/964585333928222721
A timely reminder from Glenn Greenwald:
The federal conviction rate for defendants who risk trial is well above 90%. When you throw in the guilty pleas, its around 99%. But yes, an indictment is just an accusation.
Keep working every angle, Paul.
dave23 said:
paulsurovell said:That only took a year.
The indictment appears to be credible...
If you consider how half-as*ed the alleged operation was, you can see why Mueller didn't try to blame the Russian government.
But Count #95 may explain the motivation behind it:
good deflection.
(had to look that up. had no idea it was associated with McCarthy)
how about "comrades"?
paulsurovell said:
drummerboy said:
Paul bemoans the confusion of Americans over the Russia probe, but his fellow travelers contribute much to that confusion.
drummerboy has literally become a J Edgar Hoover/McCarthyite
bub said:
The federal conviction rate for defendants who risk trial is well above 90%. When you throw in the guilty pleas, its around 99%. But yes, an indictment is just an accusation.
Keep working every angle, Paul.
What's the conviction rate when the prosecutor makes an indictment knowing that there won't be a trial?
drummerboy said:
good deflection.
(had to look that up. had no idea it was associated with McCarthy)
how about "comrades"?
paulsurovell said:
drummerboy said:drummerboy has literally become a J Edgar Hoover/McCarthyite
Paul bemoans the confusion of Americans over the Russia probe, but his fellow travelers contribute much to that confusion.
You don't give your subconscious enough credit. You're all in, drummerboy.
I'm still on Team Greenwall/Surovell. Team Maddow needs to take a chill pill.
nan said:
I'm still on Team Greenwall/Surovell. Team Maddow needs to take a chill pill.
nan - Do you think Russia interfered in the election?
Independent reporter (who's a Russiagate skeptic) is suing the CIA for refusing to share with him the same information that it shared with three mainstream media reporters. Good insight into how the CIA influences public opinion. And this is only the tip of the iceberg.
https://fas.org/blogs/secrecy/2018/02/cia-selective-disclosure/
FOIA requester Adam Johnson had obtained CIA emails sent to various members of the press including some that were redacted as classified. How, he wondered, could the CIA give information to uncleared reporters — in this case Siobhan Gorman (then) of the Wall Street Journal, David Ignatius of the Washington Post, and Scott Shane of the New York Times — and yet refuse to give it to him? In an effort to discover the secret messages, he filed a FOIA lawsuit.
Ever the master reframer.
Your point, or Greenwald's point, was that indictments are often flimsy and unsupported by evidence, leading to frequent acquittals. An acquittal rate of between 1 and 5% is not a stat upon which I would make the assertion Greenwald made.
paulsurovell said:
bub said:
The federal conviction rate for defendants who risk trial is well above 90%. When you throw in the guilty pleas, its around 99%. But yes, an indictment is just an accusation.
Keep working every angle, Paul.
What's the conviction rate when the prosecutor makes an indictment knowing that there won't be a trial?
bub said:
Ever the master reframer.
Your point, or Greenwald's point, was that indictments are often flimsy and unsupported by evidence, leading to frequent acquittals. An acquittal rate of between 1 and 5% is not a stat upon which I would make the assertion Greenwald made.
paulsurovell said:
bub said:What's the conviction rate when the prosecutor makes an indictment knowing that there won't be a trial?
The federal conviction rate for defendants who risk trial is well above 90%. When you throw in the guilty pleas, its around 99%. But yes, an indictment is just an accusation.
Keep working every angle, Paul.
You're reframing from the specific to the general, knowing that the odds of this specific ever going to trial are less than 10%.
a) It's a stupid question and you know that;
b) You haven't answered my question - do you still maintain that Putin/Russia didn't interfere in the election?
I think Paul believes any interference that Russia does is ok because we do the same.
I'm not reframing anything. I'm pointing out that you fled from your Greenwald-adopted general point about the supposed flimsiness of indictments when those pesky statistics showed that the general point was hot air.
Yes, indicted foreign nationals from a country without an extradition treaty are unlikely to see trial. And? Do you have any stats, facts, background knowledge, expertise that federal prosecutors just make stuff up when indicting foreign nationals? Needless to say, this indictment flows from a contentious sensational national investigation. The indictment and the investigation that led to it are not going to be swept into a filing cabinet and forgotten. There will be reports even if there's no trial. Mueller knows he's under millions of microscopes.
paulsurovell said:
bub said:
Ever the master reframer.
Your point, or Greenwald's point, was that indictments are often flimsy and unsupported by evidence, leading to frequent acquittals. An acquittal rate of between 1 and 5% is not a stat upon which I would make the assertion Greenwald made.
paulsurovell said:
bub said:What's the conviction rate when the prosecutor makes an indictment knowing that there won't be a trial?
The federal conviction rate for defendants who risk trial is well above 90%. When you throw in the guilty pleas, its around 99%. But yes, an indictment is just an accusation.
Keep working every angle, Paul.
You're reframing from the specific to the general, knowing that the odds of this specific ever going to trial are less than 10%.
paulsurovell said:
You're reframing from the specific to the general, knowing that the odds of this specific ever going to trial are less than 10%.
Whatever, bub’s refutation of the tweet stands: Indictments do not “often end up being proven false or unaccompanied by sufficient evident of their truth.”
And if returning from the general to the specific, the odds that “just allegations from prosecutors” is an objective characterization of this investigation don’t seem all that high, either.
"President Trump's National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster said on Saturday that Russia's meddling in the election is now 'beyond dispute', conceding the results of Robert Mueller's probe and directly contradicting the US Russian foreign minister who labeled them 'just babble' moments earlier.
McMaster was speaking at the Munich Security Conference on Saturday morning.
He said the evidence that there was interference 'is now incontrovertible' and he credited Mueller's investigation and the sensational, long-awaited indictment for bringing it to the surface.
'As you can see with the FBI indictment, the evidence is now really incontrovertible and available in the public domain.'
Laughing off the notion that the US could work with the Kremlin on the issue of cyber security in the future, he said:
'I’m surprised there are any Russian cyber experts available based on how active most of them have been undermining our democracies in the West."
cramer said:
a) It's a stupid question and you know that;
b) You haven't answered my question - do you still maintain that Putin/Russia didn't interfere in the election?
Your question implies that you still believe that Putin was indicted by Mueller. Is that true?
DaveSchmidt said:
paulsurovell said:
You're reframing from the specific to the general, knowing that the odds of this specific ever going to trial are less than 10%.
Whatever, bub’s refutation of the tweet stands: Indictments do not “often end up being proven false or unaccompanied by sufficient evident of their truth.”
And if returning from the general to the specific, the odds that “just allegations from prosecutors” is an objective characterization of this investigation don’t seem all that high, either.
So we're parsing the word "often" to argue that an indictment can be considered proof of its allegations?
paulsurovell said:
cramer said:
a) It's a stupid question and you know that;
b) You haven't answered my question - do you still maintain that Putin/Russia didn't interfere in the election?
Your question implies that you still believe that Putin was indicted by Mueller. Is that true?
I was mimicking you.
What do you think of McMaster's statement that Russia's meddling in the election is "beyond dispute?"
cramer said:
"President Trump's National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster said on Saturday that Russia's meddling in the election is now 'beyond dispute', conceding the results of Robert Mueller's probe and directly contradicting the US Russian foreign minister who labeled them 'just babble' moments earlier.
McMaster was speaking at the Munich Security Conference on Saturday morning.
He said the evidence that there was interference 'is now incontrovertible' and he credited Mueller's investigation and the sensational, long-awaited indictment for bringing it to the surface.
'As you can see with the FBI indictment, the evidence is now really incontrovertible and available in the public domain.'
Laughing off the notion that the US could work with the Kremlin on the issue of cyber security in the future, he said:
'I’m surprised there are any Russian cyber experts available based on how active most of them have been undermining our democracies in the West."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5403345/Sergey-Lavrov-says-charges-against-Russians-blather.html
Reminds me of the WaPo editorial:
I was wondering when the WMD whataboutism would return - it's been awhile.
On an absurdly simplistic level, you can always say "but people lied about things in the past!" It is true, especially in politics and statecraft.
Addressing the specific example cited by Paul, it was no real secret even back then that Bush was surrounded by advisors who were itching to attack Iraq. The info supported the policy. The Trump administration, by contrast, would love for the word "Russia" to disappear from the dictionary. Even if there's no collusion, evidence supporting the idea that Russian dirty internet tricks supported Trump puts a taint on his election even if the actual election "swing" is never proven. Trump's camp wants all of this to just go away.
jamie said:
I was wondering when the WMD whataboutism would return - it's been awhile.
Yeah, that could never happen again. All of the lying neocons have been rooted out of the Intel community and the media. We can trust them now.
And you appreciate our president not even acknowledging the possibility of Russian interference?
Real Estate Listings
-
Renovated apartment in Bloomfield
3 Bd | 2Full Ba
$2,850
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
An indictment is not an editorial, Paul. If actually swinging the results of an election is not part of the offense, there's no need for it to be in the indictment. How Mueller would know for certain, and how we are ever going to know, that it swung the election is beyond me.
I don't want to have to worry about whether it did or didn't. And if there is a foreign program of false flag trolling, I'm gonna have to worry about it.
Question: How many mere internet trolls form business entities to conduct their trolling? A guy acting on his own could just sit in the stereotypical "mother's basement" to spew venom.