Who Meddled more Putin or Trump? The Collusion Thread visits Venezuela
paulsurovell said:
DaveSchmidt said:But some of us make a lot of noise about how Steele is "good, honest and truthful" and that his dossier has been "mostly confirmed," so it's important to show how those notions don't hold up under scrutiny.
paulsurovell said:You’d save yourself a lot of questions of you just accepted that some of us believe Mueller’s investigation isn’t over yet.
The Steele Dossier says Manafort managed the conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. The DOJ and FBI used the Dossier as evidence for the FISA cour application, why not use it to charge Manafort with conspiracy? It's right there in the Dossier.
Mr. Matlock, how does the fact that there has been no charge against Manafort based on the dossier show that (as in, your highlighted statement above)?
Rosenstein's part of the conspiracy!
The Trump administration was rocked Friday afternoon by a bombshell report saying Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein last year suggested secretly recording President Trump to expose chaos in the White House and enlisting Cabinet members to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove him from office.
When can we expect an updated org chart of the full collusion operation?
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:Conspiracy to do what crime, Mr. Matlock?
nohero said:The Steele Dossier says Manafort managed the conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. The DOJ and FBI used the Dossier as evidence for the FISA cour application, why not use it to charge Manafort with conspiracy? It's right there in the Dossier.
What would he be charged with. You keep telling us "collusion is not a crime". Now you're just asking stupid questions to create a façade of making a point.
Manafort wasn't charged last week, he was charged when the case started. You kept telling us "There's nothing in the case about collusion" as if that mattered. NOW your point is, "Why wasn't he charged with collusion?" All your arguments are a Gish Gallop of random garbage that you throw at the wall to make it stick.
Well, at first glance, the Steele dossier tells us about these crimes:
TRUMP's representative COHEN accompanied to Prague inThey must be true, because they're in the Steele dossier, right?
August/September 2016 by 3 colleagues for secret discussions with
Kremlin representatives and associated operators/hackers
Agenda included how to process deniable cash payments to operatives;
contingency plans for covering up operations; and action in event of a
CLINTON election victory
- Some further details of Russian representatives/operatives involved;
Romanian hackers employed; and use of Bulgaria as bolt hole to "lie low»
Anti-CLINTON hackers and other operatives paid by both TRUMP team
and Kremlin, but with ultimate loyalty to Head of PA, IVANOV and his
successor/s
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:Well, at first glance, the Steele dossier tells us about these crimes:
paulsurovell said:Conspiracy to do what crime, Mr. Matlock?
nohero said:The Steele Dossier says Manafort managed the conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. The DOJ and FBI used the Dossier as evidence for the FISA cour application, why not use it to charge Manafort with conspiracy? It's right there in the Dossier.
What would he be charged with. You keep telling us "collusion is not a crime". Now you're just asking stupid questions to create a façade of making a point.
Manafort wasn't charged last week, he was charged when the case started. You kept telling us "There's nothing in the case about collusion" as if that mattered. NOW your point is, "Why wasn't he charged with collusion?" All your arguments are a Gish Gallop of random garbage that you throw at the wall to make it stick.
TRUMP's representative COHEN accompanied to Prague inThey must be true, because they're in the Steele dossier, right?
August/September 2016 by 3 colleagues for secret discussions with
Kremlin representatives and associated operators/hackers
Agenda included how to process deniable cash payments to operatives;
contingency plans for covering up operations; and action in event of a
CLINTON election victory
- Some further details of Russian representatives/operatives involved;
Romanian hackers employed; and use of Bulgaria as bolt hole to "lie low»
Anti-CLINTON hackers and other operatives paid by both TRUMP team
and Kremlin, but with ultimate loyalty to Head of PA, IVANOV and his
successor/s
As you know, there's an investigation about that still going on. That's a more logical explanation than "It's not true".
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:As you know, there's an investigation about that still going on. That's a more logical explanation than "It's not true".
nohero said:Well, at first glance, the Steele dossier tells us about these crimes:
paulsurovell said:Conspiracy to do what crime, Mr. Matlock?
nohero said:The Steele Dossier says Manafort managed the conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. The DOJ and FBI used the Dossier as evidence for the FISA cour application, why not use it to charge Manafort with conspiracy? It's right there in the Dossier.
What would he be charged with. You keep telling us "collusion is not a crime". Now you're just asking stupid questions to create a façade of making a point.
Manafort wasn't charged last week, he was charged when the case started. You kept telling us "There's nothing in the case about collusion" as if that mattered. NOW your point is, "Why wasn't he charged with collusion?" All your arguments are a Gish Gallop of random garbage that you throw at the wall to make it stick.
TRUMP's representative COHEN accompanied to Prague inThey must be true, because they're in the Steele dossier, right?
August/September 2016 by 3 colleagues for secret discussions with
Kremlin representatives and associated operators/hackers
Agenda included how to process deniable cash payments to operatives;
contingency plans for covering up operations; and action in event of a
CLINTON election victory
- Some further details of Russian representatives/operatives involved;
Romanian hackers employed; and use of Bulgaria as bolt hole to "lie low»
Anti-CLINTON hackers and other operatives paid by both TRUMP team
and Kremlin, but with ultimate loyalty to Head of PA, IVANOV and his
successor/s
That's not a logical explanation, that's an attempt to obfuscate the obvious -- that the Steele dossier, which is the foundation of Mueller's investigation, is a fraud.
nohero said:
Rosenstein's part of the conspiracy!
The Trump administration was rocked Friday afternoon by a bombshell report saying Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein last year suggested secretly recording President Trump to expose chaos in the White House and enlisting Cabinet members to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove him from office.When can we expect an updated org chart of the full collusion operation?
I don't know, but I would expect a new special counsel to investigate these allegations.
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:That's not a logical explanation, that's an attempt to obfuscate the obvious -- that the Steele dossier, which is the foundation of Mueller's investigation, is a fraud.
paulsurovell said:As you know, there's an investigation about that still going on. That's a more logical explanation than "It's not true".
nohero said:Well, at first glance, the Steele dossier tells us about these crimes:
paulsurovell said:Conspiracy to do what crime, Mr. Matlock?
nohero said:The Steele Dossier says Manafort managed the conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. The DOJ and FBI used the Dossier as evidence for the FISA cour application, why not use it to charge Manafort with conspiracy? It's right there in the Dossier.
What would he be charged with. You keep telling us "collusion is not a crime". Now you're just asking stupid questions to create a façade of making a point.
Manafort wasn't charged last week, he was charged when the case started. You kept telling us "There's nothing in the case about collusion" as if that mattered. NOW your point is, "Why wasn't he charged with collusion?" All your arguments are a Gish Gallop of random garbage that you throw at the wall to make it stick.
TRUMP's representative COHEN accompanied to Prague inThey must be true, because they're in the Steele dossier, right?
August/September 2016 by 3 colleagues for secret discussions with
Kremlin representatives and associated operators/hackers
Agenda included how to process deniable cash payments to operatives;
contingency plans for covering up operations; and action in event of a
CLINTON election victory
- Some further details of Russian representatives/operatives involved;
Romanian hackers employed; and use of Bulgaria as bolt hole to "lie low»
Anti-CLINTON hackers and other operatives paid by both TRUMP team
and Kremlin, but with ultimate loyalty to Head of PA, IVANOV and his
successor/s
I know there's no convincing you, but when you repeat it that doesn't make it more true.
It's a fact that the investigation is continuing, and we don't know yet what the Special Counsel knows. So it's too early to draw conclusions about how much of Steele's notes of his investigation (the "dossier") turns out to be true.
Also, the reason for the investigation has also been public for some time, and the "dossier" isn't the "foundation".
nohero said:I know there's no convincing you, but when you repeat it that doesn't make it more true.
It's a fact that the investigation is continuing, and we don't know yet what the Special Counsel knows. So it's too early to draw conclusions about how much of Steele's notes of his investigation (the "dossier") turns out to be true.
Also, the reason for the investigation has also been public for some time, and the "dossier" isn't the "foundation".
Zero after two years. And after Steele's "manager" of the collusion/conspiracy "flips," still nothing.
There was never any evidentiary basis for the "reason of the investigation" which is consistent with the absence of any evidentiary findings of the investigation.
Trump is wrong about almost everything, but he's right about one thing -- the Russia investigation is a hoax.
paulsurovell said:
Zero after two years. And after Steele's "manager" of the collusion/conspiracy "flips," still nothing.
There was never any evidentiary basis for the "reason of the investigation" which is consistent with the absence of any evidentiary findings of the investigation.
Trump is wrong about almost everything, but he's right about one thing -- the Russia investigation is a hoax.
Trump's propaganda is that, if we have no information about possible charges against Trump, the investigation is a hoax. We talked about what weight to give this lack of information, on this thread, back on August 19. You agreed that the public doesn't know everything that Mueller knows.
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:Well, I think it's understood that when you talk about whether there's a smoking gun -- or anything about the Russia investigation -- we're talking about public information, not what is not known by the public.
I did not say, "there is no smoking gun". All I know is that there's nothing that's public information that points to one. We don't know everything the investigators know. Didn't you read the NY Times article about how rigidly close-mouthed they are about anything that goes on in their office? So your "important to note" isn't that at all, it's more like it's important that you put words into another person's mouth.
"Zero after two years" just means that, aside from the indictments already issued, the Mueller Investigation doesn't leak allegations, instead they announce their results via some thoroughly documented indictments.
Trump is trying to discredit the investigation by saying it's a "hoax", so he'll keep a base of support for any action he takes to terminate it. HIs claim that it's a "hoax" is based on the fact that Mueller proceeds in a responsible fashion. Trump is basically "weaponizing" Mueller's integrity against him. Anybody who adopts Trump's argument is just helping Trump in that enterprise.
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:That's not a logical explanation, that's an attempt to obfuscate the obvious -- that the Steele dossier, which is the foundation of Mueller's investigation, is a fraud.
paulsurovell said:As you know, there's an investigation about that still going on. That's a more logical explanation than "It's not true".
nohero said:Well, at first glance, the Steele dossier tells us about these crimes:
paulsurovell said:Conspiracy to do what crime, Mr. Matlock?
nohero said:The Steele Dossier says Manafort managed the conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. The DOJ and FBI used the Dossier as evidence for the FISA cour application, why not use it to charge Manafort with conspiracy? It's right there in the Dossier.
What would he be charged with. You keep telling us "collusion is not a crime". Now you're just asking stupid questions to create a façade of making a point.
Manafort wasn't charged last week, he was charged when the case started. You kept telling us "There's nothing in the case about collusion" as if that mattered. NOW your point is, "Why wasn't he charged with collusion?" All your arguments are a Gish Gallop of random garbage that you throw at the wall to make it stick.
TRUMP's representative COHEN accompanied to Prague inThey must be true, because they're in the Steele dossier, right?
August/September 2016 by 3 colleagues for secret discussions with
Kremlin representatives and associated operators/hackers
Agenda included how to process deniable cash payments to operatives;
contingency plans for covering up operations; and action in event of a
CLINTON election victory
- Some further details of Russian representatives/operatives involved;
Romanian hackers employed; and use of Bulgaria as bolt hole to "lie low»
Anti-CLINTON hackers and other operatives paid by both TRUMP team
and Kremlin, but with ultimate loyalty to Head of PA, IVANOV and his
successor/s
And your comment is an outright lie. The "dossier" was but a small piece of the impetus for the special counsel. But don't let facts get in your way.
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:Trump's propaganda is that, if we have no information about possible charges against Trump, the investigation is a hoax. We talked about what weight to give this lack of information, on this thread, back on August 19. You agreed that the public doesn't know everything that Mueller knows.
Zero after two years. And after Steele's "manager" of the collusion/conspiracy "flips," still nothing.
There was never any evidentiary basis for the "reason of the investigation" which is consistent with the absence of any evidentiary findings of the investigation.
Trump is wrong about almost everything, but he's right about one thing -- the Russia investigation is a hoax.
paulsurovell said:"Zero after two years" just means that, aside from the indictments already issued, the Mueller Investigation doesn't leak allegations, instead they announce their results via some thoroughly documented indictments.
nohero said:Well, I think it's understood that when you talk about whether there's a smoking gun -- or anything about the Russia investigation -- we're talking about public information, not what is not known by the public.
I did not say, "there is no smoking gun". All I know is that there's nothing that's public information that points to one. We don't know everything the investigators know. Didn't you read the NY Times article about how rigidly close-mouthed they are about anything that goes on in their office? So your "important to note" isn't that at all, it's more like it's important that you put words into another person's mouth.
Trump is trying to discredit the investigation by saying it's a "hoax", so he'll keep a base of support for any action he takes to terminate it. HIs claim that it's a "hoax" is based on the fact that Mueller proceeds in a responsible fashion. Trump is basically "weaponizing" Mueller's integrity against him. Anybody who adopts Trump's argument is just helping Trump in that enterprise.
You can't argue on the merits, so you have to smear arguments in McCarthyite fashion as "helping Trump" because you have no facts, no evidence of collusion. You are well aware that the indictments have nothing to do collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign.
No evidence of Trump-Russia collusion has been presented by Mueller, the media or Congress who have been all over the issue 24/7/365.
That's what we know.
Dennis_Seelbach said:
paulsurovell said:And your comment is an outright lie. The "dossier" was but a small piece of the impetus for the special counsel. But don't let facts get in your way.
nohero said:That's not a logical explanation, that's an attempt to obfuscate the obvious -- that the Steele dossier, which is the foundation of Mueller's investigation, is a fraud.
paulsurovell said:As you know, there's an investigation about that still going on. That's a more logical explanation than "It's not true".
nohero said:Well, at first glance, the Steele dossier tells us about these crimes:
paulsurovell said:Conspiracy to do what crime, Mr. Matlock?
nohero said:The Steele Dossier says Manafort managed the conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. The DOJ and FBI used the Dossier as evidence for the FISA cour application, why not use it to charge Manafort with conspiracy? It's right there in the Dossier.
What would he be charged with. You keep telling us "collusion is not a crime". Now you're just asking stupid questions to create a façade of making a point.
Manafort wasn't charged last week, he was charged when the case started. You kept telling us "There's nothing in the case about collusion" as if that mattered. NOW your point is, "Why wasn't he charged with collusion?" All your arguments are a Gish Gallop of random garbage that you throw at the wall to make it stick.
TRUMP's representative COHEN accompanied to Prague inThey must be true, because they're in the Steele dossier, right?
August/September 2016 by 3 colleagues for secret discussions with
Kremlin representatives and associated operators/hackers
Agenda included how to process deniable cash payments to operatives;
contingency plans for covering up operations; and action in event of a
CLINTON election victory
- Some further details of Russian representatives/operatives involved;
Romanian hackers employed; and use of Bulgaria as bolt hole to "lie low»
Anti-CLINTON hackers and other operatives paid by both TRUMP team
and Kremlin, but with ultimate loyalty to Head of PA, IVANOV and his
successor/s
Glad you've admitted that the dossier is at least part of the foundation of the Mueller investigation. We can quibble about how much.
Sep 22, 2018 at 10:40am Edited
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:You can't argue on the merits, so you have to smear arguments in McCarthyite fashion as "helping Trump" because you have no facts, no evidence of collusion. You are well aware that the indictments have nothing to do collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign.
paulsurovell said:Trump's propaganda is that, if we have no information about possible charges against Trump, the investigation is a hoax. We talked about what weight to give this lack of information, on this thread, back on August 19. You agreed that the public doesn't know everything that Mueller knows.
Zero after two years. And after Steele's "manager" of the collusion/conspiracy "flips," still nothing.
There was never any evidentiary basis for the "reason of the investigation" which is consistent with the absence of any evidentiary findings of the investigation.
Trump is wrong about almost everything, but he's right about one thing -- the Russia investigation is a hoax.
paulsurovell said:"Zero after two years" just means that, aside from the indictments already issued, the Mueller Investigation doesn't leak allegations, instead they announce their results via some thoroughly documented indictments.
nohero said:Well, I think it's understood that when you talk about whether there's a smoking gun -- or anything about the Russia investigation -- we're talking about public information, not what is not known by the public.
I did not say, "there is no smoking gun". All I know is that there's nothing that's public information that points to one. We don't know everything the investigators know. Didn't you read the NY Times article about how rigidly close-mouthed they are about anything that goes on in their office? So your "important to note" isn't that at all, it's more like it's important that you put words into another person's mouth.
Trump is trying to discredit the investigation by saying it's a "hoax", so he'll keep a base of support for any action he takes to terminate it. HIs claim that it's a "hoax" is based on the fact that Mueller proceeds in a responsible fashion. Trump is basically "weaponizing" Mueller's integrity against him. Anybody who adopts Trump's argument is just helping Trump in that enterprise.
No evidence of Trump-Russia collusion has been presented by Mueller, the media or Congress who have been all over the issue 24/7/365.
That's what we know.
Yes, you are correct that "that's what we know", that "no evidence of Trump-Russia collusion has been presented by Mueller". And you're ALSO correct that with "anything about the Russia investigation -- we're talking about public information, not what is not known by the public." [Edited to add - if by any chance my "you are correct 'that's what we know' " sentence is quoted in a response, could you be sure to include the following sentence as well? It's a single thought expressed through the two sentences.)
Since you agree with that, it is illogical for you to also say, "Trump is wrong about almost everything, but he's right about one thing -- the Russia investigation is a hoax."
Those highlighted statements are both actual quotes by you.
I am arguing on the merits - we don't know everything Mueller knows, so it's illogical to conclude that he has nothing on collusion and the investigation is a hoax. Trump denies, and want us to deny, what you and I agreed upon, that we don't know everything Mueller knows. Trump wants us to accept his claim that it's a hoax. Anybody who asserts that Trump is correct that it's a hoax is "helping Trump" - not arguing against Trump, and not being neutral on the topic. That's not a smear, that's logic.
paulsurovell said:
Dennis_Seelbach said:Glad you've admitted that the dossier is at least part of the foundation of the Mueller investigation. We can quibble about how much.
And your comment is an outright lie. The "dossier" was but a small piece of the impetus for the special counsel. But don't let facts get in your way.
First, I have NEVER claimed that the dossier had zero part. NEVER ! But it has been clearly shown to be a minor factor in the investigation. Secondly, your LIE that the investigation is solely based on the dossier is, in fact, a bald-faced LIE. No quibbling required.
Dennis_Seelbach said:
paulsurovell said:First, I have NEVER claimed that the dossier had zero part. NEVER ! But it has been clearly shown to be a minor factor in the investigation. Secondly, your LIE that the investigation is solely based on the dossier is, in fact, a bald-faced LIE. No quibbling required.
Dennis_Seelbach said:Glad you've admitted that the dossier is at least part of the foundation of the Mueller investigation. We can quibble about how much.
And your comment is an outright lie. The "dossier" was but a small piece of the impetus for the special counsel. But don't let facts get in your way.
You don't seem to understand what a "lie" is and you also don't seem to understand that the word "foundation" doesn't mean "soley based." Other than that, thanks for the response.
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:Yes, you are correct that "that's all we know", that "no evidence of Trump-Russia collusion has been presented by Mueller". And you're ALSO correct that with "anything about the Russia investigation -- we're talking about public information, not what is not known by the public." [Edited to add - if by any chance my "you are correct 'that's all we know' " sentence is quoted in a response, could you be sure to include the following sentence as well? It's a single thought expressed through the two sentences.)
nohero said:You can't argue on the merits, so you have to smear arguments in McCarthyite fashion as "helping Trump" because you have no facts, no evidence of collusion. You are well aware that the indictments have nothing to do collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign.
paulsurovell said:Trump's propaganda is that, if we have no information about possible charges against Trump, the investigation is a hoax. We talked about what weight to give this lack of information, on this thread, back on August 19. You agreed that the public doesn't know everything that Mueller knows.
Zero after two years. And after Steele's "manager" of the collusion/conspiracy "flips," still nothing.
There was never any evidentiary basis for the "reason of the investigation" which is consistent with the absence of any evidentiary findings of the investigation.
Trump is wrong about almost everything, but he's right about one thing -- the Russia investigation is a hoax.
paulsurovell said:"Zero after two years" just means that, aside from the indictments already issued, the Mueller Investigation doesn't leak allegations, instead they announce their results via some thoroughly documented indictments.
nohero said:Well, I think it's understood that when you talk about whether there's a smoking gun -- or anything about the Russia investigation -- we're talking about public information, not what is not known by the public.
I did not say, "there is no smoking gun". All I know is that there's nothing that's public information that points to one. We don't know everything the investigators know. Didn't you read the NY Times article about how rigidly close-mouthed they are about anything that goes on in their office? So your "important to note" isn't that at all, it's more like it's important that you put words into another person's mouth.
Trump is trying to discredit the investigation by saying it's a "hoax", so he'll keep a base of support for any action he takes to terminate it. HIs claim that it's a "hoax" is based on the fact that Mueller proceeds in a responsible fashion. Trump is basically "weaponizing" Mueller's integrity against him. Anybody who adopts Trump's argument is just helping Trump in that enterprise.
No evidence of Trump-Russia collusion has been presented by Mueller, the media or Congress who have been all over the issue 24/7/365.
That's what we know.
Since you agree with that, it is illogical for you to also say, "Trump is wrong about almost everything, but he's right about one thing -- the Russia investigation is a hoax."
Those highlighted statements are both actual quotes by you.
I am arguing on the merits - we don't know everything Mueller knows, so it's illogical to conclude that he has nothing on collusion and the investigation is a hoax. Trump denies, and want us to deny, what you and I agreed upon, that we don't know everything Mueller knows. Trump wants us to accept his claim that it's a hoax. Anybody who asserts that Trump is correct that it's a hoax is "helping Trump" - not arguing against Trump, and not being neutral on the topic. That's not a smear, that's logic.
Good that you agree there no one has presented evidence (which of course includes Steele).
Of course when I say that the Russia investigation is a hoax, it's an opinion not only about the absence of evidence but the profusion of false allegations, claims and innuendoes that the media inundates us with to suggest or allege directly that there was collusion without any evidence.
If one refuses to accept something that Trump says that is true, because Trump said it, one is being intellectual dishonest and untruthful.
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:Good that you agree there no one has presented evidence (which of course includes Steele).
paulsurovell said:Yes, you are correct that "that's all we know", that "no evidence of Trump-Russia collusion has been presented by Mueller". And you're ALSO correct that with "anything about the Russia investigation -- we're talking about public information, not what is not known by the public." [Edited to add - if by any chance my "you are correct 'that's all we know' " sentence is quoted in a response, could you be sure to include the following sentence as well? It's a single thought expressed through the two sentences.)
nohero said:You can't argue on the merits, so you have to smear arguments in McCarthyite fashion as "helping Trump" because you have no facts, no evidence of collusion. You are well aware that the indictments have nothing to do collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign.
paulsurovell said:Trump's propaganda is that, if we have no information about possible charges against Trump, the investigation is a hoax. We talked about what weight to give this lack of information, on this thread, back on August 19. You agreed that the public doesn't know everything that Mueller knows.
Zero after two years. And after Steele's "manager" of the collusion/conspiracy "flips," still nothing.
There was never any evidentiary basis for the "reason of the investigation" which is consistent with the absence of any evidentiary findings of the investigation.
Trump is wrong about almost everything, but he's right about one thing -- the Russia investigation is a hoax.
paulsurovell said:"Zero after two years" just means that, aside from the indictments already issued, the Mueller Investigation doesn't leak allegations, instead they announce their results via some thoroughly documented indictments.
nohero said:Well, I think it's understood that when you talk about whether there's a smoking gun -- or anything about the Russia investigation -- we're talking about public information, not what is not known by the public.
I did not say, "there is no smoking gun". All I know is that there's nothing that's public information that points to one. We don't know everything the investigators know. Didn't you read the NY Times article about how rigidly close-mouthed they are about anything that goes on in their office? So your "important to note" isn't that at all, it's more like it's important that you put words into another person's mouth.
Trump is trying to discredit the investigation by saying it's a "hoax", so he'll keep a base of support for any action he takes to terminate it. HIs claim that it's a "hoax" is based on the fact that Mueller proceeds in a responsible fashion. Trump is basically "weaponizing" Mueller's integrity against him. Anybody who adopts Trump's argument is just helping Trump in that enterprise.
No evidence of Trump-Russia collusion has been presented by Mueller, the media or Congress who have been all over the issue 24/7/365.
That's what we know.
Since you agree with that, it is illogical for you to also say, "Trump is wrong about almost everything, but he's right about one thing -- the Russia investigation is a hoax."
Those highlighted statements are both actual quotes by you.
I am arguing on the merits - we don't know everything Mueller knows, so it's illogical to conclude that he has nothing on collusion and the investigation is a hoax. Trump denies, and want us to deny, what you and I agreed upon, that we don't know everything Mueller knows. Trump wants us to accept his claim that it's a hoax. Anybody who asserts that Trump is correct that it's a hoax is "helping Trump" - not arguing against Trump, and not being neutral on the topic. That's not a smear, that's logic.
Of course when I say that the Russia investigation is a hoax, it's an opinion not only about the absence of evidence but the profusion of false allegations, claims and innuendoes that the media inundates us with to suggest or allege directly that there was collusion without any evidence.
If one refuses to accept something that Trump says that is true, because Trump said it, one is being intellectual dishonest and untruthful.
I am fairly certain our latest back-and-forth was about the special counsel, Mr. Mueller’s investigation. So any reference to Steele or to what some people in the media say, isn’t that discussion, or what I was writing about in response to you.
I take it that you agree that we don’t know everything Mueller knows, so can’t reach a conclusion as to whether his investigation is a “hoax”.
Similarly, I’m not refusing to accept Trump’s position on the investigation “because Trump said it”. I’m refusing to accept it because it’s not a logical conclusion based on publicly-available information. Since “because Trump said it” is not the reason for my viewpoint on that, I hope that you’re reassured that I’m neither “being intellectually dishonest” nor “untruthful”.
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:Good that you agree there no one has presented evidence (which of course includes Steele).
paulsurovell said:Yes, you are correct that "that's all we know", that "no evidence of Trump-Russia collusion has been presented by Mueller". And you're ALSO correct that with "anything about the Russia investigation -- we're talking about public information, not what is not known by the public." [Edited to add - if by any chance my "you are correct 'that's all we know' " sentence is quoted in a response, could you be sure to include the following sentence as well? It's a single thought expressed through the two sentences.)
nohero said:You can't argue on the merits, so you have to smear arguments in McCarthyite fashion as "helping Trump" because you have no facts, no evidence of collusion. You are well aware that the indictments have nothing to do collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign.
paulsurovell said:Trump's propaganda is that, if we have no information about possible charges against Trump, the investigation is a hoax. We talked about what weight to give this lack of information, on this thread, back on August 19. You agreed that the public doesn't know everything that Mueller knows.
Zero after two years. And after Steele's "manager" of the collusion/conspiracy "flips," still nothing.
There was never any evidentiary basis for the "reason of the investigation" which is consistent with the absence of any evidentiary findings of the investigation.
Trump is wrong about almost everything, but he's right about one thing -- the Russia investigation is a hoax.
paulsurovell said:"Zero after two years" just means that, aside from the indictments already issued, the Mueller Investigation doesn't leak allegations, instead they announce their results via some thoroughly documented indictments.
nohero said:Well, I think it's understood that when you talk about whether there's a smoking gun -- or anything about the Russia investigation -- we're talking about public information, not what is not known by the public.
I did not say, "there is no smoking gun". All I know is that there's nothing that's public information that points to one. We don't know everything the investigators know. Didn't you read the NY Times article about how rigidly close-mouthed they are about anything that goes on in their office? So your "important to note" isn't that at all, it's more like it's important that you put words into another person's mouth.
Trump is trying to discredit the investigation by saying it's a "hoax", so he'll keep a base of support for any action he takes to terminate it. HIs claim that it's a "hoax" is based on the fact that Mueller proceeds in a responsible fashion. Trump is basically "weaponizing" Mueller's integrity against him. Anybody who adopts Trump's argument is just helping Trump in that enterprise.
No evidence of Trump-Russia collusion has been presented by Mueller, the media or Congress who have been all over the issue 24/7/365.
That's what we know.
Since you agree with that, it is illogical for you to also say, "Trump is wrong about almost everything, but he's right about one thing -- the Russia investigation is a hoax."
Those highlighted statements are both actual quotes by you.
I am arguing on the merits - we don't know everything Mueller knows, so it's illogical to conclude that he has nothing on collusion and the investigation is a hoax. Trump denies, and want us to deny, what you and I agreed upon, that we don't know everything Mueller knows. Trump wants us to accept his claim that it's a hoax. Anybody who asserts that Trump is correct that it's a hoax is "helping Trump" - not arguing against Trump, and not being neutral on the topic. That's not a smear, that's logic.
Of course when I say that the Russia investigation is a hoax, it's an opinion not only about the absence of evidence but the profusion of false allegations, claims and innuendoes that the media inundates us with to suggest or allege directly that there was collusion without any evidence.
If one refuses to accept something that Trump says that is true, because Trump said it, one is being intellectual dishonest and untruthful.
I am fairly certain our latest back-and-forth was about the special counsel, Mr. Mueller’s investigation. So any reference to Steele or to what some people in the media say, isn’t that discussion, or what I was writing about in response to you.
I take it that you agree that we don’t know everything Mueller knows, so can’t reach a conclusion as to whether his investigation is a “hoax”.
Similarly, I’m not refusing to accept Trump’s position on the investigation “because Trump said it”. I’m refusing to accept it because it’s not a logical conclusion based on publicly-available information. Since “because Trump said it” is not the reason for my viewpoint on that, I hope that you’re reassured that I’m neither “being intellectually dishonest” nor “untruthful”.
I would hope you would not accept anything because "Trump said it" -- I certainly wouldn't and never have. I've never cited Trump's statements as proof of anything. However you have dishonestly suggested that I have. That's why there are ethical problems with your position.
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:I would hope you would not accept anything because "Trump said it" -- I certainly wouldn't and never have. I've never cited Trump's statements as proof of anything. However you have dishonestly suggested that I have. That's why there are ethical problems with your position.
paulsurovell said:I am fairly certain our latest back-and-forth was about the special counsel, Mr. Mueller’s investigation. So any reference to Steele or to what some people in the media say, isn’t that discussion, or what I was writing about in response to you.
Good that you agree there no one has presented evidence (which of course includes Steele).
Of course when I say that the Russia investigation is a hoax, it's an opinion not only about the absence of evidence but the profusion of false allegations, claims and innuendoes that the media inundates us with to suggest or allege directly that there was collusion without any evidence.
If one refuses to accept something that Trump says that is true, because Trump said it, one is being intellectual dishonest and untruthful.
I take it that you agree that we don’t know everything Mueller knows, so can’t reach a conclusion as to whether his investigation is a “hoax”.
Similarly, I’m not refusing to accept Trump’s position on the investigation “because Trump said it”. I’m refusing to accept it because it’s not a logical conclusion based on publicly-available information. Since “because Trump said it” is not the reason for my viewpoint on that, I hope that you’re reassured that I’m neither “being intellectually dishonest” nor “untruthful”.
I am fairly certain that I have never suggested that Mr. Surovell "cited Trump's statements as proof of anything." Since he says otherwise, and as a result accused me of "ethical problems" associated with that, I look forward to his further explanation, elaboration and explication of said writing by me.
nohero said:I am fairly certain that I have never suggested that Mr. Surovell "cited Trump's statements as proof of anything." Since he says otherwise, and as a result accused me of "ethical problems" associated with that, I look forward to his further explanation, elaboration and explication of said writing by me.
From a couple of days ago. In response to my statement that the Russia investigation is a hoax:
Trump is trying to discredit the investigation by saying it's a "hoax", so he'll keep a base of support for any action he takes to terminate it. HIs claim that it's a "hoax" is based on the fact that Mueller proceeds in a responsible fashion. Trump is basically "weaponizing" Mueller's integrity against him. Anybody who adopts Trump's argument is just helping Trump in that enterprise.
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:Good that you agree there no one has presented evidence (which of course includes Steele).
paulsurovell said:
Of course when I say that the Russia investigation is a hoax, it's an opinion not only about the absence of evidence but the profusion of false allegations, claims and innuendoes that the media inundates us with to suggest or allege directly that there was collusion without any evidence.
If one refuses to accept something that Trump says that is true, because Trump said it, one is being intellectual dishonest and untruthful.
So when you say it's a hoax, you don't mean hoax. Brilliant.
And when you say there has been no evidence you pretend that the Russian indictments don't exist (or were fabricated by Mueller--a hoax, perhaps?).
Your relationship with the truth has become abusive.
dave23 said:
paulsurovell said:So when you say it's a hoax, you don't mean hoax. Brilliant.
nohero said:Good that you agree there no one has presented evidence (which of course includes Steele).
paulsurovell said:
Of course when I say that the Russia investigation is a hoax, it's an opinion not only about the absence of evidence but the profusion of false allegations, claims and innuendoes that the media inundates us with to suggest or allege directly that there was collusion without any evidence.
If one refuses to accept something that Trump says that is true, because Trump said it, one is being intellectual dishonest and untruthful.
And when you say there has been no evidence you pretend that the Russian indictments don't exist (or were fabricated by Mueller--a hoax, perhaps?).
Your relationship with the truth has become abusive.
dave23, who thinks Steele was hired by Republicans, thinks that indictments are evidence. At least he's consistent.
They are evidence, not proof.
No, I'm not surprised that you think that Mueller could have simply made it all up.
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:From a couple of days ago. In response to my statement that the Russia investigation is a hoax:
I am fairly certain that I have never suggested that Mr. Surovell "cited Trump's statements as proof of anything." Since he says otherwise, and as a result accused me of "ethical problems" associated with that, I look forward to his further explanation, elaboration and explication of said writing by me.
nohero
Sep 22, 2018 at 8:55am
Trump is trying to discredit the investigation by saying it's a "hoax", so he'll keep a base of support for any action he takes to terminate it. HIs claim that it's a "hoax" is based on the fact that Mueller proceeds in a responsible fashion. Trump is basically "weaponizing" Mueller's integrity against him. Anybody who adopts Trump's argument is just helping Trump in that enterprise.
paul, this is a (deliberate?) misreading of what nohero said. This is not even close to "cited Trump's statements as proof of anything."
nohero is saying that:
a. trump said argument x
b. paul also says argument x
c. consequently, paul is helping trump by pushing the same argument
It's not hard. Mostly just takes honesty.
drummerboy said:
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:From a couple of days ago. In response to my statement that the Russia investigation is a hoax:
I am fairly certain that I have never suggested that Mr. Surovell "cited Trump's statements as proof of anything." Since he says otherwise, and as a result accused me of "ethical problems" associated with that, I look forward to his further explanation, elaboration and explication of said writing by me.
nohero
Sep 22, 2018 at 8:55am
Trump is trying to discredit the investigation by saying it's a "hoax", so he'll keep a base of support for any action he takes to terminate it. HIs claim that it's a "hoax" is based on the fact that Mueller proceeds in a responsible fashion. Trump is basically "weaponizing" Mueller's integrity against him. Anybody who adopts Trump's argument is just helping Trump in that enterprise.
paul, this is a (deliberate?) misreading of what nohero said. This is not even close to "cited Trump's statements as proof of anything."
nohero is saying that:
a. trump said argument x
b. paul also says argument x
c. consequently, paul is helping trump by pushing the same argument
It's not hard. Mostly just takes honesty.
Trump says Assad gassed innocent civilians.
@nohero says Assad gassed innocent civilians.
@nohero has adopted Trump's argument.
@nohero is helping Trump.
dave23 said:
They are evidence, not proof.
No, I'm not surprised that you think that Mueller could have simply made it all up.
dave23's concept of evidence:
In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.
For Sale
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
But some of us make a lot of noise about how Steele is "good, honest and truthful" and that his dossier has been "mostly confirmed," so it's important to show how those notions don't hold up under scrutiny.