Who Meddled more Putin or Trump? The Collusion Thread visits Venezuela
Another thing that Americans have come to know about Mueller is that he can keep a secret. So if he has evidence about a geopolitical conspiracy between Trump's campaign and Russia's active measures, the public probably won't learn about it until the moment the special counsel's office wants that to happen.
Article is analysis by one guy - not very factual. It's very easy to state the unproven when you don't have access to all of the classified data. Why is so much redacted?
Not sure why Paul and Trump are in such a frenzy to discredit the Mueller probe.
The whole premise of the article is: "A Case Still Unproven". And yet - the "facts" of the case have not yet been presented. If there are facts - there's a good chance they won't be revealed until the end. We haven't had the opening argument yet, and people want to shut down the proceedings before they are given.
jamie said:
where’s the proof it was used for a fisa warrant
jamie said:
and for the millionth time , please provide proof that shows Steele providing phony intelligence in the past.
Show us a pattern of Steele’s deceptive ways and why he shouldn’t be trusted.
His past doesn't matter.
I'll go back to an earlier argument I made:
If Steele's basic premise is true -- that Trump is a captive of Putin -- then Mueller and the intel agencies are totally irresponsible and negligent for not informing Congress and the public of such a dire emergency for the nation.
Or is your position that Steele hasn't revealed his sources to Mueller and if so, what is his excuse?
Steele hasn't revealed his sources because he prefers for people to stay alive. That's what he has pretty much said.
There was talk of extricating his primary source, but the source was worried about family members left behind.
jamie said:
The whole premise of the article is: "A Case Still Unproven". And yet - the "facts" of the case have not yet been presented. If there are facts - there's a good chance they won't be revealed until the end. We haven't had the opening argument yet, and people want to shut down the proceedings before they are given.
I think you're right. Very few facts have been presented. Almost entirely allegations, rumors and innuendos. But the media has inundated us as though they are facts.
The purpose of this thread is primarily to expose what are considered to be "facts" for what they are -- allegations, rumors and innuendos.
That includes the Trump-Russia collusion story and the Russian hacking story.
jamie said:
Steele hasn't revealed his sources because he prefers for people to stay alive. That's what he has pretty much said.
There was talk of extricating his primary source, but the source was worried about family members left behind.
He can't trust Mueller? The safety of his Russian sources are more important than the takeover of the American Presidency by a foreign power?
I don't think so.
DaveSchmidt said:
paulsurovell said:Yes, there is more. Namely, an echo of what some of us have been saying: If Mueller “has evidence about a geopolitical conspiracy between Trump's campaign and Russia's active measures, the public probably won't learn about it until the moment the special counsel's office wants that to happen.” Kind of puts all of the analysis by a national security editor (a.k.a. “NPR”) of “what is visible today” (a.k.a. “Swiss cheese”) into perspective.
There's more:
https://www.npr.org/2018/12/15/676765398/the-russia-investigations-a-case-still-unproven?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
See my response to Jamie about the suggestion that Mueller would withhold from Congress and the public evidence that the President is captive of a foreign power.
paulsurovell said:
jamie said:He can't trust Mueller? The safety of his Russian sources are more important than the takeover of the American Presidency by a foreign power?
Steele hasn't revealed his sources because he prefers for people to stay alive. That's what he has pretty much said.
There was talk of extricating his primary source, but the source was worried about family members left behind.
I don't think so.
I would trust Mueller - but with Trump in office and putting people like Whitaker in charge of Mueller - he's probably glad he didn't provide the source.
paulsurovell said:
jamie said:https://www.npr.org/2018/07/23/631343524/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-much-discussed-carter-page-fisa-document
where’s the proof it was used for a fisa warrant
Very deceptive - the dossier was not the key document in the 400+ page fisa request:
Also, Steele's history should carry some weight, we have intelligence assets for a reason, info coming from some can have a certain level of reliability. With all of your VIPS guy's IC connections - surely they can find an instance where he hasn't been a reliable asset.
DaveSchmidt said:
And in anticipation of a follow-up question: A discussion of no-collusion scenarios includes offering reasons not to accept them as givens at this time. If copious examples of this aren’t already apparent — to quote Mrs. Robinson, I don’t know what.
I'll do the follow-up first.
Sure, when no-collusion scenarios have been presented (nothing was given or offered to Trump at the Trump Tower meeting) pro-collusion arguments have been presented in response (the Russian lawyer represented the Kremlin).
Perfectly normal. But what's not normal is that those who rebut arguments of no-collusion (a) never agree with arguments of no-collusion; (b) promote allegations of collusion and (c) tend to be the same people who plead "wait until Mueller finishes"
My point in all of this is that those who say "Wait and see" tend to be proponents of collusion allegations and opponents of no-collusion arguments. So they're really not "waiting," they're taking a position now.
As far as Russian hacking - take what you will from this page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections
Perhaps since you tend to lean towards Putin's version of things - you can stand behind his explanation:
http://time.com/5194830/vladimir-putin-jews-tatars-ukrainians-u-s-election-interference/
A lot of people who don't believe there was "No collusion" is because this is what Trumps says. And there are very few things he has NOT lied about. Please name a few legal issues that have involved him that he has not lied about.
jamie said:
paulsurovell said:Very deceptive - the dossier was not the key document in the 400+ page fisa request:
jamie said:https://www.npr.org/2018/07/23/631343524/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-much-discussed-carter-page-fisa-document
where’s the proof it was used for a fisa warrant
http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Carter-Page-FISA-Documents.FOIA-Release-1.pdf
Also, Steele's history should carry some weight, we have intelligence assets for a reason, info coming from some can have a certain level of reliability. With all of your VIPS guy's IC connections - surely they can find an instance where he hasn't been a reliable asset.
Deceptive? You asked a question and I answered directly.
His history matters if your position is based on trust. If your position is based on -- does this stuff make any sense -- and I've given an argument above why it absolutely makes no sense, then it doesn't matter what he did in the past.
I don't think the argument that Steele can't reveal his sources to Mueller because he wants to protect his Russian sources passes the laugh test.
I think a far more likely explanation is that (a) he knows his sources made it up or (b) he made it up.
Intelligence officers are highly skilled in disinformation. That's part of the job.
jamie said:
A lot of people who don't believe there was "No collusion" is because this is what Trumps says. And there are very few things he has NOT lied about. Please name a few legal issues that have involved him that he has not lied about.
Why should I do that? I've never based my opinion on what Trump says.
I think we need to maintain our respect for evidence in the era of Trump, regardless of what he says.
paulsurovell said:
I think a far more likely explanation is that (a) he knows his sources made it up or (b) he made it up.
That's a very skilled explanation. LOL
It would help if you had ANY proof that he has provided false intel in the past - or anything.
I'm out of of here - can someone else take their turn on paul. lol
Can you at least admit that the dossier wan't the only source for the FISA request?
jamie said:
As far as Russian hacking - take what you will from this page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections
Starts off stating allegations as facts. Not reliable.
jamie said:
Perhaps since you tend to lean towards Putin's version of things - you can stand behind his explanation:
http://time.com/5194830/vladimir-putin-jews-tatars-ukrainians-u-s-election-interference/
Here's the explanation for your explanation:
jamie said:
paulsurovell said:That's a very skilled explanation. LOL
I think a far more likely explanation is that (a) he knows his sources made it up or (b) he made it up.
It would help if you had ANY proof that he has provided false intel in the past - or anything.
I'm out of of here - can someone else take their turn on paul. lol
Can you at least admit that the dossier wan't the only source for the FISA request?
Yes to your last question.
DaveSchmidt said:
South_Mountaineer said:Yep. When someone starts off a discussion by stipulating that there was no collusion, and is emphatic in maintaining that position, what are the options for someone who isn’t convinced of no collusion but wants to join the discussion? I can think of one: Offer reasons for not being convinced.
paulsurovell said:Other than acknowledging that "no collusion" is one possibility, that's about it for what the "scenario" would be.
DaveSchmidt said:Give me a couple of examples, please.
Are the no collusion scenarios not being discussed in this thread? I thought they were. Maybe what’s needed is a chorus of huzzahs, every couple of pages or so, exclaiming: “Why, yes, it’s possible there was no collusion! It really is possible!” Is that what’s been missing?
If that discussion starter were less emphatic, however, and more like Philip Epstein — highlighting the lack of public evidence so far and its possible or even likely implications while also granting the caveats — it would open up more avenues for a give-and-take. We could compare how much weight one of us or the other gave to this or that development, what the potential implications were (as Epstein does), and so on. But, Paul, your stand here, whatever the percentage of certainty it’s built on, makes that impossible. It was set up from the get-go as a discussion of no-collusion scenarios on all-or-nothing terms. That, in a nutshell, is my beef with emphaticism.
You can continue to mock waiting-and-seeing, Paul, but by definition it acknowledges the possibility that Russiagate may all end up just the way you see it. For a lot of people, spelling that out would add nothing new to the discussion, but you appear to need to hear it, so let me spell it out: You may be right, and Russiagate may all end up just the way you see it.
Now that that’s out the way, the discussion remains as you’ve established it: reasons to be certain of that conclusion versus reasons not to be (and to wait and see).
I set up the thread with a proposition that was fact-based, but knowing it would be provocative. I think that's a good way to motivate a good exchange of views. And I think there has been one here. In fact, I'd be surprised if there are many discussions on this topic -- if any -- that have been as hard fought and been able to survive on this topic, anywhere in the US.
This thread -- despite its removal from the main board -- is a testament to free speech. I give Jamie a lot of credit for upholding the principle of free speech in the face of pressure from clients to shut it down.
On the question of "emphaticism" I don't think you appreciate how "emphatically" the official collusion narrative is propounded in the mass media. It's been framed as an existential threat: "a Pearl Harbor," "Kristalnacht," "an attack on our democracy," "treason." One can try to nibble away at such scare words, but you will leave the essence intact. The nature of the narrative and its 'emphatic" presentation, merit an equally emphatic response. At least that's how I see it.
With regard to "wait and see" I covered that earlier.
paulsurovell said:
South_Mountaineer said:Oddly, correct me if I'm wrong, but not even a generality as abstract as this articulation has been uttered before by the "Wait-and-see" contingent.
paulsurovell said:Other than acknowledging that "no collusion" is one possibility, that's about it for what the "scenario" would be.
DaveSchmidt said:Give me a couple of examples, please.
paulsurovell said:Are the no collusion scenarios not being discussed in this thread? I thought they were. Maybe what’s needed is a chorus of huzzahs, every couple of pages or so, exclaiming: “Why, yes, it’s possible there was no collusion! It really is possible!” Is that what’s been missing?
But discussing possible scenarios that involve no collusion is what has been lacking in the "wait-and-see" commentaries. NPR breaks thru that Blue (Dem) Wall of Silence:
https://www.npr.org/2018/12/15/676765398/the-russia-investigations-a-case-still-unproven?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
You're wrong. Read what people wrote instead of your versions of their positions.
paulsurovell said:
jamie said:His past doesn't matter.
and for the millionth time , please provide proof that shows Steele providing phony intelligence in the past.
Show us a pattern of Steele’s deceptive ways and why he shouldn’t be trusted.
Of course it matters. He's a professional whose business is reporting and assessing information from Russia.
It's a stupid argument to say, "Who cares if he has been honest and accurate before, this time he's lying. And who cares how much Trump lies about all aspects of his business, he's telling the truth about Russia."
South_Mountaineer said:paulsurovell said:Of course it matters. He's a professional whose business is reporting and assessing information from Russia.
jamie said:His past doesn't matter.
and for the millionth time , please provide proof that shows Steele providing phony intelligence in the past.
Show us a pattern of Steele’s deceptive ways and why he shouldn’t be trusted.
So then we need to believe Stephen Cohen, whose business has been reporting and assessing information from Russia for longer than Steele.
https://www.thenation.com/article/russiagates-core-narrative-always-lacked-actual-evidence/
Since his identity as author of the dossier became known, Steele’s personal reputation has been seriously tarnished. Not surprisingly, prominent supporters of the Russiagate narrative have made a major effort to rehabilitate him as a “hero.” But the fact that Steele was paid by the Clinton campaign for his anti-Trump “intelligence” reports—lavishly, it is said—is not the real issue but instead his actual sources and the information in his dossier. Both have been seriously questioned . . . Indeed, in the dossier, Steele repeatedly cites as a source a Russian émigré associate of Trump—that is, apparently an American.
As for the anti-Trump “information” in Steele’s 35-page dossier, it would take at least 70 pages to document the systemically unconvincing nature of the document. Fortunately, a knowledgeable and meticulous investigator has done at least half the job. What he reveals is an abundance of factual errors, inconsistencies, outright contradictions, and, equally important, information purportedly from secret Kremlin sources but that had already been published in open Russian or other media. (History shows that the trick to making a falsified document at least semi-plausible is to include a few facts previously verified in open sources.)
South_Mountaineer said:
It's a stupid argument to say, "Who cares if he has been honest and accurate before, this time he's lying.
So you want us to believe someone who is obviously lying because you're not aware that they've lied before. Strange, even for you.
South_Mountaineer said:
And who cares how much Trump lies about all aspects of his business, he's telling the truth about Russia."
I went through all of Trump's statements about his Russian business that dave23 could muster (I think it was with dave) and some of the statements were true, some were ambiguous and at least one was false.
South_Mountaineer said:
paulsurovell said:You're wrong. Read what people wrote instead of your versions of their positions.
South_Mountaineer said:Oddly, correct me if I'm wrong, but not even a generality as abstract as this articulation has been uttered before by the "Wait-and-see" contingent.
paulsurovell said:Other than acknowledging that "no collusion" is one possibility, that's about it for what the "scenario" would be.
DaveSchmidt said:Give me a couple of examples, please.
paulsurovell said:Are the no collusion scenarios not being discussed in this thread? I thought they were. Maybe what’s needed is a chorus of huzzahs, every couple of pages or so, exclaiming: “Why, yes, it’s possible there was no collusion! It really is possible!” Is that what’s been missing?
But discussing possible scenarios that involve no collusion is what has been lacking in the "wait-and-see" commentaries. NPR breaks thru that Blue (Dem) Wall of Silence:
https://www.npr.org/2018/12/15/676765398/the-russia-investigations-a-case-still-unproven?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Surely you had some examples in mind when you wrote this. Why don't you share them?
paulsurovell said:
South_Mountaineer said:Surely you had some examples in mind when you wrote this. Why don't you share them?
paulsurovell said:You're wrong. Read what people wrote instead of your versions of their positions.
South_Mountaineer said:Oddly, correct me if I'm wrong, but not even a generality as abstract as this articulation has been uttered before by the "Wait-and-see" contingent.
Other than acknowledging that "no collusion" is one possibility, that's about it for what the "scenario" would be.
No. It's useless to attempt to convince you since you deliberately ignore what people actually write.
paulsurovell said:
South_Mountaineer said:So then we need to believe Stephen Cohen, whose business has been reporting and assessing information from Russia for longer than Steele.paulsurovell said:Of course it matters. He's a professional whose business is reporting and assessing information from Russia.
jamie said:His past doesn't matter.
and for the millionth time , please provide proof that shows Steele providing phony intelligence in the past.
Show us a pattern of Steele’s deceptive ways and why he shouldn’t be trusted.
https://www.thenation.com/article/russiagates-core-narrative-always-lacked-actual-evidence/
Since his identity as author of the dossier became known, Steele’s personal reputation has been seriously tarnished. Not surprisingly, prominent supporters of the Russiagate narrative have made a major effort to rehabilitate him as a “hero.” But the fact that Steele was paid by the Clinton campaign for his anti-Trump “intelligence” reports—lavishly, it is said—is not the real issue but instead his actual sources and the information in his dossier. Both have been seriously questioned . . . Indeed, in the dossier, Steele repeatedly cites as a source a Russian émigré associate of Trump—that is, apparently an American.
As for the anti-Trump “information” in Steele’s 35-page dossier, it would take at least 70 pages to document the systemically unconvincing nature of the document. Fortunately, a knowledgeable and meticulous investigator has done at least half the job. What he reveals is an abundance of factual errors, inconsistencies, outright contradictions, and, equally important, information purportedly from secret Kremlin sources but that had already been published in open Russian or other media. (History shows that the trick to making a falsified document at least semi-plausible is to include a few facts previously verified in open sources.)
South_Mountaineer said:So you want us to believe someone who is obviously lying because you're not aware that they've lied before. Strange, even for you.
It's a stupid argument to say, "Who cares if he has been honest and accurate before, this time he's lying.
South_Mountaineer said:I went through all of Trump's statements about his Russian business that dave23 could muster (I think it was with dave) and some of the statements were true, some were ambiguous and at least one was false.
And who cares how much Trump lies about all aspects of his business, he's telling the truth about Russia."
Stephen Cohen is writing an opinion piece, with unspoken "proof" to claim Steele was dishonest. Cohen is not "reporting" or "assessing" information he gathered.
Cohen doesn't really use information in his piece. A giveaway is that the fee paid the firm is a known fact, but Cohen is vague but says it was "lavish". It's an armchair analysis, which lots of us don't think amounts to much.
You assume Steele is "obviously lying", and I don't. I don't think my view is strange.
paulsurovell said:See my response to Jamie about the suggestion that Mueller would withhold from Congress and the public evidence that the President is captive of a foreign power.
Your formula here — coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign = captive of a foreign power — does not compute.
That is, a finding that the former happened does not require that the latter is also true.
Ken Starr is not in the "wait and see" camp.
He is correct ONLY IF we assume that there is nothing Mueller knows that we don't know.
Judge Ken Starr, former Solicitor Generel & Independent Counsel, just stated that, after two years, “there is no evidence or proof of collusion” & further that “there is no evidence that there was a campaign financing violation involving the President.” Thank you Judge. @FoxNews
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1074323441749319681?s=21
paulsurovell said:
On the question of "emphaticism"
I was strapped for synonyms. I’ll leave its trademark up for grabs.
Something going on in the investigation, where Mueller knows but we don't.
WASHINGTON — For the past several months, journalists, legal experts and close followers of the special counsel’s investigation have been trying to uncover one particular secret about the inquiry: Is the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, in a closed-door legal battle? If so, with whom?
"The Special Counsel Is Fighting a Witness in Court. Who Is It?"
https://nyti.ms/2GiYnfp?smid=nytcore-ios-share
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Oddly, correct me if I'm wrong, but not even a generality as abstract as this articulation has been uttered before by the "Wait-and-see" contingent.
In contrast, the NPR article makes the point in a substantive way by going over major allegations of collusion that if true, would be expected to be reflected in the plea agreements of Cohen, Manafort and Flynn.