One, my primary objection is with the conclusions reached in the media and elsewhere - by so many people - that Trump is guilty of something when he hasn't been accused of a crime and no evidence of any wrongdoing in relation to the 2016 election has been presented. I have also argued that if what is really happening is a politically unbiased investigation into the 2016 Election and allegations of Russian meddling, then it should have been a 9/11 style commission, not a "special prosecutor."Joe wrote: ↑Thu Aug 09, 2018 3:13 amSo, if you don't think the Mueller investigation should be shut down, and allowed to run its course, why do you argue so vociferously about it, castigate the intelligence agencies, attack politicians, poo poo every media rumor, and post incoherent babble like this?
Why do I castigate intelligence agencies? Because I've always castigated intelligence agencies. They deserve castigation -- e.g. NSA and snooping/Snowden, e.g., lies to Congress, e.g. secret, illegal CIA wars, e.g. bugging and surveilling Congressmen and Congressional offices, e.g., George Tenet, e.g. James Clapper, e.g. John Brennan. Of course they should be castigated.
Poo poo media rumors? Of course, because the sloppy reporting for the last 2 years has been taken to a new and dramatic level. The false reports. The unfounded reports. The commonplace reliance of political leaks from guys like Adam Schiff, and other "unnamed" sources. The rumors are so fast, so furious, and so politically driven that it's impossible to sort through truth from fiction.
Incoherent babble? LOL
Once again, what evidence have you seen that leads you to believe that Trump or anyone on the Trump campaign committed any wrongdoing in relation to Russia and the 2016 campaign? Is it so hard to say "none?"
What confessions?Joe wrote: ↑Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:35 pmOkay, we can't dismiss the confessions because they come from flaming idiots.Now will you do me the courtesy of answering my questions? In particular, the last one above, where you say that the only real evidence we are likely to have until the close of the Mueller investigation is flaming idiot evidence. So, what do you conclude from the only evidence we've had so far? That Trum pdid something wrong? That he committed Treason? Obstruction? That someone in his campaign did?
Like what? Can you explain this? Which statements/tweets "could be" evidence and combined with what information, and evidence of what wrongdoing? This is part of the problem I've been on about - it's unusable vaguery. What's the evidence? Anyone's ill considered statements combined with some other information (whatever that is) could make them guilty of a crime - but, the rub is what statements (what did they say) and what are you combining it with?
I suppose. You reference no evidence - you just say that there "could be" if we combine unspecified ill-considered statements with "other [unspecified] information." Great. I agree with that as far as it goes, and it goes as far as being, like astrology, applicable to pretty much every human on the planet. Anyone's ill considered statements when combined with other information "could" amount to something. And, you say "wait to see when Mueller gets done." Good - fine.Joe wrote: ↑Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:35 pmHowever, I hold with Dr. Doyle's adage that "it is a capital mistake to theorize in advance of the facts." We'll see when the Mueller gets done. Treason, by definition, is a non-starter though.
That enough. or must you have more speculative windmills to tilt against?
So, do we or do we not agree that there is no evidence of which either one of us is aware which would indicate Trump or anyone on the Trump campaign committed any wrongdoing in relation to Russian involvement in the 2016 election?
Well, regardless, it seems to me that we are close to being in agreement on this issue. Which, I would suggest to you might demonstrate that my views are not the caricatures others paint them to be. Perhaps fruitful discussion is possible.