The Intelligence Community - Champion of Democracy

Post Reply
User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 37953
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: The Intelligence Community - Champion of Democracy

Post by Brian Peacock » Mon Aug 06, 2018 7:54 pm

Forty Two wrote:
Brian Peacock wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 11:03 am
I just goes round and round like this, again and again, round and round, again and again... I guess some people just feel entitled to know about what stage the ongoing investigations are at.
Not the issue. I claim no entitlement to know. I claim the right and the justification to not believe an allegation until there is evidence. I think it's fairly reasonable to do that. If they say I can't know what the evidence is, that's fine. They're not entitled to my acceptance of or belief in the truth of their allegations, though, nor is it "treasonous" to not accept or believe them.

Moreover, no intelligence agency has alleged wrongdoing on the part of the Trump campaign or Trump in relation to the 2016 election. It's not even alleged. I certainly am justified in not believing an allegation that hasn't been made by them.
Brian Peacock wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 11:03 am

And if you feel entitled to be in the loop then it's easy to denigrate the work (or existence) of those you see as excluding you.
I never claimed an entitlement to be in the loop. I don't expect to know what the CIA is doing. But if they were to say that there is a national security need to depose the President of Chile, I would not believe them unless they showed me the evidence. I'm a citizen of the country, and I am not beholden to the CIA, nor am I required to believe things they say. Further, there is plenty of reason to suspect the truth and accuracy of what they say.
This, I'm afraid, just doesn't ring true. The impulse to cast this as an unjust #WITCHHUNT has become a pathology now. This goes far beyond the mere withholding of judgement you suggest to declaration that there's no evidential basis for the various Russian Meddling investigation, and moreso if-and-when they touch on the President or his campaign. Prosecutions allege wrongdoing, witnesses allege wrongdoing, but investigators investigate - yet the well had been well and truly poisoned by the time claims that the Investigatory arms the intelligence and law enforcement community were dealing in politically biased and baseless allegations became the go-to, stock Republican response.
Forty Two wrote:
Brian Peacock wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 11:03 am

Trump has made this all about him, a #WITCHHUNT, and he and those investing in him have sought to push the security and operation of US democracy aspects of the investigations, the very reason for their existence, way down the prioroty list - so far down in fact that they're indistinguishable from an irrelevance. If this isn't resolved then no American is going to trust the result of any election ever again - and the thought of that leads to a very unsettling place.
There certainly is a lot of reason for him to be concerned about it. The Rosenstein order refers to the Trump campaign, and nobody else's campaign (even though the Russians posted pro Hillary ads, and organized pro Hillary rallies, too). The media focus has been 100% on Trump, and every allegation about the Russian interference is placed in the lap of the Trump campaign in the media.
You're dodging the point by shifting the burden. I said that Trump has made this all about him, a point reinforced every time he refers to investigations into Russian Meddling in the US democratic process as a #WITCHHUNT against him. What are your thoughts on that?

While some might say that the Democrats could also have benefited from Russian Meddling too, this is not a hitherto-ignored balancing point or equivalence - that party had their servers raided by Russian-backed hackers while members of the Trump campaign have been shown to have had direct contacts with Russia. To claim that the investigations are fundamentally or functionally biased without acknowledging the context is disingenuous
Forty Two wrote:[
I've pointed out that the Mueller appointment was brought under the criminal regulations. There is a criminal investigation aspect of the investigation, and it's pretty obvious that the investigation is is targeted toward Trump. This is not a neutral commission, like the 9/11 Commission, which investigated after 9/11/01. That's the kind of commission I've said before should have been created.
What's more important to you here, the truth or Trump's political survival and the GOPs political credibility? While it's pretty clear that the investigations have encompassed the Trump campaign, to suggest that investigators which are operating, in part, under a criminal remit are politically biased is to elevate the disingenuous to a nobility which it clearly does not deserve. Does the concept of 'neutrality' require that a sitting president never be subject to investigations operating to a criminal standard (Coz that's what you've just suggested)?
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: The Intelligence Community - Champion of Democracy

Post by Forty Two » Tue Aug 07, 2018 12:04 am

Brian Peacock wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 7:54 pm
This, I'm afraid, just doesn't ring true. The impulse to cast this as an unjust #WITCHHUNT has become a pathology now. This goes far beyond the mere withholding of judgement you suggest to declaration that there's no evidential basis for the various Russian Meddling investigation, and moreso if-and-when they touch on the President or his campaign.
Not on my part. I have never said there is no evidential basis for the investigation of Russian meddling. The Russians and previously the Soviets have been meddling, spying, sabotaging, and even holding proxy wars against the US for 70 years. Of course they're up to shenanigans. I would be shocked and surprised if they weren't. I've said that consistently.
Brian Peacock wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 7:54 pm
Prosecutions allege wrongdoing, witnesses allege wrongdoing, but investigators investigate - yet the well had been well and truly poisoned by the time claims that the Investigatory arms the intelligence and law enforcement community were dealing in politically biased and baseless allegations became the go-to, stock Republican response.
Indeed, prosecutors allege wrongdoing. Mueller is a "special prosecutor." He's not an "investigator." He's a "prosecutor." He has investigators working for him, looking for evidence.

Look - what allegation of wrongdoing against Trump or the Trump campaign has been made? What law has been claimed to have been violated? What is Trump or the Trump campaign suspected of?

All the time, Trump's opponents cite the Mueller camp as to whether it will result in his impeachment. Are they just nutbags who have no idea that the Mueller investigation is just a neutral commission out to search for the truth of the Russian meddling, and it's nothing to do with Trump?
Brian Peacock wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 7:54 pm

You're dodging the point by shifting the burden. I said that Trump has made this all about him, a point reinforced every time he refers to investigations into Russian Meddling in the US democratic process as a #WITCHHUNT against him. What are your thoughts on that?
I've said it several times - he has good reason to think it's a hunt for him. It sure looks like one. Is it a "witch" hunt? Well, if they don't come out with real evidence of guilt of something, then it may well be? If Trump is, indeed, as he claims, innocent of any wrongdoing, then wouldn't it seem to him like a witch hunt?

To me, what's been publicized specifically - outside of the shouting and vague generalizations - all seems rather weak, at best. The allegation is so serious (the one touted in the media) - that Trump conspired with Russian government officials and "oligarchs" -- doesn't match the facts reported by those same media outlets. Nothing shows any conspiracy to commit any offense of any kind. Yet, they bleat about whether Trump is done in, whether it's "obstruction of justice," and whether he will be impeached. It's absurd, based on what they know and don't know when they say those things.
Brian Peacock wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 7:54 pm
While some might say that the Democrats could also have benefited from Russian Meddling too, this is not a hitherto-ignored balancing point or equivalence -
Whether they actually benefitted is not the test as to whether the Russians meddled. Did the Russians do something they were not legally allowed to do?

That's the thing about most of the "interference" reported in that famous "intelligence report." Almost none of it is a crime. Publishing facebook ads? Holding rallies? On what basis would the US government stop them from doing that? Facebook is an international company - Russians can't post adverts saying Hillary sucks ass? Come on. The only real crime "alluded" to is the hacking issue.


Brian Peacock wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 7:54 pm

that party had their servers raided by Russian-backed hackers while members of the Trump campaign have been shown to have had direct contacts with Russia. To claim that the investigations are fundamentally or functionally biased without acknowledging the context is disingenuous
No, they have not been shown to have had "direct contacts with Russia," not in any improper, let alone illegal, sense. If I'm running for office, and a Russian wants to meet with me, there is nothing wrong with meeting with them. I can talk to them - even if they work for the government. Since when is talking to Russians evidence of wrongdoing?

Look at how the investigation came to be - what it was based on -- who was funding and generating it, and feeding certain persons the cause to get FISA warrants. Look at Page and Strzok. I mean, Strzok had decided to let Hillary Clinton off the hook before he even interviewed her, and he had decided that Trump should be strung up and basically hanged in the first week of the investigation in 2016.
Brian Peacock wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 7:54 pm
Forty Two wrote:[
I've pointed out that the Mueller appointment was brought under the criminal regulations. There is a criminal investigation aspect of the investigation, and it's pretty obvious that the investigation is is targeted toward Trump. This is not a neutral commission, like the 9/11 Commission, which investigated after 9/11/01. That's the kind of commission I've said before should have been created.
What's more important to you here, the truth or Trump's political survival and the GOPs political credibility?
Oh, the truth. What's more important to you, the truth or getting Trump? Trump has nothing to do with the credibility of the GOP. They lost that a long time ago. As a party, the GOP offers nothing to me. I oppose most of their political positions - abortion, death penalty, prison policy, foreign policy, gay marriage, religion and state, the like. I support Trump for many of the reasons the Republican establishment don't like him, together with his economic policies, and so far his foreign affairs policies.
Brian Peacock wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 7:54 pm

While it's pretty clear that the investigations have encompassed the Trump campaign, to suggest that investigators which are operating, in part, under a criminal remit are politically biased is to elevate the disingenuous to a nobility which it clearly does not deserve. Does the concept of 'neutrality' require that a sitting president never be subject to investigations operating to a criminal standard (Coz that's what you've just suggested)?
There is evidence of political bias within the investigations.

I don't care if the President is investigated. Investigate away. Doesn't change the fact that so far, despite all the cries from the mainstream media and Trump's opponents - there is no evidence of any offense having been committed relative to the 2016 election. Is there? I keep asking that, and you seem reluctant to say "I'm not aware of any such evidence," even if you want to add to that, "but I think there might be evidence that we haven't been made privy to." If you say that, we're basically in agreement. If you disagree with the first part - what's the evidence? If you won't tell me, why not?
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Seabass
Posts: 7339
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:32 pm
About me: Pluviophile
Location: Covidiocracy
Contact:

Re: The Intelligence Community - Champion of Democracy

Post by Seabass » Tue Aug 07, 2018 1:34 am

Forty Two wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 12:04 am
Brian Peacock wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 7:54 pm
This, I'm afraid, just doesn't ring true. The impulse to cast this as an unjust #WITCHHUNT has become a pathology now. This goes far beyond the mere withholding of judgement you suggest to declaration that there's no evidential basis for the various Russian Meddling investigation, and moreso if-and-when they touch on the President or his campaign.
Not on my part. I have never said there is no evidential basis for the investigation of Russian meddling. The Russians and previously the Soviets have been meddling, spying, sabotaging, and even holding proxy wars against the US for 70 years. Of course they're up to shenanigans. I would be shocked and surprised if they weren't. I've said that consistently.
Brian Peacock wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 7:54 pm
Prosecutions allege wrongdoing, witnesses allege wrongdoing, but investigators investigate - yet the well had been well and truly poisoned by the time claims that the Investigatory arms the intelligence and law enforcement community were dealing in politically biased and baseless allegations became the go-to, stock Republican response.
Indeed, prosecutors allege wrongdoing. Mueller is a "special prosecutor." He's not an "investigator." He's a "prosecutor." He has investigators working for him, looking for evidence.

Look - what allegation of wrongdoing against Trump or the Trump campaign has been made? What law has been claimed to have been violated? What is Trump or the Trump campaign suspected of?

All the time, Trump's opponents cite the Mueller camp as to whether it will result in his impeachment. Are they just nutbags who have no idea that the Mueller investigation is just a neutral commission out to search for the truth of the Russian meddling, and it's nothing to do with Trump?
Brian Peacock wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 7:54 pm

You're dodging the point by shifting the burden. I said that Trump has made this all about him, a point reinforced every time he refers to investigations into Russian Meddling in the US democratic process as a #WITCHHUNT against him. What are your thoughts on that?
I've said it several times - he has good reason to think it's a hunt for him. It sure looks like one. Is it a "witch" hunt? Well, if they don't come out with real evidence of guilt of something, then it may well be? If Trump is, indeed, as he claims, innocent of any wrongdoing, then wouldn't it seem to him like a witch hunt?

To me, what's been publicized specifically - outside of the shouting and vague generalizations - all seems rather weak, at best. The allegation is so serious (the one touted in the media) - that Trump conspired with Russian government officials and "oligarchs" -- doesn't match the facts reported by those same media outlets. Nothing shows any conspiracy to commit any offense of any kind. Yet, they bleat about whether Trump is done in, whether it's "obstruction of justice," and whether he will be impeached. It's absurd, based on what they know and don't know when they say those things.
Brian Peacock wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 7:54 pm
While some might say that the Democrats could also have benefited from Russian Meddling too, this is not a hitherto-ignored balancing point or equivalence -
Whether they actually benefitted is not the test as to whether the Russians meddled. Did the Russians do something they were not legally allowed to do?

That's the thing about most of the "interference" reported in that famous "intelligence report." Almost none of it is a crime. Publishing facebook ads? Holding rallies? On what basis would the US government stop them from doing that? Facebook is an international company - Russians can't post adverts saying Hillary sucks ass? Come on. The only real crime "alluded" to is the hacking issue.


Brian Peacock wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 7:54 pm

that party had their servers raided by Russian-backed hackers while members of the Trump campaign have been shown to have had direct contacts with Russia. To claim that the investigations are fundamentally or functionally biased without acknowledging the context is disingenuous
No, they have not been shown to have had "direct contacts with Russia," not in any improper, let alone illegal, sense. If I'm running for office, and a Russian wants to meet with me, there is nothing wrong with meeting with them. I can talk to them - even if they work for the government. Since when is talking to Russians evidence of wrongdoing?

Look at how the investigation came to be - what it was based on -- who was funding and generating it, and feeding certain persons the cause to get FISA warrants. Look at Page and Strzok. I mean, Strzok had decided to let Hillary Clinton off the hook before he even interviewed her, and he had decided that Trump should be strung up and basically hanged in the first week of the investigation in 2016.
Brian Peacock wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 7:54 pm
Forty Two wrote:[
I've pointed out that the Mueller appointment was brought under the criminal regulations. There is a criminal investigation aspect of the investigation, and it's pretty obvious that the investigation is is targeted toward Trump. This is not a neutral commission, like the 9/11 Commission, which investigated after 9/11/01. That's the kind of commission I've said before should have been created.
What's more important to you here, the truth or Trump's political survival and the GOPs political credibility?
Oh, the truth. What's more important to you, the truth or getting Trump? Trump has nothing to do with the credibility of the GOP. They lost that a long time ago. As a party, the GOP offers nothing to me. I oppose most of their political positions - abortion, death penalty, prison policy, foreign policy, gay marriage, religion and state, the like. I support Trump for many of the reasons the Republican establishment don't like him, together with his economic policies, and so far his foreign affairs policies.
Brian Peacock wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 7:54 pm

While it's pretty clear that the investigations have encompassed the Trump campaign, to suggest that investigators which are operating, in part, under a criminal remit are politically biased is to elevate the disingenuous to a nobility which it clearly does not deserve. Does the concept of 'neutrality' require that a sitting president never be subject to investigations operating to a criminal standard (Coz that's what you've just suggested)?
There is evidence of political bias within the investigations.

I don't care if the President is investigated. Investigate away. Doesn't change the fact that so far, despite all the cries from the mainstream media and Trump's opponents - there is no evidence of any offense having been committed relative to the 2016 election. Is there? I keep asking that, and you seem reluctant to say "I'm not aware of any such evidence," even if you want to add to that, "but I think there might be evidence that we haven't been made privy to." If you say that, we're basically in agreement. If you disagree with the first part - what's the evidence? If you won't tell me, why not?

You voted for this man for president:



Mother of god.
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." —Voltaire
"They want to take away your hamburgers. This is what Stalin dreamt about but never achieved." —Sebastian Gorka

User avatar
Seabass
Posts: 7339
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:32 pm
About me: Pluviophile
Location: Covidiocracy
Contact:

Re: The Intelligence Community - Champion of Democracy

Post by Seabass » Tue Aug 07, 2018 1:55 am

Forty Two wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 12:04 am
Brian Peacock wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 7:54 pm
This, I'm afraid, just doesn't ring true. The impulse to cast this as an unjust #WITCHHUNT has become a pathology now. This goes far beyond the mere withholding of judgement you suggest to declaration that there's no evidential basis for the various Russian Meddling investigation, and moreso if-and-when they touch on the President or his campaign.
Not on my part. I have never said there is no evidential basis for the investigation of Russian meddling. The Russians and previously the Soviets have been meddling, spying, sabotaging, and even holding proxy wars against the US for 70 years. Of course they're up to shenanigans. I would be shocked and surprised if they weren't. I've said that consistently.
Brian Peacock wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 7:54 pm
Prosecutions allege wrongdoing, witnesses allege wrongdoing, but investigators investigate - yet the well had been well and truly poisoned by the time claims that the Investigatory arms the intelligence and law enforcement community were dealing in politically biased and baseless allegations became the go-to, stock Republican response.
Indeed, prosecutors allege wrongdoing. Mueller is a "special prosecutor." He's not an "investigator." He's a "prosecutor." He has investigators working for him, looking for evidence.

Look - what allegation of wrongdoing against Trump or the Trump campaign has been made? What law has been claimed to have been violated? What is Trump or the Trump campaign suspected of?

All the time, Trump's opponents cite the Mueller camp as to whether it will result in his impeachment. Are they just nutbags who have no idea that the Mueller investigation is just a neutral commission out to search for the truth of the Russian meddling, and it's nothing to do with Trump?
Brian Peacock wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 7:54 pm

You're dodging the point by shifting the burden. I said that Trump has made this all about him, a point reinforced every time he refers to investigations into Russian Meddling in the US democratic process as a #WITCHHUNT against him. What are your thoughts on that?
I've said it several times - he has good reason to think it's a hunt for him. It sure looks like one. Is it a "witch" hunt? Well, if they don't come out with real evidence of guilt of something, then it may well be? If Trump is, indeed, as he claims, innocent of any wrongdoing, then wouldn't it seem to him like a witch hunt?

To me, what's been publicized specifically - outside of the shouting and vague generalizations - all seems rather weak, at best. The allegation is so serious (the one touted in the media) - that Trump conspired with Russian government officials and "oligarchs" -- doesn't match the facts reported by those same media outlets. Nothing shows any conspiracy to commit any offense of any kind. Yet, they bleat about whether Trump is done in, whether it's "obstruction of justice," and whether he will be impeached. It's absurd, based on what they know and don't know when they say those things.
Brian Peacock wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 7:54 pm
While some might say that the Democrats could also have benefited from Russian Meddling too, this is not a hitherto-ignored balancing point or equivalence -
Whether they actually benefitted is not the test as to whether the Russians meddled. Did the Russians do something they were not legally allowed to do?

That's the thing about most of the "interference" reported in that famous "intelligence report." Almost none of it is a crime. Publishing facebook ads? Holding rallies? On what basis would the US government stop them from doing that? Facebook is an international company - Russians can't post adverts saying Hillary sucks ass? Come on. The only real crime "alluded" to is the hacking issue.


Brian Peacock wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 7:54 pm

that party had their servers raided by Russian-backed hackers while members of the Trump campaign have been shown to have had direct contacts with Russia. To claim that the investigations are fundamentally or functionally biased without acknowledging the context is disingenuous
No, they have not been shown to have had "direct contacts with Russia," not in any improper, let alone illegal, sense. If I'm running for office, and a Russian wants to meet with me, there is nothing wrong with meeting with them. I can talk to them - even if they work for the government. Since when is talking to Russians evidence of wrongdoing?

Look at how the investigation came to be - what it was based on -- who was funding and generating it, and feeding certain persons the cause to get FISA warrants. Look at Page and Strzok. I mean, Strzok had decided to let Hillary Clinton off the hook before he even interviewed her, and he had decided that Trump should be strung up and basically hanged in the first week of the investigation in 2016.
Brian Peacock wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 7:54 pm
Forty Two wrote:[
I've pointed out that the Mueller appointment was brought under the criminal regulations. There is a criminal investigation aspect of the investigation, and it's pretty obvious that the investigation is is targeted toward Trump. This is not a neutral commission, like the 9/11 Commission, which investigated after 9/11/01. That's the kind of commission I've said before should have been created.
What's more important to you here, the truth or Trump's political survival and the GOPs political credibility?
Oh, the truth. What's more important to you, the truth or getting Trump? Trump has nothing to do with the credibility of the GOP. They lost that a long time ago. As a party, the GOP offers nothing to me. I oppose most of their political positions - abortion, death penalty, prison policy, foreign policy, gay marriage, religion and state, the like. I support Trump for many of the reasons the Republican establishment don't like him, together with his economic policies, and so far his foreign affairs policies.
Brian Peacock wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 7:54 pm

While it's pretty clear that the investigations have encompassed the Trump campaign, to suggest that investigators which are operating, in part, under a criminal remit are politically biased is to elevate the disingenuous to a nobility which it clearly does not deserve. Does the concept of 'neutrality' require that a sitting president never be subject to investigations operating to a criminal standard (Coz that's what you've just suggested)?
There is evidence of political bias within the investigations.

I don't care if the President is investigated. Investigate away. Doesn't change the fact that so far, despite all the cries from the mainstream media and Trump's opponents - there is no evidence of any offense having been committed relative to the 2016 election. Is there? I keep asking that, and you seem reluctant to say "I'm not aware of any such evidence," even if you want to add to that, "but I think there might be evidence that we haven't been made privy to." If you say that, we're basically in agreement. If you disagree with the first part - what's the evidence? If you won't tell me, why not?

You voted for a man who thinks climate change is a Chinese Hoax. Holy shit.

In a strikingly ignorant tweet, Trump gets almost everything about California wildfires wrong
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik ... story.html

No one would mistake President Trump for an expert on climate change or water policy, but a tweet he issued late Sunday about California’s wildfires deserves some sort of award for most glaring misstatements about those two issues in the smallest number of words.

Trump blamed the fires on “bad environmental laws which aren’t allowing massive amount of readily available water to be properly utilized.” He complained that water needed for firefighting is being “diverted into the Pacific Ocean.”

What he overlooked, plainly, is the increasing agreement among experts that intensifying climate change has contributed to the intensity of the wildfire season. California’s woodlands have been getting drier and hotter. As my colleagues Rong-Gong Lin II and Javier Panzar reported over the weekend, “California has been getting hotter for some time, but July was in a league of its own.”

The current wildfires, which have killed nine people and consumed nearly 400,000 acres of woodland, destroyed 1,100 homes and forced the evacuation of thousands of residents, are among the worst in the state’s history. They’re unrelated to water supplies or environmental laws.

Let’s take Trump’s misconceptions in order. The likeliest explanation for his take on water is that he’s confused by the demands for more irrigation water he’s hearing from Republican officeholders in the Central Valley. They’re the people who grouse about water being “wasted” by being diverted to the ocean, rather than into their fields.

Their demands have nothing to do with the availability of water for firefighting. Fire agencies haven’t been complaining about a lack of water, especially water “diverted” to the Pacific. Major reservoirs are near the worst fire zones; the Carr fire is near Lake Shasta and Whiskeytown Lake and the Mendocino Complex fire is near Clear Lake. All are at or near their historical levels.

“There have been no issues getting water from them,” Scott McLean, a spokesman for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, or Cal Fire, told me.

Cal Fire, which is managing the wildfire battle, has deployed some 200 water tenders to the fire zone and is dispatching air tankers as flying conditions permit.

“The idea that there isn’t enough water is the craziest thing in the world,” says Peter Gleick, president emeritus of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security in Oakland. “There’s absolutely no shortage.”
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." —Voltaire
"They want to take away your hamburgers. This is what Stalin dreamt about but never achieved." —Sebastian Gorka

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 59295
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: The Intelligence Community - Champion of Democracy

Post by pErvinalia » Tue Aug 07, 2018 3:16 am

@42, the Mueller investigation is definitely focussed on Trump and his team (in addition to general Russian meddling). The allegations and possible laws broken have all been discussed at length before. It seems to me the biggest potential for trouble is the meeting that Don Jnr took with the Russians about dirt on Hillary. And don't pretend we haven't all discussed this to death previously.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: The Intelligence Community - Champion of Democracy

Post by Forty Two » Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:09 am

In the discussions I've had here, the "allegations" are vague and non-specific as to what law was broken, and no evidence was cited to or described.

If the Don Jr. meeting is, as you say, their biggest potential for trouble, then I rest my case. It's not illegal to get information on a political opponent from a foreign source.
Even if Trump campaign officials had happily accepted damaging information about Hillary Clinton from the Russians -- and there is no evidence that they did -- so far there has been nothing to prove that they engaged in illegal activity through their interest in obtaining the material. It might be morally and politically objectionable to gather dirt about your campaign opponent from an enemy of the United States, but the mere acceptance and use of the material would not be illegal.
In fact, if you could stretch the conspiracy statute to apply to your right to political free speech under the First Amendment, it would likely also provide a shield from prosecution. It really wouldn't matter that you got your info from the Russians.
The idea that this is some kind of campaign finance law violation doesn't fly either. The statute requires campaign solicitation of cash or a "thing of value" from a foreign national. Information about Hillary Clinton is not what the law had in mind. The exchange of information is a core First Amendment/free speech concept, and Americans are free to accept ideas and information from US citizens and foreign nationals alike, even if the information is damaging to a political opponent.
https://www.cnn.com/2017/07/11/opinions ... index.html
If you charged Trump campaign officials with this as a crime, you would have to charge Clinton campaign officials if they accepted information or volunteer services from, say, undocumented aliens, as they are clearly foreign nationals.
As per attorney Alan Dershowitz,
He said the worst case scenario now seems to be that Russians got in touch with Trump Jr. and promised him information that may have been obtained illegally. But he said current law allows people to use illegally obtained information, and compared Trump Jr.'s actions to those of famous U.S. newspapers.
"That's what the New York Times did in the Pentagon Papers," he said. "That's what the Washington Post did and many other newspapers did with information from Snowden and Manning."

"You allowed legally to use material that was obtained illegally as long as you had nothing to do with the illegal nature of obtaining the information," he said.
"There's really no difference under the first amendment between a campaigner using information he obtained ... from somebody who obtained it illegally, and a newspaper doing it," he said. "So I think this is conduct that would be covered by the first amendment. It's also not prohibited by law."

"There's been so much overwrought claim... there are people who are talking about treason," he added. "I can't believe the New York Times had an op-ed yesterday in which treason was mentioned without even looking at the definition."
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/alan ... -committed

Once again, what law can be alleged to have been broken? What evidence is known to exist to support the charge?

What about this? If the allegation is that Donald Trump Jr met with a former Russian prosecutor who claimed to have juicy information on Hillary Clinton, and that Trump Jr. said that he really really really wanted that information, and that the information was actually delivered to him (which nobody alleges), and that the Russians involved really really really wanted Trump to win the election, and had the express purpose to help Trump, and Don Jr. knew they wanted to help Trump win -- what's the crime?
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 59295
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: The Intelligence Community - Champion of Democracy

Post by pErvinalia » Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:28 am

The same crime we discussed the last ten times. I'm not interested in doing this again. I'm happy to wait and see what the investigation comes up with.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: The Intelligence Community - Champion of Democracy

Post by Forty Two » Tue Aug 07, 2018 12:00 pm

We didn't discuss one that actually has any merit. There are references to federal election law and "thing of value," but there is zero reason to think that it includes the giving of information.

If it did, then if some Slovakian supermodel had information on Donald Trump, say, engaged in water sports in a Russian hotel room, and she was going to go on record as saying "I was there, and I saw it." And, she and a former Russian crown prosecutor went to meet with Chelsea Clinton saying she, the Russians and the Slovakians, wanted to help Hillary win, and they had juicy information about Trump and sexual improprieties.... would it be a crime for Chelsea to meet with them? To get the info? To use the info?

The answer is, of course not. The rule isn't different for Trump. There is no law that says that's illegal, no matter how many times you want to claim otherwise.

In short, if that's the biggest potential problem, then I'm right. The investigation, as it pertains to Trump and the Trump campaign, is big nothingburger. There can be no prosecution here.

Further, any liberal person would not possibly want the law to be what the prosecute Trump for receiving a thing of value (information) from a foreigner for the purpose of effecting the outcome of the election. No case ever has prosecuted anyone - ever - for receiving negative information about a campaign opponent from a foreign source. Is Trump the first one to really really like the idea of getting info from a foreigner and then meeting with them to see what they have?

So, imagine that a foreigner — say, a Chinese businessman — thinks that President Trump did something bad (say, in building a Trump hotel in Beijing, Trump harassed a Chinese actress and pulled a Harvey Weinstein act in his bathrobe). Maybe the bad thing was criminal but not something the Chinese government wanted to prosecute, or maybe it was just very scandalous. In any case, the Chinese assemble the evidence. It’s important evidence, which would be valuable for American voters to consider. Under the theory applied to Trump, if the Clinton campaign accepted that information, they'd be committing a crime.

Under the law cited for the thing of value to effect an election law - even if the Chinese gave the information to the Washington Post, if their purpose was to effect the campaign - i.e. if there was an email regarding the info like in the Trump case where they said "...it's to show the Chinese support for the Clinton campaign..." then it would be an illegal contribution. The law doesn't say the contribution is given directly to the campaign - it applies even if the contribution is indirect, to other persons.

Also, note:
the Clinton campaign proactively sought dirt on Trump from Russian government sources. They did it through cutouts. In April 2016, Clinton campaign lawyer Marc Elias retained opposition research firm Fusion GPS to compile incriminating information on Trump. Fusion GPS in turn hired Christopher Steele, a former British MI6 operative with sources among Russian government officials. The result was the salacious dossier, whose sources included “a senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure” and “a former top level intelligence officer still active in the Kremlin.” Steele’s work was paid for by Clinton’s presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee. That means a paid agent of the Clinton campaign approached Russian officials for damaging material on Trump.

Clinton claims she did not know about Steele’s work. It doesn’t matter. Imagine if Cohen, or another lawyer paid by the Trump campaign and Republican National Committee, had hired a former British spy with campaign money to collect dirt on Clinton from Russian intelligence and foreign ministry officials. Do you think that everyone in Washington would be saying: “There’s no evidence Trump knew, so no big deal — nothing to see here”? Of course not.

Moreover, Clinton officials have defended Steele’s actions. Brian Fallon, Clinton’s campaign spokesman, has said he “would have volunteered to go to Europe and try to help” Steele and would happily have spread dirt obtained from the Russians. “Opposition research happens on every campaign,” he told The Post. He also said: “I am damn glad [Elias] pursued this on behalf of our campaign and only regret more of this material was not verified in time for the voters to learn it before the election.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... 069ad41cb6

I.e., not a crime. It's not tu quoque, because it's not even wrongful.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Seabass
Posts: 7339
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:32 pm
About me: Pluviophile
Location: Covidiocracy
Contact:

Re: The Intelligence Community - Champion of Democracy

Post by Seabass » Tue Aug 07, 2018 7:39 pm

So much for "we only oppose illegal immigration". The ethnic cleansing continues:
Now the Trump administration wants to limit citizenship for legal immigrants
The most significant change to legal immigration in decades could affect millions of would-be citizens, say lawyers and advocates.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigr ... ts-n897931

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is expected to issue a proposal in coming weeks that would make it harder for legal immigrants to become citizens or get green cards if they have ever used a range of popular public welfare programs, including Obamacare, four sources with knowledge of the plan told NBC News.

The move, which would not need congressional approval, is part of White House senior adviser Stephen Miller's plan to limit the number of migrants who obtain legal status in the U.S. each year.

Details of the rulemaking proposal are still being finalized, but based on a recent draft seen last week and described to NBC News, immigrants living legally in the U.S. who have ever used or whose household members have ever used Obamacare, children's health insurance, food stamps and other benefits could be hindered from obtaining legal status in the U.S.

Immigration lawyers and advocates and public health researchers say it would be the biggest change to the legal immigration system in decades and estimate that more than 20 million immigrants could be affected. They say it would fall particularly hard on immigrants working jobs that don't pay enough to support their families.

Many are like Louis Charles, a Haitian green-card holder seeking citizenship who, despite working up to 80 hours a week as a nursing assistant, has had to use public programs to support his disabled adult daughter.

Using some public benefits like Social Security Insurance has already hindered immigrants from obtaining legal status in the past, but the programs included in the recent draft plan could mean that immigrant households earning as much as 250 percent of the poverty level could be rejected.

A version of the plan has been sent to the White House Office of Management and Budget, the sources said, the final step before publishing a rule in the federal register. Reuters first reported that the White House was considering such a plan in February.

A spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security said: "The administration is committed to enforcing existing immigration law, which is clearly intended to protect the American taxpayer by ensuring that foreign nationals seeking to enter or remain in the U.S are self-sufficient. Any proposed changes would ensure that the government takes the responsibility of being good stewards of taxpayer funds seriously and adjudicates immigration benefit requests in accordance with the law."

Miller, along with several of his former congressional colleagues who now hold prominent positions in the Trump administration, have long sought to decrease the number of immigrants who obtain legal status in the U.S. each year. And even before the rule is in place, the administration has made it more difficult for immigrants to gain green cards and for green-card holders to gain citizenship.

full article:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigr ... ts-n897931
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." —Voltaire
"They want to take away your hamburgers. This is what Stalin dreamt about but never achieved." —Sebastian Gorka

User avatar
Seabass
Posts: 7339
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:32 pm
About me: Pluviophile
Location: Covidiocracy
Contact:

Re: The Intelligence Community - Champion of Democracy

Post by Seabass » Tue Aug 07, 2018 7:54 pm

Another crook in the Trump administration. Shocking, I know!
New Details About Wilbur Ross’ Business Point To Pattern Of Grifting
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexand ... -grifting/

In a presidential cabinet plagued by ethical problems, it can be easy to forget about Wilbur Ross. Most of the attention tends to center around obvious abuses, like Scott Pruitt getting a $43,000 sound-proof booth in his office or Tom Price wasting $341,000 on jet travel. But while Ross’ antics are more complicated, they involve far more money.

...

If even half of the accusations are legitimate, the current United States secretary of commerce could rank among the biggest grifters in American history.
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." —Voltaire
"They want to take away your hamburgers. This is what Stalin dreamt about but never achieved." —Sebastian Gorka

User avatar
Joe
Posts: 4978
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 1:10 am
Location: The Hovel under the Mountain
Contact:

Re: The Intelligence Community - Champion of Democracy

Post by Joe » Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:35 pm

Forty Two wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 6:32 pm
Joe wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:51 am
Forty Two wrote:
Sun Aug 05, 2018 7:33 pm

Evidence of what?
Mueller's counterintelligence investigation. We have not yet established that you agree there is one. Do you?
Do I agree that there is a Mueller investigation which is styled both as a criminal investigation, and also a counterintelligence investigation, sure.

However, evidence that there "is" a counterintelligence investigation isn't what I'm asking for evidence of here - what I'm asking for evidence of is wrongdoing on the part of Trump or the Trump campaign in relation to Russia's activities surrounding the 2016 election. Are you aware of any evidence of that? If so, was any of that evidence published by an intelligence agency?
Joe wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:51 am

Why would the intelligence agencies share that with you?
That's a different question. They would share the information with the American people and with legislators, because if they are going to say that they have evidence of the President of US engaged in wrongdoing with Russia relative to the 2016 election, then it would be helpful to the people to believe that extraordinarily serious allegation if there was some evidence available. Otherwise, they're asking us to believe something without evidence.

Also, have they even alleged that Trump or the Trump campaign engaged in wrongdoing with Russia in relation to the 2016 campaign? If so, which agency alleged it and on what basis? Do you know?

I think we need to establish whether you think that there is an allegation or evidence from an intelligence agency that Trump or the Trump campaign engaged in any wrongdoing in relation to the 2016 campaign. Do you think that? If so, on what basis? What's the allegation, and what's the evidence?
You want to know what I think? I'm glad you've finally admitted that Mueller has a counterintelligence investigation on his hands. You've been running and hiding every time I've mentioned it for the last few months.

As for allegations or evidence from the intelligence agencies, why would you want to know what I think about that? If a US person was the primary subject of an intelligence agency product, that would be goddamned irregular, and classified out of sight. If I was cleared at that level, I wouldn't tell you what I knew or even that I held such a clearance. You don't know squat about our intelligence agencies; that's what I think!

As for evidence of wrong doing by Trump or his campaign, you are asking a stupid question that proves nothing. DOJ doesn't release that kind of information during an ongoing investigation, so anyone who says they know such things is lying or leaking, and the GOP twats who've been pushing this trope for months know it. The only real evidence we'll probably have until such time as Mueller's report is made public are "confessions" from the flaming idiots starring in this media circus.

So, now that you've admitted the counterintelligence aspect of Mueller's investigation, do you think it should be shut down?
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
"Wisdom requires a flexible mind." - Dan Carlin
"If you vote for idiots, idiots will run the country." - Dr. Kori Schake

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: The Intelligence Community - Champion of Democracy

Post by Forty Two » Wed Aug 08, 2018 12:02 pm

Joe wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:35 pm

You want to know what I think? I'm glad you've finally admitted that Mueller has a counterintelligence investigation on his hands. You've been running and hiding every time I've mentioned it for the last few months.
That's not accurate. I pointed out it was initiated under the criminal regulations. That doesn't mean it's not also counterintelligence because Comey's investigation was under the rubric of both. Do you admit that the Rosenstein order activates the criminal regulations?
Joe wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:35 pm

As for allegations or evidence from the intelligence agencies, why would you want to know what I think about that?
I'm not asking about what you think, as in what your opinion is based on the facts. I'm asking about what facts you know. Are you aware of whether there is an allegation or evidence of Trump wrongdoing relative to to the 2016 election? If so, what is it that you are aware of? That's the issue that's been bandied about in the press for the last 2 years. Will Trump be impeached or indicted for obstruction of justice because of his or his campaign's involvement with the 2016 election interference? There hasn't been any other reason offered for his impeachment or indictment, has there?
Joe wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:35 pm

If a US person was the primary subject of an intelligence agency product, that would be goddamned irregular, and classified out of sight.
Was Trump the "primary subject" of Comey's investigation? Is he the "primary subject" now? Odd... the other thread was was all about telling me how he isn't, because the Comey and Mueller investigations are just about "Russian interference in the 2016 election" and they'll go after anyone involved, come what may - and Trump is "running when nobody is chasing." Does he look guilty because the guilty run when they are not chased? Or, is he the "primary subject" of the investigation and hence, being chased, and it is therefore, reasonable for him to be concerned about it?

It would, for sure, be "classified." But once again, the intelligence agencies can declare whatever they want classified - I have no control over it. But I don't believe them. Everything about the Snowdon thing was classified when he released it and the NSA lied about it, and they broke the law - was all classified. Whether the North Vietnamese attacked US ships in the Gulf of Tonkin was classified, and the US people were told to believe them. Rather unjustified belief, that.

Or, like when the intelligence folks said it was a "slam dunk" that Iraq had WMD - CIA director Tenet - and that was confirmed by a CIA deputy director Morell (a 33 year CIA guy) --
“When we wrote pieces for the president, the analysts wrote with authority on the [weapons of mass destruction] issue,” Morell writes. “This is why I personally never found fault with George Tenet’s alleged “slam dunk” comment.”

“The way the [intelligence] analysts talked and wrote about their judgments,” Morell adds, “would have led anyone to think it was a slam dunk— that is, that Saddam definitely had active WMD programs. No one ever said to me, [agency analyst Jami] Miscik, [ex-director John] McLaughlin, Tenet, [Condoleezza] Rice, or the president, ‘You know, there is a chance he might not have them.’ Such a statement would have gotten everyone’s attention,” Morell writes.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/in ... 302cf2b99e

The backup on that was "classified", of course - can't see it - sources and methods and such - you know, national security, so the citizens being asked to support action taken in conformity with the views of the intelligence community are told "here's what we think, but I can't show you what we base it on..." Not good enough for me.
Joe wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:35 pm

If I was cleared at that level, I wouldn't tell you what I knew or even that I held such a clearance. You don't know squat about our intelligence agencies; that's what I think!
Not relevant. I'm not saying I know what they know. I'm saying the issue vague reports with "levels of confidence" and don't provide the facts to back it up. They, of course, say that we need clearances and only the top top guys can see the real information, but trust us it's there. So, when the politicians say we're going to war with X country because of those intelligence reports, you just have to trust that they know what they're doing.

I don't claim to know much about them - that's the problem. However, next time I'm told we need to go to war because a confidential/secret intelligence report says that so-and-so is up to no good in West Bumfuck, I for one am going to need to see the evidence. Too many times in my lifetime, they've been wrong and/or lied.

And they can publish a report like the 2017 Background to “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections”: The Analytic Process and Cyber Incident Attribution" all they want, but I want to see what evidence they're basing it on. When I read the report, it is vague, it is based in some parts on "moderate" confidence of certain agencies, and it focuses most of its word-count on explaining why Putin had a preference for Trumpian policies, and the "propaganda" efforts on the part of Russians. The only thing mentioned that would even be criminal was hacking, and the details on that are conclusory and lacking (and from other sources, it seems that none of the systems supposedly "hacked" were turned over to the FBI or any other agency to inspect and do a forensic analysis, and it's hard to see what happened with a hand-held PDA device when someone is taking a hammer to it, or a computer system that is being deleted and bleach-bit wiped...you know, like with a cloth).

Joe wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:35 pm
As for evidence of wrong doing by Trump or his campaign, you are asking a stupid question that proves nothing. DOJ doesn't release that kind of information during an ongoing investigation,
It's not a stupid question. I don't care when they choose to do what they do.
If they don't release the evidence, then I don't believe them. I find their allegation interesting. Like, when the cops arrest somebody and say he's the guy who dunnit. Fine. You say he dunnit. Now prove it. Oh, you're not duty-bound to tell me now because you have an ongoing investigation? Fine. Then as long as your investigation is ongoing, then I withhold my judgment and I'm not going to be outraged by any "conclusions" you seek to publish. And, don't publish conclusions you want me to believe, if you're not going to back them up. Oh, so and so is a big fat criminal, but you can't tell me why because of sources and methods? Oh, well, then. Carry on. I don't believe you. I might, when you release the information on which you base your conclusion.

Joe wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:35 pm

so anyone who says they know such things is lying or leaking,
Yes, there have been tons of leaks - massive leaks. It's been a seive, with asshats like Adam Schiff leaking consistently stuff. Leaks with political spin. To do what? Get the public to believe certain things. Well, I'm tired of that kind of manipulation, and I am not going to believe it until I see persuasive evidence.
Joe wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:35 pm
and the GOP twats who've been pushing this trope for months know it.
What trope? What is it that you know to be true?
Joe wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:35 pm

The only real evidence we'll probably have until such time as Mueller's report is made public are "confessions" from the flaming idiots starring in this media circus.
Good - so we agree the only "real evidence" we have is at most "confessions from flaming idiots in this media circus." I choose not to believe them. What do you conclude from the flaming idiot evidence? Treason? Obstruction of justice? What? If not, then you and I are in agreement. If so, I can't wait to hear your argument.
Joe wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:35 pm
So, now that you've admitted the counterintelligence aspect of Mueller's investigation, do you think it should be shut down?
Nope. Never said it should be shut down (from the outside). I think that it should end when Mueller is done.

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?

Or, do you admit that there is no evidence (other than at most flaming idiot evidence) of such wrongdoing?

If you have seen more than flaming idiot evidence, then please explain what that is. But since you've already said the only evidence you're likely to see is flaming idiot evidence, I can't imagine you can say now that there is good evidence from which you can conclude Trump did something wrong relative to Russia in the 2016 campaign.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Joe
Posts: 4978
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 1:10 am
Location: The Hovel under the Mountain
Contact:

Re: The Intelligence Community - Champion of Democracy

Post by Joe » Thu Aug 09, 2018 3:13 am

Forty Two wrote:
Wed Aug 08, 2018 12:02 pm
Joe wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:35 pm

You want to know what I think? I'm glad you've finally admitted that Mueller has a counterintelligence investigation on his hands. You've been running and hiding every time I've mentioned it for the last few months.
That's not accurate. I pointed out it was initiated under the criminal regulations. That doesn't mean it's not also counterintelligence because Comey's investigation was under the rubric of both. Do you admit that the Rosenstein order activates the criminal regulations?
Joe wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:35 pm

As for allegations or evidence from the intelligence agencies, why would you want to know what I think about that?
I'm not asking about what you think, as in what your opinion is based on the facts. I'm asking about what facts you know. Are you aware of whether there is an allegation or evidence of Trump wrongdoing relative to to the 2016 election? If so, what is it that you are aware of? That's the issue that's been bandied about in the press for the last 2 years. Will Trump be impeached or indicted for obstruction of justice because of his or his campaign's involvement with the 2016 election interference? There hasn't been any other reason offered for his impeachment or indictment, has there?
Joe wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:35 pm

If a US person was the primary subject of an intelligence agency product, that would be goddamned irregular, and classified out of sight.
Was Trump the "primary subject" of Comey's investigation? Is he the "primary subject" now? Odd... the other thread was was all about telling me how he isn't, because the Comey and Mueller investigations are just about "Russian interference in the 2016 election" and they'll go after anyone involved, come what may - and Trump is "running when nobody is chasing." Does he look guilty because the guilty run when they are not chased? Or, is he the "primary subject" of the investigation and hence, being chased, and it is therefore, reasonable for him to be concerned about it?

It would, for sure, be "classified." But once again, the intelligence agencies can declare whatever they want classified - I have no control over it. But I don't believe them. Everything about the Snowdon thing was classified when he released it and the NSA lied about it, and they broke the law - was all classified. Whether the North Vietnamese attacked US ships in the Gulf of Tonkin was classified, and the US people were told to believe them. Rather unjustified belief, that.

Or, like when the intelligence folks said it was a "slam dunk" that Iraq had WMD - CIA director Tenet - and that was confirmed by a CIA deputy director Morell (a 33 year CIA guy) --
“When we wrote pieces for the president, the analysts wrote with authority on the [weapons of mass destruction] issue,” Morell writes. “This is why I personally never found fault with George Tenet’s alleged “slam dunk” comment.”

“The way the [intelligence] analysts talked and wrote about their judgments,” Morell adds, “would have led anyone to think it was a slam dunk— that is, that Saddam definitely had active WMD programs. No one ever said to me, [agency analyst Jami] Miscik, [ex-director John] McLaughlin, Tenet, [Condoleezza] Rice, or the president, ‘You know, there is a chance he might not have them.’ Such a statement would have gotten everyone’s attention,” Morell writes.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/in ... 302cf2b99e

The backup on that was "classified", of course - can't see it - sources and methods and such - you know, national security, so the citizens being asked to support action taken in conformity with the views of the intelligence community are told "here's what we think, but I can't show you what we base it on..." Not good enough for me.
Joe wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:35 pm

If I was cleared at that level, I wouldn't tell you what I knew or even that I held such a clearance. You don't know squat about our intelligence agencies; that's what I think!
Not relevant. I'm not saying I know what they know. I'm saying the issue vague reports with "levels of confidence" and don't provide the facts to back it up. They, of course, say that we need clearances and only the top top guys can see the real information, but trust us it's there. So, when the politicians say we're going to war with X country because of those intelligence reports, you just have to trust that they know what they're doing.

I don't claim to know much about them - that's the problem. However, next time I'm told we need to go to war because a confidential/secret intelligence report says that so-and-so is up to no good in West Bumfuck, I for one am going to need to see the evidence. Too many times in my lifetime, they've been wrong and/or lied.

And they can publish a report like the 2017 Background to “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections”: The Analytic Process and Cyber Incident Attribution" all they want, but I want to see what evidence they're basing it on. When I read the report, it is vague, it is based in some parts on "moderate" confidence of certain agencies, and it focuses most of its word-count on explaining why Putin had a preference for Trumpian policies, and the "propaganda" efforts on the part of Russians. The only thing mentioned that would even be criminal was hacking, and the details on that are conclusory and lacking (and from other sources, it seems that none of the systems supposedly "hacked" were turned over to the FBI or any other agency to inspect and do a forensic analysis, and it's hard to see what happened with a hand-held PDA device when someone is taking a hammer to it, or a computer system that is being deleted and bleach-bit wiped...you know, like with a cloth).

Joe wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:35 pm
As for evidence of wrong doing by Trump or his campaign, you are asking a stupid question that proves nothing. DOJ doesn't release that kind of information during an ongoing investigation,
It's not a stupid question. I don't care when they choose to do what they do.
If they don't release the evidence, then I don't believe them. I find their allegation interesting. Like, when the cops arrest somebody and say he's the guy who dunnit. Fine. You say he dunnit. Now prove it. Oh, you're not duty-bound to tell me now because you have an ongoing investigation? Fine. Then as long as your investigation is ongoing, then I withhold my judgment and I'm not going to be outraged by any "conclusions" you seek to publish. And, don't publish conclusions you want me to believe, if you're not going to back them up. Oh, so and so is a big fat criminal, but you can't tell me why because of sources and methods? Oh, well, then. Carry on. I don't believe you. I might, when you release the information on which you base your conclusion.

Joe wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:35 pm

so anyone who says they know such things is lying or leaking,
Yes, there have been tons of leaks - massive leaks. It's been a seive, with asshats like Adam Schiff leaking consistently stuff. Leaks with political spin. To do what? Get the public to believe certain things. Well, I'm tired of that kind of manipulation, and I am not going to believe it until I see persuasive evidence.
Joe wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:35 pm
and the GOP twats who've been pushing this trope for months know it.
What trope? What is it that you know to be true?
Joe wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:35 pm

The only real evidence we'll probably have until such time as Mueller's report is made public are "confessions" from the flaming idiots starring in this media circus.
Good - so we agree the only "real evidence" we have is at most "confessions from flaming idiots in this media circus." I choose not to believe them. What do you conclude from the flaming idiot evidence? Treason? Obstruction of justice? What? If not, then you and I are in agreement. If so, I can't wait to hear your argument.
Joe wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:35 pm
So, now that you've admitted the counterintelligence aspect of Mueller's investigation, do you think it should be shut down?
Nope. Never said it should be shut down (from the outside). I think that it should end when Mueller is done.

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?

Or, do you admit that there is no evidence (other than at most flaming idiot evidence) of such wrongdoing?

If you have seen more than flaming idiot evidence, then please explain what that is. But since you've already said the only evidence you're likely to see is flaming idiot evidence, I can't imagine you can say now that there is good evidence from which you can conclude Trump did something wrong relative to Russia in the 2016 campaign.
So, 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?
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?
Okay, we can't dismiss the confessions because they come from flaming idiots. That would be an ad hominem. Trump's ill considered statements and tweets could be evidence against him if combined with other information. However, 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? :flog:
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
"Wisdom requires a flexible mind." - Dan Carlin
"If you vote for idiots, idiots will run the country." - Dr. Kori Schake

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 59295
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: The Intelligence Community - Champion of Democracy

Post by pErvinalia » Thu Aug 09, 2018 3:51 am

Joe wrote:
Thu Aug 09, 2018 3:13 am
Forty Two wrote:
Wed Aug 08, 2018 12:02 pm
Joe wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:35 pm

You want to know what I think? I'm glad you've finally admitted that Mueller has a counterintelligence investigation on his hands. You've been running and hiding every time I've mentioned it for the last few months.
That's not accurate. I pointed out it was initiated under the criminal regulations. That doesn't mean it's not also counterintelligence because Comey's investigation was under the rubric of both. Do you admit that the Rosenstein order activates the criminal regulations?
Joe wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:35 pm

As for allegations or evidence from the intelligence agencies, why would you want to know what I think about that?
I'm not asking about what you think, as in what your opinion is based on the facts. I'm asking about what facts you know. Are you aware of whether there is an allegation or evidence of Trump wrongdoing relative to to the 2016 election? If so, what is it that you are aware of? That's the issue that's been bandied about in the press for the last 2 years. Will Trump be impeached or indicted for obstruction of justice because of his or his campaign's involvement with the 2016 election interference? There hasn't been any other reason offered for his impeachment or indictment, has there?
Joe wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:35 pm

If a US person was the primary subject of an intelligence agency product, that would be goddamned irregular, and classified out of sight.
Was Trump the "primary subject" of Comey's investigation? Is he the "primary subject" now? Odd... the other thread was was all about telling me how he isn't, because the Comey and Mueller investigations are just about "Russian interference in the 2016 election" and they'll go after anyone involved, come what may - and Trump is "running when nobody is chasing." Does he look guilty because the guilty run when they are not chased? Or, is he the "primary subject" of the investigation and hence, being chased, and it is therefore, reasonable for him to be concerned about it?

It would, for sure, be "classified." But once again, the intelligence agencies can declare whatever they want classified - I have no control over it. But I don't believe them. Everything about the Snowdon thing was classified when he released it and the NSA lied about it, and they broke the law - was all classified. Whether the North Vietnamese attacked US ships in the Gulf of Tonkin was classified, and the US people were told to believe them. Rather unjustified belief, that.

Or, like when the intelligence folks said it was a "slam dunk" that Iraq had WMD - CIA director Tenet - and that was confirmed by a CIA deputy director Morell (a 33 year CIA guy) --
“When we wrote pieces for the president, the analysts wrote with authority on the [weapons of mass destruction] issue,” Morell writes. “This is why I personally never found fault with George Tenet’s alleged “slam dunk” comment.”

“The way the [intelligence] analysts talked and wrote about their judgments,” Morell adds, “would have led anyone to think it was a slam dunk— that is, that Saddam definitely had active WMD programs. No one ever said to me, [agency analyst Jami] Miscik, [ex-director John] McLaughlin, Tenet, [Condoleezza] Rice, or the president, ‘You know, there is a chance he might not have them.’ Such a statement would have gotten everyone’s attention,” Morell writes.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/in ... 302cf2b99e

The backup on that was "classified", of course - can't see it - sources and methods and such - you know, national security, so the citizens being asked to support action taken in conformity with the views of the intelligence community are told "here's what we think, but I can't show you what we base it on..." Not good enough for me.
Joe wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:35 pm

If I was cleared at that level, I wouldn't tell you what I knew or even that I held such a clearance. You don't know squat about our intelligence agencies; that's what I think!
Not relevant. I'm not saying I know what they know. I'm saying the issue vague reports with "levels of confidence" and don't provide the facts to back it up. They, of course, say that we need clearances and only the top top guys can see the real information, but trust us it's there. So, when the politicians say we're going to war with X country because of those intelligence reports, you just have to trust that they know what they're doing.

I don't claim to know much about them - that's the problem. However, next time I'm told we need to go to war because a confidential/secret intelligence report says that so-and-so is up to no good in West Bumfuck, I for one am going to need to see the evidence. Too many times in my lifetime, they've been wrong and/or lied.

And they can publish a report like the 2017 Background to “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections”: The Analytic Process and Cyber Incident Attribution" all they want, but I want to see what evidence they're basing it on. When I read the report, it is vague, it is based in some parts on "moderate" confidence of certain agencies, and it focuses most of its word-count on explaining why Putin had a preference for Trumpian policies, and the "propaganda" efforts on the part of Russians. The only thing mentioned that would even be criminal was hacking, and the details on that are conclusory and lacking (and from other sources, it seems that none of the systems supposedly "hacked" were turned over to the FBI or any other agency to inspect and do a forensic analysis, and it's hard to see what happened with a hand-held PDA device when someone is taking a hammer to it, or a computer system that is being deleted and bleach-bit wiped...you know, like with a cloth).

Joe wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:35 pm
As for evidence of wrong doing by Trump or his campaign, you are asking a stupid question that proves nothing. DOJ doesn't release that kind of information during an ongoing investigation,
It's not a stupid question. I don't care when they choose to do what they do.
If they don't release the evidence, then I don't believe them. I find their allegation interesting. Like, when the cops arrest somebody and say he's the guy who dunnit. Fine. You say he dunnit. Now prove it. Oh, you're not duty-bound to tell me now because you have an ongoing investigation? Fine. Then as long as your investigation is ongoing, then I withhold my judgment and I'm not going to be outraged by any "conclusions" you seek to publish. And, don't publish conclusions you want me to believe, if you're not going to back them up. Oh, so and so is a big fat criminal, but you can't tell me why because of sources and methods? Oh, well, then. Carry on. I don't believe you. I might, when you release the information on which you base your conclusion.

Joe wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:35 pm

so anyone who says they know such things is lying or leaking,
Yes, there have been tons of leaks - massive leaks. It's been a seive, with asshats like Adam Schiff leaking consistently stuff. Leaks with political spin. To do what? Get the public to believe certain things. Well, I'm tired of that kind of manipulation, and I am not going to believe it until I see persuasive evidence.
Joe wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:35 pm
and the GOP twats who've been pushing this trope for months know it.
What trope? What is it that you know to be true?
Joe wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:35 pm

The only real evidence we'll probably have until such time as Mueller's report is made public are "confessions" from the flaming idiots starring in this media circus.
Good - so we agree the only "real evidence" we have is at most "confessions from flaming idiots in this media circus." I choose not to believe them. What do you conclude from the flaming idiot evidence? Treason? Obstruction of justice? What? If not, then you and I are in agreement. If so, I can't wait to hear your argument.
Joe wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:35 pm
So, now that you've admitted the counterintelligence aspect of Mueller's investigation, do you think it should be shut down?
Nope. Never said it should be shut down (from the outside). I think that it should end when Mueller is done.

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?

Or, do you admit that there is no evidence (other than at most flaming idiot evidence) of such wrongdoing?

If you have seen more than flaming idiot evidence, then please explain what that is. But since you've already said the only evidence you're likely to see is flaming idiot evidence, I can't imagine you can say now that there is good evidence from which you can conclude Trump did something wrong relative to Russia in the 2016 campaign.
So, 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?
So he can avoid being pinned down.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
Joe
Posts: 4978
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 1:10 am
Location: The Hovel under the Mountain
Contact:

Re: The Intelligence Community - Champion of Democracy

Post by Joe » Thu Aug 09, 2018 4:05 am

pErvinalia wrote:
Thu Aug 09, 2018 3:51 am
Joe wrote:
Thu Aug 09, 2018 3:13 am
Forty Two wrote:
Wed Aug 08, 2018 12:02 pm
Joe wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:35 pm

You want to know what I think? I'm glad you've finally admitted that Mueller has a counterintelligence investigation on his hands. You've been running and hiding every time I've mentioned it for the last few months.
That's not accurate. I pointed out it was initiated under the criminal regulations. That doesn't mean it's not also counterintelligence because Comey's investigation was under the rubric of both. Do you admit that the Rosenstein order activates the criminal regulations?
Joe wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:35 pm

As for allegations or evidence from the intelligence agencies, why would you want to know what I think about that?
I'm not asking about what you think, as in what your opinion is based on the facts. I'm asking about what facts you know. Are you aware of whether there is an allegation or evidence of Trump wrongdoing relative to to the 2016 election? If so, what is it that you are aware of? That's the issue that's been bandied about in the press for the last 2 years. Will Trump be impeached or indicted for obstruction of justice because of his or his campaign's involvement with the 2016 election interference? There hasn't been any other reason offered for his impeachment or indictment, has there?
Joe wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:35 pm

If a US person was the primary subject of an intelligence agency product, that would be goddamned irregular, and classified out of sight.
Was Trump the "primary subject" of Comey's investigation? Is he the "primary subject" now? Odd... the other thread was was all about telling me how he isn't, because the Comey and Mueller investigations are just about "Russian interference in the 2016 election" and they'll go after anyone involved, come what may - and Trump is "running when nobody is chasing." Does he look guilty because the guilty run when they are not chased? Or, is he the "primary subject" of the investigation and hence, being chased, and it is therefore, reasonable for him to be concerned about it?

It would, for sure, be "classified." But once again, the intelligence agencies can declare whatever they want classified - I have no control over it. But I don't believe them. Everything about the Snowdon thing was classified when he released it and the NSA lied about it, and they broke the law - was all classified. Whether the North Vietnamese attacked US ships in the Gulf of Tonkin was classified, and the US people were told to believe them. Rather unjustified belief, that.

Or, like when the intelligence folks said it was a "slam dunk" that Iraq had WMD - CIA director Tenet - and that was confirmed by a CIA deputy director Morell (a 33 year CIA guy) --
“When we wrote pieces for the president, the analysts wrote with authority on the [weapons of mass destruction] issue,” Morell writes. “This is why I personally never found fault with George Tenet’s alleged “slam dunk” comment.”

“The way the [intelligence] analysts talked and wrote about their judgments,” Morell adds, “would have led anyone to think it was a slam dunk— that is, that Saddam definitely had active WMD programs. No one ever said to me, [agency analyst Jami] Miscik, [ex-director John] McLaughlin, Tenet, [Condoleezza] Rice, or the president, ‘You know, there is a chance he might not have them.’ Such a statement would have gotten everyone’s attention,” Morell writes.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/in ... 302cf2b99e

The backup on that was "classified", of course - can't see it - sources and methods and such - you know, national security, so the citizens being asked to support action taken in conformity with the views of the intelligence community are told "here's what we think, but I can't show you what we base it on..." Not good enough for me.
Joe wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:35 pm

If I was cleared at that level, I wouldn't tell you what I knew or even that I held such a clearance. You don't know squat about our intelligence agencies; that's what I think!
Not relevant. I'm not saying I know what they know. I'm saying the issue vague reports with "levels of confidence" and don't provide the facts to back it up. They, of course, say that we need clearances and only the top top guys can see the real information, but trust us it's there. So, when the politicians say we're going to war with X country because of those intelligence reports, you just have to trust that they know what they're doing.

I don't claim to know much about them - that's the problem. However, next time I'm told we need to go to war because a confidential/secret intelligence report says that so-and-so is up to no good in West Bumfuck, I for one am going to need to see the evidence. Too many times in my lifetime, they've been wrong and/or lied.

And they can publish a report like the 2017 Background to “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections”: The Analytic Process and Cyber Incident Attribution" all they want, but I want to see what evidence they're basing it on. When I read the report, it is vague, it is based in some parts on "moderate" confidence of certain agencies, and it focuses most of its word-count on explaining why Putin had a preference for Trumpian policies, and the "propaganda" efforts on the part of Russians. The only thing mentioned that would even be criminal was hacking, and the details on that are conclusory and lacking (and from other sources, it seems that none of the systems supposedly "hacked" were turned over to the FBI or any other agency to inspect and do a forensic analysis, and it's hard to see what happened with a hand-held PDA device when someone is taking a hammer to it, or a computer system that is being deleted and bleach-bit wiped...you know, like with a cloth).

Joe wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:35 pm
As for evidence of wrong doing by Trump or his campaign, you are asking a stupid question that proves nothing. DOJ doesn't release that kind of information during an ongoing investigation,
It's not a stupid question. I don't care when they choose to do what they do.
If they don't release the evidence, then I don't believe them. I find their allegation interesting. Like, when the cops arrest somebody and say he's the guy who dunnit. Fine. You say he dunnit. Now prove it. Oh, you're not duty-bound to tell me now because you have an ongoing investigation? Fine. Then as long as your investigation is ongoing, then I withhold my judgment and I'm not going to be outraged by any "conclusions" you seek to publish. And, don't publish conclusions you want me to believe, if you're not going to back them up. Oh, so and so is a big fat criminal, but you can't tell me why because of sources and methods? Oh, well, then. Carry on. I don't believe you. I might, when you release the information on which you base your conclusion.

Joe wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:35 pm

so anyone who says they know such things is lying or leaking,
Yes, there have been tons of leaks - massive leaks. It's been a seive, with asshats like Adam Schiff leaking consistently stuff. Leaks with political spin. To do what? Get the public to believe certain things. Well, I'm tired of that kind of manipulation, and I am not going to believe it until I see persuasive evidence.
Joe wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:35 pm
and the GOP twats who've been pushing this trope for months know it.
What trope? What is it that you know to be true?
Joe wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:35 pm

The only real evidence we'll probably have until such time as Mueller's report is made public are "confessions" from the flaming idiots starring in this media circus.
Good - so we agree the only "real evidence" we have is at most "confessions from flaming idiots in this media circus." I choose not to believe them. What do you conclude from the flaming idiot evidence? Treason? Obstruction of justice? What? If not, then you and I are in agreement. If so, I can't wait to hear your argument.
Joe wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:35 pm
So, now that you've admitted the counterintelligence aspect of Mueller's investigation, do you think it should be shut down?
Nope. Never said it should be shut down (from the outside). I think that it should end when Mueller is done.

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?

Or, do you admit that there is no evidence (other than at most flaming idiot evidence) of such wrongdoing?

If you have seen more than flaming idiot evidence, then please explain what that is. But since you've already said the only evidence you're likely to see is flaming idiot evidence, I can't imagine you can say now that there is good evidence from which you can conclude Trump did something wrong relative to Russia in the 2016 campaign.
So, 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?
So he can avoid being pinned down.
He certainly takes comfort in his strawmen, and JAQing off.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
"Wisdom requires a flexible mind." - Dan Carlin
"If you vote for idiots, idiots will run the country." - Dr. Kori Schake

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests