Circling The Arguments (SCO thread v. 32)

[Jack V Savage]

You sound upset, Jackie. Don't blame me for giving a completely accurate description of events.

No collusion, Jackie. It is over. These threads only exist now as some kind of coping mechanism, for you and your buddies to indulge in putting more conspiracies on top the original conspiracy that was proven false, because you nutters just can't accept the truth.

Yeah, that's another one. More seriously, though, what's the case here? What do you believe the truth to be? And what do you think people are not accepting or are being nutters about? You acknowledge that Russia committed crimes to help Trump, right? And that the campaign was communicating with them during that period? Where does the road divide between you and the people you are trying to troll?

 

[Andy Capp]

Right this way. Here it is, folks, the War Room, where there's no such thing as probable cause and every accusation that turns out to be wrong is a hoax, as long as it confirms your bias.

Many people were fooled by the Russian collusion conspiracy hoax for almost 3 years. Most aren't going to be able to shake off that level of delusion and programming in 2 weeks.

It's going to take more time for some to finally arrive at acceptance.

 

[Quipling]

Where did you get the "sufficient" part from. I read Barr's report but I didn't see that except under the OOJ part.

The OOJ part discusses a balance of evidence.

The collusion part simply presents findings. It does not discuss evidence. That can mean either no evidence or insufficient evidence, but either way, an amount such that the SCO felt comfortable drawing a conclusion about the strength of their case.

Prosecuting a crime requires establishing several "elements", all of which must be established. If you have evidence of one element but not another, then you have evidence, but not sufficient evidence. (Analogy: to make a certain dish I need three ingredients. If I have two of them, I have ingredients, but not sufficient ingredients).

You can also have evidence that supports an element but is not sufficient by itself. (I have 1/4 cup of flour and need 1/2 cup).

Conspiracy requires both an agreement and an overt act.


Here, some evidence certainly exists. For example, meeting with Russians about receiving information would be circumstantial evidence of a conspiracy, because meeting with people engaged in a criminal act about something related to the criminal act can support the existence of an agreement in furtherance of that act.

But it wouldn't be conclusive, because that meeting could happen without making an agreement. Or they might agree, but it still wouldn't show an overt act. So a prosecutor would have evidence of conspiracy, but wouldn't find that sufficient to establish a case.

That is why "sufficient" is in a parenthetical.

When it came to collusion it was straight forward in saying that not only did they not collude with Russia they refused Russia's help multiple times. Which is something I see left out which is pretty important if you ask me.

I just looked at the summary and it does not say anything about refusing help.
That's probably why I left it out.

It says "the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign . . . conspired or coordinated with the Russian government . . . despite multiple offers to assist . . ." Thus, we have multiple offers of help, but nothing on rejection or acceptance. You can choose to infer that rejection, but it is very clearly absent.

We do have a lack of conspiracy, but that, as above, requires an agreement and an overt act. Saying that there was no conspiracy only tells us that at least one of the above was missing. Coordination, which was defined as an "agreement . . . on election interference" without an overt act - also does not require a rejection to fail.

Note: edited on distinction between coordination and conspiracy.

 

[Andy Capp]

delete, @Quipling already said it, and better.

 

[HereticBD]

Yeah, that's another one. More seriously, though, what's the case here? What do you believe the truth to be? And what do you think people are not accepting or are being nutters about?

The truth was in the report, Jackie. Do I need to quote what it specifically says about collusion, or would that be too painful for you?

You guys are so obviously not accepting the official findings. You've created this fantasy in your heads that Barr somehow mucked up his report to protect Trump. The full report will not change that either. When you read that, you'll just move the goalposts yet again, and claim we need more to really REALLY prove there was no collusion.

You guys are fucking insane. No collusion. Liberals lose AGAIN. By all means though, keep embarrassing yourselves over this.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Except Barr's summary completely contradicts that.

“[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”1

This was a quote straight from the report.

At this point no one should doubt Barr sees his role as trying to provide duck and cover to the POTUS as good republican.

- it is fact that the Russians were interfering in the election by targeting via social media certain voting blocks
- it is fact that the Trump Campaign chair gave them key polling data which internally is used to tailor messaging and target voting blocks with specific messaging

Do you deny that is "links"? Do you deny that is "coordination"? Use your own brain.

that is "links" and it is "coordination", that is fact. Does it rise to the level of provable 'criminal coordination", where you must be able to prove you know WHY they wanted or asked for it? that is a tougher bar to surmount. They would claim they were just dumb dupes. Did not know Kilimnik was a Russian operative. Did not know why he wanted it. And if you want to bullsh*t on them being that dumb, proving they are lying on 'intent' is the threshold.

And unfortunately for Prosecutors Trump and Co have a very credible body of evidence to say we were just ignorant dumb dupes, based on how ignorant and dumb they have been on so many prior actions.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

every accusation that turns out to be wrong is a hoax,

Yes, that would be an accurate reflection of reality.

Why did you state this in a way that implied you disagreed with it?

 

[MikeMcMann]

Right this way. Here it is, folks, the War Room, where there's no such thing as probable cause and every accusation that turns out to be wrong is a hoax, as long as it confirms your bias.

Yup.

Adam Schiff should step down despite it being Republican Mitch McConnell who was key to the Counterintelligence operation examining the Trump Campaign.

yup Schiff was wrong for a witch hunt a republican thought NEEDED to happen based on very real Russia illegal actions in the US election.

- Russia DID illegally interfere with a US election
- Trump's campaign Chair DID provide them key Campaign Election polling data
- Trump and all the people around him lied incessantly and at every turn about "links" or "coordination" with Russians



There is no circumstance now of FUTURE, where if similar circumstances arise (China, N.Korea, Iran, etc) meddling in the election, a Campaign providing data to the meddler, and most of the key people in the Campaign lying about all their "links" and "coordination" that an Investigation should NOT be launched.


That is the most dangerous thing about the Post-Op follow up, that Trump is tying to paint the NEED for an investigation as wrong and never to be done again. In the same circumstance it would be NEGLIGENT and DANGEROUS to not investigate the next POTUS in the exact same way given the same circumstances.

I find it shocking that the media is letting anyone get away with blaming Schiff and Dem's for this mess when the blame 100% should be on McConnell and Trump and his Campaign.

 

[Andy Capp]

Yes, that would be an accurate reflection of reality.

Why did you state this in a way that implied you disagreed with it?

hoax

 

[Andy Capp]

Inb4 deliberately obtuse farmer brown reply to the above.

Words mean things. An accusation founded upon probable cause is not a hoax by definition. So blow it out your collective ass.

 

[MikeMcMann]

delete, @Quipling already said it, and better.

Yup.

Barr is diverging from precedent at pretty much all points to provide that duck and cover for Trump.

Precedent says to simply ask the courts to release the Grand Jury info as was done and granted in the prior investigations. Barr said in his confirmation hearings he wanted to release as much as he could and that is now proven a lie. He wants to limit 3rd party info as that will be considered the least partisan and biased. he does not want that out and that is clear.

Precedent says, when a prosecutor determines there is not sufficient to charge or prosecute they then hand the report, and ALL its findings to Congress for them to do their job and determine if there is sufficiency to impeach. Barr has zero to do with any impeachment considerations. That he thinks he needs to offer his opinion to the General Public before Congress even see the report departs not just from precedent but you can say it taints the seperations of powers.

 

[Andy Capp]

Yup.

Adam Schiff should step down despite it being Republican Mitch McConnell who was key to the Counterintelligence operation examining the Trump Campaign.

yup Schiff was wrong for a witch hunt a republican thought NEEDED to happen based on very real Russia illegal actions in the US election.

- Russia DID illegally interfere with a US election
- Trump's campaign Chair DID provide them key Campaign Election polling data
- Trump and all the people around him lied incessantly and at every turn about "links" or "coordination" with Russians



There is no circumstance now of FUTURE, where if similar circumstances arise (China, N.Korea, Iran, etc) meddling in the election, a Campaign providing data to the meddler, and most of the key people in the Campaign lying about all their "links" and "coordination" that an Investigation should NOT be launched.


That is the most dangerous thing about the Post-Op follow up, that Trump is tying to paint the NEED for an investigation as wrong and never to be done again. In the same circumstance it would be NEGLIGENT and DANGEROUS to not investigate the next POTUS in the exact same way given the same circumstances.

I find it shocking that the media is letting anyone get away with blaming Schiff and Dem's for this mess when the blame 100% should be on McConnell and Trump and his Campaign.

Well, the thrice-changed story Trump Jr. told of the Trump Tower meeting ought to have been enough all by itself to raise alarm bells among friends and enemies of the administration alike.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

hoax

Yes, "hoax" is a perfectly accurate word to use when referring to the Russian Collusion Conspiracy hoax.

Inb4 deliberately obtuse farmer brown reply to the above.

Words mean things. An accusation founded upon probable cause is not a hoax by definition. So blow it out your collective ass.

An accusation founded on nothing more than sour grapes over a lost election is by definition a hoax.

I'm glad I could clear up your very clear confusion on this issue!

 

[MikeMcMann]

Regardless of who the POTUS is past or FUTURE

1 - Foreign Adversarial Govt is suspected of interfering in your election = INVESTIGATE
2 - Campaign Chair is suspected of providing key data that could aid said interference = INVESTIGATE
3 - POTUS and most of top Campaign people are lying about "links" and/or "coordination" with that foreign Gov't = INVESTIGATE why

Any 1 of the above 3 points would absolutely justified and require the FBI investigate.

Even if in all 3 investigations not a single thing was found to be accurate and nothing wrong was done this Investigation would be 100% justified and NECESSARY based on those 3 points.

Specifically to this investigation, point 1 was proven, point 2 was proven and point 3 was proven and yet the spin is this Investigation was wrong and improper. FLMAO.

 

[Andy Capp]

What is it that people like about Trump, exactly?
Is it all the lies?
Is it the nepotism?
Is it his limp-wristed behaviour around dictators?
Is it all the corrupt people with whom he surrounds himself?
Is it the deregulation of environmental and consumer protections?
Is it the massive damage he has done to America's standing in the international community?
Is it the misguided attempt to preserve coal jobs when the industry continues to become more and more automated?
Is it the bilking of the taxpayer of millions of dollars in charges for the Secret Service to stay at Trump Tower and Mar a Lago?
Is it the targeting of America's closest allies with tariffs and trade disputes, forcing them to become less dependent upon US trade in the future?

Now, why do you think that's a good thing, especially the last one?

 

[Andy Capp]

Yes, "hoax" is a perfectly accurate word to use when referring to the Russian Collusion Conspiracy hoax.



An accusation founded on nothing more than sour grapes over a lost election is by definition a hoax.

I'm glad I could clear up your very clear confusion on this issue!

And a troll is someone who continues to argue something that has been clearly proved wrong. Glad we're all clear on who thinks what. Now go get your shinebox.

 

[Jack V Savage]

The truth was in the report, Jackie. Do I need to quote what it specifically says about collusion, or would that be too painful for you?

No one's seen the report. I'm asking what you think people believe and where you think they're going wrong. Because at this point, it really looks like you don't know the answer to either of those questions but you've just gotten the memo that partisans are supposed to celebrate to try to control the narrative before the report comes out.

You guys are fucking insane. No collusion. Liberals lose AGAIN. By all means though, keep embarrassing yourselves over this.

Why would anyone be embarrassed about wanting to see important information? If I were you, I'd be embarrassed about being so easily controlled, but I guess you guys don't have the capacity to be embarrassed.

 

[MikeMcMann]

What is it that people like about Trump, exactly?
Is it all the lies?
Is it the nepotism?
Is it his limp-wristed behaviour around dictators?
Is it all the corrupt people with whom he surrounds himself?
Is it the deregulation of environmental and consumer protections?
Is it the massive damage he has done to America's standing in the international community?
Is it the misguided attempt to preserve coal jobs when the industry continues to become more and more automated?
Is it the bilking of the taxpayer of millions of dollars in charges for the Secret Service to stay at Trump Tower and Mar a Lago?
Is it the targeting of America's closest allies with tariffs and trade disputes, forcing them to become less dependent upon US trade in the future?

Now, why do you think that's a good thing, especially the last one?

You forgot

Is it the record he never brags about of putting up Record Deficit numbers despite inheriting a strong economy in economic expansion?

Trump's Big "Win": The Largest Budget Deficit With A Strong Economy

This is something that will almost certainly risk very dire effects on Americans if the economy cools and a future recession is on the horizon. This and Trumps desire to hold down interest rates to juice the economy, show he does not care one iota about the future of the country as long as he grabs his. He just wants to be able to brag about the "hottest economy ever!" and hope most people are not educated enough to understand what he is doing to try and juice it and how dangerous it is to citizens long term.

 

[CrazyN8]

I wonder how long before Mueller and Barr are under investigation for collusion with Trumps campaign, or maybe even Russia itself.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

And none was ever found.




President Trump has been completely vindicated.

That's a lovely list of a bunch of people who aren't President Trump you've got there.

Trump has been completely vindicated...