Mueller's Patton the back (investigation thread v. 22)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Especially with all the communication between Stone/Wikileaks

There is zero evidence available that Stone had any private communication with Wikileaks.

Edit:

There is a single exchange of five text messages

74def29a0.jpg


But that's it.
 
You were "so confident" that you wouldn't accept a four-year term on the sig bet. You proposed three months and I had to bargain up to six months. Tick tock, my friend.
When I destroy you, please don't delete your account in shame. Thanks.
 
Also, it's pretty obvious that CA shared the stolen Facebook user data with Russia. How else would they(Russia) know precisely where, who, and how to target voters in those crucial areas.

Trump won the election by less than 100,000 votes in 3 states.
Russian Facebook trolls were specifically targeting voters in the rustbelt states instead of elsewhere? Link, please.
 
There is zero evidence available that Stone had any private communication with Wikileaks.

Edit:

There is a single exchange of five text messages

74def29a0.jpg


But that's it.
Does that sound like someone who only ever communicated 5x?
They conversed more than 5x. We only have those available to us. But that's not a convo you strike up randomly with someone you never talk to
 
https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...stones-secret-messages-with-wikileaks/554432/

Except by his own admission. But as we know, unless he was found guilty of it by others, his admission of guilt means nothing.


That is not accurate. waiguoren also has said when found guilty (ie Manafort) that we cannot assume guilt because sometimes mistakes are made by juries and he cited an example of a wrong conviction.

So to represent waiguoren properly it must be clear that if the Best People around Trump plead guilty it is not meaningful as they may have been coerced. A guilty verdict by a jury would be better. However if they are found guilty by a jury that is not proof of guilt because Juries make mistakes.

Ergo, there is no way possible to establish any guilty for any of the Best People around Trump who end up convicted that anyone should cite.
 
Russian Facebook trolls were specifically targeting voters in the rustbelt states instead of elsewhere? Link, please.
https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/03/politics/russian-facebook-ads-michigan-wisconsin/index.html
https://www.businessinsider.com/fak...-targeted-swing-states-before-election-2017-9

A new study conducted by Oxford University's Computational Propaganda Project found that "low quality political information" and "ideologically extreme" junk news flooded 12 battleground states in the run-up to US Election Day, strategically targeting pivotal voters before and after November 8.

The study is the first to document on a large scale how propaganda and conspiratorial information was "strategically disseminated" throughout the country before the election. The researchers said they based their analysis on a dataset of 22,117,221 tweets collected November 1-11 that contained hashtags related to politics and came from users with traceable locations ...

This is what happens when Breitbart, Dailycaller, and Fox are your go to sources for news
 
It's common knowledge. Look it up, lazy bones.

I assume you're referring to this article.

Facebook previously has acknowledged that about one quarter of the 3,000 Russian-bought ads were targeted to specific geographic locations, without detailing the locations.

The report is based on anonymous sourcing, and one of their sources contradicts the headline and says the ads were spread throughout the country.
 
That is not accurate. waiguoren also has said when found guilty (ie Manafort) that we cannot assume guilt because sometimes mistakes are made by juries and he cited an example of a wrong conviction.

So to represent waiguoren properly it must be clear that if the Best People around Trump plead guilty it is not meaningful as they may have been coerced. A guilty verdict by a jury would be better. However if they are found guilty by a jury that is not proof of guilt because Juries make mistakes.

Ergo, there is no way possible to establish any guilty for any of the Best People around Trump who end up convicted that anyone should cite.
I'm convinced. Time to disband the Mueller investigation, and the entire Justice Department while we're at it.

Thanks, bud.
 
Does that sound like someone who only ever communicated 5x?
They conversed more than 5x. We only have those available to us. But that's not a convo you strike up randomly with someone you never talk to
I don't agree with that. Time will tell.
 
waiguoren also has said when found guilty (ie Manafort) that we cannot assume guilt because sometimes mistakes are made by juries and he cited an example of a wrong conviction.

That's false. My comment was made with regard to Cohen. Plea deals often require that the accused plea guilty to an offense he does not believe he committed. We already went over this.

If you're going to attack me, at least get your facts straight.
 
I think I do!

I authored a textualist/originalist rebuttal to Justice Taney's opinion in that case. I am still waiting for @BKMMAFAN to give a careful reply. He seems like a busy guy though, and his last reply was rather sloppy.

I can't help that you didn't find my reply helpful. A plain reading of Taney's opinion makes it clear he used originalist/textualist reasoning to conclude Dred Scott was not a citizen and could never be a citizen of the United States.

"The question is simply this: Can a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guarantied by that instrument to the citizen? One of which rights is the privilege of suing in a court of the United States in the cases specified in the Constitution.

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 403, 15 L. Ed. 691 (1857), superseded (1868)
....

It becomes necessary, therefore, to determine who were citizens of the several States when the Constitution was adopted. And in order to do this, we must recur to the Governments and institutions of the thirteen colonies, when they separated from Great Britain and formed new sovereignties, and took their places in the family of independent nations. We must inquire who, at that time, were recognized as the people or citizens of a State, whose rights and liberties had been outraged by the English Government; and who declared their independence, and assumed the powers of Government to defend their rights by force of arms.

In the opinion of the court, the legislation and histories of the times, and the language used in the Declaration of Independence, show, that neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves, nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were then acknowledged as a part of the people, nor intended to be included in the general words used in that memorable instrument."


Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 407, 15 L. Ed. 691 (1857), superseded (1868)

You're right. I don't have the time to parse over a 120+ page opinion with you. You seem to just disagree with the conclusion he reached using originalism; my whole argument was that he used originalism/textualism to reach it. It's extremely clear from the opinion that he did so.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/60/393/

I think I'll just leave it there. There's no point in continuing to arguing this with you. People can read the opinion themselves and make up their own mind.
 
https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/03/politics/russian-facebook-ads-michigan-wisconsin/index.html
https://www.businessinsider.com/fak...-targeted-swing-states-before-election-2017-9

A new study conducted by Oxford University's Computational Propaganda Project found that "low quality political information" and "ideologically extreme" junk news flooded 12 battleground states in the run-up to US Election Day, strategically targeting pivotal voters before and after November 8.

The study is the first to document on a large scale how propaganda and conspiratorial information was "strategically disseminated" throughout the country before the election. The researchers said they based their analysis on a dataset of 22,117,221 tweets collected November 1-11 that contained hashtags related to politics and came from users with traceable locations ...

This is what happens when Breitbart, Dailycaller, and Fox are your go to sources for news
I already addressed problems with the CNN article.

As for the Oxford study: it didn't distinguish between "junk news" with a Russian source and "junk news" from other sources. I'd be willing to wager that less than 5% of the "junk news" the researchers aggregated had a Russian source.
 
I don't agree with that. Time will tell.
In all your course of conversing with others in your life, that sounds like a standard conversation you would have with someone? No, that sounds more like disgruntled former business partners talking
 
I already addressed problems with the CNN article.

As for the Oxford study: it didn't distinguish between "junk news" with a Russian source and "junk news" from other sources. I'd be willing to wager that less than 5% of the "junk news" the researchers aggregated had a Russian source.
Re: Oxford, fair enough.

Re: Facebook, the issue is, it only takes 1 person to be targeted with a fake article to share with hundreds if not thousands. And all of a sudden it's in an echo chamber being passed around.

We don't know all what Cuckerberg knows or even if they track who shared what and when and by how many it was received (I'm guessing they do). But it's real easy to turn strategic target sources into quickly populated "news".

It was a genius idea. Problem is, it likely used stolen data to do it
 
I can't help that you didn't find my reply helpful. A plain reading of Taney's opinion makes it clear he used originalist/textualist reasoning to conclude Dred Scott was not a citizen and could never be a citizen of the United States.

I think I'll just leave it there. There's no point in continuing to arguing this with you. People can read the opinion themselves and make up their own mind.

Be fair. I told you multiple times that Taney purported to use originalist reasoning, so there's no disagreement between us there. You aren't winning an argument by repeating that obvious point that we already established.

The point, which I already made to you in a previous thread, was that Taney's so-called "originalist" reasoning was actually "living constitutionalism". I gave a full breakdown in this post.
 
<puh-lease75>
Five text messages. You're right that I forgot about those. I admit fault, but my larger point stands. I'm confident that Stone will not be indicted or any "Russia collusion"-related crimes. I've already got a bet on that, in fact.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top