row_33 Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 Prosecutions that lead with "if anything exists" are bad news. Good prosecutions lead with the evidence and have sealed off most defensive tactics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 How excited am I supposed to be about this? There's a man named Rob Goldstone. He's "a publicist and former British tabloid reporter," and he sent an email to Donald Trump Jr., "according to three people with knowledge of the email."We don't get a text of the email, but 3 people knowledge of an email. How does the NYT know they have knowledge? Instead of a quote from the email, we're only told what it "indicates." I'm supposed to accept an inference about the text that I can't see, an inference presented by the NYT, which I have seen trying to keep the Russia-did-it story alive. How does the email "indicate[] that the Russian government was the source of the potentially damaging information"? Vaguely, explicitly, in a manner that a reader can only understand with additional information?Are we deprived of the text of the email because the NYT doesn't have the text? I have to guess that it does not. If not, is it because the "three people" were themselves paraphrasing and making representation about what the text "indicates"? Since the NYT (and presumably the "three people") are — I think — motivated to destroy Trump, I don't trust their paraphrasings. The word "indicates" seems chosen to insulate the NYT from accusations of distortion or exaggeration if the text materializes. http://althouse.blogspot.com/2017/07/mr-goldstones-message-as-described-to.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 Prosecutions that lead with "if anything exists" are bad news. Good prosecutions lead with the evidence and have sealed off most defensive tactics. Agree. Which is why anything in the media and the reactions to it aren't germane to anything at this particular point in time. It's all reactionary hot air. As to your first sentence, you're getting ahead of yourself. Nobody is prosecuting anything at this point in time. That will come in time, if necessary. You can freely dismiss the concept of "if anything exists" but finding that out is the foundation for all investigations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 Of course they are prosecuting at this point in time. A real investigation would start with actual evidence, not pissy political anger. I was fortunate that my prosecution work always began with evidence and we were able to build a real case. Other colleagues are set up with "NAIL THAT GUY, MAKE UP STUFF IF YOU HAVE TO" which is hell to live in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/10/donald-trump-jr-russia-meeting-legal-danger-240370 Donald Trump Jr. is in a legal danger zone following his acknowledgment that he met during the heat of the 2016 presidential campaign with a Russian lawyer with Kremlin ties who offered to deliver damaging information about Hillary Clinton. Those potential troubles deepened Monday night with a fresh New York Times report alleging that Trump Jr. was sent an email before his meeting with Veselnitskaya indicating the information she had was part of a Russian plan to boost his father in the race against Clinton. Trump Jr. first described the Veselnitskaya meeting in a Saturday statement to The New York Times, framing it as a discussion about a program for adoption of Russian children that the Kremlin canceled to retaliate for a U.S. law targeting Russian human rights abusers. But Trump Jr. expanded on his explanation on Sunday, saying the Trump Tower meeting was initially presented to him as a chance to obtain opposition materials about Clinton. He (Jr) admits to this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grinreaper Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/10/donald-trump-jr-russia-meeting-legal-danger-240370 Donald Trump Jr. is in a legal danger zone following his acknowledgment that he met during the heat of the 2016 presidential campaign with a Russian lawyer with Kremlin ties who offered to deliver damaging information about Hillary Clinton. Those potential troubles deepened Monday night with a fresh New York Times report alleging that Trump Jr. was sent an email before his meeting with Veselnitskaya indicating the information she had was part of a Russian plan to boost his father in the race against Clinton. Trump Jr. first described the Veselnitskaya meeting in a Saturday statement to The New York Times, framing it as a discussion about a program for adoption of Russian children that the Kremlin canceled to retaliate for a U.S. law targeting Russian human rights abusers. But Trump Jr. expanded on his explanation on Sunday, saying the Trump Tower meeting was initially presented to him as a chance to obtain opposition materials about Clinton. He (Jr) admits to this. So what? You crusaders are pathetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/10/donald-trump-jr-russia-meeting-legal-danger-240370 Donald Trump Jr. is in a legal danger zone following his acknowledgment that he met during the heat of the 2016 presidential campaign with a Russian lawyer with Kremlin ties who offered to deliver damaging information about Hillary Clinton. Those potential troubles deepened Monday night with a fresh New York Times report alleging that Trump Jr. was sent an email before his meeting with Veselnitskaya indicating the information she had was part of a Russian plan to boost his father in the race against Clinton. Trump Jr. first described the Veselnitskaya meeting in a Saturday statement to The New York Times, framing it as a discussion about a program for adoption of Russian children that the Kremlin canceled to retaliate for a U.S. law targeting Russian human rights abusers. But Trump Jr. expanded on his explanation on Sunday, saying the Trump Tower meeting was initially presented to him as a chance to obtain opposition materials about Clinton. He (Jr) admits to this. Admits to inquiring about receiving Oppo research from someone from Russia? A) Is she a Government agent for Russia? B) Was there any information exchanged? C) Was there a quid pro quo? The only thing we know is that she is a lawyer from Russia who doesn't work for the government that wanted to provide Oppo research to Trump Jr who was helping his dad try to win an election. Which is worse? This Trump Jr. stuff which shows there was no exchange of oppo research from a Lawyer from Russia to Trump Jr. or this Donald Trump wasn’t the only presidential candidate whose campaign was boosted by officials of a former Soviet bloc country. Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found. A Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia, according to people with direct knowledge of the situation. Here you have the DNC actually paying this Ukrainian group and actually receiving oppo research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 (edited) So what? You crusaders are pathetic. maybe the deniers are the ones who are pathetic. Attack people because they disagree. Real mature. I think I may have found my 2nd candidate for the ignore list Admits to inquiring about receiving Oppo research from someone from Russia? A) Is she a Government agent for Russia? B) Was there any information exchanged? C) Was there a quid pro quo? The only thing we know is that she is a lawyer from Russia who doesn't work for the government that wanted to provide Oppo research to Trump Jr who was helping his dad try to win an election. Which is worse? This Trump Jr. stuff which shows there was no exchange of oppo research from a Lawyer from Russia to Trump Jr. or this Here you have the DNC actually paying this Ukrainian group and actually receiving oppo research. Which Alternate Truth is it? Oppo research or about a program for adoption of Russian children Edited July 11, 2017 by ShadyBillsFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grinreaper Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 maybe the deniers are the ones who are pathetic. Attack people because they disagree. Real mature. I think I may have found my 2nd candidate for the ignore list i·ro·ny [ˈīrənē] NOUN the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect: "“Don't go overboard with the gratitude,” he rejoined with heavy irony" synonyms: sarcasm · causticity · cynicism · mockery · satire · sardonicism antonyms: sincerity a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often amusing as a result: "the irony is that I thought he could help me" synonyms: paradox · incongruity · incongruousness antonyms: logic a literary technique, originally used in Greek tragedy, by which the full significance of a character's words or actions are clear to the audience or reader although unknown to the character. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 IGNORE LIST did I type that correctly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 Of course they are prosecuting at this point in time. A real investigation would start with actual evidence, not pissy political anger. I was fortunate that my prosecution work always began with evidence and we were able to build a real case. Other colleagues are set up with "NAIL THAT GUY, MAKE UP STUFF IF YOU HAVE TO" which is hell to live in. Nobody is prosecuting anything at this time, regardless what stock you put in the court of public opinion and the reactionary rhetoric it generates. Everything is in the investigatory stage and it's far too early for anyone to make a case one way or the other. As a former prosecutor, do you think there's a time and place for presenting "real evidence" and does that place always reside in the public domain before your investigation is complete? Do prosecutions proceed at the first sign of actual "evidence" or can the appearance of wrongdoing serve as the catalyst for further investigation that may uncover that actual evidence? Are you of the opinion that nobody in the Trump campaign circle has acted in ways that demand further investigation of anything? Really? Flynn himself is facing jail time for acts he committed while acting as a surrogate for Trump's campaign. Or did he request immunity because he did nothing illegal? Why would Mueller hire experts with experience in investigating money laundering operations through foreign entities if certain behaviors by certain individuals didn't warrant at least a look into that possibility? There are bigger issues than just "get Trump" that demand looking into. I'm surprised by the acceptance by some on the right to that these activities are just fine. The hypocrisy is off the charts in that regard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 Agree. Which is why anything in the media and the reactions to it aren't germane to anything at this particular point in time. It's all reactionary hot air. As to your first sentence, you're getting ahead of yourself. Nobody is prosecuting anything at this point in time. That will come in time, if necessary. You can freely dismiss the concept of "if anything exists" but finding that out is the foundation for all investigations. Here's one of the other issues that no one considers: We're seeing lots of conjecture and narrative that's short of hard evidence - not one damn thing that's been released so far does anything other than reinforce everyone's preconceived notions. And it's being leaked slowly over a long time frame. This sort of slow-rolling of empty innuendo is exactly what you would do if you wanted to weaken the administration and the federal government. Call in to question the administration's credibility, and make the federal government focus on this to the exclusion of other issues. Frankly, anyone who honestly believes the Russians influenced the election should also consider it a strong possibility that the Russians are manipulating this story as well - they derive little benefit from having a "stooge" in the White House, since the president isn't all-powerful, but significantly benefit from being able to weaken the president and distract Congress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HappyDays Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 Hahaha Donald Trump Jr himself just tweeted out screenshots of the e-mail chain and Twitter is losing its mind. I would say now there is more than just smoke, now there is heat. And remember his explanation from a couple days ago: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DEdwNDvXcAA3qnd?format=jpg&name=large Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grinreaper Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 IGNORE LIST did I type that correctly? Right over your head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 (edited) Hahaha Donald Trump Jr himself just tweeted out screenshots of the e-mail chain and Twitter is losing its mind. I would say now there is more than just smoke, now there is heat. And remember his explanation from a couple days ago: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DEdwNDvXcAA3qnd?format=jpg&name=large Not only would any rational person who is unbiased in one direction or another consider this to be "heat", but it barely qualifies as smoke. What the DNC did with the Ukrainians is much closer to anything that could be considered as collusion with foreign agents than this "evidence" of Trump Jr. and this lawyer. Edited July 11, 2017 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grinreaper Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 Hahaha Donald Trump Jr himself just tweeted out screenshots of the e-mail chain and Twitter is losing its mind. I would say now there is more than just smoke, now there is heat. And remember his explanation from a couple days ago: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DEdwNDvXcAA3qnd?format=jpg&name=large The way it looks is that Donald Jr. was lured to the meeting on the pretense of receiving Hillary damaging news but the Russian lawyer wanted to discuss another subject that was close to Putin's heart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 Not only would any rational person who is unbiased in one direction or another consider this to be "heat", but it barely qualifies as smoke. What the DNC did with the Ukrainians is much closer to anything that could be considered as collusion with foreign agents than this "evidence" of Trump Jr. and this lawyer. Oh sweet christ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 Here's one of the other issues that no one considers: We're seeing lots of conjecture and narrative that's short of hard evidence - not one damn thing that's been released so far does anything other than reinforce everyone's preconceived notions. And it's being leaked slowly over a long time frame. This sort of slow-rolling of empty innuendo is exactly what you would do if you wanted to weaken the administration and the federal government. Call in to question the administration's credibility, and make the federal government focus on this to the exclusion of other issues. Frankly, anyone who honestly believes the Russians influenced the election should also consider it a strong possibility that the Russians are manipulating this story as well - they derive little benefit from having a "stooge" in the White House, since the president isn't all-powerful, but significantly benefit from being able to weaken the president and distract Congress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HappyDays Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 Not only would any rational person who is unbiased in one direction or another consider this to be "heat", but it barely qualifies as smoke. What the DNC did with the Ukrainians is much closer to anything that could be considered as collusion with foreign agents than this "evidence" of Trump Jr. and this lawyer. You notably failed to include this part of the article you linked, just a couple paragraphs after the ones you selectively posted: The Ukrainian efforts had an impact in the race, helping to force Manaforts resignation and advancing the narrative that Trumps campaign was deeply connected to Ukraines foe to the east, Russia. But they were far less concerted or centrally directed than Russias alleged hacking and dissemination of Democratic emails. Russias effort was personally directed by Russian President Vladimir Putin, involved the countrys military and foreign intelligence services, according to U.S. intelligence officials. They reportedly briefed Trump last week on the possibility that Russian operatives might have compromising information on the president-elect. And at a Senate hearing last week on the hacking, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said I don't think we've ever encountered a more aggressive or direct campaign to interfere in our election process than we've seen in this case. And it was a Ukrainian-American DNC member, not a foreign national. I have no clue where you're seeing anything about the DNC paying a foreign government for oppo research. If there were any comparison at all Trump would have already lactched onto it. I mean the Republicans are in power, they could have hearings on this if they want to. You're seeing ghosts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts