Inspector General Review of the Trump/Russia Investigation
I’ll take dishonest responses and alternative facts for $200, Alex.
paulsurovell said:
You're promoting an opinion without any facts to support it. That's intellectually-challenged.
Looks like @nohero has gone from Facts Matter to Facts Don't Matter, and jumped off the Mueller bandwagon onto the Mueller-betrayed-us bandwagon. Not surprising, because he goes wherever the establishment tells him to go.
ml1 said:
drummerboy said:
oh - Was Hillary aware of the underwriting of the dossier? Did she OK it? Is there a receipt that says "Dossier to be provided" on it, with maybe her signature?
Is there any proof at all that she knew anything about this until after the fact?
I know you know the answer to all these questions is no - yet it makes no difference to you in constructing your narrative. You simply want to attach her name to it so as to make it appear more damning.
That qualifies as a mistruth.
the more important aspect of the investigation is that the oppo research on Trump led to Russia because that's where he did business, not because the DNC was colluding with the Russian government. Saying it was Russian collusion with the DNC puts the causality of why the investigation was conducted there completely backwards.
Maybe we can make some progress here.
I don't disagree that "Trump's business" in Russia may have been a trigger the Steele dossier (oppo research), although I think that his statements calling for better relations with Russia were more of a trigger.
But for this discussion, I'll stipulate for argument's sake that it was Trump's Russian business rather than Trump's campaign position that was the "causality" of the oppo research.
But once Steele started his research using Russian government officials as his sources, actual collusion with Russia began and the Hillary campaign and the DNC were involved in that collusion, because they were paying for Steele's work (thru Fusion GPS).
Regardless of how you want to attribute causality, collusion happened, and the Hillary campaign and DNC paid for it.
paulsurovell said:
...ml1 said:
drummerboy said:
oh - Was Hillary aware of the underwriting of the dossier? Did she OK it? Is there a receipt that says "Dossier to be provided" on it, with maybe her signature?
Is there any proof at all that she knew anything about this until after the fact?
I know you know the answer to all these questions is no - yet it makes no difference to you in constructing your narrative. You simply want to attach her name to it so as to make it appear more damning.
That qualifies as a mistruth.
the more important aspect of the investigation is that the oppo research on Trump led to Russia because that's where he did business, not because the DNC was colluding with the Russian government. Saying it was Russian collusion with the DNC puts the causality of why the investigation was conducted there completely backwards.
But once Steele started his research using Russian government officials as his sources, actual collusion with Russia began and the Hillary campaign and the DNC were involved in that collusion, because they were paying for Steele's work (thru Fusion GPS).
...
Your entire argument rests on this premise - which can charitably be described as terribly faulty logic.
Maybe you should define collusion for us, because it appears you may have a different definition than the rest of us.
drummerboy said:
Your entire argument rests on this premise - which can charitably be described as terribly faulty logic.
Maybe you should define collusion for us, because it appears you may have a different definition than the rest of us.
it's collusion in the same sense that I colluded with my contractor to paint my house.
ml1 said:
drummerboy said:
Your entire argument rests on this premise - which can charitably be described as terribly faulty logic.
Maybe you should define collusion for us, because it appears you may have a different definition than the rest of us.
it's collusion in the same sense that I colluded with my contractor to paint my house.
It's more like you colluded with the sub-contractor, even though you had no contact with them.
drummerboy said:
It's more like you colluded with the sub-contractor, even though you had no contact with them.
And the subcontractor colluded with the store to purchase paint.
drummerboy said:
paulsurovell said:
But once Steele started his research using Russian government officials as his sources, actual collusion with Russia began and the Hillary campaign and the DNC were involved in that collusion, because they were paying for Steele's work (thru Fusion GPS).
…
Your entire argument rests on this premise - which can charitably be described as terribly faulty logic.
Maybe you should define collusion for us, because it appears you may have a different definition than the rest of us.
It's extraordinarily charitable to call it "logic" of any kind.
Under Paul's definition of "collusion", a reporter doing a public records search or getting information from a worker in the field is "colluding" with the governmental entity being investigated.
The only way to start looking into whether Trump (or anyone else) has Russian government entanglements would be to look into government business. That's a logical way to view things.
Remember, this thread is about the Inspector General's report, and the related Bill Barr hunt through Europe for Democratic "collusion". Are the investigators "colluding" by asking foreign governments for information? That's not the word to use, however you want to describe it.
nohero said:
It's extraordinarily charitable to call it "logic" of any kind.
Under Paul's definition of "collusion", a reporter doing a public records search or getting information from a worker in the field is "colluding" with the governmental entity being investigated.
The only way to start looking into whether Trump (or anyone else) has Russian government entanglements would be to look into government business. That's a logical way to view things.
Remember, this thread is about the Inspector General's report, and the related Bill Barr hunt through Europe for Democratic "collusion". Are the investigators "colluding" by asking foreign governments for information? That's not the word to use, however you want to describe it.
It's classic propaganda. Take a loaded word like "collusion", use it to describe a circumstance where it doesn't apply, repeat it endlessly, and expect it to persuade someone.
You have described what the media did with regard to the Trump campaign and Russia for two-and-a-half years. Daily, hourly, endlessly.ml1 said:
nohero said:
It's extraordinarily charitable to call it "logic" of any kind.
Under Paul's definition of "collusion", a reporter doing a public records search or getting information from a worker in the field is "colluding" with the governmental entity being investigated.
The only way to start looking into whether Trump (or anyone else) has Russian government entanglements would be to look into government business. That's a logical way to view things.
Remember, this thread is about the Inspector General's report, and the related Bill Barr hunt through Europe for Democratic "collusion". Are the investigators "colluding" by asking foreign governments for information? That's not the word to use, however you want to describe it.
It's classic propaganda. Take a loaded word like "collusion", use it to describe a circumstance where it doesn't apply, repeat it endlessly, and expect it to persuade someone.
nohero said:
drummerboy said:
paulsurovell said:
But once Steele started his research using Russian government officials as his sources, actual collusion with Russia began and the Hillary campaign and the DNC were involved in that collusion, because they were paying for Steele's work (thru Fusion GPS).
…
Your entire argument rests on this premise - which can charitably be described as terribly faulty logic.
Maybe you should define collusion for us, because it appears you may have a different definition than the rest of us.
It's extraordinarily charitable to call it "logic" of any kind.
Under Paul's definition of "collusion", a reporter doing a public records search or getting information from a worker in the field is "colluding" with the governmental entity being investigated.
The only way to start looking into whether Trump (or anyone else) has Russian government entanglements would be to look into government business. That's a logical way to view things.
Remember, this thread is about the Inspector General's report, and the related Bill Barr hunt through Europe for Democratic "collusion". Are the investigators "colluding" by asking foreign governments for information? That's not the word to use, however you want to describe it.
The strongest case for "collusion" made against the Trump campaign by the media, the Dem leadership etc, was the Trump Tower meeting where Don Jr., Manafort and Kushner met with a Russian lawyer who promised to provide dirt on Hillary, but no dirt was provided.
So according to the Russia collusion narrative, "collusion" includes meeting with Russians to get dirt on a political opponent.
That's what Christopher Steele did on behalf of the Hillary campaign and the DNC.
drummerboy said:
It's collusion all the way down.
Let's pretend we didn't have a collusion frenzy in the media for two-and-a-half years.
drummerboy said:
paul,
Did Trump collude with Ukraine to get dirt on Biden?
I think he attempted to collude but as far as I know Ukraine ignored him.
drummerboy said:
ml1 said:
drummerboy said:
Your entire argument rests on this premise - which can charitably be described as terribly faulty logic.
Maybe you should define collusion for us, because it appears you may have a different definition than the rest of us.
it's collusion in the same sense that I colluded with my contractor to paint my house.
It's more like you colluded with the sub-contractor, even though you had no contact with them.
Interesting that neither of you raised questions about how to define "collusion" when we were bombarded with the term by the media incessantly for more than two years . . .
Bump.
paulsurovell said:
ml1 said:
drummerboy said:
oh - Was Hillary aware of the underwriting of the dossier? Did she OK it? Is there a receipt that says "Dossier to be provided" on it, with maybe her signature?
Is there any proof at all that she knew anything about this until after the fact?
I know you know the answer to all these questions is no - yet it makes no difference to you in constructing your narrative. You simply want to attach her name to it so as to make it appear more damning.
That qualifies as a mistruth.
the more important aspect of the investigation is that the oppo research on Trump led to Russia because that's where he did business, not because the DNC was colluding with the Russian government. Saying it was Russian collusion with the DNC puts the causality of why the investigation was conducted there completely backwards.
Maybe we can make some progress here.
I don't disagree that "Trump's business" in Russia may have been a trigger the Steele dossier (oppo research), although I think that his statements calling for better relations with Russia were more of a trigger.
But for this discussion, I'll stipulate for argument's sake that it was Trump's Russian business rather than Trump's campaign position that was the "causality" of the oppo research.
But once Steele started his research using Russian government officials as his sources, actual collusion with Russia began and the Hillary campaign and the DNC were involved in that collusion, because they were paying for Steele's work (thru Fusion GPS).
Regardless of how you want to attribute causality, collusion happened, and the Hillary campaign and DNC paid for it.
paulsurovell said:
The strongest case for "collusion" made against the Trump campaign by the media, the Dem leadership etc, was the Trump Tower meeting where Don Jr., Manafort and Kushner met with a Russian lawyer who promised to provide dirt on Hillary, but no dirt was provided.
So according to the Russia collusion narrative, "collusion" includes meeting with Russians to get dirt on a political opponent.
That's what Christopher Steele did on behalf of the Hillary campaign and the DNC.
First paragraph - half true.
Second paragraph - tautology.
Third paragraph - incredibly faulty analogy.
drummerboy said:
ml1 said:
drummerboy said:
Your entire argument rests on this premise - which can charitably be described as terribly faulty logic.
Maybe you should define collusion for us, because it appears you may have a different definition than the rest of us.
it's collusion in the same sense that I colluded with my contractor to paint my house.
It's more like you colluded with the sub-contractor, even though you had no contact with them.
The question is did you collude with the former Soviet Union a.k.a Russian Federation because your contractor or sub-contractor used this paint.
paulsurovell said:
Interesting that neither of you raised questions about how to define "collusion" when we were bombarded with the term by the media incessantly for more than two years . . .
because personally I know how to define the word. I'm doubtful however that you do, give that you've been using it inappropriately for years.
ml1 said:
paulsurovell said:
Interesting that neither of you raised questions about how to define "collusion" when we were bombarded with the term by the media incessantly for more than two years . . .
because personally I know how to define the word. I'm doubtful however that you do, give that you've been using it inappropriately for years.
Like you, I didn't and don't question the definition of "collusion" suggested by the mainstream media and Democratic leadership.
Unlike you I understood that the allegations of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government to influence the 2016 election -- as defined by the MSM et al -- never happened; but that collusion -- under the same definition -- did take place between the Hillary campaign/DNC and Russian government officials, thru the Steele dossier that was financed by the Hillary campaign and the DNC.
Using the same definition of "collusion" that you never questioned, I also showed that the Hillary campaign and the DNC colluded with Ukrainian government officials to influence the 2016 election, through their paid consultant Alexandra Chalupa.
So yes, collusion with Russian and Ukrainian officials to influence the 2016 election was carried out under contracts with the Hillary campaign and the DNC.
Apart from the issue of "collusion" -- did you ever question the obviously absurd and laughable claims in the Steele dossier that were pushed on a gullible public by the MSM?
I'm reading Simpson's book - Crime in Progress. Probably about 10% in and my feeling so far is - thank god they did this research. The biggest travesty in it all to me is how the public kept normalizing Trump 's actions.
on here - paul's constant pinning Hillary with the dossier is also such a shame and is a huge boost for Trump and the republicans. I feel the repetition of this claim is incredibly short sighted and harmful. The research done was critical - it was basically a matter of following the money - not get dirt on Trump directly from the Russians. There were paper trails to justify their actions. I will try to bring more into this as I get through it.
I am getting tired of the no collusion mantra also - I believe there was interference from Trump's buddies - but no direct connections - these mob bosses always keep themselves a few levels removed. Can we just simply admit that Trump had business associates directly connected with Putin - and most were pretty corrupt like Sater and Deripaska?
paulsurovell said:
Unlike you I understood that the allegations of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government to influence the 2016 election -- as defined by the MSM et al -- never happened; but that collusion -- under the same definition -- did take place between the Hillary campaign/DNC and Russian government officials, thru the Steele dossier that was financed by the Hillary campaign and the DNC.
Using the same definition of "collusion" that you never questioned, I also showed that the Hillary campaign and the DNC colluded with Ukrainian government officials to influence the 2016 election, through their paid consultant Alexandra Chalupa.
"Ah, but the strawberries, that's, that's where I had them, they laughed at me and made jokes, but I proved beyond the shadow of a doubt, with geometric logic, that a duplicate key to the ward room icebox did exist, and I've had produced that key if they hadn't pulled the Caine out of action. I, I know now they were only trying to protect some fellow officer."
jamie said:
I'm reading Simpson's book - Crime in Progress.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-inside-story-of-christopher-steeles-trump-dossier
paulsurovell said:
Like you, I didn't and don't question the definition of "collusion" suggested by the mainstream media and Democratic leadership.
Unlike you I understood that the allegations of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government to influence the 2016 election -- as defined by the MSM et al -- never happened; but that collusion -- under the same definition -- did take place between the Hillary campaign/DNC and Russian government officials, thru the Steele dossier that was financed by the Hillary campaign and the DNC.
Using the same definition of "collusion" that you never questioned, I also showed that the Hillary campaign and the DNC colluded with Ukrainian government officials to influence the 2016 election, through their paid consultant Alexandra Chalupa.
So yes, collusion with Russian and Ukrainian officials to influence the 2016 election was carried out under contracts with the Hillary campaign and the DNC.
Apart from the issue of "collusion" -- did you ever question the obviously absurd and laughable claims in the Steele dossier that were pushed on a gullible public by the MSM?
So the Russians and Ukranians were united in their desire to see Hillary elected and prevent Trump from being elected. Too bad their efforts were not successful.
And now the Russians and Ukranians are suffering the consequences.
Do I have that correct?
jamie said:
I'm reading Simpson's book - Crime in Progress. Probably about 10% in and my feeling so far is - thank god they did this research. The biggest travesty in it all to me is how the public kept normalizing Trump 's actions.
Only 10%? Gee, I would have thought you couldn't put it down.
on here - paul's constant pinning Hillary with the dossier is also such a shame and is a huge boost for Trump and the republicans. I feel the repetition of this claim is incredibly short sighted and harmful.
Hillary could have done everyone a big favor if she had just owned up to her financing of the dossier and apologized for its false and incendiary allegations which led our country down a rabbit hole and poisoned relations with the country that we depend on for our survival.
The research done was critical - it was basically a matter of following the money - not get dirt on Trump
directly from the Russians. There were paper trails to justify their actions. I will try to bring more into this as I get through it.
But Jamie, what "money" did they follow that led them to allege that Cohen met with Russian agents in Prague to pay them for their interference in the election? And the many other absurd stories?
I am getting tired of the no collusion mantra also - I believe there was interference from Trump's buddies - but no direct connections - these mob bosses always keep themselves a few levels removed. Can we just simply admit that Trump had business associates directly connected with Putin - and most were pretty corrupt like Sater and Deripaska?
I agree that Trump is corrupt and most Russian oligarchs are corrupt and so any connections that he has/had with them are probably corrupt. But there's no evidence that any such relationships constituted conspiracy, coordination or collusion to influence the 2016 election.
I'm happy to move on from that fact, but whenever I mention it, there's a challenge from a Collusion Conspiracy Truther, often laced with some degree of nastiness, that I think I'm justified in responding to.
STANV said:
paulsurovell said:
Like you, I didn't and don't question the definition of "collusion" suggested by the mainstream media and Democratic leadership.
Unlike you I understood that the allegations of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government to influence the 2016 election -- as defined by the MSM et al -- never happened; but that collusion -- under the same definition -- did take place between the Hillary campaign/DNC and Russian government officials, thru the Steele dossier that was financed by the Hillary campaign and the DNC.
Using the same definition of "collusion" that you never questioned, I also showed that the Hillary campaign and the DNC colluded with Ukrainian government officials to influence the 2016 election, through their paid consultant Alexandra Chalupa.
So yes, collusion with Russian and Ukrainian officials to influence the 2016 election was carried out under contracts with the Hillary campaign and the DNC.
Apart from the issue of "collusion" -- did you ever question the obviously absurd and laughable claims in the Steele dossier that were pushed on a gullible public by the MSM?
So the Russians and Ukranians were united in their desire to see Hillary elected and prevent Trump from being elected. Too bad their efforts were not successful.
And now the Russians and Ukranians are suffering the consequences.
Do I have that correct?
The Russian leadership wanted Trump.
The Ukrainian leadership wanted Hillary.
What these leaderships actually did (and for the most part didn't do) to support those goals is detailed in the collusion thread.
The definition of irony:
paul accusing others of going down a rabbit hole.
paulsurovell said:
Hillary could have done everyone a big favor if she had just owned up to her financing of the dossier and apologized for its false and incendiary allegations which led our country down a rabbit hole and poisoned relations with the country that we depend on for our survival.
This seems to be the basis of your world view; that we "depend on" Russia for our survival. If you wish you can explain what that means.
I think what Pauil means is that he depends on Russia for HIS survival.
Which is probably correct.
For Sale
-
REVO luggage $100
More info
Free Items
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
You're promoting an opinion without any facts to support it. That's intellectually-challenged.
Looks like @nohero has gone from Facts Matter to Facts Don't Matter, and jumped off the Mueller bandwagon onto the Mueller-betrayed-us bandwagon. Not surprising, because he goes wherever the establishment tells him to go.