Barr's Book Report On The Mueller Report Is In

ml1 said:

sbenois said:
""
Fallacy Namedropping: Say that it's a Gish Gallop and walk away. This method is unlikely to change any minds. However, because the point of the Gish Gallop is to make opponents waste time and energy playing a game on the Galloper's terms, the best move may be to not play."
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

 I think Paul is having difficulty arguing with me because I've conceded virtually every premise he's basing his theory on.  Yes, I agree that the intelligence agencies have a history of lying to the public (e.g. Iraq WMD), and yes, politicians lie all the time, and yes the FBI has a shameful history of infiltrating groups, spying, disruption, and yes there are people dishonestly trying to hype a Russian threat to the U.S.

There, we've reached agreement on whether the FBI "spies" on groups (see my bold in your text above). And that's really what this most-recent exchange has been about.

ml1 said:

sbenois said:
""
Fallacy Namedropping: Say that it's a Gish Gallop and walk away. This method is unlikely to change any minds. However, because the point of the Gish Gallop is to make opponents waste time and energy playing a game on the Galloper's terms, the best move may be to not play."
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

  All of it true, and it's actually not hard to believe those actors could have tried to set up Trump with a "phony investigation."
But logically, the fact that all of that COULD be true, doesn't make a prima facie case that it IS true.  You need to have an argument that not only has evidence to back it up, but that makes sense from an overall perspective.  And none of what Paul is arguing makes any sense to have been undertaken by the "deep state" back in 2016.  Most of it only makes sense in the hindsight of a Trump victory, and most if it is too convoluted and complicated to have been guaranteed of success if it was planned out in 2016.
Trump is a man of no principles and no character.  Here's what would be way easier than an elaborate "deep state" conspiracy to damage U.S. - Russia relations.  Just gather up a bunch of intelligence agency big shots after Inauguration Day, go to the White House and make the case directly to Trump that it would enhance his image bigly to go tough on Russia.  Mission accomplished without a host of shadowy players engaged in a complicated plot that never had any guarantee of achieving its goal.
 

My short answer -- we are in agreement again. Yes, what I've been asserting about the origins of the Trump collusion investigation is opinion, not fact. I will elaborate on this in the coming days.

paulsurovell said:

And that's really what this most-recent exchange has been about.

 only because you changed the subject from the point I was trying to make about the shiftiness of some of your responses. 

paulsurovell said:
...
I will elaborate on this in the coming days.

 Can't wait.

ml1 said:

paulsurovell said:

And that's really what this most-recent exchange has been about.

 only because you changed the subject from the point I was trying to make about the shiftiness of some of your responses. 

Well, I don't think our agreement goes that far . . .

drummerboy said:

paulsurovell said:
...
I will elaborate on this in the coming days.

 Can't wait.

 Buckle up.

paulsurovell said:
 Buckle up.

 More like saddle up. 

exactly

paulsurovell said:

.nohero said:

paulsurovell said:
 Why don't you just explain why you think the word "spying" is inappropriate to describe the FBI's spying -- with and without warrants -- on the Trump campaign?

James Clapper explained that in the discourse you keep misreading.

 Clapper explained why in his view "the intelligence people" consider the word to be inappropriate, because the connotation is that its' "not in compliance with the law."

That has no bearing on common parlance outside the world of intelligence where people are more inclined to use "dictionary definitions."
There is another problem with Clapper's explanation -- the FBI (and possible CIA) spying on the Trump campaign was not in compliance with the law. The FISA warrant to spy on Carter Page vouched for the reliability of the Steele dossier which we now know was a compilation of lies.
...

CLAPPER: Well, yes, I guess it meets the dictionary definition of surveillance or spying, a term I don't particularly like. It's not a term of art used by intelligence people. It has a negative connotation of a rogue operation, out of control, not in compliance with the law. And that's not the case at all.

Two thoughts:

1.  Paul has expended a lot of effort, to the extent that now his original point is lost, but at least he's finally commenting on what Clapper actually said.

2.  The legality of the actions under warrants issued by the FISA court is an entirely different issue.  His description of the warrant applications isn't accurate (and they were once upon a time also discussed in detail here on MOL).  Rather than go into more detail about that, and dig out the primary documents necessary to have an intelligent discussion, Paul can do that if he wants to pursue his argument.

paulsurovell said:
My short answer -- we are in agreement again. Yes, what I've been asserting about the origins of the Trump collusion investigation is opinion, not fact. I will elaborate on this in the coming days.

 Unless the opinion has some factual basis, my suggestion is not to bother.

[Edited to add] Oh, yeah, it'll probably turn out to be something like this.

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

.nohero said:

paulsurovell said:
 Why don't you just explain why you think the word "spying" is inappropriate to describe the FBI's spying -- with and without warrants -- on the Trump campaign?

James Clapper explained that in the discourse you keep misreading.

 Clapper explained why in his view "the intelligence people" consider the word to be inappropriate, because the connotation is that its' "not in compliance with the law."

That has no bearing on common parlance outside the world of intelligence where people are more inclined to use "dictionary definitions."
There is another problem with Clapper's explanation -- the FBI (and possible CIA) spying on the Trump campaign was not in compliance with the law. The FISA warrant to spy on Carter Page vouched for the reliability of the Steele dossier which we now know was a compilation of lies.
...

CLAPPER: Well, yes, I guess it meets the dictionary definition of surveillance or spying, a term I don't particularly like. It's not a term of art used by intelligence people. It has a negative connotation of a rogue operation, out of control, not in compliance with the law. And that's not the case at all.

Click to Read More

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

.nohero said:

paulsurovell said:
 Why don't you just explain why you think the word "spying" is inappropriate to describe the FBI's spying -- with and without warrants -- on the Trump campaign?

James Clapper explained that in the discourse you keep misreading.

 Clapper explained why in his view "the intelligence people" consider the word to be inappropriate, because the connotation is that its' "not in compliance with the law."

That has no bearing on common parlance outside the world of intelligence where people are more inclined to use "dictionary definitions."
There is another problem with Clapper's explanation -- the FBI (and possible CIA) spying on the Trump campaign was not in compliance with the law. The FISA warrant to spy on Carter Page vouched for the reliability of the Steele dossier which we now know was a compilation of lies.
...

CLAPPER: Well, yes, I guess it meets the dictionary definition of surveillance or spying, a term I don't particularly like. It's not a term of art used by intelligence people. It has a negative connotation of a rogue operation, out of control, not in compliance with the law. And that's not the case at all.

Click to Read More

paulsurovell said:

.nohero said:

paulsurovell said:
 Why don't you just explain why you think the word "spying" is inappropriate to describe the FBI's spying -- with and without warrants -- on the Trump campaign?

James Clapper explained that in the discourse you keep misreading.

 Clapper explained why in his view "the intelligence people" consider the word to be inappropriate, because the connotation is that its' "not in compliance with the law."

That has no bearing on common parlance outside the world of intelligence where people are more inclined to use "dictionary definitions."
There is another problem with Clapper's explanation -- the FBI (and possible CIA) spying on the Trump campaign was not in compliance with the law. The FISA warrant to spy on Carter Page vouched for the reliability of the Steele dossier which we now know was a compilation of lies.
...

CLAPPER: Well, yes, I guess it meets the dictionary definition of surveillance or spying, a term I don't particularly like. It's not a term of art used by intelligence people. It has a negative connotation of a rogue operation, out of control, not in compliance with the law. And that's not the case at all.

Two thoughts:
1.  Paul has expended a lot of effort, to the extent that now his original point is lost, but at least he's finally commenting on what Clapper actually said.
2.  The legality of the actions under warrants issued by the FISA court is an entirely different issue.  His description of the warrant applications isn't accurate (and they were once upon a time also discussed in detail here on MOL).  Rather than go into more detail about that, and dig out the primary documents necessary to have an intelligent discussion, Paul can do that if he wants to pursue his argument.

Two thoughts:
1.  Paul has expended a lot of effort, to the extent that now his original point is lost, but at least he's finally commenting on what Clapper actually said.
2.  The legality of the actions under warrants issued by the FISA court is an entirely different issue.  His description of the warrant applications isn't accurate (and they were once upon a time also discussed in detail here on MOL).  Rather than go into more detail about that, and dig out the primary documents necessary to have an intelligent discussion, Paul can do that if he wants to pursue his argument.

Click to Read More

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

.nohero said:

paulsurovell said:
 Why don't you just explain why you think the word "spying" is inappropriate to describe the FBI's spying -- with and without warrants -- on the Trump campaign?

James Clapper explained that in the discourse you keep misreading.

 Clapper explained why in his view "the intelligence people" consider the word to be inappropriate, because the connotation is that its' "not in compliance with the law."

That has no bearing on common parlance outside the world of intelligence where people are more inclined to use "dictionary definitions."
There is another problem with Clapper's explanation -- the FBI (and possible CIA) spying on the Trump campaign was not in compliance with the law. The FISA warrant to spy on Carter Page vouched for the reliability of the Steele dossier which we now know was a compilation of lies.
...

CLAPPER: Well, yes, I guess it meets the dictionary definition of surveillance or spying, a term I don't particularly like. It's not a term of art used by intelligence people. It has a negative connotation of a rogue operation, out of control, not in compliance with the law. And that's not the case at all.

Click to Read More

paulsurovell said:

.nohero said:

paulsurovell said:
 Why don't you just explain why you think the word "spying" is inappropriate to describe the FBI's spying -- with and without warrants -- on the Trump campaign?

James Clapper explained that in the discourse you keep misreading.

 Clapper explained why in his view "the intelligence people" consider the word to be inappropriate, because the connotation is that its' "not in compliance with the law."

That has no bearing on common parlance outside the world of intelligence where people are more inclined to use "dictionary definitions."
There is another problem with Clapper's explanation -- the FBI (and possible CIA) spying on the Trump campaign was not in compliance with the law. The FISA warrant to spy on Carter Page vouched for the reliability of the Steele dossier which we now know was a compilation of lies.
...

CLAPPER: Well, yes, I guess it meets the dictionary definition of surveillance or spying, a term I don't particularly like. It's not a term of art used by intelligence people. It has a negative connotation of a rogue operation, out of control, not in compliance with the law. And that's not the case at all.

Two thoughts:
1.  Paul has expended a lot of effort, to the extent that now his original point is lost, but at least he's finally commenting on what Clapper actually said.
2.  The legality of the actions under warrants issued by the FISA court is an entirely different issue.  His description of the warrant applications isn't accurate (and they were once upon a time also discussed in detail here on MOL).  Rather than go into more detail about that, and dig out the primary documents necessary to have an intelligent discussion, Paul can do that if he wants to pursue his argument.

Where @nohero the lawyer says that "compliance with the law" is a different issue than "legality."

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:
My short answer -- we are in agreement again. Yes, what I've been asserting about the origins of the Trump collusion investigation is opinion, not fact. I will elaborate on this in the coming days.

my suggestion is not to bother.
 

I couldn't imagine anything better to motivate me to "bother".

paulsurovell said:

My short answer -- we are in agreement again. Yes, what I've been asserting about the origins of the Trump collusion investigation is opinion, not fact. I will elaborate on this in the coming days.

Stop with these senseless threats. This aggression will not stand, man.

Paul keeps misrepresenting others' posts, and then "makes his point", which someone has already called a not honest approach to participating on this message board.  This one ...

paulsurovell said:
Where @nohero the lawyer says that "compliance with the law" is a different issue than "legality."

 … is completely wrong (thereby an insult), and I don't think "reading comprehension" is the cause.  And this one ...

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:
My short answer -- we are in agreement again. Yes, what I've been asserting about the origins of the Trump collusion investigation is opinion, not fact. I will elaborate on this in the coming days.

my suggestion is not to bother.
 

I couldn't imagine anything better to motivate me to "bother".

 … is relatively minor, but it's the usual "use an excerpt that cuts up a complete thought" method.

Most of us would rather discuss the issues, but Paul keeps dragging the discussion down, to being about the posters.

nohero said:
Paul keeps misrepresenting others' posts, and then "makes his point", which someone has already called a not honest approach to participating on this message board.  This one ...

paulsurovell said:
Where @nohero the lawyer says that "compliance with the law" is a different issue than "legality."

 … is completely wrong (thereby an insult), and I don't think "reading comprehension" is the cause.  And this one ...

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:
My short answer -- we are in agreement again. Yes, what I've been asserting about the origins of the Trump collusion investigation is opinion, not fact. I will elaborate on this in the coming days.

my suggestion is not to bother.
 

I couldn't imagine anything better to motivate me to "bother".

 … is relatively minor, but it's the usual "use an excerpt that cuts up a complete thought" method.
Most of us would rather discuss the issues, but Paul keeps dragging the discussion down, to being about the posters.

Those who try to disparage posters by posting cowboy videos shouldn't say they would "rather discuss the issues."

paulsurovell said:
Those who try to disparage posters by posting cowboy videos shouldn't say they would "rather discuss the issues."

It was a commentary on Paul's "Gish Gallop" posts, as in the content of them.

Paul is shocked, shocked about that.

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:
Those who try to disparage posters by posting cowboy videos shouldn't say they would "rather discuss the issues."

It was a commentary on Paul's "Gish Gallop" posts, as in the content of them.
Paul is shocked, shocked about that.

 Not shocked at all. That was a visual version of what you do with language all the time.

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

It was a commentary on Paul's "Gish Gallop" posts, as in the content of them.
Paul is shocked, shocked about that.

 Not shocked at all. That was a visual version of what you do with language all the time.

Thank you.  It's nice to hear that you appreciate how I point out the flaws in your arguments in a compelling way.

Check mate.   

sbenois said:
Check mate.   

Steele met with Kathy Kavalec, deputy assistant Secretary of State in October 2016 and regaled her with numerous lies including this gem according to Kavalec's notes:

The Russians have succeeded in :placing an agent inside the DNC.

I wonder if he/she is still there. Tom Perez?

paulsurovell said:
Steele met with Kathy Kavalec, deputy assistant Secretary of State in October 2016 and regaled her with numerous lies including this gem according to Kavalec's notes:

The Russians have succeeded in :placing an agent inside the DNC.

I wonder if he/she is still there. Tom Perez?

 For those of you looking for primary sources, the referenced notes:

https://www.scribd.com/document/409364009/Kavalec-Less-Redacted-Memo

Basically, Steele was summarizing material that he had in his field notes (a/k/a  "the dossier").

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:
Steele met with Kathy Kavalec, deputy assistant Secretary of State in October 2016 and regaled her with numerous lies including this gem according to Kavalec's notes:

The Russians have succeeded in :placing an agent inside the DNC.

I wonder if he/she is still there. Tom Perez?

 For those of you looking for primary sources, the referenced notes:
https://www.scribd.com/document/409364009/Kavalec-Less-Redacted-Memo
Basically, Steele was summarizing material that he had in his field notes (a/k/a  "the dossier").

But why was Steele pushing bogus DNC/HFA opposition research from Russian government sources to the State Department? 

Orbis undertook the investigation into the Russia/Trump connection at the
behest of an institution he declined to identify that had been hacked. The institution
approached them based on the recommendation of Glenn Simpson and Peter Fritch (specialists
in economic crime, formerly of the WSJ) and is keen to see this information come to light prior to November 8.

Was he expecting the State Department to help publicize these false allegations against Trump?

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:
Steele met with Kathy Kavalec, deputy assistant Secretary of State in October 2016 and regaled her with numerous lies including this gem according to Kavalec's notes:

The Russians have succeeded in :placing an agent inside the DNC.

I wonder if he/she is still there. Tom Perez?

 For those of you looking for primary sources, the referenced notes:
https://www.scribd.com/document/409364009/Kavalec-Less-Redacted-Memo
Basically, Steele was summarizing material that he had in his field notes (a/k/a  "the dossier").

But why was Steele pushing bogus DNC/HFA opposition research from Russian government sources to the State Department? 

Orbis undertook the investigation into the Russia/Trump connection at the
behest of an institution he declined to identify that had been hacked. The institution
approached them based on the recommendation of Glenn Simpson and Peter Fritch (specialists
in economic crime, formerly of the WSJ) and is keen to see this information come to light prior to November 8.

Was he expecting the State Department to help publicize these false allegations against Trump?

 Sorry, not going to get into a back-and-forth about the loaded, misleading term "bogus DNC/HFA opposition research".  I believe several posters have been through that already, as you know.

It's not unlikely that people were genuinely alarmed about the possibility of Trump having conflicts of interest (if not actually being subject to undue influence) when it comes to Russia.

[Edited to add] But you're welcome, since I assume you thank me for providing the whole document so you could quote from it.  Keeps you from having to rely on whatever "news source" you were using for your previous post.

All of Paul's arguments boil down to one main issue - he hates Hillary.  And he most wants someone in office who has said stuff like this: "This war of deception and hatred against my mom is being waged by homosexual activists because they know, that if elected, she will not allow them to force their values down the throats of the children in our schools".   

Who said such an awful thing?   Trump?

nohero said:
 Sorry, not going to get into a back-and-forth about the loaded, misleading term "bogus DNC/HFA opposition research".  I believe several posters have been through that already, as you know.
It's not unlikely that people were genuinely alarmed about the possibility of Trump having conflicts of interest (if not actually being subject to undue influence) when it comes to Russia.
[Edited to add] But you're welcome, since I assume you thank me for providing the whole document so you could quote from it.  Keeps you from having to rely on whatever "news source" you were using for your previous post.

here's an important point in those meeting notes:

 The institution approached them based on the recommendation of Glenn Simpson and Peter Fritch (specialists in economic crime, formerly of the WSJ)

It gets back to the suspicion that the Trump Org was engaging in money laundering for Russian gangsters.  That's the genesis of the oppo research investigations into Trump and Russia.  It's not mystifying or murky at all.  

Does Trump working deals with oligarchs connect him to Putin - easy answer - no.  Should it - yes.  This is how and why Trump/Putin will never have a clear connection in the legality of conspiracy.

jamie said:
All of Paul's arguments boil down to one main issue - he hates Hillary.  And he most wants someone in office who has said stuff like this: "This war of deception and hatred against my mom is being waged by homosexual activists because they know, that if elected, she will not allow them to force their values down the throats of the children in our schools".   

 Jamie has to reach back to 2002 for this. But two years earlier, his favorite candidate said:

“Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and woman”

sorry - unforgivable what she and her father supported for quite awhile.  It's unfathomable that someone like this would even be considered as a presidential candidate.

Please show me when Hillary supported any type of gay conversion therapy.

My quote was from 2002 - this one is from 2004:

“To try to act as if there is a difference between ‘civil unions’ and same-sex marriage is dishonest, cowardly and extremely disrespectful to the people of Hawaii,” she said in opposition to a proposed civil union bill in the Hawaii legislature. “As Democrats we should be representing the views of the people, not a small number of homosexual extremists.”