The Thread of Democrats

[BarnettNewman]

I'd love to see the site stop the display of a post after about a third of the screen and provide a "see more" button to show the full post.

I have no idea if phpBB supports such a feature, but I can dream, right?

SAVE THE SCROLL WHEELS!!!!

[Animavore]

One of the handy things with having him on ignore is I don't have to scroll past a load of bollox. Thankfully you guys tend to only respond to the important parts and snip all of the excessive shit-talk. You're like my personal abridgers.

[Joe]

If you want to "discuss the topic like adults" 42, you should refrain from misrepresenting my argument. As I've told you before, that's really offensive. I've highlighted the portion of my post you cut to twist my argument into something it's not, and added some comments to show how full of crap your post is.

Now. now Forty Two, play nice. If you want to "discuss the topic like adults" my young friend, you should refrain from childish insults.

Now, how about we get back to the topic: the inaccuracy of your statement. I've demonstrated the differences between your statement and Meuller's, identifying the words he used and you didn't. I know you're enthusiastic about the criminal aspect of the investigation, but mine is a linguistic point, so criminality is not relevant to the discussion.

It's an interesting digression, but it did not address my points.

The key difference in your inaccurate representation of "did not find any evidence of the Trump campaign coordinating or conspiring with Russia" and "The investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons knowingly or intentionally coordinated" is that Meuller limited the scope of his statement to persons who "knowing or intentionally coordinated," and you didn't in yours.

You keep ignoring the fact that the Mueller report does not merely limit itself to "knowingly or intentionally coordinated." I have quoted a different quote from the report where that qualification is not used.
No, I focused on what you asked me to

I'm going to identify one point here so that you can begin to think clearly about this.

You said "go back and read your quotes." One of the things you wanted me to read was "The investigation did not identify evidence that any US person knowing or intentionally coordinated..."

I had plenty of other quotes that didn't use those words. Nice try at deflection.

Also, I'm not inaccurately representing the report. You are. When keep requoting, for example, the portion of the report that says that if they find that a given item was "established" it doesn't mean there wasn't any "evidence." Your quote is accurate, but you apply it to situations where the report actually says they didn't find or identify any "evidence."
Yes, my quote is accurate, and your caveat is just your opinion, which I don't value much, and is just trying to deflect from the refutation of your statements.

That's significant because the investigation did identify evidence of coordination between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives. (Volume I, page 35)

Starting in June 2016, the IRA contacted different U.S. persons affiliated with the Trump Campaign in an effort to coordinate pro-Trump IRA-organized rallies inside the United States. In all cases, the IRA contacted the Campaign while claiming to be U.S. political activists working on behalf of a conservative grassroots organization. The IRA's contacts included requests for signs and other materials to use at rallies, as well as requests to promote the rallies and help coordinate Iogistics. While certain campaign volunteers agreed to provide the requested support (for example, agreeing to set aside a number of signs), the investigation has not identified evidence that any Trump Campaign official understood the requests were coming from foreign nationals.

No coordination, eh? I wonder why Meuller used the word.

This doesn't support your sweeping generalization, and neither do any of your other quotes, which Meuller qualified in one way or another and you didn't.

Of course it does - what that paragraph says is that the IRA contacted people "in an effort to coordinate." They claimed to be US activists - and they asked for signs and other materials to be used at rallies. Campaign volunteers agreed to provide the signs and other materials. And, the Mueller investigation did not "identify any evidence" that the requests for signs came from any foreign national (Russian or otherwise). That's not "did not establish...but there might still be evidence..." -- that's did not find any EVIDENCE at all. That is neither conspiracy, nor coordination - nor collusion.

You got the quote wrong, "the investigation has not identified evidence that any Trump Campaign official understood the requests were coming from foreign nationals." That says nothing about evidence of coordination, no matter how much you capitalize. You're misrepresenting Meuller.

That paragraph describes completely innocent, lawful activity.

So what? My point is about your language, not criminality. Oh yeah, you cut that out when you misquoted me.

I've read the whole report, and found that Meuller took great pains to be careful and deliberate with his statements, and the caveat L'Emmerdeur shared deserves respect, because it reflects that care.

It does - and that care extends to making sure we don't use it to suggest that where the Mueller report says, like above, that it "...did not identify evidence..." that it means just that - no evidence was found. It does NOT mean that it merely failed to establish the point, but there was some evidence identified, just insufficient to meat a given standard of proof.

Yes, and that care extends to accurately stating what Meuller found no evidence of, "that any Trump Campaign official understood the requests were coming from foreign national," instead of misrepresenting it as no evidence of coordination.

The report describes actions and events that the Special Counsel's Office found to be supported by the evidence collected in our investigation. In some instances, the report points out the absence of evidence

In the example you just gave, it was "absence of evidence." Do you have any example of coordination or conspiracy or collusion where it was something other than absence of evidence?

You mean like the footnotes at the bottom of the page? That is why I provided the page number. Absence of evidence? PUH-LEASE!

or conflicts in the evidence about a particular fact or event. In other instances, when substantial, credible evidence enabled the Office to reach a conclusion with confidence, the report states that the investigation established that certain actions or events occurred. A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.

And, in the example you just gave, the events that occurred were: Russians called Trump campaign workers and asked for signs and other materials to use at rallies and help coordinate Iogistics, but they posed as US persons looking to get materials for rallies. Campaign workers said, sure we will set aside signs and such for you, but no evidence was identified that they were "foreign persons."

Once again, you cut Meuller's quote to bolster your failing argument. If there's such "absence of evidence," how come you're trying to minimize what he found?

The important point had no evidence identified: coordination, collusion, conspiracy. None of that had any evidence identified.

You mean other than the evidence of coordination I provided above?

If you were a campaign volunteer and a Mexican guy called you on the phone and asked for campaign materials to throw a rally in favor of your preferred candidate, and you had no idea he worked for Mexican intelligence, you aren't "coordinating" or "conspiring" or "colluding" with him by saying "sure, we'll set aside 100 signs for you to use at the rally."

This is right up front, on page 2 of Volume I, and the scope of the statement is "the report."

As I've said, you are welcome to disagree, but I value Meuller's guidance over your opinion. Try not to take it personally.

I haven't offered my opinion - I've taken Mueller's report at its word. Where I quoted -- imaged from the report - highlighted express language. It says what it says.

Since the report "says what it says," you should accept Meuller's use of the word "coordinate" in my example as evidence of coordination.

I assume if you had a better example of conspiracy or coordination, you''d have provided it.

Wrong again! Volume I, page 29, US persons coordinating with the IRA.

The IRA organized and promoted political rallies inside the United States while posing as U.S . grassroots activists. First, the IRA used one of its preexisting social media personas (Facebook groups and Twitter accounts, for example) to announce and promote the event. The IRA then sent a large number of direct messages to followers of its social media account asking them to attend the event. From those who responded with interest in attending , the IRA then sought a U.S. person to serve as the event's coordinator. In most cases, the IRA account operator would tell the U.S . person that they personally could not attend the event due to some preexisting conflict or because they were somewhere else in the United States. 82 The IRA then further promoted the event by contacting U.S. media about the event and directing them to speak with the coordinator. 83

Volume I, page 175, US person unwittingly assisted the IRA conspiracy.

The Office did, however , charge one U.S . national for his role in supplying false or stolen bank account numbers that allowed the IRA conspirators to access U.S. online payment systems by circumventing those systems ' security features. On February 12, 2018, Richard Pinedo pleaded guilty, pursuant to a single-count information , to identity fraud , in violation of 18 U .S.C. § 1028(a)(7) and (b)(l)(D) . Plea Agreement, United States v. Richard Pinedo, No. 1:18-cr-24 (D.D.C . Feb. 12, 2018) , Doc. 10. The investigation did not establish that Pinedo was aware of the identity of the IRA members who purchased bank account numbers from him. Pinedo's sales of account numbers enabled the IRA members to anonymously access a financial network through which they transacted with U.S. persons and companies . See Gov't Sent. Mem. at 3, United States v. Richard Pinedo, No. 1:18-cr-24 (D.D.C. Sept. 26, 2018), Doc. 24. On October 10, 2018, Pinedo was sentenced to six months of imprisonment, to be followed by six months of home confinement, and was ordered to complete 100 hours of community service.

If a foreign person calling a campaign office (not identifying himself as foreign person) asking for signs and other materials to hold rallies, is in your mind of the nature of collusion, conspiracy or coordination, then I do disagree, and so did Mueller.

How would you know what Meuller thinks? You didn't read the report, and you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

Come back when you have some facts kid, your opinion means nothing to me, and given how you've distorted Meuller, you don't get to speak for him.

Meuller sez

I've spoilered it so members don't have to scroll past the quote. Some have you on ignore, and I want to be considerate of them.

[Joe]

One of the handy things with having him on ignore is I don't have to scroll past a load of bollox. Thankfully you guys tend to only respond to the important parts and snip all of the excessive shit-talk. You're like my personal abridgers.

I'll keep that in mind. As you can see above I left only the important parts.

[Joe]

I was traveling last weekend, and read Volume II of the report. Have you had a chance to go through it?

That is a whole lot of not exonerated, and it's overwhelmingly clear that Trump repeatedly committed obstructive acts. I can understand why our friend wants to stick to collusion, or more properly conspiracy or coordination.

I did not read all of either volume, but I read enough of the report to see why Coito Two insists on focusing on his red herring. It's his only avenue to attempt to steer us away from the report's statement that "...if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state." and "While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

Yeah, the conclusion is not an exoneration, but the details are damning. If Ken Starr had turned up this kind of evidence on Bill Clinton, I've got to think Al Gore would have become President. Sadly, our Congress isn't what it used to be.

The details are "damning?" Provide a damning quote regarding collusion/coordination/conspiracy. What's the best you got?

I'm assuming it's not a person calling a campaign office asking for signs to use at a rally. If it is that, fine, but I can't imagine that would be the biggie. So, either confirm that you think that's "damning" in some way, or provide one that you do think is "damning."

[Forty Two]

With all due respect, there is nothing "damning" on collusion/coordination/conspiracy in the Mueller report. I have read the thread. There are zero quotes which establish or evidence Trump or Trump campaign people colluding, coordinating or conspiring with Russia.

If I am missing something you feel is facepalmingly obvious, then by all means, link to it or quote the report.

Do you accept the challenge?

challenge.jpg (11.52 KiB) Viewed 4942 times

[Joe]

With all due respect, there is nothing "damning" on collusion/coordination/conspiracy in the Mueller report. I have read the thread. There are zero quotes which establish or evidence Trump or Trump campaign people colluding, coordinating or conspiring with Russia.

If I am missing something you feel is facepalmingly obvious, then by all means, link to it or quote the report.

Well, if you can't figure out what you're missing, perhaps you shouldn't opine on the Meuller report, since it involves taking the effort to read the actual document instead of quotes you've been spoon fed. You might find that difficult.

Let me give you a some hints.

• While "traveling last weekend" what did I read?
• What did I say was "overwhelmingly clear" Trump had done? It's not "collusion/coordination/conspiracy."
• Who did I say would want to "stick to collusion, or more properly conspiracy or coordination."

That should get you started, and as for your challenge, the ball is already in your court.

Any time you're ready to resume.

[Forty Two]

One point -- I said, "Also, I'm not inaccurately representing the report. You are. When keep requoting, for example, the portion of the report that says that if they find that a given item was "established" it doesn't mean there wasn't any "evidence." Your quote is accurate, but you apply it to situations where the report actually says they didn't find or identify any "evidence.""

Then you say this absurdity in response:
"Yes, my quote is accurate, and your caveat is just your opinion, which I don't value much, and is just trying to deflect from the refutation of your statements."

It's neither an opinion, nor a deflection. Your quote says that where the report says that an item was not "established" that doesn't mean there wasn't any evidence. Yes, indeed. But, where the report says they didn't identify any EVIDENCE, then that means just what it says, they didn't identify any EVIDENCE.

Do you or do you not agree that where the report says it did not identify any "evidence" that it does, in fact, mean that the they did not identify any evidence? Or, do you think it means that just because they say they didn't identify evidence, they nevertheless identified evidence?

[Forty Two]

Another point - your last post is a complete avoidance of substantiating your claim. I'm claiming that what you have said is in there is not in there. So, it's up to you, making the positive assertion, to actually substantiate it. Saying "go read the report" is you not substantiating the claim. I have read the report. Now, if you want to back up your assertion that it does, in fact, identify evidence of collusion, conspiracy or coordination by Trump campaign persons with Russia to interfere with the election, then please, present it. What evidence was identified of collusion, conspiracy or coordination by the Trump campaign persons with Russia to interfere with the election?

It's a simple question. Answer it. Or, if you aren't making that assertion, then I certainly don't want to misstate your assertion. Just say - there's your problem 42, "I am not asserting that the Mueller report identifies evidence of collusion, conspiracy or coordination by Trump campaign person(s) with Russia to interfere with the election."

[Forty Two]

Another point - I'll get to obstruction of justice once you have clearly stated your position on the underlying criminal allegation - collusion/conspiracy/coordination with Russia. First I want to be clear on your position regarding that bit. Thank you.

[Forty Two]

Another point in your post - you quoted this bit from the report "The IRA's contacts included requests for signs and other materials to use at rallies, as well as requests to promote the rallies and help coordinate Iogistics. While certain campaign volunteers agreed to provide the requested support (for example, agreeing to set aside a number of signs), the investigation has not identified evidence that any Trump Campaign official understood the requests were coming from foreign nationals."

You even increased the font size of the words "coordinate logistics." You asked "no coordination, eh? Why would Mueller use that word?"

Read that paragraph in full. the IRA made requests for signs and other materials and requested to promote the rallies and help coordinate the logistics thereof. The next sentence is of crucial importance here - read it slowly - carefully - it says that campaign workers agreed to provide the stuff requested -- THE INVESTIGATION HAS NOT IDENTIFIED EVIDENCE" -- note the use of the word "evidence" -- it does NOT say "the investigation failed to establish..." it says "the investigation did not identify EVIDENCE." Evidence of what? What didn't identify evidence of? Answer: That any Trump campaign official understood the requests were coming from foreign nationals."

Someone called up for signs and such and help with rallies. The campaign workers agreed to provide the signs and help with rallies. There is no evidence that any campaign worker understood that the requests were coming from foreign nationals.

And, that - that - is what you chose to offer as the Mueller report finding coordination between Trump campaign people and the Russians. Surely, you see that a request from someone from Russia, or Mexico, or Canada or China, to a campaign - any campaign - for signs and help with rallies - when the campaign worker does not know they are a foreign person -- is not coordination, collusion or conspiracy to interference with an election? It's not even conspiracy, collusion or coordination! You can't unkowingly conspire or collude or coordinate with someone.

It's like accusing someone of conspiring, colluding or coordinating with a thief to fence stolen goods when the accused didn't know the person was a thief and didn't know any goods were stolen.

Is that the best you have on collusion/conspiracy/coordination?

[Brian Peacock]

What about the obstruction issue? Any thoughts on that?

[Forty Two]

What about the obstruction issue? Any thoughts on that?

A lot, and I gave some above. But I want the courtesy of a straight answer from Joe to my direct questions about the first bit, before I move on to the second bit.

[Joe]

Another point - your last post is a complete avoidance of substantiating your claim. I'm claiming that what you have said is in there is not in there. So, it's up to you, making the positive assertion, to actually substantiate it. Saying "go read the report" is you not substantiating the claim. I have read the report. Now, if you want to back up your assertion that it does, in fact, identify evidence of collusion, conspiracy or coordination by Trump campaign persons with Russia to interfere with the election, then please, present it. What evidence was identified of collusion, conspiracy or coordination by the Trump campaign persons with Russia to interfere with the election?

It's a simple question. Answer it. Or, if you aren't making that assertion, then I certainly don't want to misstate your assertion. Just say - there's your problem 42, "I am not asserting that the Mueller report identifies evidence of collusion, conspiracy or coordination by Trump campaign person(s) with Russia to interfere with the election."

Uh, Forty Two....My last post asked, "What did I say was 'overwhelmingly clear' Trump had done? It's not "collusion/coordination/conspiracy."

I think you must have confused it with the post where I demonstrated that Meuller report did say there was coordination between the Trump campaign, American citizens, and Russians.

Funny that you're responding to that post selectively. It's almost like you're hiding something.

It's a simple question. Answer it.Or, if you aren't making that assertion, then I certainly don't want to misstate your assertion. Just say - there's your problem Joe, "I am not asserting that

The report found zero evidence of coordination or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia (or any American and Russia).

Fess up now, you know that's not correct.

[Joe]

Another point in your post - you quoted this bit from the report "The IRA's contacts included requests for signs and other materials to use at rallies, as well as requests to promote the rallies and help coordinate Iogistics. While certain campaign volunteers agreed to provide the requested support (for example, agreeing to set aside a number of signs), the investigation has not identified evidence that any Trump Campaign official understood the requests were coming from foreign nationals."

You even increased the font size of the words "coordinate logistics." You asked "no coordination, eh? Why would Mueller use that word?"

Read that paragraph in full. the IRA made requests for signs and other materials and requested to promote the rallies and help coordinate the logistics thereof. The next sentence is of crucial importance here - read it slowly - carefully - it says that campaign workers agreed to provide the stuff requested -- THE INVESTIGATION HAS NOT IDENTIFIED EVIDENCE" -- note the use of the word "evidence" -- it does NOT say "the investigation failed to establish..." it says "the investigation did not identify EVIDENCE." Evidence of what? What didn't identify evidence of? Answer: That any Trump campaign official understood the requests were coming from foreign nationals."

Someone called up for signs and such and help with rallies. The campaign workers agreed to provide the signs and help with rallies. There is no evidence that any campaign worker understood that the requests were coming from foreign nationals.

And, that - that - is what you chose to offer as the Mueller report finding coordination between Trump campaign people and the Russians. Surely, you see that a request from someone from Russia, or Mexico, or Canada or China, to a campaign - any campaign - for signs and help with rallies - when the campaign worker does not know they are a foreign person -- is not coordination, collusion or conspiracy to interference with an election? It's not even conspiracy, collusion or coordination! You can't unkowingly conspire or collude or coordinate with someone.

It's like accusing someone of conspiring, colluding or coordinating with a thief to fence stolen goods when the accused didn't know the person was a thief and didn't know any goods were stolen.

Is that the best you have on collusion/conspiracy/coordination?

Ah kid, how about you read my paragraph in full, especially the continuation, "This doesn't support your sweeping generalization, and neither do any of your other quotes, which Meuller qualified in one way or another and you didn't."

What generalization was that? Remember when you wrote, smelling of elderberries no less, this bullshit?

The report found zero evidence of coordination or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia (or any American and Russia).

Yep, that's the basis for the argument, and you've been strawmanning ever since I refuted it.

As for this howler,

You can't unkowingly conspire or collude or coordinate with someone.

That's exactly what Meuller said happened, people unknowingly coordinated with Russians, and he called it coordination. That's because he has a dictionary.

Why don't you just man up and say, "Damn Joe, my bad. I meant to say, ' The report found zero evidence of knowing coordination or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia (or any American and Russia)?'"