4 ms·

>Why did they lie about the reasoning for the Trump Tower meeting if it was so innocuous? Seems like a failed attempt to avoid adding gas to the burgeoning Rus

>Why did they lie about the reasoning for the Trump Tower meeting if it was so innocuous? Seems like a failed attempt to avoid adding gas to the burgeoning Russian collusion hoax. Why did the Russian attendees at that meeting meet with the firm hired by the Clinton campaign to find dirt on Trump both immediately before and after that Trump Tower meeting? >Why would the campaign manager share internal polling with a Russian oligarch? Because the campaign manager owed $20M to a mutually associated oligarch and wanted to show he was in a position to make good on his debts. It's not uncommon for people's preconceived beliefs to outstrip their willingness to think critically about rationale for whatever specific, concrete evidence is available.

_dczq 7y ago
==Seems like a failed attempt to avoid adding gas to the burgeoning Russian collusion hoax.== And this sounds like someone searching for an answer that doesn't challenge their preconceived beliefs. ==Why did the Russian attendees at that meeting meet with the firm hired by the Clinton campaign to find dirt on Trump both immediately before and after that Trump Tower meeting?== Not sure what meeting you are referencing, but this is textbook whatabout-ism. The discussion is on Donald Trump and his campaign. ==Because the campaign manager owed $20M to a mutually associated oligarch and wanted to show he was in a position to make good on his debts.== And how does this show he was in a position to make good on his debts? Why does someone $20 million in debt take a campaign manager job without pay? How was he going to magically get $20 million by virtue of Donald Trump winning? You stopped your logical thought because it took you exactly where you wanted to go, go one step further and you may start to get uncomfortable. ==It's not uncommon for people's preconceived beliefs to outstrip their willingness to think critically about rationale for whatever specific, concrete evidence is available. == Maybe this is a chance to take your own advice.
- mistermann 7y ago
  > You stopped your logical thought because it took you exactly where you wanted to go, go one step further and you may start to get uncomfortable. Speaking of which: I responded respectfully to your questions, why didn't you reply to mine?
  - _dczq 7y ago
    I am delayed for a flight and only have mobile access right now. Not the best place to respond to such a detailed question, but I’ll try. The bulk of the evidence we have comes from news reports. This includes the Dutch viewing Cozy Bear hackers [1]. It is also, this guy [2] saying we caught the Russians hacking the DNC. The FBI Director told us that Russians hacked the RNC [3]. It seems like you don’t consider that evidence because you can’t see the hard proof. That is your prerogative, but know that an FBI officer swearing in and providing details on a case is treated as actual evidence in any Federal court or grand jury room. That leads us the the other evidence we have, which is the indictment of 25 different Russians by the Special Council [4] [5]. This means a grand jury saw all the evidence available and believed overwhelmingly that there was probably cause to believe these people committed crimes to further their motives. To me, this is evidence that Russia intended to influence the US election. That they released DNC emails, started pro-Trump social media accounts and kept the RNC emails secret is evidence that they were working in favor of Donald Trump. If we can agree on that premise, we can discuss the next piece. Is there hard evidence that the Trump campaign was involved/aware of those crimes in favor of their campaign. Here, the facts are murkier and a case could be made either way. I personally believe the combination of the campaign continually lying about Russian contacts, the campaign manager sharing poll data with a Russian oligarch, the candidate literally asking Russia to hack his opponent, the timing of document releases, the server communication between Trump Tower and Alpha Bank, the campaign lying about Trump Tower Moscow plans/details, changing the RNC platform, Papadopoulos bragging about having dirt on Clinton, Kushner trying to set up a secret back-channel, telling Lester Holt why he fired Comey, telling Stepanopoulis that he would take help in 2020, that The Trump Tower email explicitly mentioned Moscow’s ongoing support for Trumps campaign and Don Jr didn’t seem surprised and Roger Stone’s ties to WikiLeaks all speak to some level of collusion between the two parties (Trump and Russia). Some of that is backed up by hard evidence (Trump Tower emails, court filings, etc.). I think if you apply Occam’s Razor, the most logical conclusion is that Trump and his team welcomed Russian help and worked to amplify it. An example is Trump touting WikiLeaks on the campaign trail while Stone and Trump Jr we’re communicating with them behind the scenes. Obviously, if someone obstructs justice, that often hurts the ability to get the exact type of evidence you are requiring. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/01/26/dutch-media-reveal-country-to-be-secret-u-s-ally-in-war-against-russian-hackers/?utm_term=.2bb09ff2556a https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/01/26... [2] https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/12/12/dmitri-alperovitch-intv-donald-trump-russia-hack-sot-tsr.cnn https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/12/12/dmitri-alpero... [3] https://www.wired.com/2017/01/russia-hacked-older-republican-emails-fbi-director-says/ https://www.wired.com/2017/01/russia-hacked-older-republican... [4] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/16/us/politics/russians-indicted-mueller-election-interference.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/16/us/politics/russians-indi... [5] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/rod-rosenstein-expected-to-announce-new-indictment-by-mueller/2018/07/13/bc565582-86a9-11e8-8553-a3ce89036c78_story.html?utm_term=.34d63753e695 https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/rod-r...

_dczq 7y ago

==Seems like a failed attempt to avoid adding gas to the burgeoning Russian collusion hoax.== And this sounds like someone searching for an answer that doesn't challenge their preconceived beliefs. ==Why did the Russian attendees at that meeting meet with the firm hired by the Clinton campaign to find dirt on Trump both immediately before and after that Trump Tower meeting?== Not sure what meeting you are referencing, but this is textbook whatabout-ism. The discussion is on Donald Trump and his campaign. ==Because the campaign manager owed $20M to a mutually associated oligarch and wanted to show he was in a position to make good on his debts.== And how does this show he was in a position to make good on his debts? Why does someone $20 million in debt take a campaign manager job without pay? How was he going to magically get $20 million by virtue of Donald Trump winning? You stopped your logical thought because it took you exactly where you wanted to go, go one step further and you may start to get uncomfortable. ==It's not uncommon for people's preconceived beliefs to outstrip their willingness to think critically about rationale for whatever specific, concrete evidence is available. == Maybe this is a chance to take your own advice.

mistermann 7y ago
> You stopped your logical thought because it took you exactly where you wanted to go, go one step further and you may start to get uncomfortable. Speaking of which: I responded respectfully to your questions, why didn't you reply to mine?
- _dczq 7y ago
  I am delayed for a flight and only have mobile access right now. Not the best place to respond to such a detailed question, but I’ll try. The bulk of the evidence we have comes from news reports. This includes the Dutch viewing Cozy Bear hackers [1]. It is also, this guy [2] saying we caught the Russians hacking the DNC. The FBI Director told us that Russians hacked the RNC [3]. It seems like you don’t consider that evidence because you can’t see the hard proof. That is your prerogative, but know that an FBI officer swearing in and providing details on a case is treated as actual evidence in any Federal court or grand jury room. That leads us the the other evidence we have, which is the indictment of 25 different Russians by the Special Council [4] [5]. This means a grand jury saw all the evidence available and believed overwhelmingly that there was probably cause to believe these people committed crimes to further their motives. To me, this is evidence that Russia intended to influence the US election. That they released DNC emails, started pro-Trump social media accounts and kept the RNC emails secret is evidence that they were working in favor of Donald Trump. If we can agree on that premise, we can discuss the next piece. Is there hard evidence that the Trump campaign was involved/aware of those crimes in favor of their campaign. Here, the facts are murkier and a case could be made either way. I personally believe the combination of the campaign continually lying about Russian contacts, the campaign manager sharing poll data with a Russian oligarch, the candidate literally asking Russia to hack his opponent, the timing of document releases, the server communication between Trump Tower and Alpha Bank, the campaign lying about Trump Tower Moscow plans/details, changing the RNC platform, Papadopoulos bragging about having dirt on Clinton, Kushner trying to set up a secret back-channel, telling Lester Holt why he fired Comey, telling Stepanopoulis that he would take help in 2020, that The Trump Tower email explicitly mentioned Moscow’s ongoing support for Trumps campaign and Don Jr didn’t seem surprised and Roger Stone’s ties to WikiLeaks all speak to some level of collusion between the two parties (Trump and Russia). Some of that is backed up by hard evidence (Trump Tower emails, court filings, etc.). I think if you apply Occam’s Razor, the most logical conclusion is that Trump and his team welcomed Russian help and worked to amplify it. An example is Trump touting WikiLeaks on the campaign trail while Stone and Trump Jr we’re communicating with them behind the scenes. Obviously, if someone obstructs justice, that often hurts the ability to get the exact type of evidence you are requiring. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/01/26/dutch-media-reveal-country-to-be-secret-u-s-ally-in-war-against-russian-hackers/?utm_term=.2bb09ff2556a https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/01/26... [2] https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/12/12/dmitri-alperovitch-intv-donald-trump-russia-hack-sot-tsr.cnn https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/12/12/dmitri-alpero... [3] https://www.wired.com/2017/01/russia-hacked-older-republican-emails-fbi-director-says/ https://www.wired.com/2017/01/russia-hacked-older-republican... [4] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/16/us/politics/russians-indicted-mueller-election-interference.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/16/us/politics/russians-indi... [5] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/rod-rosenstein-expected-to-announce-new-indictment-by-mueller/2018/07/13/bc565582-86a9-11e8-8553-a3ce89036c78_story.html?utm_term=.34d63753e695 https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/rod-r...