(08-19-2020 11:42 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Forget it - he is clinging bitterly to his smoky conspiracy theory.

I literally quoted the Senate report. Which part of that isn't to be believed?

Lad...
My response in 9 was unnecessarily snipey and I apologize. Other things going on in my life that caused me to be short.

My response in 11 is similarly short, but to my point.

I get the similarities and again, am not going to read the whole thing (I can't even use a 'find' function to find your reference and read around it) but would be happy to read other information. I don't remotely claim to know all that need be known in this, and I don't think many people can be. There is a lot.

My point is (in 11) that I see a big difference between hiring (or even just asking or listening to) a foreign national to dig up dirt on your opponent to create a 'what if' sort of hit piece of a political opponent, and using that information to then manipulate the justice/legal system EVEN JUST A LITTLE BIT to actually legally try and stand in the way of the agenda of a duly elected person.... not for a day or a few months, but for almost literally half his term. The first is dirty politics... been happening for years though. People should know by now not to trust every conspiracy theory... but some have legs. The second subverts an election after the fact.... and is really only applicable to the 'winner' of that election. There really isn't a point in going after the loser, unless they're running again I guess.

It's like the difference between someone saying Trump is a sexual predator in a tweet or on this forum, and someone saying on the floor of the senate in a formal hearing investigating that specific issue, that in your expert opinion, based on being a criminal prosecutor and thus an expert on the subject, he has committed specific crimes. One is a tweet/opinion, the other is sworn or at least formal testimony.

(08-19-2020 10:54 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Again, seriously?

Read my previous post as it hopefully explains my position better... That said, I want to be clear.

Quote:The senate intel report spells out that the Trump campaign (Roger Stone) told Wikileaks to dump the DNC emails (which the intel report spells out were stolen by Russia) when they found out about the Access Hollywood tape.

So we literally have a campaign official working with Wikileaks to use information stolen by a foreign government to influence the election.

It's a detail, but meaningful IMO. There is a difference between hiring somebody to do something and 'telling' them to do it. In this case, your quote says Corsi said that Stone told him to tell wiki to do something. I see no allegations that there was a contract between them to do anything.

Quote:You try and tell me I'm dodging and weaving when you won't even address the facts and wave this off because of how long the document.

Well, that's precisely what 'whatabout' is. You didn't address the originally quoted material, instead you simply quoted other material, not challenging the original quotes, but simply pointing fingers somewhere else.

So yeah... You're complaining about me not addressing your point when you didn't address the previous point. I don't think that's unfair... and 1,000 pages is a lot of reading to do for a 'hobby'. Did you read all 1,000 pages?

Quote:This doesn't takeaway from the other findings of FBI conduct - I don't see why we must dismiss one in order to acknowledge the other.

I absolutely didn't dismiss it. I noted a very significant difference between the actions alleged in Tanq's post 4 w/r/t the DNC vs the similar actions you posted in post 8 about the Trump campaign.

I pointed out what I consider to be an extremely big difference... involving the FBI.... 'making a Federal case of it.'

If you don't agree that it is different, that's fine... but I certainly did address it.

(08-19-2020 10:54 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-18-2020 04:26 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-18-2020 02:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-18-2020 02:27 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-18-2020 01:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Here's a great quote that helps explain why I put that first sentence in there...

How does this show what you allege?

Never mind. Deflect, dodge, whatabout.

Seriously?

Does that not show that "Trump and his campaign were dirty and solicited foreign interference (most notably through Wikileaks)."

If you can explain to me how it doesn't show the Trump campaign soliciting foreign interference through Wikileaks, then maybe you have a point.

This is a 1,000 page document that I don't care to read. All I can speak to is what you quoted.

Only one of them then turned that into quite literally a 'federal case'. It's one thing to place some allegation in the press... that happens every day. In a very small way, we're doing it right now. We're talking about engaging the FBI and Congress to investigate the issue. More to MY way of thinking, it's like the guy who aggressively accuses his girl of cheating to cover up the fact that he's cheating.

If you want to compare the two, I'd start there.

Again, seriously?

The senate intel report spells out that the Trump campaign (Roger Stone) told Wikileaks to dump the DNC emails (which the intel report spells out were stolen by Russia) when they found out about the Access Hollywood tape.

So we literally have a campaign official working with Wikileaks to use information stolen by a foreign government to influence the election.

You try and tell me I'm dodging and weaving when you won't even address the facts and wave this off because of how long the document.

This doesn't takeaway from the other findings of FBI conduct - I don't see why we must dismiss one in order to acknowledge the other.

Was Roger Stone officially 'in the Trump campaign' at that point?

(08-18-2020 01:08 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  As opposed to someone's comments on the report (Miller above) how about exact quotes from the report:

Quote:(U) Volume 5 of the report on Russian Active Measures Campaigns and Interference is the last body of work relating to the Committee’s investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. This final volume brings an end to more than three years of investigative work. Bipartisan professional staff reviewed more than one million documents and interviewed more than 200 witnesses to produce over 1,000 pages of analysis. Volume 5 exhaustively reviews the counterintelligence threats and vulnerabilities to the 2016 election, but never explicitly states the critical fact: the Committee found no evidence that then-candidate Donald Trump or his campaign colluded with the Russian government in its efforts to meddle in the election.

Quote:(U) The Trump campaign publicly and repeatedly promoted a policy of improving relations with Moscow which, in some ways, was a view not much different than the effort by the Obama administration to “reset” relations between the two countries. Such a policy does not itself constitute collusion or a counterintelligence threat. Volume 5 includes sections that address foreign policy actions taken by the Trump transition team in line with this policy, not because the Committee found any evidence that these foreign policy actions were the result of collaboration with the Russian Government, but to show that after an exhaustive investigation allegations of cooperation can be put to rest. Decisions taken were the result of a foreign policy viewpoint, not illicit Russian influence. We feel Volume 5 should have explicitly stated this.

Quote:(U) More than three and a half years later, the Trump administration’s record on Russia shows a consistent attempt to cooperate with Russia where possible, while responding firmly to Russia’s nefarious activity worldwide. For instance, under the leadership of President Trump, the administration effectuated the largest expulsion of Russian spies in U.S. history after Russian operatives poisoned Sergei Skripal in London, provided Javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine to deter Russian aggression, and led the U.S. withdrawal from the Open Skies Treaty and Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty-international agreements that the Russians have been violating for years and wish to preserve.

Quote:(U) While this Volume did not find evidence of collusion between President Trump and the Russians, it does detail a stunning accounting of the FBl’s sloppy work and poor judgment. In 2016, the Democratic Party, using a series of arm’s length transactions, hired a foreign citizen to seek out dirt on a political opponent, provided by foreign sources. This Volume confirms that Christopher Steele used information gained from sources in Russia-some with direct ties to the Russian Government. That unverified, uncorroborated, foreign information was then actively circulated with the press to disparage a U.S. political candidate.

Quote:(U) Meanwhile, the FBI should have followed the advice of other intelligence agencies to view Steele’s reports skeptically, and the Bureau should have verified the methodology and the information before using it. Instead, the Bureau used the material in FISA applications and insisted on its inclusion in the Intelligence Community Assessment. Other IC agencies wanted to exclude the Dossier from the ICA because they had not verified its sources or its data. All Americans should be deeply troubled that the FBI was willing to accept and use Steele’s information without verifying its sourcing or methodology.

Quote:(U) Volume 5 is an important contribution to the historical record from which historians will someday draw. As is evident to those who read all five volumes of the Committee’s report, the Russian government inappropriately meddled in our 2016 general election in many ways but then-Candidate Trump was not complicit. After more than three years of investigation by this Committee, we can now say with no doubt, there was no collusion.

What does the "U" stand for?

Promising that this was done in a bipartisan manner. Will be interesting to see if they follow up on the recommendations or if they get shelved in the Indiana Jones vault.

Too bad both sides didn't take a pass on the additional view/editorial.

Look forward to reading in more detail.

If lad had read the full Stone email and text exchange, Stone alleges contacts with both Wikileaks and Guccifer -- none of these is specifically nor unalterably proven to stone.

Stone did note to people in Trump's campaign that "Get to [the head of Organization 1] [a]t Ecuadorian Embassy in London and get the pending [Organization 1] emails . . . they deal with Foundation, allegedly."

So, exactly what is wrong with this? In fact, Stone is operating in no worse of a fashion than Perkins Coie, the firm they hired, or Steele himself.

"On or about July 31, 2016, Stone emailed Person 1 with the subject line, "Call me MON." The body of the email said Person 1's associate in the UK "should see [the head of Organization 1]."

Again, what is the issue? Seems to me every side should have the right and ability to find issues and 'dirt' on the other. I guess you selectively choose that they should not.

"On or about August 2, 2016, Person 1 emailed Stone saying he was in Europe and planned to return in or around mid-August. Person 1 wrote, "Word is friend in embassy plans 2 more dumps. One shortly after I'm back. 2nd in Oct. Impact planned to be very damaging."

"Person 1 added in the same email, "Time to let more than [the Clinton Campaign chairman] to be exposed as in bed w 5 enemy if they are not ready to drop HRC. That appears to be the game hackers are now about. Would not hurt to start suggesting HRC old, memory bad, has stroke - neither he nor she well. I expect that much of next dump focus, setting stage for Foundation debacle."

Again, the entire interactions dealt with interactions with Wikileaks. I guess one should not be allowed to seek damaging information on political opponents in your worldview?

"Starting in early August 2016, after receiving the August 2, 2016 email from Person 1, Stone made repeated statements about information he claimed to have learned from the head of Organization 1," the indictment said, citing four separate instances where Stone publicly alluded to his knowledge of WikiLeaks and communications with Assange.
Some of these statements included an August 21, 2016 tweet which read: "Trust me, it will soon [be] Podesta's time in the barrel."

"[The head of Organization 1] has kryptonite on Hillary," Person 2 said in a text message to Stone on August 27, 2016.

When one reads the entirety of the Stone/Corsi communications, they undoubtedly sought information from Wikileaks. What exactly and precisely is the problem with this? Should one, in the middle of a campaign, when the potential of information appears, simply cover their ears and sing LALALALALALALALA? That seems to be the only course available based on your umbrage at Stone/Corsi. That is a wildly fascinating stance.

And, once you answer the above, then how does that compare with pretty much the exact same framework of soliciting information from the Clinton/ Perkins Coie side? I would suspect that your ability to differentiate that course of action from the opposite side will be quite the Fred Astaire master performance to watch unfold.

One request: give me some time to grab a soda and some popcorn on those last two questions.

(08-19-2020 01:21 PM)ausowl Wrote:  

(08-18-2020 01:08 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  As opposed to someone's comments on the report (Miller above) how about exact quotes from the report:

Quote:(U) Volume 5 of the report on Russian Active Measures Campaigns and Interference is the last body of work relating to the Committee’s investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. This final volume brings an end to more than three years of investigative work. Bipartisan professional staff reviewed more than one million documents and interviewed more than 200 witnesses to produce over 1,000 pages of analysis. Volume 5 exhaustively reviews the counterintelligence threats and vulnerabilities to the 2016 election, but never explicitly states the critical fact: the Committee found no evidence that then-candidate Donald Trump or his campaign colluded with the Russian government in its efforts to meddle in the election.

Quote:(U) The Trump campaign publicly and repeatedly promoted a policy of improving relations with Moscow which, in some ways, was a view not much different than the effort by the Obama administration to “reset” relations between the two countries. Such a policy does not itself constitute collusion or a counterintelligence threat. Volume 5 includes sections that address foreign policy actions taken by the Trump transition team in line with this policy, not because the Committee found any evidence that these foreign policy actions were the result of collaboration with the Russian Government, but to show that after an exhaustive investigation allegations of cooperation can be put to rest. Decisions taken were the result of a foreign policy viewpoint, not illicit Russian influence. We feel Volume 5 should have explicitly stated this.

Quote:(U) More than three and a half years later, the Trump administration’s record on Russia shows a consistent attempt to cooperate with Russia where possible, while responding firmly to Russia’s nefarious activity worldwide. For instance, under the leadership of President Trump, the administration effectuated the largest expulsion of Russian spies in U.S. history after Russian operatives poisoned Sergei Skripal in London, provided Javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine to deter Russian aggression, and led the U.S. withdrawal from the Open Skies Treaty and Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty-international agreements that the Russians have been violating for years and wish to preserve.

Quote:(U) While this Volume did not find evidence of collusion between President Trump and the Russians, it does detail a stunning accounting of the FBl’s sloppy work and poor judgment. In 2016, the Democratic Party, using a series of arm’s length transactions, hired a foreign citizen to seek out dirt on a political opponent, provided by foreign sources. This Volume confirms that Christopher Steele used information gained from sources in Russia-some with direct ties to the Russian Government. That unverified, uncorroborated, foreign information was then actively circulated with the press to disparage a U.S. political candidate.

Quote:(U) Meanwhile, the FBI should have followed the advice of other intelligence agencies to view Steele’s reports skeptically, and the Bureau should have verified the methodology and the information before using it. Instead, the Bureau used the material in FISA applications and insisted on its inclusion in the Intelligence Community Assessment. Other IC agencies wanted to exclude the Dossier from the ICA because they had not verified its sources or its data. All Americans should be deeply troubled that the FBI was willing to accept and use Steele’s information without verifying its sourcing or methodology.

Quote:(U) Volume 5 is an important contribution to the historical record from which historians will someday draw. As is evident to those who read all five volumes of the Committee’s report, the Russian government inappropriately meddled in our 2016 general election in many ways but then-Candidate Trump was not complicit. After more than three years of investigation by this Committee, we can now say with no doubt, there was no collusion.

What does the "U" stand for?

Promising that this was done in a bipartisan manner. Will be interesting to see if they follow up on the recommendations or if they get shelved in the Indiana Jones vault.

Too bad both sides didn't take a pass on the additional view/editorial.

Look forward to reading in more detail.

I would assume the [U] would be to denote an unredacted portion or paragraph of the report.

Funny that I, with zero experience in government, would know that while our erstwhile former Secretary of State hadnt a clue on the classification designations on each paragraph that were stored on here jury rigged server.

As for in more detail -- 5 volumes, probably close to 7000 pages.