Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1543
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 19 May 2017, 5:12 pm

Rickyp,

Do you not believe there is such a thing as objective truth?


I do believe that objective truth exists, however, it is always and everywhere subjectively perceived.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 19 May 2017, 6:13 pm

The thing-in-itself exists but we cannot know it as it really is...a Kantian!
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1543
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 20 May 2017, 12:28 pm

I prefer failed Christian pragmatist. We are a sui generis lot!
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 30 May 2017, 2:40 pm

freeman3 wrote:I haven't seen a convincing case for how the Iranians will cheat.


They don't have to. Thanks to Obama's generosity, they can keep the agreement and eventually get a nuke. And, if they violate it in small enough ways, they need not fear--we already gave them the farm.

It seems pretty hard to claim that Obama lied about whether Iran could develop a nuclear weapon under the deal when you can't really show how they could. For Obama to have lied it would have to be very clear that Iran could do so. And it is certainly not clear.


Right. And, the Iranians are SO trustworthy:

The deal specifies a heavy water limit of 143.3 tons. The International Atomic Energy Agency report found that Iran's stockpile exceeded that amount by 0.10 metric tons. It marked the second time Iran stepped over the limit, according to investigators.

Heavy water is a potential proliferation concern because it is used in reactors that produce substantial amounts of plutonium, a potential path to nuclear weapons.


As for Russia...there are so many connections with Russia that it is hard to understand how it could be just by chance. How did get Manafort get hired? Why was Carter Page hired? And then there was Flynn. So that's three Russian connected people tied to the campaign. Manafort makes sure plank about arming Ukranians does not get written into Republican Party platform, even though that plank was supported by most Republicans. Then Flynn and Sessions lie about talking to the Russian ambassador. Page in an interview on MSNBC said maybe, possibly he saw the ambassador in Cleveland but that was the only place he met him, if he did meet him (it was so comical that part got played over and over as a promo for Chris Hayes). Flynn gets hired even though Transition Team knew he was being investigated by the FBI with regard to getting paid by Turkey. And why was there such an obligation by Flynn to assure the Republican ambassador about sanctions by Flynn who then lied about it. And of course Trump keeps trying to contact Flynn even though White House told him not to, finally reaching him in late April, telling him to "stay strong". In other words...don't talk. And of course we know that Russia has been funding far-right parties in Europe. And all the stuff about Trump trying to get Comey to lay off Flynn, to be loyal to Trump, and then firing Comey to stop the Russian investigation. He told the Russians that!


Oy. We know that he fired Comey to stop the Russian investigation how?

And, would anyone with any knowledge of the FBI at all make such a claim? Would anyone with any knowledge of the FBI at all advise Trump to make such a claim?

That's spin. It's far more likely that he was not satisfied with the pacing of the resolution of the investigation. There's still no evidence--in spite of all the leaks--that Trump did anything wrong.

I doubt very much doubt Trump is going to be cleared because if he is he has had an amazing amount of coincidences go against him with regard to Russia.


Okay, let's impeach him because of coincidence. That's right here in the Constiti . . . hey, wait a second . . .

I'm old-fashioned. I prefer something I like to call "evidence." Let's see some evidence of wrongdoing.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 30 May 2017, 3:44 pm

We know Trump fired Comey to stop the Russia investigation...because he said so.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.thegua ... estigation
http://www.npr.org/2017/05/19/529171249 ... estigation
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 30 May 2017, 4:13 pm

freeman3 wrote:We know Trump fired Comey to stop the Russia investigation...because he said so.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.thegua ... estigation
http://www.npr.org/2017/05/19/529171249 ... estigation


From your first link:

Comey had been leading an investigation into possible collusion between Trump advisers and Russian officials when he was dismissed by the president. Defending that decision in an interview on NBC News on Thursday, Trump said: “And, in fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said: ‘You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story, it’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should’ve won.’”


So, again, since the acting director of the FBI testified to Congress that the firing did NOTHING to stop the investigation, where's the beef?

And, Mueller's running the investigation, so where's the beef?

It's pretty evident there is no evidence. This has been going on for months. In spite of leaks, in spite of plenty of people in government and the FBI who would love to take Trump down, there is no evidence of wrongdoing.

Firing Comey is not evidence. If you think it is, then link it to a crime.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 31 May 2017, 9:44 am

Well, the issue was Trump's mental state when he fired Comey. And he told the Russians that by firing Comey that would take the pressure off. That's clear evidence that he thought his firing of Comey would slow down the investigation. Whether it actually did not or not is immaterial. I'm sure he had no idea that Mueller would be appointed as special counsel.

It does seem the talking point among conservatives that nothing substantive has been found connecting him to the Russians. Sure, we don't have any evidence showing that the Trump campaign actively colluded with the Russians. So far we have these inexplicable contacts between high-level Trump advisors and the Russians which don't make any sense, Trump associates have lied about these contacts, and Trump tried several times to shut down the investigation (remember also the complete fit he threw when Sessions had to recuse himself for lying about meeting with the Russian ambassador). The investigation is in its early stages. They need to subpoena documents, they need to track down witnesses and interview them. I think Mueller will eventually get the truth, whatever it is, but it will take time. Clearly, if there was collusion, if Trump made any deal with the Russians, then he would have to have gone to great lengths to hide any evidence of said collusion. So if it occurred it will take a while to find the evidence for direct collusion. It's premature to say that Trump did not collude with the Russians when the investigation is still in the early stages.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 31 May 2017, 12:03 pm

freeman3 wrote:Well, the issue was Trump's mental state when he fired Comey. And he told the Russians that by firing Comey that would take the pressure off. That's clear evidence that he thought his firing of Comey would slow down the investigation. Whether it actually did not or not is immaterial. I'm sure he had no idea that Mueller would be appointed as special counsel.


I hearby make you AG. Good luck proving that case. If your "proof" rests on the clarity of Trump's speech, you've lost before you've started.

It does seem the talking point among conservatives that nothing substantive has been found connecting him to the Russians. Sure, we don't have any evidence showing that the Trump campaign actively colluded with the Russians.


Yeah, what you call a "talking point" is commonly referred to as "innocent until proven guilty." You might want to look that up. The whole "lack of evidence" thingy might be handy too.

Come on. It is your hatred for him that precludes you from having even a modicum of objectivity. I don't like the man, but I'm waiting for something to materialize before hanging him in effigy. Liberals were doing that before he was even a candidate.

So far we have these inexplicable contacts between high-level Trump advisors and the Russians which don't make any sense, Trump associates have lied about these contacts, and Trump tried several times to shut down the investigation (remember also the complete fit he threw when Sessions had to recuse himself for lying about meeting with the Russian ambassador).


Sorry, this is swill. Sessions needn't have recused himself. He did so to go overboard.

Again, waiting for the elusive "evidence." Questions are not evidence. Evidence is proof of wrongdoing. So far, you've got . . . bupkiss.

The investigation is in its early stages.


False. Comey was investigating it for many months--or rather those below him were. They haven't stopped. Given all the leaks, how would YOU explain that there has not been ONE leak of criminality?

They need to subpoena documents, they need to track down witnesses and interview them. I think Mueller will eventually get the truth, whatever it is, but it will take time. Clearly, if there was collusion, if Trump made any deal with the Russians, then he would have to have gone to great lengths to hide any evidence of said collusion. So if it occurred it will take a while to find the evidence for direct collusion. It's premature to say that Trump did not collude with the Russians when the investigation is still in the early stages.


It's premature to say Clinton did not collude with the Russians too.

And, there is just as much evidence of that.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 31 May 2017, 3:17 pm

Sessions recused himself because he lied about meeting with the Russian ambassador which was a darn good reason to recuse oneself. And the extreme attempts that Trump went to shut down the investigations are indications that he is trying to cover something up. You generally do not obstruct justice when you have nothing to hide. But we'll see whether he obsttucted justice in an attempt to stop an investigation into something that he need not be concerned about.

I am not saying that we have the type of direct evidence of collusion that would necessitate impeachment. I am not judging his innocence or guilt at this point so I don't knowwhy you are talking about innocent until proven guilty. That's what the investigation will reveal. All I am saying it is speculative to contend that Trump is innocent because if he wasn't the investigation would have turned up something by this point. Isn't that your contention? I have noted the evidence to date which justifies further investigation, but I have not said the evidence indicates Trump colluded. The talking point is not that Trump should be presumed innocent--which is true--but that the lack of direct evidence of collusion by Trump with Russia thus far proves he is innocent. That I don't agree with.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 31 May 2017, 5:49 pm

freeman3 wrote:Sessions recused himself because he lied about meeting with the Russian ambassador which was a darn good reason to recuse oneself.


Nonsense. Sessions didn't lie. In the context in which he was asked, it clearly had to do with the campaign. And, in that context, no he didn't meet with the Russians.

That said, I get your paranoia. I saw clips of Clinton today. She's lost it.

And the extreme attempts that Trump went to shut down the investigations are indications that he is trying to cover something up. You generally do not obstruct justice when you have nothing to hide. But we'll see whether he obsttucted justice in an attempt to stop an investigation into something that he need not be concerned about.


If he obstructed justice, you've a few problems: 1) what was the underlying crime? 2) how will he keep Comey quiet, since he would be aware of an underlying crime? 3) Since the FBI investigation never stopped, it should take Mueller about 2 weeks to have enough to impeach and convict Trump.

I am not saying that we have the type of direct evidence of collusion that would necessitate impeachment. I am not judging his innocence or guilt at this point so I don't knowwhy you are talking about innocent until proven guilty. That's what the investigation will reveal.


Sure. What's the crime? How is it possible that even that has not been leaked?

All I am saying it is speculative to contend that Trump is innocent because if he wasn't the investigation would have turned up something by this point. Isn't that your contention? I have noted the evidence to date which justifies further investigation, but I have not said the evidence indicates Trump colluded. The talking point is not that Trump should be presumed innocent--which is true--but that the lack of direct evidence of collusion by Trump with Russia thus far proves he is innocent. That I don't agree with.


No one has to "prove" they are innocent.

I'm asking for ANY proof that he's guilty. That's all that's missing--evidence.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 01 Jun 2017, 6:56 am

There's certainly a lot of smoke. We may as well sit back and watch the show. The Republican leadership would love to get rid of Trump, but they are afraid of his base bringing them down in a primary. So, they will wait till there is sufficient evidence, and if there is, Trump will be out.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 01 Jun 2017, 7:51 am

Ray Jay wrote:There's certainly a lot of smoke. We may as well sit back and watch the show. The Republican leadership would love to get rid of Trump, but they are afraid of his base bringing them down in a primary. So, they will wait till there is sufficient evidence, and if there is, Trump will be out.


That's exactly right.

Furthermore, as I've said and will expand a bit here, it is not rational to believe Trump has had the capacity to keep his alleged crimes from being leaked. He has few friends in institutional government, thus the leaks so far. To imagine that his alleged collusion would not have surfaced by now is more than silly. And yet, we have not one shred of significant evidence. Nothing.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 01 Jun 2017, 9:28 am

You agree with RJ...and go to state why you essentially disagree with him in the second paragraph, indicating that you are already convinced that nothing will come out in the investigation.

I--and I believe RJ--will await the outcome of the investigation. And I am not sure what you call evidence, either. Trump's son-in-law attempted to set up a secret back-channel communications arrangement between the White House and Russia using Russian communication equipment, in an obvious attempt to keep such contacts secret and not under scrutiny of US intelligence agencies. Kushner also met with the head of a Russian state sanctioned bank in December. And Flynn on the day Obama sanctioned Russia called the Russian ambassador five times to mollify him about sanctions. I'm sorry, that is not patriotic behavior--that is collusion or at least attempted collusion. The question is why?Why were they doing it? It makes literally no sense in the context of an ordinary relationship between a US president and a foreign country. As RJ said...there's a lot of smoke. The investigation is to see if there is fire.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 01 Jun 2017, 11:11 am

freeman3 wrote:You agree with RJ...and go to state why you essentially disagree with him in the second paragraph, indicating that you are already convinced that nothing will come out in the investigation.


Not at all.

I said we've seen nothing of substance--and we haven't. I said there is no reason to think Trump could stop evidence from leaking if it exists. Everything leaks from his government! Yet, we've heard nothing criminal. I suspect, emphasis on "suspect," that we've heard nothing because that's what exists.

I--and I believe RJ--will await the outcome of the investigation. And I am not sure what you call evidence, either. Trump's son-in-law attempted to set up a secret back-channel communications arrangement between the White House and Russia using Russian communication equipment, in an obvious attempt to keep such contacts secret and not under scrutiny of US intelligence agencies.


Gee whiz, might that be because Obama was spying on Trump? Why was the UN Ambassador unmasking Trump campaign people?

Beyond that, what is the CRIME? Go ahead, tell me.

Kushner also met with the head of a Russian state sanctioned bank in December. And Flynn on the day Obama sanctioned Russia called the Russian ambassador five times to mollify him about sanctions. I'm sorry, that is not patriotic behavior--that is collusion or at least attempted collusion.


Really? Collusion as in "illegal cooperation?" What were they colluding about? Do tell!

Not patriotic? Now, that's funny. For the last 8 years we had an administration working to undermine US interests all over the globe. If that was not "unpatriotic," then I don't know what is.

The question is why?Why were they doing it? It makes literally no sense in the context of an ordinary relationship between a US president and a foreign country. As RJ said...there's a lot of smoke. The investigation is to see if there is fire.


Great. Have at it. Good luck and all of that.

Meanwhile, I'm just enjoying the sheer schadenfreude of the Hillary meltdown. I had to wait months for it, but it has finally arrived in full throat. She is a bona fide, tinfoil-wearing nutter.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 02 Jun 2017, 7:36 am

fate
fate
Why was the UN Ambassador unmasking Trump campaign people?

If all these communications are innocent why are the people involved in the communications worried about being "unmasked"?

fate
I said we've seen nothing of substance--and we haven't.

Hasn't stopped you from jumping to conclusions about things as varied as Ben Ghazi, the Clinton Foundation, Obama's birth place..... Your gauge for the value of evidence is entirely relative.

Muellers investigation will take awhile. At the heart of it may be, will probably be, Trumps financial involvement with Russians... And Mueller will be able to determine that when he seeks Trumps tax returns..

A handful of legal scholars and former federal prosecutors I interviewed say it is too early to determine whether Mueller will seek the tax records. But they say it would not be at all surprising if he does. There have been a swirl of allegations about questionable financial ties between the Trump Organization and Russian businessmen and banks close to Russian President Vladimir Putin, including Russian oligarchs who have made major investments in Trump properties in the United States and overseas. Trump’s two adult sons have both been quoted as saying that Russian investments represent a lopsided share of their revenues (they later denied the quotations or suggested they had been taken out of context). Trump’s first national security adviser, retired Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, has cited his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in refusing to testify before Congress to discuss his own contacts with the Russian ambassador to Washington during the presidential transition period.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... rns-215212

As a well known expert on such matters proclaimed
If you're innocent, why are you taking the 5th?':


Flynn himself said during an interview last year with MSNBC commentator Chuck Todd, "When you are given immunity, that means you have probably committed a crime
."
http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-im ... ynn-2017-5