Dianne Feinstein has released the full transcript of the Fusion GPS report

[alexw]

At this rate, the Trump zealots will be denying he resigned, was impeached.

At some point I'm expecting them to deny that president Trump ever even existed.

"What are you talking about? Donald Trump was never our president. Hillary Clinton beat Jeb Bush in the election and she's just been impeached for selling Uranium to the Russians. You deplorable democrats should never have voted for a corrupt liar like her".

[Dacien]

Don't try backpedaling now lmao. You shill for that dipshit nonstop. It's fine to discuss facts, but that's not what you do. You defend him in every thread until you get shit on enough and called out for the stupid shit you post and then you try to say, "well I don't care that much anyways" or some other bullshit. Like, come the fuck on man. What happened to you? Have some fucking principles, for fuck's sake.

Now that I've got a little bit more time, that has literally happened two times, most recently in what I thought was just a normal post, trying to move away from the craziness of these threads. And Breccia came down with some hardcore rebuttal, and I just wasn't feeling it. It wasn't supposed to be so controversial. The second time was when Shadowmelded destroyed me, but it was an honest explanation for why I was so unprepared. It wasn't meant as an out, I confess she destroyed me.

But for you to characterize that as something I routinely do, is demonstrably false and misleading. If you can quote more than those two instances, feel free.


And then this, which is basically what's happening:

"Hitler murdered 50 million Jews during the Holocaust"
"Um, no, the evidence we have is that it was much less than that"
"It makes me sad that you've been reduced to defending Hitler, I used to respect you."

That actually hurt my feelers, tbh. You're wrong in thinking I'm just out to defend Trump. Trump caused a shift that really got under my skin during the campaign, and after. All bets were off. He was a flawed candidate with flawed character and flawed behavior, so it should have been simple to just keep everything on the up and up, destroy him with plain facts. But we saw this smarmy, shifty approach to the facts, where small foibles were extrapolated out to be catastrophic indicators, and then there were just the straight up untruths: "Trump's Transition Team in Disarray" was the one that pushed me over the edge and got me back into MMO-Champion after 4 years away, just a flatly false story designed, seemingly, to undermine him before he even got into office.

But there were others, where it was clear that it wasn't an honest attack, it was an effort to undermine him as a candidate and as a president by any means necessary, truth be darned. That kind of thing really gets under my skin. I'm the type of guy who thinks what's right is right, and what's wrong is wrong, and any effort to blur the lines or fudge the facts in order to bolster a damaging claim just bothers me to no end. And then I got to thinking, "You know what, they'd be doing the same thing to President Cruz," who was the guy I was backing at the time, and it's just really been dedication since.

And this train of dishonesty hasn't stopped, it's only gained more speed. The "National Guard Immigration Roundups" story, I could go on and on and on, but the point is this: I'm here to talk about what is accurate and what isn't about these stories, when nobody else on the right is doing that on this board. And it's a tough row to hoe, with nobody to back me up and everybody aligned against me. But I believe in it. I've said in the past, "I'm much more opposed to the left than I am supportive of Trump," and I regret that remark, because what I really oppose is unfair, misleading, or dishonest attacks. I've stood up for BLM and continue to do so about "All Lives Matter" and why that's such a terrible, inaccurate response. I've stood up for and continue to stand up for Obama's "You didn't build that" speech, which was wildly taken out of context.

But these days it's mostly about Trump, because he is the central figure in the news. It makes me look like a Trump shill, and I've dealt with that for over a year, but it just isn't true. These accusations aren't assuaged by the fact that I just think he's doing a decent job on policy, and a terrible job on behavior, but that he's not "unfit" just because he's a terrible person; it's the policy I care about.

Anyway, long-winded reply, but I wanted to put it out there, Virtua.

[Elegiac]

You're wrong in thinking I'm just out to defend Trump.

Man, if only your posts actually demonstrated otherwise rather than consistent excusal of the disgraceful actions of Trump and the rest of the cast of Fraggle Rock.

[NYC17]

Not reporting the meetings to the press does not make them "secret", it just doesn't. If they had been meeting under assumed names in private locations, maybe you could argue they were secret, for example, some evidence that they intended to conceal the meeting, but simply not announcing it to the press does not make it "secret". We may not come to accord on this.

But it doesn't even matter. Let's assume they were concealed and secret. It doesn't matter if there's no evidence of criminal collusion. You can argue it's suspicious, but it's not evidence in and of itself of criminal collusion.



I'm trying to demonstrate that these meetings are not criminal or unusual in and of themselves, announced to the press or not. There's a reason Papadopoulos wasn't charged with some crime for meeting with these foreign contacts. Again, not announcing these meetings to the press does not equal evidence of collusion. If our top Special Council found evidence of such, it appears likely it would have been included on the plea deal. If he's got some machination going on that will bear fruit in a bombshell flip down the line, we can talk about that then, but right now, there is no evidence of collusion in the Papadopoulos plea deal.

But listen, I think I get it. I was at work on a big project this morning so I couldn't give it full attention, but Skroe and yourself, and others, are taking all of the different things and piecing them together. Papadopoulos becomes a puzzle piece that fits next to Trump Jr., who fits next to Flynn, etc. etc., and there's nothing wrong with that. But I'm only talking about one puzzle piece, the Papadopoulos plea deal. I'm criticizing the characterization of this one puzzle piece.

- - - Updated - - -



I wonder what it must be like to just not care. To just not care at all. I could easily whip out the text of the plea deal to demonstrate how you're criticizing an accurate portrayal of the document. But you just don't seem to care, just like Butter Emails didn't seem to care.

I would be crucified if I posted an inaccuracy like Butter Emails did, and then that would be evidence that I'm a bad person. I just wonder what it must be like to just not care, post inaccuracies, wrongly criticize accurate information, and just not have a care in the world about it.

You got it good, NYC, enjoy it to the fullest.

Don't be so dramatic. You're overselling your stance, again. You have demonstrated you care nothing for factual information, objectivity, logic, and reason. You have demonstrated that you have no functional understanding of this subject. You just have an understanding provided to you by McCarthy. That's not an understanding. It's you repeating propaganda because you don't know any better.

I don't care about Butter Emails and your interactions. It's of little consequence to me, so don't whine to me about it. You aren't a victim of anything but your own willful ignorance on this subject.

Your whole post is the epitome of projection. Stop projecting. Stop feeling sorry for yourself. Stop with the self victimization obsession.

Tighten. Up.

[Dacien]

Don't be so dramatic. You're overselling your stance, again. You have demonstrated you care nothing for factual information, objectivity, logic, and reason. You have demonstrated that you have no functional understanding of this subject. You just have an understanding provided to you by McCarthy. That's not an understanding. It's you repeating propaganda because you don't know any better.

I don't care about Butter Emails and your interactions. It's of little consequence to me, so don't whine to me about it. You aren't a victim of anything but your own willful ignorance on this subject.

Your whole post is the epitome of projections. Stop projecting. Stop feeling sorry for yourself. Stop with the self victimization obsession.

Tighten. Up.

What exactly does McCarthy have to do with my argument about the Papaodopoulos plea deal? Can you explain that one to me? Did he write an article about it? I actually hope he didn't, because if he did, you'll say I lifted from it.

[BrerBear]

But there were others, where it was clear that it wasn't an honest attack, it was a effort to undermine him as a candidate and as a president by any means necessary, truth be darned. That kind of thing really gets under my skin. I'm the type of guy who thinks what's right is right, and what's wrong is wrong, and any effort to blur the lines or fudge the facts in order to bolster a damaging claim just bothers me to no end.

It must have been hell for you to watch Trump lie about Obama's birthplace over and over again.

It must still be hell to watch Trump tell thousands of lies since taking office.

Naw, it isn't. You fool no one except yourself.

[Dacien]

It must have been hell for you to watch Trump lie about Obama's birthplace over and over again.

It must still be hell to watch Trump tell thousands of lies since taking office.

Naw, it isn't. You fool no one except yourself.

I admit that I tried a bit too hard at times to explain what I think Trump or Trump associates meant when they said certain things. "Bowling Green Massacre" and "Alternative Facts" are a couple that come to mind. But you have to remember, the whole mass of dishonest attacks that had been going on had fueled my posts and it might have clouded my vision at some points.

I own up to everything I've said, and I'll either stand by it or apologize for it.

[Mormolyce]

Skroe got banned again? I guess that means another major news story is going to break any day now lol.

I admit that I tried a bit too hard at times to explain what I think Trump or Trump associates meant when they said certain things. "Bowling Green Massacre" and "Alternative Facts" are a couple that come to mind. But you have to remember, the whole mass of dishonest attacks that had been going on had fueled my posts and it might have clouded my vision at some points.

I own up to everything I've said, and I'll either stand by it or apologize for it.

Looking back over the last year I see a hell of a lot of dishonest defenses and very few attacks that weren't vindicated sooner or later.

I am struggling to remember any that were outright invalidated, to be honest.

[NYC17]

What exactly does McCarthy have to do with my argument about the Papaodopoulos plea deal? Can you explain that one to me? Did he write an article about it? I actually hope he didn't, because if he did, you'll say I lifted from it.

It doesn't matter if he did or did not. You have made it quite clear that he has set the tone for your fundamental "thinking" on this subject.

You lack the fundamentals.

[BrerBear]

I admit that I tried a bit too hard at times to explain what I think Trump or Trump associates meant when they said certain things. "Bowling Green Massacre" and "Alternative Facts" are a couple that come to mind. But you have to remember, the whole mass of dishonest attacks that had been going on had fueled my posts and it might have clouded my vision at some points.

Did it cloud your mind when Trump accused the father of your preferred candidate (Cruz) of being tied to the JFK assassination?

Here's the thing: Trump corrupts everything he touches. Businesses, evangelicals, the Boy Scouts, doesn't matter. Conservatives with conscience like Bill Kristol, David From, or @Skroe realized that even if Trump might bring tax cuts or de-regulation that they desired, it wasn't worth the cost of taking on that corruption.

But a lot of conservatives jumped on for the ride (*cough* Paul Ryan *cough*) with the idea that the ends justify the means.

Some of them tell themselves that they're the type of people who think right is right and wrong is wrong, and then spend hours endlessly defending his actions, because the notion that they actually support a corrupt fool who is among the worst of America is simply too much for them to accept.

[Cthulhu 2020]

I wonder what it must be like to just not care. To just not care at all. I could easily whip out the text of the plea deal to demonstrate how you're criticizing an accurate portrayal of the document. But you just don't seem to care, just like Butter Emails didn't seem to care.

I would be crucified if I posted an inaccuracy like Butter Emails did, and then that would be evidence that I'm a bad person. I just wonder what it must be like to just not care, post inaccuracies, wrongly criticize accurate information, and just not have a care in the world about it.

You got it good, NYC, enjoy it to the fullest.

You've been posting inaccurately this entire time, which is why you've been being crucified this entire time. It's why I barely even respond to you and just let others do the job for me. You live in some bizarro alternate reality. Often the same one as "Alternate facts" Trump. You've been cherry picking what you do and don't want to be real this entire time, and it seems next to impossible to even get you to acknowledge the realities of the world as you simply leave out responding to facts that are inconvenient to the narrative you're weaving.

- - - Updated - - -

I admit that I tried a bit too hard at times to explain what I think Trump or Trump associates meant when they said certain things. "Bowling Green Massacre" and "Alternative Facts" are a couple that come to mind. But you have to remember, the whole mass of dishonest attacks that had been going on had fueled my posts and it might have clouded my vision at some points.

I own up to everything I've said, and I'll either stand by it or apologize for it.

Yes of course, in the world of alternate facts, it's everyone else that's being dishonest. God King Trump and his white house of errors could never possibly be wrong. Anything that's inconvenient to your narrative is lies about him.

[Deleted]

"Hitler murdered 50 million Jews during the Holocaust"
"Um, no, the evidence we have is that it was much less than that"
"It makes me sad that you've been reduced to defending Hitler, I used to respect you.".

Nah, it's more like

"Hitler murdered 6 million Jews in the Holocaust"

"Um, no, the evidence says it's UP TO 6 million, which means it's probably less than 6 million, so you're just blowing things out of proportion, I've done a lot of research and Hitler is not as bad as you guys are trying to make him out to be. Lies really get under my skin!"

"It makes me sad that you've been reduced to defending Hitler, I used to respect you."

[Felya]

What exactly does McCarthy have to do with my argument about the Papaodopoulos plea deal? Can you explain that one to me? Did he write an article about it? I actually hope he didn't, because if he did, you'll say I lifted from it.

Because your arguments are fringe. It’s the same reason people point to Fox, without there being an article. When someone makes a comment about things being fair and balanced, while doing a whataboutism stunt, the source of that rational is obvious. It’s similar with Trump defending posts. You don’t really need an article to even exist, to know where the logic for Papaodopoulos plea deal being treated like a guilty verdict, comes from. There is a reason Trump has always bitched about fake news... it kind of tells you where to look for Trump’s defense logic.

- - - Updated - - -

Nah, it's more like

"Hitler murdered 6 million Jews in the Holocaust"

"Um, no, the evidence says it's UP TO 6 million, which means it's probably less than 6 million, so you're just blowing things out of proportion, I've done a lot of research and Hitler is not as bad as you guys are trying to make him out to be. Lies really get under my skin!"

"It makes me sad that you've been reduced to defending Hitler, I used to respect you."

You missed the flaw in what he said... Can you tell the difference between these two:

“I have undeniable evidence of Obama’s birth cirtificate.”

And:

“Here is evidance of Obama’s birth cirtificate”

Here are a few others:

He is arguing that focus on the big issues was too small. Which means, he considers everything from his lack of experience to his business and litigious history, his repeated and constant lying, attacking gold star parents and fear mongering. This is because he is applying bias. Every single one of those things is a big story that would sink any other candidate. Trump even said that his support is so die hard, that shooting someone in the middle of fifth ave, would cost him not to lose a vote. If @Dacien believes all the shit we knew before the election wasn’t important and Trump believes him shooting someone wouldn’t be important... what the hell was Trump supposed to do, that was important enough for @Dacien, to seem like a big enough deal? Remember, he is arguing right now, that a plea deal of a Trump campaign member, doesn’t say anything about the campaign. Look at what he is defending now and think what exactly has to happen for it to be a big deal.

He is using the Holocaust, instead of the limitless times Trump put him self in such a position, to show how people react to Trump... only makes sense if you are trying to obfuscate the issue. If you are trying to play the victim, instead of showing reality.

He is appealing to the liberal logic that everyone should be treated equal. With MLK day on Monday, I feel posting this for the 3rd time this week, is justified:

I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

When Trump supporters try to ask you to treat Trump like something other the slimy con man that he is. Remember, you are supposed judge people based on their character. You are not supposed to treat someone who acts like Trump, with the respect of any other president. A 71 year old man, threatening people with the size of his button on the internet, shows lack of character if they are a random person. Trump, should be treated like a president of the US with such character, not just a random twitter poster.

[Dacien]

You've been posting inaccurately this entire time, which is why you've been being crucified this entire time. It's why I barely even respond to you and just let others do the job for me. You live in some bizarro alternate reality. Often the same one as "Alternate facts" Trump. You've been cherry picking what you do and don't want to be real this entire time, and it seems next to impossible to even get you to acknowledge the realities of the world as you simply leave out responding to facts that are inconvenient to the narrative you're weaving.

So this is where we've ended up: It simply doesn't matter.

You posted a provably incorrect statement about the Papadopoulos plea deal, which I refuted, and you just blow right past. Just blow right past. Ignore the fact that you posted an inaccurate statement, and instead proceed to accuse me of posting inaccurately, as if your false post never happened. It doesn't matter. Facts and accuracy don't matter. You don't need to prove your adversary's arguments are wrong, simply malign them generally of being wrong.

What I've come to accept is that there is simply no room for fact-based discussion when you're the only one in the room on the right, because it's like walking into a barbecue convention and arguing about the health benefits of being vegan; the facts don't matter as much, destroying this lousy vegan is what matters. And you don't even need to be accountable. Who's going to hold your feet to the fire when everybody else in the room agrees with you?

It's happened so many times by so many people, what you're doing right here. Posting false info, refutation forthcoming, followed by generalized malignment of the person pointing out the false info. @Breccia and @Shadowmelded deserve medals for sticking to fact-based argumentation, true refutation that forces me to address their counterarguments. They don't blow past bad info in order to ad hominem their way to victory. If there were more people like them on the left, you guys would be in much better shape.

[Orbitus]

So this is where we've ended up: It simply doesn't matter.

You posted a provably incorrect statement about the Papadopoulos plea deal, which I refuted, and you just blow right past. Just blow right past. Ignore the fact that you posted an inaccurate statement, and instead proceed to accuse me of posting inaccurately, as if your false post never happened. It doesn't matter. Facts and accuracy don't matter. You don't need to prove your adversary's arguments are wrong, simply malign them generally of being wrong.

What I've come to accept is that there is simply no room for fact-based discussion when you're the only one in the room on the right, because it's like walking into a barbecue convention and arguing about the health benefits of being vegan; the facts don't matter as much, destroying this lousy vegan is what matters. And you don't even need to be accountable. Who's going to hold your feet to the fire when everybody else in the room agrees with you?

It's happened so many times by so many people, what you're doing right here. Posting false info, refutation forthcoming, followed by generalized malignment of the person pointing out the false info. @Breccia and @Shadowmelded deserve medals for sticking to fact-based argumentation, true refutation that forces me to address their counterarguments. They don't blow past bad info in order to ad hominem their way to victory. If there were more people like them on the left, you guys would be in much better shape.

You didn't refute anything. You are flat out ignoring what his plea deal is for. Not just lying to the FBI, but lying to the FBI about meeting Russians.

If you claim to be the one with facts, I am sorry to tell you, you aren't.

[NYC17]

So this is where we've ended up: It simply doesn't matter.

You posted a provably incorrect statement about the Papadopoulos plea deal, which I refuted, and you just blow right past. Just blow right past. Ignore the fact that you posted an inaccurate statement, and instead proceed to accuse me of posting inaccurately, as if your false post never happened. It doesn't matter. Facts and accuracy don't matter. You don't need to prove your adversary's arguments are wrong, simply malign them generally of being wrong.

What I've come to accept is that there is simply no room for fact-based discussion when you're the only one in the room on the right, because it's like walking into a barbecue convention and arguing about the health benefits of being vegan; the facts don't matter as much, destroying this lousy vegan is what matters. And you don't even need to be accountable. Who's going to hold your feet to the fire when everybody else in the room agrees with you?

It's happened so many times by so many people, what you're doing right here. Posting false info, refutation forthcoming, followed by generalized malignment of the person pointing out the false info. @Breccia and @Shadowmelded deserve medals for sticking to fact-based argumentation, true refutation that forces me to address their counterarguments. They don't blow past bad info in order to ad hominem their way to victory. If there were more people like them on the left, you guys would be in much better shape.

You haven't proven anything. Man the way you oversell yourself, your argumentative accomplishments, and the strength of your position, well, it's almost like you're so steeped in willful ignorance you can't see which side of the situation you're on.

You are so overwhelmingly bad at this.

[Dacien]

You haven't proven anything. Man the way you oversell yourself, your argumentative accomplishments, and the strength of your position, well, it's almost like you're so steeped in willful ignorance you can't see which side of the situation you're on.

You are so overwhelmingly bad at this.

Alright, you break this one down for me then:

If they offer you dirt and you go to a meeting about that, that's collusion.

The plea deal doesn't describe this. it states a meeting was set up, doesn't say for what reason, and in that meeting dirt was offered.

"On or about April 26, 2016, defendant PAPADOPOULOS met the Professor for breakfast at a London hotel. During this meeting, the Professor told defendant PAPADOPOULOS that he had just returned from a trip to Moscow where he had met with high level Russian government officials. The Professor told defendant PAPADOPOULOS that on that trip he (the Professor) learned that the Russians had obtained "dirt" on then-candidate
Clinton."

Describe to me, NYC, you describe to me how overwhelmingly bad I am at refuting bad info.

[PosPosPos]

Alright, you break this one down for me then:





"On or about April 26, 2016, defendant PAPADOPOULOS met the Professor for breakfast at a London hotel. During this meeting, the Professor told defendant PAPADOPOULOS that he had just returned from a trip to Moscow where he had met with high level Russian government officials. The Professor told defendant PAPADOPOULOS that on that trip he (the Professor) learned that the Russians had obtained "dirt" on then-candidate
Clinton."

Describe to me, NYC, you describe to me how overwhelmingly bad I am at refuting bad info.

He totally met up with officials from another country of which his home nation has really strained relations with and also at a convenient time at which it's during a presidential election for tea and biscuits.

Oh Dacien, you are so desperate it's unsightly. But it's understandable, because alt-righters have no justification in everything they do.

[Dacien]

He totally met up with officials from another country of which his home nation has really strained relations with for tea and biscuits.

Oh Dacien, you are so desperate it's unsightly. But it's understandable, because alt-righters have no justification in everything they do.

Ignoring the fact that I've provided links that show that campaign representatives meeting with foreign officials is not unprecedented or illegal, you're using supposition and suspicion in place of evidence. There's no evidence of collusion in the plea deal, but "he probably did", to paraphrase. That's your argument.

[Orbitus]

Ignoring the fact that I've provided links that show that campaign representatives meeting with foreign officials is not unprecedented or illegal, you're using supposition and suspicion in place of evidence. There's no evidence of collusion in the plea deal, but "he probably did", to paraphrase. That's your argument.

Yes it is. Especially if you are private citizens meeting with enemy nations. Especially when you are violating election laws by receiving information from a foreign country that hacked your opposition.