1. #3201
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    the other
    Posts
    58,334
    Quote Originally Posted by Dacien View Post
    Context is key here, Felya. The plea deal details that the meeting was set up, and in that meeting, the "Professor" offered that his Russian connections had stolen Hillary emails. It does not describe the meeting as being set up explicitly for that purpose, or that Papadopolous was receptive to the offer, or, indeed, describe his feelings about it at all; it simply details that the meeting was set up and that the stolen emails were brought up by the Professor.
    Yes, the context is that Hillary emails were used to entice the meeting, but you claim that it had nothing to do with it. It was an educational trip, like the Obama ones you pointed to. Wait....

    It goes on to detail that Papadopolous continued to set up meetings and communicate with the Professor, but it does not describe him seeking the stolen emails or setting up any meetings for the express purpose of obtaining those emails, or anything of the sort.
    Using those emails in the discussion in the first place, is that sort. You are glossing over that fact, as if it didn’t happen. You are reading into context of the discussion, by ignoring that her emails were explicitly mentioned.

    I'd like to point out that I'm simply describing the evidence we have on hand via the plea deal. Speculation is fine, but I'm sticking with the evidence we have on hand.
    The evidance is that Hillary emails were part of the discussion. What exactly is wrong in saying that? You are saying that it wasn’t the intent, which you cannot read from evidance. Intent is a mater of opinion. You stating that her emails were in the discussion leading to the meeting is crystal clear. I am not adding anything to it... you are the asserting it’s role, I am saying it happened.

    There's no evidence that Papadapolous took efforts to "hide" his meetings. Papadopolous lied to Mueller about the timeline of the meetings, not that the meetings took place.
    He didn’t try to hide, what he lied about? What? How did he not try to hide, something he lied about?

    The Obama campaign official, Austan Goolsbee, who met with the Canadian consulate, was not the subject of a news story simply because he met with a foreign government representative, he was the subject of a news story because of what he said. Similarly, Papadopolous meeting with foreign representatives is not a story in and of itself, the subject matter they spoke about is the issue, and as I explained, the information we have available does not describe a willing exchange of stolen emails, only that stolen emails were offered, and then a frustrating lack of follow-up information about whether those emails were sought or whether meetings were set up for the express purpose of obtaining those emails.
    Did Papadopolous lie about the meeting? Did Goolsbee?
    Folly and fakery have always been with us... but it has never before been as dangerous as it is now, never in history have we been able to afford it less. - Isaac Asimov
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
    The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
    No amount of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi

  2. #3202
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    Yes, the context is that Hillary emails were used to entice the meeting
    This is speculation on your part, wholly unsupported by the text of the plea deal.

    Using those emails in the discussion in the first place, is that sort. You are glossing over that fact, as if it didn’t happen. You are reading into context of the discussion, by ignoring that her emails were explicitly mentioned.
    The Professor bringing up the subject of stolen Hillary emails does not implicate Papadopolous if it cannot be shown that Papadopolous was participatory in the offer, i.e., sought the emails or subsequently set up meetings explicitly to obtain those emails.

    You stating that her emails were in the discussion leading to the meeting is crystal clear. I am not adding anything to it... you are the asserting it’s role, I am saying it happened.
    I absolutely said nothing of the sort. The stolen emails are not shown in the plea deal to have been a basis for the meeting at all. It simply states that Papadoplous met the Professor in a London hotel, and in that meeting, stolen emails were brought up by the Professor. There is no factual basis, based on the plea deal, to conclude that the meeting was set up for the express purpose of discussing stolen emails.

    He didn’t try to hide, what he lied about? What? How did he not try to hide, something he lied about?
    We're left to speculate why Papadoplous lied about the timeline of the meetings. Some have suggested that he, as an inexperienced up-and-comer, believed he was doing something wrong by having these meetings as a campaign associate. Others suggest he was much more complicit in the stolen email discussions than we're led to believe, and Mueller is holding back his Aces.

    All I'm putting forth is what we know from the documents we have available.

  3. #3203
    Quote Originally Posted by Dacien View Post
    I've gone into great detail over Mueller's decision to let Flynn skate on major charges, and @Shadowmelded posted a great article giving several possible hypotheses on this decision, including the one I put forth.
    Which it then goes on to critique pretty heavily, all of which seems to have been ignored.

  4. #3204
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowmelded View Post
    Which it then goes on to critique pretty heavily, all of which seems to have been ignored.
    It seems to critique all options as far as I can tell.

  5. #3205
    Quote Originally Posted by Dacien View Post
    It seems to critique all options as far as I can tell.
    It does, but it's a little strange to use it to validate your position.

  6. #3206
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowmelded View Post
    It does, but it's a little strange to use it to validate your position.
    Not at all strange. There are many interpretations of the Flynn plea deal, each with their strengths and weaknesses, as your article points out. I put forth the McCarthy interpretation as an interpretation worthy of consideration.

  7. #3207
    Quote Originally Posted by Dacien View Post
    Not at all strange. There are many interpretations of the Flynn plea deal, each with their strengths and weaknesses, as your article points out. I put forth the McCarthy interpretation as an interpretation worthy of consideration.
    I should have clarified; it's a little strange to use it to validate your position without at least acknowledging or rebutting the flaws they highlight. The article is also a tad too charitable in asking people to ignore McCarthy's politics given his opinions about Obama, close ties to Giuliani and bizarre opinion that even if Trump fired Comey to impede an investigation into him, it wouldn't be obstruction of justice.

  8. #3208
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowmelded View Post
    I should have clarified; it's a little strange to use it to validate your position without at least acknowledging or rebutting the flaws they highlight. The article is also a tad too charitable in asking people to ignore McCarthy's politics given his opinions about Obama, close ties to Giuliani and bizarre opinion that even if Trump fired Comey to impede an investigation into him, it wouldn't be obstruction of justice.
    Well it does point out that Preet Bharara, a Democrat, voiced agreement with McCarthy. I think the flaws are manifest to the reader of the article, as they are with each possibility put forth by Lawfare. Let the reader decide. Or, more precisely, let detractors make their arguments in favor of their interpretation.

  9. #3209
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    the other
    Posts
    58,334
    Quote Originally Posted by Dacien View Post
    This is speculation on your part, wholly unsupported by the text of the plea deal.
    You said:

    Quote Originally Posted by Dacien View Post
    The plea deal details that the meeting was set up, and in that meeting, the "Professor" offered that his Russian connections had stolen Hillary emails.
    I said:

    Yes, Hillary emails were used to entice the meeting.
    How am I speculating?

    The Professor bringing up the subject of stolen Hillary emails does not implicate Papadopolous if it cannot be shown that Papadopolous was participatory in the offer, i.e., sought the emails or subsequently set up meetings explicitly to obtain those emails.
    All it shows is Hillary information was offered prior to the meeting. You are not contradicting what I said, just ignoring it, to say no. Not only that, you are claiming that it’s like Obama’s staff meetings, that had no guilty plea attached. That’s disingenuous at best...



    I absolutely said nothing of the sort. The stolen emails are not shown in the plea deal to have been a basis for the meeting at all. It simply states that Papadoplous met the Professor in a London hotel, and in that meeting, stolen emails were brought up by the Professor. There is no factual basis, based on the plea deal, to conclude that the meeting was set up for the express purpose of discussing stolen emails.
    I am not saying the bold, I am saying the underlined. I don’t need anything else. Especially considering he founded so damning, to lie about it.

    We're left to speculate why Papadoplous lied about the timeline of the meetings. Some have suggested that he, as an inexperienced up-and-comer, believed he was doing something wrong by having these meetings as a campaign associate. Others suggest he was much more complicit in the stolen email discussions than we're led to believe, and Mueller is holding back his Aces.
    How about we don’t read into it, as you suggested before and state what lying is... hiding the truth. I don’t need to created excuses like you did right here. He lied about it, that is all I need to show he is hiding the truth.

    All I'm putting forth is what we know from the documents we have available.
    Let me quote what preceded this comment again:

    We're left to speculate why Papadoplous lied about the timeline of the meetings. Some have suggested that he, as an inexperienced up-and-comer, believed he was doing something wrong by having these meetings as a campaign associate. Others suggest he was much more complicit in the stolen email discussions than we're led to believe, and Mueller is holding back his Aces.
    Which one of us, is literally speculating?
    Folly and fakery have always been with us... but it has never before been as dangerous as it is now, never in history have we been able to afford it less. - Isaac Asimov
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
    The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
    No amount of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi

  10. #3210
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post

    Which one of us, is literally speculating?
    Everyone who posted in this thread.

  11. #3211
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    You said:

    The plea deal details that the meeting was set up, and in that meeting, the "Professor" offered that his Russian connections had stolen Hillary emails.
    I said:

    Yes, Hillary emails were used to entice the meeting.
    How am I speculating?
    There is no evidence that the stolen emails were used to "entice" the meeting.

    It's a far different thing to set up a meeting with a foreign representative for innocuous reasons and stolen emails are brought up by that representative, and setting up a meeting expressely for the purpose of discussing stolen emails. The information we have only demonstrates that a meeting was arranged (doesn't say for what purpose), and in that meeting stolen emails were brought up by the foreign representative.

    Quote Originally Posted by Felya
    All it shows is Hillary information was offered prior to the meeting. You are not contradicting what I said, just ignoring it, to say no. Not only that, you are claiming that it’s like Obama’s staff meetings, that had no guilty plea attached. That’s disingenuous at best...
    This is simply not true, Felya. I'll quote the relevant text:

    "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. The Professor told defendant PAPADOPOULOS, as defendant PAPADOPOULOS later described to the FBI, that "They [the Russians] have dirt on her"; "the Russians had emails of Clinton"; "they have thousands of emails."

    None of this suggests that that Hillary information was offered "prior to the meeting", it shows that Hillary information was brought up at the meeting.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dacien
    I absolutely said nothing of the sort. The stolen emails are not shown in the plea deal to have been a basis for the meeting at all. It simply states that Papadoplous met the Professor in a London hotel, and in that meeting, stolen emails were brought up by the Professor. There is no factual basis, based on the plea deal, to conclude that the meeting was set up for the express purpose of discussing stolen emails.
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya
    I am not saying the bold, I am saying the underlined. I don’t need anything else. Especially considering he founded so damning, to lie about it.
    We agree about this. We agree that Papadopolous was told about stolen emails in the meeting. My argument is that the plea deal does not describe Papadopolous engaing in activity that can be described as seeking those emails, or arranging meetings to discuss obtaining those emails. This is crucial. Simply being told that stolen emails exist, as I said, does not implicate him unless he was participatory.

    Quote Originally Posted by Felya
    How about we don’t read into it, as you suggested before and state what lying is... hiding the truth. I don’t need to created excuses like you did right here. He lied about it, that is all I need to show he is hiding the truth.
    Again, we agree on this: we shouldn't read conclusions out of the evidence we have until we have more facts. You are extrapolating from the fact that Papadopolous lied about the timeline of his meetings to mean that he is hiding the "truth" - we don't know that. It could be innocuous, that this is all there is to it, or it could mean that there is something more damning. Again, based off the plea deal, we don't know this. You're speculating.



    Quote Originally Posted by Felya
    Let me quote what preceded this comment again:
    Quote Originally Posted by Dacien
    We're left to speculate why Papadoplous lied about the timeline of the meetings. Some have suggested that he, as an inexperienced up-and-comer, believed he was doing something wrong by having these meetings as a campaign associate. Others suggest he was much more complicit in the stolen email discussions than we're led to believe, and Mueller is holding back his Aces.
    Which one of us, is literally speculating?
    I'm answering your question as to why Papadopolous would lie about it by offering a couple possibilities from both sides of the argument. I did not offer my position on either one of those possibilities. I personally have not speculated my position as to why he lied, I don't know that, and neither do you.
    Last edited by Dacien; 2017-12-12 at 05:19 AM.

  12. #3212
    Quote Originally Posted by Dacien View Post
    Well it does point out that Preet Bharara, a Democrat, voiced agreement with McCarthy. I think the flaws are manifest to the reader of the article, as they are with each possibility put forth by Lawfare. Let the reader decide. Or, more precisely, let detractors make their arguments in favor of their interpretation.
    Which is based on his belief that Mueller "didn't wipe the slate clean for Flynn" but investigating a President for possible collusion is uncharted territory. He even acknowledges himself that not all Federal prosecutions are handled the same way, let alone one of this magnitude. Not to mention that his proposition of the third theory undercuts McCarthy's theory.
    Last edited by Shadowmelded; 2017-12-12 at 05:59 AM. Reason: Grammar

  13. #3213
    Quote Originally Posted by Dacien View Post
    Not at all strange. There are many interpretations of the Flynn plea deal, each with their strengths and weaknesses, as your article points out. I put forth the McCarthy interpretation as an interpretation worthy of consideration.
    It's not worthy of consideration for anyone interested in nonpartisan legal analysis.

  14. #3214
    Quote Originally Posted by lockedout View Post
    Everyone who posted in this thread.
    That means you and everything you've said here is also speculation. So glad you agree what you've said is pure crap.

    Dontrike/Shadow Priest/Black Cell Faction Friend Code - 5172-0967-3866

  15. #3215
    Immortal Stormspark's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Columbus OH
    Posts
    7,953
    Quote Originally Posted by Dacien View Post
    Not at all strange. There are many interpretations of the Flynn plea deal, each with their strengths and weaknesses, as your article points out. I put forth the McCarthy interpretation as an interpretation worthy of consideration.
    I don't think it's worthy of consideration at all. All it really does is Mueller look like an idiot...which he clearly is not. Mueller has something big, but he's not ready for it to come out yet. Investigating a president for collusion with a hostile foreign power with the purpose of changing the result of an election is completely uncharted territory. Even though it's obvious to anyone with a brain that it happened, Mueller cannot make an accusation until he has concrete proof. This is why everything seems to be so quiet.

  16. #3216
    Quote Originally Posted by Dacien View Post
    But about Trump's firing of Comey, it certainly could be a factor in an impeachment proceeding, but not in obstruction. Trump's lawyer over-extended, to be sure, in claiming that Trump cannot obstruct period, but the truth is that while it may appear shady, Trump did indeed have the authority to fire Comey for any reason or no reason whatsoever. That doesn't mean it couldn't be brought up in impeachment.
    "I have the authority to shred the files that I own, therefore I did not obstruct justice your honour".

    This is fundamentally legally illiterate, authority to perform the action is immaterial to obstruction. Nobody, NOBODY is authorised to obstruct the course of justice.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tojara View Post
    Look Batman really isn't an accurate source by any means
    Quote Originally Posted by Hooked View Post
    It is a fact, not just something I made up.

  17. #3217
    Quote Originally Posted by Dontrike View Post
    That means you and everything you've said here is also speculation. So glad you agree what you've said is pure crap.
    I haven't really posted much in this thread.

  18. #3218
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    39,909
    Quote Originally Posted by lockedout View Post
    I haven't really posted much in this thread.
    *ahem*

    Quote Originally Posted by Akaihiryuu View Post
    "I know I was speeding officer. But the speed limit was 65 and I was only going 90. It's not like I was going 120 or anything!"
    Just accept you screwed up, said something that you didn't think through, and avoid the What He Meant Was bit. You're starting to sound like Trump.

  19. #3219
    I have to wonder if anyone is keeping a list of all those Trump supporters (who are all Putin loyalists apparently) posting?

  20. #3220
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    39,909
    Rosenstein says no reason to fire Mueller when asked by GOP HJC members.

    Basically, when asked about the staff member Mueller fired for having a private partisan discussion, Rosenstein said, "What do you want hi to do, fire him again?"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •