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

[Deja Thoris]

Dacien, supporting morally bankrupt lying racist bigots because he agrees with them on 'some issues'
If that's your stance you ain't his ally, get that through your head. Your part of what the American people have to work through their immune system.

[Kiri]

I wanted to add something else.

I have vigorously defended gun rights in threads about the topic, both in the megathread and elsewhere, but maybe you didn't see that because I posted under mage21. I wonder if that softens your opinion. I wonder if a staunch 2nd Amendment supporter deserves any respect, or if posting about the Mueller investigation from a skeptical point of view, posting points of view that lean favorable toward Trump, renders me persona non grata. I wonder how much we could agree about which wouldn't matter if I posted anything positive about Trump.

I wonder how despising Trump became the number one issue for people like yourself, even above gun rights. That an ally on gun rights loses all respect if they post in any way favorably toward Trump. Do you realize how close we came to the 2nd Amendment being thrown into jeopardy? Do you realize that? Never mind the extremely strict gun control laws Clinton supported, her Supreme Court pick sure as heck wouldn't be an originalist. Landmark DC v. Heller was "wrongly decided" in her mind.

But none of that matters, Trump is a terrible person who probably committed conspiracy, we don't have an investigatory disposition on that, but he probably did, so gun rights advocacy goes right out the window. A gun rights advocate isn't simply a wrong-headed ally, they lose all respect.

It really got under my skin, the things you said. I can't wrap my head around the idea that anyone on the right would be so adamantly anti-Trump that an ally on the issues loses all respect if they post anything favorable toward Trump. I understand the schism, the David Frenchs versus the David Limbaughs, the matter-of-principle versus the binary choice, but I don't understand the idea that anyone on the other side of this schism, even if they're a political ally, is worthy of no respect.

@Skroe espouses the same views as you do, even going so far to claim that if you fall on the other side of the discussion, then you're not a "real conservative". If you're willing to call balls and strikes on Trump instead of simply throwing him out of the game, then you're not a "real conservative". I would never offer that Skroe or yourself aren't "real" red voters, suggest that you guys were willing to abandon the issues you really care about because of bad tweets and atrocious behavior. That kind of intra-party divisiveness isn't accurate or productive. I wish I could be offered the same courtesy.

Perception is a powerful thing. I personally do not really know you, I don't argue with you often. But even as a relative outsider, I did notice that you are often in topics like this, taking the side of Trump. Due to that, you do not seem like 'an ally on gun rights that happens to defend Trump', but more 'a Trump supporter that happens to defend gun rights'.
Your debate style is also similar to what Trump supporters do. Always demanding concrete, palpable evidence for everything. Getting hung up on exact words and semantics. Speaking down to people. Arguing from a point of impartiality, but not truly living it. I mean right now there is a topic on an indictment in the Uranium One investigation, in which the OP uses someone being indicted in general in order to make a point against Hillary and Obama. That would be right in your ball park to pick apart, just like you are taking stabs at the Mueller investigation. There are a lot of occasions like that where 'not seeing you in a thread' adds to the perception of you.

Now, don't take that as me singling you out or anything. There are Trump detractors that behave in that way as well. I am merely trying to answer the question you posed. If someone is perceived as always defending Trump, just like someone who is perceived as always attacking Trump, then their words lose a bit of substance. If you are not consistent in being against turning progress in these investigations, then your arguments there represent values and conviction. But if you only care if 'your side' is subject to wrongful conclusions, then it is perceived less as an argument born from values, but rather tribalism. And that implies that you are only an ally of convenience with regards to gun rights.

In addition, just happening to be on the same side on one issue only gets you that far. To most people, gun rights just are not the number one issue. They have complex opinions and preferences for specific policy mixes. Just 'sharing my stance on one issue' would not get you any respect from me, either. And if appear to ally yourself strongly with Trump, then you start representing his policy mix. Being against Trump's package can easily supersede gun rights, especially when the latter are not necessarily in danger right now. No one is currently making any realistic pushes for more gun control. But the president is currently holding Dreamers hostage, he is kicking out people who fled violence years ago and have are productive members of society (momentarily disregarding those who are actual leeches), he is using the office of the President to spread lies unabashedly and openly insults citizens. Most people who constantly defend Trump also defend all of these things. If you are mostly seen defending Trump, then you are seen the same way. That is just how the human brain works.

I hope that helps answering the questions you poised. Again, I am trying to just explain the kind of perception and its effects. I don't mean to personally single you out or anything, lots of people do that on both sides. So, um, nothing personal, haha.

[Gestopft]

Your debate style is also similar to what Trump supporters do. Always demanding concrete, palpable evidence for everything. Getting hung up on exact words and semantics.

And not to pile on @Dacien, but a major part of the Trump supporter/"Not Trump supporter" playbook and/or mindset appears to be ignoring the forest for the trees.

[Deleted]

Dacien, supporting morally bankrupt lying racist bigots because he agrees with them on 'some issues'
If that's your stance you ain't his ally, get that through your head. Your part of what the American people have to work through their immune system.

It's glorious watching @Dacien get called out on his bullshit. It's a little sad though watching him backpedal into lines of argument like "how come people who think gun rights are important don't agree with me".

One thing you should learn Dacien is that the "truth will out". People learn what you're like from interacting with you on this forum. They may not be able to articulate it perfectly, or even counter your logical and well-reasoned arguments, but it's been long enough that everyone has a great feel for your true colours.

It's like what Blizzard always say - players are very good at detecting when something's wrong with the game, even though they're not good at providing fixes for it. You can argue till you're blue in the face about how people are attacking you for no reason, but at the end of the day, people have no respect for you because you haven't earned it. And a lot of that is because you want a racist incompetent moron to run the United States of America.

Gl, hf.

[Dacien]

Perception is a powerful thing. I personally do not really know you, I don't argue with you often. But even as a relative outsider, I did notice that you are often in topics like this, taking the side of Trump. Due to that, you do not seem like 'an ally on gun rights that happens to defend Trump', but more 'a Trump supporter that happens to defend gun rights'.
Your debate style is also similar to what Trump supporters do. Always demanding concrete, palpable evidence for everything. Getting hung up on exact words and semantics.

That's so weird; I feel like that is instead what happens to me. And I don't see what's so wrong with asking for evidence. If someone argues that something probably happened, that's fine, but they shouldn't be surprised when someone points it out.

Speaking down to people. Arguing from a point of impartiality, but not truly living it. I mean right now there is a topic on an indictment in the Uranium One investigation, in which the OP uses someone being indicted in general in order to make a point against Hillary and Obama. That would be right in your ball park to pick apart, just like you are taking stabs at the Mueller investigation. There are a lot of occasions like that where 'not seeing you in a thread' adds to the perception of you.

I don't care about Uranium One. The Mueller investigation fascinates me for some reason, it's interesting (and even a little fun) watching it unfold with people here, being on the side of skepticism.

Now, don't take that as me singling you out or anything. There are Trump detractors that behave in that way as well. I am merely trying to answer the question you posed. If someone is perceived as always defending Trump, just like someone who is perceived as always attacking Trump, then their words lose a bit of substance. If you are not consistent in being against turning progress in these investigations, then your arguments there represent values and conviction. But if you only care if 'your side' is subject to wrongful conclusions, then it is perceived less as an argument born from values, but rather tribalism. And that implies that you are only an ally of convenience with regards to gun rights.

I find that odd. If someone stands up for Hillary Clinton over and over again, their arguments don't suddenly become less strong. They don't suddenly have weaker arguments now because they're always sticking up for Hillary.

In addition, just happening to be on the same side on one issue only gets you that far. To most people, gun rights just are not the number one issue. They have complex opinions and preferences for specific policy mixes. Just 'sharing my stance on one issue' would not get you any respect from me, either. And if appear to ally yourself strongly with Trump, then you start representing his policy mix. Being against Trump's package can easily supersede gun rights, especially when the latter are not necessarily in danger right now. No one is currently making any realistic pushes for more gun control. But the president is currently holding Dreamers hostage, he is kicking out people who fled violence years ago and have are productive members of society (momentarily disregarding those who are actual leeches), he is using the office of the President to spread lies unabashedly and openly insults citizens. Most people who constantly defend Trump also defend all of these things. If you are mostly seen defending Trump, then you are seen the same way. That is just how the human brain works.

I hope that helps answering the questions you poised. Again, I am trying to just explain the kind of perception and its effects. I don't mean to personally single you out or anything, lots of people do that on both sides. So, um, nothing personal, haha.

I absolutely appreciate the reply, Kiri.

[Elegiac]

And I don't see what's so wrong with asking for evidence.

The issue is not asking for evidence. The issue is taking it to Creationist levels of demanding increasingly more specific evidence and dismissing that which does exist because you're not 'approaching it with an open mind' but have an obvious agenda of defending the regime.

[Shadowmelded]

It really got under my skin, the things you said. I can't wrap my head around the idea that anyone on the right would be so adamantly anti-Trump that an ally on the issues loses all respect if they post anything favorable toward Trump. I understand the schism, the David Frenchs versus the David Limbaughs, the matter-of-principle versus the binary choice, but I don't understand the idea that anyone on the other side of this schism, even if they're a political ally, is worthy of no respect.

Also not trying to pile on here but think of it like this. If the charges levied against Trump are accurate then he's part of an attack on the US, one that's ongoing and was apparently successful. No amount of partisanship should come before that. It doesn't matter if you're a gun defender or whatever, partisan politics stop at the water's edge. Would you really be happy making gains under a tainted President? Gains that would be overturned, and then some, in the fallout? That's putting aside just how unethical it is to be willing to sacrifice national security for some myopic policy.

[Dacien]

Also not trying to pile on here but think of it like this. If the charges levied against Trump are accurate then he's part of an attack on the US, one that's ongoing and was apparently successful. No amount of partisanship should come before that. It doesn't matter if you're a gun defender or whatever, partisan politics stop at the water's edge. Would you really be happy making gains under a tainted President? Gains that would be overturned, and then some, in the fallout? That's putting aside just how unethical it is to be willing to sacrifice national security for some myopic policy.

Yeah, but that's sort of the substance of the debate. It's why I'm arguing about the Papadopoulos plea deal, discussing the specifics of it, detailing why I don't think it's demonstrative of collusion. It's why there's an investigation, it's why the Steele Dossier claims are so hotly contested, it's the entire substance of the discussion. The problem is, people are approaching it as an already decided conclusion, that the suspicion is there, that people like me are just quibbling over "evidence" and not seeing the forest for the trees.

I'll abandon Trump and hang my head in shame if criminal collusion bears out, but the reason why I'm sticking my neck out is because I don't think it happened. My entire argument hinges on the idea that it's a lot of smoke and no fire. Whereas my opposites declare that since there's smoke, there's obviously fire. Or worse, that the smoke is actually fire. And once I start trying detail why it's actually smoke and not fire, it all falls apart. Everyone starts talking past each other, ad hominems get thrown into the mix, it just becomes a circus.

[cubby]

Yeah, but that's sort of the substance of the debate. It's why I'm arguing about the Papadopoulos plea deal, discussing the specifics of it, detailing why I don't think it's demonstrative of collusion. It's why there's an investigation, it's why the Steele Dossier claims are so hotly contested, it's the entire substance of the discussion. The problem is, people are approaching it as an already decided conclusion, that the suspicion is there, that people like me are just quibbling over "evidence" and not seeing the forest for the trees.

I'll abandon Trump and hang my head in shame if criminal collusion bears out, but the reason why I'm sticking my neck out is because I don't think it happened. My entire argument hinges on the idea that it's a lot of smoke and no fire. Whereas my opposites declare that since there's smoke, there's obviously fire. Or worse, that the smoke is actually fire. And once I start trying detail why it's actually smoke and not fire, it all falls apart. Everyone starts talking past each other, ad hominems get thrown into the mix, it just becomes a circus.

What if there is more than just collusion (as evidence has already suggested)? You've argued early and often that so far there is no actual evidence of Trump/Russia collusion, and while there is ample evidence of Russia contacts, I could see that your point is valid. What about all the other illegal activity that Trump has already done, admitted to, and continues to promulgate?

Or, for you, is it collusion or nothing?

[Dacien]

What if there is more than just collusion (as evidence has already suggested)? You've argued early and often that so far there is no evidence of collusion, and while there is ample evidence of Russia contacts, I could see that your point is valid.

It's worth pointing out that within the context of the Mueller investigation, no, I don't think there's any evidence of collusion. But obviously there is plenty of evidence that at the very least, members of the Trump campaign were warm to the idea of dirt on Hillary from foreign agents. e.g., Trump Tower; Don Jr. "loved" the idea of the offer. There are multiple other examples, of course, but I want to point out that the Mueller investigation is where it's all at. If the Trump Tower meeting was substantial, it will be tackled by Mueller. If any of the other things that occurred in the Trump-Russia sphere are substantial, it will be tackled by Mueller. The Mueller investigation is the focus. But it's also worth pointing out that the Trump Tower meeting was a hot story open to the public, the emails published and everything. I wonder why, if it was actually a substantial event in the collusion case, why Mueller hasn't bothered yet with such low-hanging fruit. But I digress.

What about all the other illegal activity that Trump has already done, admitted to, and continues to promulgate?

Or, for you, is it collusion or nothing?

I'm not sure what illegal activity you're specifically talking about, but as far as Trump himself, It's really hard for me to find myself in this position. I think a lot of the stories are overblown, and I really detest the dishonesty in the media, but a lot of the stories are something I just want to hide from, that this is the central figure in the discussion that I'm posting favorably towards. But just as in the Al Franken case, I strongly believe in the idea of evaluating gradations of bad behavior. Hovering your hands over a person's breasts or an aggressive kiss does not rise to the level of losing your Senate seat. Is it detestable? Yes. Is it disgusting? Yes. Does it mean you need to lose your United States Senate seat? No, I don't think it does.

Similarly, the presidency is very serious position that requires very serious charges to support having him step down. The examples of terrible behavior, such as his "good people on both sides" speech, his attack on Franken when he himself was accused of sexual misconduct, his childish tweeting in general, none of them rise to the level, in my opinion, of needing him to step down from the United States presidency. If we had him on tape using the N-word, or explicitly calling Haitians "S***hole people", or any number of possible things, I wouldn't "support" him. I'd continue to examine the Mueller investigation with scrutiny, but I wouldn't go with my standard line any longer, which is that the policy is what matters, terrible behavior and bad tweets are a less-consequential sideshow.

[cubby]

It's worth pointing out that within the context of the Mueller investigation, no, I don't think there's any evidence of collusion. But obviously there is plenty of evidence that at the very least, members of the Trump campaign were warm to the idea of dirt on Hillary from foreign agents. e.g., Trump Tower; Don Jr. "loved" the idea of the offer. There are multiple other examples, of course, but I want to point out that the Mueller investigation is where it's all at. If the Trump Tower meeting was substantial, it will be tackled by Mueller. If any of the other things that occurred in the Trump-Russia sphere are substantial, it will be tackled by Mueller. The Mueller investigation is the focus. But it's also worth pointing out that the Trump Tower meeting was a hot story open to the public, the emails published and everything. I wonder why, if it was actually a substantial event in the collusion case, why Mueller hasn't bothered yet with such low-hanging fruit. But I digress.

I could see this as a valid position. While I disagree, I won't squabble with your opinion.

Indicting the President isn't "low hanging fruit" - it's the crux of his investigation. Slow and steady is the ONLY way to proceed.

I'm not sure what illegal activity you're specifically talking about, but as far as Trump himself, It's really hard for me to find myself in this position. I think a lot of the stories are overblown, and I really detest the dishonesty in the media, but a lot of the stories are something I just want to hide from, that this is the central figure in the discussion that I'm posting favorably towards. But just as in the Al Franken case, I strongly believe in the idea of evaluating gradations of bad behavior. Hovering your hands over a person's breasts or an aggressive kiss does not rise to the level of losing your Senate seat. Is it detestable? Yes. Is it disgusting? Yes. Does it mean you need to lose your United States Senate seat? No, I don't think it does.

Similarly, the presidency is very serious position that requires very serious charges to support having him step down. The examples of terrible behavior, such as his "good people on both sides" speech, his attack on Franken when he himself was accused of sexual misconduct, his childish tweeting in general, none of them rise to the level, in my opinion, of needing him to step down from the United States presidency. If we had him on tape using the N-word, or explicitly calling Haitians "S***hole people", or any number of possible things, I wouldn't "support" him. I'd continue to examine the Mueller investigation with scrutiny, but I wouldn't go with my standard line any longer, which is that the policy is what matters, terrible behavior and bad tweets are a less-consequential sideshow.

I think this is where you lose a LOT of your legitimacy. There is ample, objective evidence of Trump's illegal activity. He's violated the following laws/rules:

Obstruction of Justice (Comey - he's admitted it, now, twice - and there is his own words saying he may not understand what Obstruction means)
Emuleoments Clause - several times over. Pick your poison on this one.

And those are the ones that we can prove, right now, with 100% certainty. Coming in a close second is money laundering - which is a key portion of Mueller's investigation.

I'm not trying to attack you here (where as I have in the past) - I'm just pointing out that you are attempting to claim "what illegal activity are you talking about" when it's very, VERY, clear that it has already happened. And that illegal activity continues to happen now. And you seem just blind to the obvious, which makes your credit in this forum very low.

[Dacien]

I could see this as a valid position. While I disagree, I won't squabble with your opinion.




I think this is where you lose a LOT of your legitimacy. There is ample, objective evidence of Trump's illegal activity. He's violated the following laws/rules:

Obstruction of Justice (Comey - he's admitted it, now, twice - and there is his own words saying he may not understand what Obstruction means)
Emuleoments Clause - several times over. Pick your poison on this one.

And those are the ones that we can prove, right now, with 100% certainty. Coming in a close second is money laundering - which is a key portion of Mueller's investigation.

I'm not trying to attack (where as I have in the past) - I'm just pointing out that you are attempting to claim "what illegal activity are you talking about" when it's very, VERY, clear that it has already happened. And that illegal activity continues to happen now. And you seem just blind to the obvious, which makes your credit in this forum very low.

The entire obstruction case over the Comey firing is also hotly contested, on both sides of the aisle. Alan Dershowitz, a life-long liberal Democrat and constitutional scholar has argued that it would be a constitutional crisis for the president to be held on obstruction for exercising his executive power, that the president cannot obstruct for simply exercising that power. Other legal analysts have agreed, and many other legal analysts disagree, but it's not a settled matter.

I don't know much about the money-laundering allegations, I haven't read about those, so I can't comment. If Trump is being charged with money laundering then that's a very serious thing, but I haven't researched this allegation and I haven't read or heard about any money laundering charges. If those surface, we can talk about it.

[cubby]

The entire obstruction case over the Comey firing is also hotly contested, on both sides of the aisle. Alan Dershowitz, a life-long liberal Democrat and constitutional scholar has argued that it would be a constitutional crisis for the president to be held on obstruction for exercising his executive power. Other legal analysts have agreed, and many other legal analysts disagree, but it's not a settled matter.

Trump obstructed justice. Period. There is no debate. Dershowitz is spinning it for his own use. They aren't questioning if it happened, they are questioning if he should be charged. That is a bigly difference. Trump admitted to firing the Director of the FBI because Comey was investigating the President. That's obstruction. Period.

And you ignored the emoluments clause, entirely. This is why people question your objectivity.

I don't know much about the money-laundering allegations, I haven't read about those, so I can't comment. If Trump is being charged with money laundering then that's a very serious thing, but I haven't researched this allegation and I haven't read or heard about any money laundering charges. If those surface, we can talk about it.

Money laundering for Trump hasn't been established yet - some of his campaign underlings (and others) are currently facing charges. And while guilty until proven innocent is always the case, Mueller wouldn't have brought the charges without having an insanely good case.

And don't forget about Flynn.

[Shadowferal]

Hmf...the indictments already prove Mueller's worth.

[Dacien]

Trump obstructed justice. Period. There is no debate. Dershowitz is spinning it for his own use. They aren't questioning if it happened, they are questioning if he should be charged. That is a bigly difference. Trump admitted to firing the Director of the FBI because Comey was investigating the President. That's obstruction. Period.

And you ignored the emoluments clause, entirely. This is why people question your objectivity.

No, he's claiming it literally cannot be a thing. I edited my post above.

And the Emoluments clause case was dismissed.

Edit: How did I find myself back in the discussion lol!?

[Blur4stuff]

Trump already admitted to obstruction on camera. It's not something that needs to be debated.

[Rukh]

No, he's claiming it literally cannot be a thing. I edited my post above.

And the Emoluments clause case was dismissed.

Edit: How did I find myself back in the discussion lol!?

It was dismissed becaucause of lack of standing, not because he was not guilty of it. You've been told that a million times and then you go try to pretend you haven't again.

[Dacien]

It was dismissed becaucause of lack of standing, not because he was not guilty of it. You've been told that a million times and then you go try to pretend you haven't again.

It's the first time I've ever talked about the emoluments clause, in any context. But I was trying to demonstrate that it's far from being a settled matter, that talking about it as if "it happened" just isn't supported by the facts we have.

[DarkTZeratul]

And the Emoluments clause case was dismissed.

Except, notably, the judge didn't say that Trump is not violating the emoluments clause. He said that the specific arguments that the lawyer was using did not amount to a violation, and at least judging from the article it seems like the lawyers were trying to make a broad case rather than focusing on specific violations.

[Shadowmelded]

Yeah, but that's sort of the substance of the debate. It's why I'm arguing about the Papadopoulos plea deal, discussing the specifics of it, detailing why I don't think it's demonstrative of collusion. It's why there's an investigation, it's why the Steele Dossier claims are so hotly contested, it's the entire substance of the discussion. The problem is, people are approaching it as an already decided conclusion, that the suspicion is there, that people like me are just quibbling over "evidence" and not seeing the forest for the trees.

Because the focus on specifics to the exclusion of all else can come across as disingenuous. Papadopoulos' plea deal might not be the silver bullet, it's a single piece of a larger puzzle. As to why people may be approaching it as already decided (I'd argue they're weighing the probabilities and deciding one outcome is more likely), it's largely due to the unsatisfactory answers given by Trump and his supporters, not to mention the outright lies and propaganda from the likes of Fox and numerous actual sitting GOP Politicians.

I'll abandon Trump and hang my head in shame if criminal collusion bears out, but the reason why I'm sticking my neck out is because I don't think it happened. My entire argument hinges on the idea that it's a lot of smoke and no fire. Whereas my opposites declare that since there's smoke, there's obviously fire. Or worse, that the smoke is actually fire. And once I start trying detail why it's actually smoke and not fire, it all falls apart. Everyone starts talking past each other, ad hominems get thrown into the mix, it just becomes a circus.

The reason it gets so heated is twofold; the gravity of the situation and the GOP successfully turning a potential national security risk into a partisan affair, leading people to believe that they have to defend Trump because they're right wing. That's not the case and that's why other conservatives (not Trumpkins but actual conservatives) are voicing their frustration with you, because there's no right wing perspective that can justify potential criminal collusion.