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

[Rukh]

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.

So you just literally never read anything besides what is directly replied to you? It's been brought up here a million times. It is known why it was dismissed. You can't try to pull that.

[Dacien]

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.

Well no, that's been my argument this entire time, that it's not even a collusion puzzle piece. It's a puzzle piece, but not one that has anything to do with collusion.

But Lord have mercy on me if this debate gets re-ignited.

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.

Alright, we can start from that. Potential. It's potential. So we look at the evidence, we evaluate claims, we discuss the merits of the arguments, that's all fine. But when people start dismissing individuals on the other side of that discussion outright because it's a foregone conclusion in their minds, that's where it's ended up. I assume you're talking about Graham and Grassley when you say it's being turned into a partisan affair, but that in and of itself is a partisan interpretation. "They don't really believe that Steele lied, you see, they're just throwing mud at the wall to support the GOP."

- - - Updated - - -

So you just literally never read anything besides what is directly replied to you? It's been brought up here a million times. It is known why it was dismissed. You can't try to pull that.

I haven't followed the emoluments case closely, no. Just like I haven't followed Uranium One. Just like I haven't followed a lot of other subjects. Trump-Russia is my main focus.

[NYC17]

Well no, that's been my argument this entire time, that it's not even a collusion puzzle piece. It's a puzzle piece, but not one that has anything to do with collusion.

But Lord have mercy on me if this debate gets re-ignited.



Alright, we can start from that. Potential. It's potential. So we look at the evidence, we evaluate claims, we discuss the merits of the arguments, that's all fine. But when people start dismissing individuals on the other side of that discussion outright because it's a foregone conclusion in their minds, that's where it's ended up. I assume you're talking about Graham and Grassley when you say it's being turned into a partisan affair, but that in and of itself is a partisan interpretation. "They don't really believe that Steele lied, you see, they're just throwing mud at the wall to support the GOP."

- - - Updated - - -



I haven't followed the emoluments case closely, no. Just like I haven't followed Uranium One. Just like I haven't followed a lot of other subjects. Trump-Russia is my main focus.

The first step is you reading the plea deal, comprehending what's in it, recognizing where you are wrong, and accepting that you've been wrong from the start. And no one should have to do it for you.

That's where any actual debate on the subject begins.

[Shadowmelded]

Well no, that's been my argument this entire time, that it's not even a collusion puzzle piece. But Lord have mercy on me if this debate gets re-ignited.

And people are unsatisfied with your reasoning on it.

Alright, we can start from that. Potential. It's potential. So we look at the evidence, we evaluate claims, we discuss the merits of the arguments, that's all fine. But when people start dismissing individuals on the other side of that discussion outright because it's a foregone conclusion in their minds, that's where it's ended up.

Except, the GOP, Trump and his supporters aren't interested in getting to the bottom of things, they'd rather deflect and obfuscate, bring up Clinton or attack the FBI. That just compounds the suspicion.

I assume you're talking about Graham and Grassley when you say it's being turned into a partisan affair, but that in and of itself is a partisan interpretation. "They don't really believe that Steele lied, you see, they're just throwing mud at the wall to support the GOP."

Grassley, Graham, Jim Jordans, Matt Gaetz, Nunes, the list goes on. Since this topic is supposed to be about the Fusion GPS transcript, lets take a look at how the hearing went; Grassley went into it looking to discredit simpson, not ascertain the truth. Grassley's refusal to release the transcript was a continuation of that effort to discredit Simpson.

[Dacien]

And people are unsatisfied with your reasoning on it.

Yes, and I haven't heard a good, direct rebuttal yet. A lot of, "Forget about that tree, look at the forest."

Grassley, Graham, Jim Jordans, Matt Gaetz, Nunes, the list goes on. Since this topic is supposed to be about the Fusion GPS transcript, lets take a look at how the hearing went; Grassley went into it looking to discredit simpson, not ascertain the truth. Grassley's refusal to release the transcript was a continuation of that effort to discredit Simpson.

Nunes is doing good work. The running theme is that anyone skeptical of the collusion narrative must be just a GOP shill.

[Edge-]

Nunes is doing good work.

You can't be serious...

[NYC17]

Yes, and I haven't heard a good, direct rebuttal yet. A lot of, "Forget about that tree, look at the forest."



Nunes is doing good work. The running theme is that anyone skeptical of the collusion narrative must be just a GOP shill.

And this is why your analysis is a joke. Nunes is a Trump transition team member who fabricated a "controversy" about unmasking in order to run interference for the administration. Somehow, even though you're supposedly so consumed with Trump/Russia, this basic fact eludes you.

Being right wing doesn't mean you have to shill for them. It means you can still criticize them. He's doing good work?

Christ.

[Shadowmelded]

Yes, and I haven't heard a good, direct rebuttal yet. A lot of, "Forget about that tree, look at the forest."

A rebuttal to what? I don't remember an argument being put forward, just attempts to discredit arguments others have put foward.

Nunes is doing good work. The running theme is that anyone skeptical of the collusion narrative must be just a GOP shill.

He was part of the transition team and was supposed to be recused when he ran to the White House to give them information. He's attacking the FBI and DOJ to defend Trump. Has turned what's supposed to be an investigation into Trump/Russia into an investigation into unmasking. He is the definition of a GOP shill.

[Dacien]

A rebuttal to what? I don't remember an argument being put forward, just attempts to discredit arguments others have put foward.

Really? Really?

And this is why your analysis is a joke. Nunes is a Trump transition team member who fabricated a "controversy" about unmasking in order to run interference for the administration. Somehow, even though you're supposedly so consumed with Trump/Russia, this basic fact eludes you.

Being right wing doesn't mean you have to shill for them. It means you can still criticize them. He's doing good work?

Christ.

You can't be serious...

It's just silly.

Even if I have some well-reasoned arguments about Nunes, with facts and details, it simply doesn't matter. I'm arguing about the health benefits of being vegan at a barbecue convention.

Now let me ride off into the sunset.

I might poke my head in once in a while if some crazy new story drops.

[unfilteredJW]

When in doubt, go full victim.

[Shadowmelded]

Really? Really?

I haven't been following the thread religiously, the last arguments I can remember you making are "It's not collusion to meet foreign officials" and "It wasn't a clandestine meeting" which is tearing down others' arguments. I don't remember a "This is why it was an innocuous meeting" case being made but feel free to correct me.

Even if I have some well-reasoned arguments about Nunes, with facts and details, it simply doesn't matter. I'm arguing about the health benefits of being vegan at a barbecue convention.

This is a bit of a cop-out. Nunes' behaviour is indefensible.

[Orbitus]

Yes, and I haven't heard a good, direct rebuttal yet. A lot of, "Forget about that tree, look at the forest."



Nunes is doing good work. The running theme is that anyone skeptical of the collusion narrative must be just a GOP shill.

Nunes is Trump's cockholster on the House Intell committee or whatever committee he is supposed to be on. You know, the one that he is supposed to be recused from but he isn't? Gaetz, Jordan, Grassley are all fucking puppets to Trump right now.

[NYC17]

Really? Really?





It's just silly.

Even if I have some well-reasoned arguments about Nunes, with facts and details, it simply doesn't matter. I'm arguing about the health benefits of being vegan at a barbecue convention.

Now let me ride off into the sunset.

I might poke my head in once in a while if some crazy new story drops.

There is no well-reasoned argument. That's the point. There is no well-reasoned stance, because Nunes' actions aren't reasonable. You start from a position of absurdity and demand people give it credibility...when its something you can't even supply.

So yea, go ride off into the sunset. I just hope someone takes a picture of your face right as you come to the realization you're about to crash into it, and discover it was just a reality show set.

[cubby]

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!?

The Obstruction of Justice case is clear, and obvious. Trump has admitted it twice - your edit only addresses one man's opinion, while it's very clear what the law says. The only issue is that it's the President - so they have to walk a small minefield to get the procedure right. Look up Nixon and what he did for clarification. And even Nixon didn't fire the FBI director.

This is one reason for your statement above about how you are misunderstood. You back only one side, constantly, and never see the other - even though you claim you will "if it comes about" (paraphrasing you here).

Second, I'm not sure if you understand the law, but the reason that case was dismissed had nothing to do with actual violations of the Emoluments Clause. If you're curious, ask, and I can walk you through it. Trump has, and is, violating the Emoluments Clause dozens of times over. The link you provided has a decent explanation.

Finally, you're back in this discussion because this is where you'll always find yourself. You can't see the forest for the trees, because you're too busy picking up pine cones and wondering why there aren't leaves attached (forgive the metaphor continuation - it's early here). This is what you, Dacien, constantly do. You pick apart issues from the wrong perspective, you take only one side and never lend any credence to the other, and then you bemoan the fact that everyone is against you because you're so misunderstood.

You'll always be in this discussion, because you can't see anything else.

(my prediction for your response will be ignoring the meat of the issue, and focusing on some irrelevant tangent, merely furthering the point that you are where you deserve to be)

[ati87]

Even if I have some well-reasoned arguments about Nunes, with facts and details, it simply doesn't matter. I'm arguing about the health benefits of being vegan at a barbecue convention.

Even if?

But you aren't really providing any well reasoned argument now are you. You aren't defending Nunes by given reasonable justification for all of his actions up to this point.

What you are doing is dismissing any argument you could make in support and claiming that we won't accept it. That's the assumption you are making.

Here is the thing though. You can't defend nunes unless you clearly state that what he did was OK because protecting Trump is more important then looking into illegal actions taken by the Trumps campaign.