Is there only one Trump supporter on this whole forum? — RogueAI
Don't assume the logical with current US politics. And never underestimate how bizarre populist politics and polarization can be.Still reckon Trump will never get the Republcan nomination, polling data notwithstanding. — Quixodian
Trump might not get the Republican nomination, but then go as an independent, which will be absolute poison for the actual Republican nominee. — ssu
First, I want to direct the parties to abide moving forward by Local Criminal Rule 57.7(b), and I want to make clear that any willful failure to do so will result in the initiation of contempt proceedings.
I am also going to direct the government to refrain from making or authorizing any future public statement that links the alleged conspiracy in the indictment to the Russian government or its agencies.
McCLINTOCK: Your report famously links Russian Internet troll farms with the Russian government. Yet at a hearing on May 28 in the Concord Management-IRA prosecution that you initiated, the judge excoriated you and Barr for producing no evidence to support this claim. Why did you suggest Russia was responsible for the troll farms, when in court you've been unable to produce any evidence to support it?
MUELLER: Well, I am not going to get into that any further than I -- than I already have.
McCLINTOCK: But -- but you -- you have left the clear impression throughout the country, through your report, that it -- it was the Russian government behind the troll farms. And yet, when you're called upon to provide actual evidence in court, you fail to do so.
MUELLER: Well, I would again dispute your characterization of what occurred in that -- in that proceeding.
McCLINTOCK: In -- in -- in fact, the judge considering -- considered holding prosecutors in criminal contempt. She backed off, only after your hastily called press conference the next day in which you retroactively made the distinction between the Russian government and the Russia troll farms. Did your press conference on May 29th have anything to do with the threat to hold your prosecutors in contempt the previous day for publicly misrepresenting the evidence?
MUELLER: What was the question?
McCLINTOCK: The -- the question is, did your May 29th press conference have anything to do with the fact that the previous day the judge threatened to hold your prosecutors in contempt for misrepresenting evidence?
MUELLER: No.
Your "response" was to evade the points.You had asked:I have responded to your three points. — NOS4A2
What do you infer from the Georgia phone call and why? — NOS4A2
1)Trump didn't care to see the evidence that disproved his fraud claims. 2) Trump lied about what was said, the day after the call. 3) Trump threatened the governor & Secretary of State. — Relativist
This is the only "response" you made to my points, and it said nothing - it was neither an agreement nor dispute of the inferences I made. So I tried to prompt a real answer:Trump said some things. — NOS4A2
Do you agree with my points? If not, then explain why. — Relativist
None of the supposed corrupts acts you stated, even if true, rise to the level of corruption, or fraud, or any other criminal or corrupt activity. The best you've shown is that he didn't believe the people he was talking to, that he didn't repeat their claims, and the effect such behavior could have. There is no crime. There is no victim of any crime.
Do you only speak in questions? Is this an interview? — NOS4A2
Absolutely. Read the context. The purpose of the link was explicit - that it showed this fraud claim was false, and Trump clearly declined to see it.) The president of the united states refused to look at a link to a video, and you surmise this as Trump declining to view "refuting evidence". — NOS4A2
It showed the ballots were packed into the boxes by the election workers when they were told to end their day, and then they were told to stay and continue- so they opened them back up.What about the video refuted Trump's claim?
Trump specifically mentioned the "ballots under the table scam" - which is the State Farm ballot boxes I discussed in #1. The fraud claim was disputed and the evidence offered, and yet Trump claimed the Secretary of state was unwilling or unable to answer questions about it. How could Trump have not remembered that exchange from the day before?It is not a lie because you do not know whether Trump believed otherwise. — NOS4A2
Yes, criminality carries obvious risks, and Trump explicitly said they'd broken the law:3) He either insinuated such or you are surmising, without evidence, that he did make such threats. Criminal offenses are in fact big risks. — NOS4A2
Absolutely. Read the context. The purpose of the link was explicit - that it showed this fraud claim was false, and Trump clearly declined to see it.
It showed the ballots were packed into the boxes by the election workers when they were told to end their day, and then they were told to stay and continue- so they opened them back up.
Yes, criminality carries obvious risks, and Trump explicitly said they'd broken the law:
Trump: "Well, under the law you're not allowed to give faulty election results, OK? You're not allowed to do that. And that's what you done."
Well, you have to. Well, under the law you’re not allowed to give faulty election results, OK? You’re not allowed to do that. And that’s what you done. This is a faulty election result. And honestly, this should go very fast. You should meet tomorrow because you have a big election coming up and because of what you’ve done to the president — you know, the people of Georgia know that this was a scam. And because of what you’ve done to the president, a lot of people aren’t going out to vote and a lot of Republicans are going to vote negative because they hate what you did to the president. Okay? They hate it. And they’re going to vote. And you would be respected. Really respected, if this thing could be straightened out before the election. You have a big election coming up on Tuesday. And therefore I think that it is really important that you meet tomorrow and work out on these numbers.
I'm looking for clarity on your response - must that be a quote from Donald Trump or can it be a quote from eye witnesses to the events?
It must be a quote from Donald Trump because he is the only one that can speak about his thoughts, intentions, and beliefs. If an eye witness can quote him then that would suffice for me. — NOS4A2
No one said the link proved all the claims false. The link was offered in response to the claim Trump had just made.the idea that one statement about a link proved all his claims were false is itself false — NOS4A2
Notice the lawyer said nothing about the pertinent claim about the boxes of ballots being fraudulent. She only mentions the timing.Trump’s lawyer made this claim following Trump’s “I have a better link” comment:
“I will tell you. I’ve seen the tape. The full tape. So has Alex. We’ve watched it. And what we saw and what we’ve confirmed in the timing is that. They made everybody leave, we have sworn affidavits saying that. And then they began to process ballots. And our estimate is that there were roughly 18,000 ballots.” — NOS4A2
The state, not the Federal Government, is responsible for election operations. Fraud claims were made to the State and they were investigated. Nevertheless, the FBI also investigated (see this), and confirmed there was no fraud. Barr testified that he reviewed this with Trump. Then on Dec 27, 2020, deputy AG Richard Donoghue also refuted the claims. These are relevant parts of the context.If there was an investigation and a report, Trump’s team had clearly not seen it and Raffensperger wasn’t offering any.
The evidence was not offered. The lawyers and Mark Meadows requested many times that the two parties meet and compare the numbers, the data, the evidence. But apparently none was forthcoming. — NOS4A2
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.