The Shampeachement Follies

[Kasandra]

Goldman: "Col. Vindman, you indicated that you did include in your talking points the idea of Ukraine rooting out corruption but that President Trump did not mention corruption. I want to go to the White House readout from the April 21 call. At the … I’m not going to read the whole thing, but do you see the highlighted portion where it says ‘root out corruption?’

Vindman: "Yes."

Goldman: "In the end, this readout was false. Is that right?"

Vindman: "Maybe that’s a bit of a … It’s not entirely accurate, but I’m not sure if I would describe it as false. It was consistent with U.S. policy, and these items are used as messaging tools also, so a statement that goes out, in addition to reading out the meeting itself, is also a messaging platform to indicate what is important with regards to U.S. policy."

I'm not following.  Trump was supposed to talk about rooting about corruption.  He didn't, but the readout says he did?  Who wrote the readout and what is Vindman being accused of?

[wmLambert]

The problem, wmLambert, is that you are stuck so far into your own echo chamber that you are not a reliable witness.  Your memory is simply not convincing to anybody less partisan than yourself.

You only insult and accuse. I asked if you had personal knowledge of this and you spoke about an echo chamber. Admit you have no knowledge and also had no ambition to learn the history, and stop accusing those who actually have that knowledge as being the problem. When Clinton started accusing past presidents of having inappropriate sex, he also tarred and feathered them as owning slaves - even though they mostly freed their slaves, and all worked to free all slaves (against the modern Democrat idea of needing the Nanny State to keep minority votes in thrall, a lá FDR & LBJ. Barrios, ghettos, and urban plantations aren't there because they can't be saved.)

[oldbrian]

I'm confused.
Conservatives have been saying all along that The Perfect Call was about helping root out corruption, not about quid pro quo.

Now thet are saying that the parts of the transcript about rooting out corruption were fabricated? 

I am all sorts of confused.

[yossarian22c]

I am all sorts of confused.

Its just a smear campaign against Vindman.

Trump is ramping up the campaign and is trying out different responses to the pandemic. One approach is to blame the impeachment proceedings. This is associated with that. Another approach, one we haven't seen yet, is going to be to blame the coronavirus task force and throw Pence under the bus and switch out VP picks. The last is to claim he did everything perfect and despite the US having the largest outbreak in the world maintain his response was amazing. Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if he ran with all 3. Fire people he can blame, blame congress, and simultaneously claim the USA response was the best in the world.

His push to reopen sooner rather than later is going to go poorly in a lot of states. But he's already set himself up to throw all the governors under the bus on that one, putting forth a set of guidelines then pushing states to reopen before those guidelines are met. If it goes poorly he'll blame them for not adhering to the guidelines, if it goes well he'll claim credit for any economic benefits.

[wmLambert]

...Anyone can see that Hannity is biased for the President, he's one of Fox's opinion hosts after all.

However; probably most importantly, over the past few years, his "biased" news reporting has been proved to be true - and the anti-Trump charges have been proved to be false. That equates to zero bias - only truth. However; the reports from Maddow and the other Left-wing sychophants have not only been completely incorrect, but rarely apologized for.

[Fenring]

Its just a smear campaign against Vindman.

Trump is ramping up the campaign and is trying out different responses to the pandemic. One approach is to blame the impeachment proceedings.

I don't know if you're right, but it seems beyond dispute that the impeachment proceedings necessarily reduced the efficiency of government and made it harder to get things done. That doesn't mean any errors made are directly because of the proceedings, but it also seems illogical to suppose that hobbling the President's administration for a while will have some effect. I mean, they need to do work and afaik don't have enough time to do it all. Take away that time, and something somewhere is going to give way.

This is associated with that. Another approach, one we haven't seen yet, is going to be to blame the coronavirus task force and throw Pence under the bus and switch out VP picks.

I'll be most interested if that really ends up happening.

[yossarian22c]

This is associated with that. Another approach, one we haven't seen yet, is going to be to blame the coronavirus task force and throw Pence under the bus and switch out VP picks.

I'll be most interested if that really ends up happening.

I'm guessing this depends on how the next couple months go. If the early re-openings go poorly (as I suspect they will) Trump is going to need another scapegoat. Pence will then be on the chopping block. If things improve from here I don't know if Trump will go that route. But he may switch to Nikki Haley to counter Biden's woman VP pick and give himself someone else to blame for the initial virus response.

Trump isn't loyal, if dropping Pence and trashing him is beneficial to Trump it will be done.

[wmLambert]

I am all sorts of confused.

Its just a smear campaign against Vindman.

I'm amazed how anyone who actually watched the Schiff committee interview of Vindman could have missed his complete and utter vindication of Trump. He was directly asked if he had seen or heard anything which cast doubt on him, and Vindman admitted he had just "presumed" it. I know Fox showed the whole thing and replayed his answer. As well as all those who asked if they had anything that was negative, and not a single person did. Perhaps CNN and MSNBC and the other MSM cut that part?

[cherrypoptart]

It's obvious in retrospect that Trump didn't take the virus seriously enough. The impeachment proceedings didn't just distract Trump though. They also distracted the Democrats. Of course the Democrats didn't take the virus seriously enough either. I can't help but wonder though if they had been focused on the virus instead of on impeachment maybe somebody would have noticed this one was different. Everyone dropped the ball. They were playing a different game instead.

[Kasandra]

I don't know if you're right, but it seems beyond dispute that the impeachment proceedings necessarily reduced the efficiency of government and made it harder to get things done.

For someone who wants to be seen as reasonable and unbiased, you sure don't come across that way.

I'm amazed how anyone who actually watched the Schiff committee interview of Vindman could have missed his complete and utter vindication of Trump.

Like I said...

[wmLambert]

...Trump isn't loyal, if dropping Pence and trashing him is beneficial to Trump it will be done.

Based upon what? Pence has been solid and will not be replaced by anyone. You project the Democrat Modus Operandi on him, when he has always been loyal - but also tried to do the right thing, in spite of MSM bias.

[Kasandra]

It's obvious in retrospect that Trump didn't take the virus seriously enough. The impeachment proceedings didn't just distract Trump though. They also distracted the Democrats. Of course the Democrats didn't take the virus seriously enough either. I can't help but wonder though if they had been focused on the virus instead of on impeachment maybe somebody would have noticed this one was different. Everyone dropped the ball. They were playing a different game instead.

I'm not sure how much blame to put on Democrats on this one.  - Oh, and why are you leaving out Republicans?  Didn't they have access to the same information that the Democrats did? - The Intelligence and bio-research and CDC are all part of the Executive.  Democrats get only a sliver of information, especially from this particular White House.  It seems clear that all of those agencies had raised red flags in the Executive, and Peter Navarro (aka Ron Vara) specifically wrote memos to Trump warning him about the coronavirus.  I'd like to know how much of those warnings were shared with Congress.

[wmLambert]

...

I'm amazed how anyone who actually watched the Schiff committee interview of Vindman could have missed his complete and utter vindication of Trump.

Like I said...

No. Like I said. Did you see Vindman admit his presumption? If not, why not? I know the complicit MSM downplayed anything that exonerated Trump - but Vindman's total and complete exoneration of Trump was out there for all to see. If you didn't see it, explain your blindness.

[Kasandra]

You project the Democrat Modus Operandi on him

I must say it's very tiring trying to keep up with all of your projections (yes, I'm using the word correctly, and so should you) that every sin visited upon Trump and other Republicans somehow become sins of Democrats and only of Democrats.

[Fenring]

I don't know if you're right, but it seems beyond dispute that the impeachment proceedings necessarily reduced the efficiency of government and made it harder to get things done.

For someone who wants to be seen as reasonable and unbiased, you sure don't come across that way.

If you are so partisan that you think an investigation of that sort wouldn't hinder your ability to do your job, then I don't know what to tell you. Are you a business owner? Tell me you can work at 100% capacity while you are undergoing a full audit. Now tell me the same when you and your entire staff are undergoing the audit. This is just common sense, I don't even know why you'd think you need to rebuff this point other than that it vaguely sounds to you like it's defending Trump.

[Kasandra]

...

I'm amazed how anyone who actually watched the Schiff committee interview of Vindman could have missed his complete and utter vindication of Trump.

Like I said...

No. Like I said. Did you see Vindman admit his presumption? If not, why not? I know the complicit MSM downplayed anything that exonerated Trump - but Vindman's total and complete exoneration of Trump was out there for all to see. If you didn't see it, explain your blindness.

Quote, please.  You obviously have it almost memorized from having read it so often, so it should be easy for you to find.

[cherrypoptart]

Both the Democrats and the Republicans in Congress dropped the ball. I can't think of anyone who was sounding the alarm. As for the information available, all that was necessary was the information we could see in the news coming out of China. This was obviously going to be a monster and everyone in charge with their pollyannic optimism was just as obviously completely delusional at best. Maybe if there hadn't been an impeachment they would have all acted the same way too, heads in the sand with their hands over their ears screaming lalalalala. I don't know. The impeachment certainly didn't help any though.

[Kasandra]

If you are so partisan that you think an investigation of that sort wouldn't hinder your ability to do your job, then I don't know what to tell you.

Are you saying Trump and his entire White House were rendered unable to do their jobs because of this?  That somehow didn't happen to Clinton.  Some amount of "hinder" and distraction must have occurred, but I don't buy the excuse that everything that went wrong in the White House and everything Trump himself did wrong or failed to do is somehow the fault of dastardly Democrats.  I was the CTO for several companies, but never had to undergo a major investigation.  OTOH, I had as many as a dozen research and product development groups reporting to me at once, and had to coordinate with Marketing, Sales, HR and customers.  It was all part of the job. 

What keeps Trump so busy that he can't walk and chew gum at the same time? 

If you look at his calendar, he rarely schedules events [far fewer than other Presidents].  He has had 28 acting Cabinet heads running agencies [far more than other Presidents] because permanent ones inhibit his ability to control what they do. As of March of this year Trump traveled to play golf 264 times since he was elected [far more times than other Presidents].  He's held over 100 campaign style rallies since he was elected [far more times than other Presidents].

I don't think the impeachment is what has kept him from doing his job.

[Fenring]

I don't think the impeachment is what has kept him from doing his job.

As I said, there's no way to know if this would have been handled any differently sans impeachment. But one thing I also don't know is how much never actually gets done in the White House due to there being too much to do. Of course we hear about completed initiatives, but at least I don't hear about initiatives that never happened at all due to lack of time and being too busy with other things. It could be the case that Trump had wanted to have some kind of meeting about COVID and never got around to it; and maybe not. All I was saying is that it's hard to believe that the impeachment didn't affect job performance, and that the time it took didn't take away from something. Whether that something was COVID-related I have no idea, but something's got to give somewhere if you take away dozens of hours of work time. It just has to.

[Kasandra]

I think he was obsessed with the impeachment and gave it far more attention than other things that were more central to him doing his job effectively.  But that's a pretty poor excuse when there were so many things that did end up being neglected.  He found plenty of time to tweet about everything anyone else said or did that bothered him, but it doesn't appear that he read his daily Intelligence briefings, which frequently mentioned coronavirus as a potentially significant concern for the welfare of the country.

[Fenring]

Those are all based on your imaginings of Trump sitting around at his laptop trolling Twitter and fooling around, and the concept you have in your head of how White House time was being used them. My point is that you've made all of that up and none of us have any idea real-time of how day-to-day work time is used by Trump and his staff. My guess is they're very busy and are running from one thing to another, but I'm not there. Just try to avoid making up a head-canon version of how Trump spends his day and then accusing him of it.

[Kasandra]

Those are all based on your imaginings of Trump sitting around at his laptop trolling Twitter and fooling around, and the concept you have in your head of how White House time was being used them. My point is that you've made all of that up and none of us have any idea real-time of how day-to-day work time is used by Trump and his staff. My guess is they're very busy and are running from one thing to another, but I'm not there. Just try to avoid making up a head-canon version of how Trump spends his day and then accusing him of it.

You're ignoring all the things I did mention, the acting heads, the golf, the campaign rallies, the empty calendar, the obsessive tweeting and complaining.  Seriously, you have no idea how polarized your views are.

[Fenring]

You're ignoring all the things I did mention, the acting heads, the golf, the campaign rallies, the empty calendar, the obsessive tweeting and complaining.  Seriously, you have no idea how polarized your views are.

So you are telling me you have definitive proof of how many hours Trump and his team spend tackling problems, and how many playing golf, having empty calendars, tweeting, and complaining? Because if not I have no idea what you think you're talking about. It's the kind of mushy logic that propaganda uses, "the tweets! the golf! he must not work at all!"

[TheDrake]

There are lots of verifiable and hard to verify reports on how Trump spends his day. I'll refrain from delving into specifics.

IF there's one thing I will never criticize Trump about, it is how hard he works. I wouldn't want to see twice the volume of his work product. I'd be pleased if he'd just go to Mar-A-Lago and let the adults handle the government.

[Kasandra]

You're ignoring all the things I did mention, the acting heads, the golf, the campaign rallies, the empty calendar, the obsessive tweeting and complaining.  Seriously, you have no idea how polarized your views are.

So you are telling me you have definitive proof of how many hours Trump and his team spend tackling problems, and how many playing golf, having empty calendars, tweeting, and complaining? Because if not I have no idea what you think you're talking about. It's the kind of mushy logic that propaganda uses, "the tweets! the golf! he must not work at all!"

You wrote...

I don't know if you're right, but it seems beyond dispute that the impeachment proceedings necessarily reduced the efficiency of government and made it harder to get things done. That doesn't mean any errors made are directly because of the proceedings, but it also seems illogical to suppose that hobbling the President's administration for a while will have some effect. I mean, they need to do work and afaik don't have enough time to do it all. Take away that time, and something somewhere is going to give way.

You don't see your comment as just as wishy-washy?  You're assigning blame to the impeachment with far less precision that I used.  Your reasoning is that impeachment took away from their ability to "get things done", but that "doesn't mean any errors made are directly because of the proceedings".  Bear in mind that Trump played golf 11 times so far this year and has held 11 campaign rallies so far this year.  So, are you saying the impeachment is the reason that Trump wasn't paying attention to the coronavirus?  Or....what are you saying? 

[rightleft22]

If I'm not mistaken Bill Clinton was able to continue to keep up his duties while being impeached. I don't every recall him using it as a excuses. But that was a different time when a person who keeps looking to blame others for their failings was viewed as poor leadership. 

[Fenring]

You're assigning blame to the impeachment with far less precision that I used.  Your reasoning is that impeachment took away from their ability to "get things done",

I don't think you can tell the difference between reporting on facts and editorializing, and what you're doing now is editorializing what I said. I did not assign blame, but you take me saying something like "it might have reasonably impaired the response" to me taking a partisan side defending Trump and accusing the Democrats for the current problems. However that is not my opinion, and is not what I said, neither in text or in subtext. My actual point is that it's not irrational to suppose that this could have happened. That you take this as me not only saying it happened but on top of that assigning blame somewhere is not on an SAT failure on the most basic level, but also doesn't show the best faith in trying to follow what I'm saying other than as a target for you to try to shoot down.

[Kasandra]

My actual point is that it's not irrational to suppose that this could have happened. That you take this as me not only saying it happened but on top of that assigning blame somewhere is not on an SAT failure on the most basic level, but also doesn't show the best faith in trying to follow what I'm saying other than as a target for you to try to shoot down.

As often happens, I understand your point even less now after repeated explanations. Instead of taking a position, I think you're saying that the position you are describing is not your position but a position that could be taken if someone were to take it.  Is that your position?

[Fenring]

My actual point is that it's not irrational to suppose that this could have happened. That you take this as me not only saying it happened but on top of that assigning blame somewhere is not on an SAT failure on the most basic level, but also doesn't show the best faith in trying to follow what I'm saying other than as a target for you to try to shoot down.

As often happens, I understand your point even less now after repeated explanations.

Good! It's the first step in stopping trying to read things into my comments and instead looking at them for real for the first time. I'm perfectly happy with being misunderstood on a fair attempt, but it's annoying to be actively trying to be pidgeholed into boxes that I am actually actively against. You would probably be irritated if every comment of yours was met with "this is proof that religious fundamentalists like you always revert back to the Bible."

[Seriati]

No. Like I said. Did you see Vindman admit his presumption? If not, why not? I know the complicit MSM downplayed anything that exonerated Trump - but Vindman's total and complete exoneration of Trump was out there for all to see. If you didn't see it, explain your blindness.

wmLambert, I think you mean Gordan Sondland.  He's the DNC's "star" witness for the claim that Trump was seeking a quid pro quo, notwithstanding Trump personally told him there was no quid pro quo.  He's the one that admitted he "presumed" it on cross examination after he testified about it on direct.

Vindman is the Lt. Colonel who was totally smarmy and misstated the role of mid-level bureaucrats.  He seemed to think that Vindman's committee was responsible for setting US foreign policy and that the President was not entitled to disagree with it's judgments.  It was a stunning bit of testimony that reflected such a basic lack of understanding of the Constitution that it should have made one question how he got promoted that far.  He's also almost certainly the source for the "whistleblower." 

I think you inadvertantly confirmed something that I have suspected for a while about the active posters on the other side of this debate.  They never took the time to read any of the transcripts, only the snippets dumped on the public by the media.

Crunch, I have no idea what you're referring to on Vindman.  All I can recall is that he wanted to add the name Burisma to the call transcript, and the other listeners did not agree that the name was used and therefore did not put it in.  Are you suggesting that they found evidence in other circumstances that he tried to insert agenda items into calls whether or not they were actually discussed?  That he took a position that the actual call was less important than a record of what was supposed to be included in the call?  That would certainly undermine his testimony by giving an alternative reason for his claim.  Honestly, if that was his practice he should be held accountable for falsifying government records.

Fen, you might as well not bother. There's no room there for understanding the difference between what you actually say and what he wants you to have said for argument purposes.

[Kasandra]

Good! It's the first step in stopping trying to read things into my comments and instead looking at them for real for the first time. I'm perfectly happy with being misunderstood on a fair attempt, but it's annoying to be actively trying to be pidgeholed into boxes that I am actually actively against. You would probably be irritated if every comment of yours was met with "this is proof that religious fundamentalists like you always revert back to the Bible."

I don't mean what I said in a positive way.  You take up space without providing useful insight.  That's not me saying it, that's just what some people might decide after reading your post.  I don't know who they would be, but it's worth noting on their behalf.  So I don't mean that in a negative way, either.  I don't really mean it at all.

[Crunch]

What kicked it all off...

CrowdStrike, the private cyber-security firm that first accused Russia of hacking Democratic Party emails and served as a critical source for U.S. intelligence officials in the years-long Trump-Russia probe, acknowledged to Congress more than two years ago that it had no concrete evidence that Russian hackers stole emails from the Democratic National Committee’s server.

CrowdStrike President Shawn Henry's admission under oath, in a recently declassified December 2017 interview before the House Intelligence Committee, raises new questions about whether Special Counsel Robert Mueller, intelligence officials and Democrats misled the public. The allegation that Russia stole Democratic Party emails from Hillary Clinton, John Podesta and others and then passed them to WikiLeaks helped trigger the FBI's probe into now debunked claims of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia to steal the 2016 election. The CrowdStrike admissions were released just two months after the Justice Department retreated from its its other central claim that Russia meddled in the 2016 election when it dropped charges against Russian troll farms it said had been trying to get Trump elected.

Henry personally led the remediation and forensics analysis of the DNC server after being warned of a breach in late April 2016; his work was paid for by the DNC, which refused to turn over its server to the FBI. Asked for the date when alleged Russian hackers stole data from the DNC server, Henry testified that CrowdStrike did not in fact know if such a theft occurred at all: "We did not have concrete evidence that the data was exfiltrated [moved electronically] from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated," Henry said.

JFC, they didn't even know if the theft occurred at all? The whole thing is based on a lie.

[Fenring]

Fen, you might as well not bother. There's no room there for understanding the difference between what you actually say and what he wants you to have said for argument purposes.

It's unfortunate because I've put some efforts into trying to establish clear communications, and it has never succeeded.

[TheDrake]

What kicked it all off...

CrowdStrike, the private cyber-security firm that first accused Russia of hacking Democratic Party emails and served as a critical source for U.S. intelligence officials in the years-long Trump-Russia probe, acknowledged to Congress more than two years ago that it had no concrete evidence that Russian hackers stole emails from the Democratic National Committee’s server.

CrowdStrike President Shawn Henry's admission under oath, in a recently declassified December 2017 interview before the House Intelligence Committee, raises new questions about whether Special Counsel Robert Mueller, intelligence officials and Democrats misled the public. The allegation that Russia stole Democratic Party emails from Hillary Clinton, John Podesta and others and then passed them to WikiLeaks helped trigger the FBI's probe into now debunked claims of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia to steal the 2016 election. The CrowdStrike admissions were released just two months after the Justice Department retreated from its its other central claim that Russia meddled in the 2016 election when it dropped charges against Russian troll farms it said had been trying to get Trump elected.

Henry personally led the remediation and forensics analysis of the DNC server after being warned of a breach in late April 2016; his work was paid for by the DNC, which refused to turn over its server to the FBI. Asked for the date when alleged Russian hackers stole data from the DNC server, Henry testified that CrowdStrike did not in fact know if such a theft occurred at all: "We did not have concrete evidence that the data was exfiltrated [moved electronically] from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated," Henry said.

JFC, they didn't even know if the theft occurred at all? The whole thing is based on a lie.

Should I even bother? The server was cloned by US FBI and intelligence. They made the determination. Crowdstrike's CEO was never given the job to determine what happened. Unless you want to buy the conspiracy that all US intelligence (and some foreign) deliberately framed Russia to make Trump's election look slightly less legitimate, I'm not sure what the point is.

[Crunch]

Please google "unmasking". You may not see it on MSNBC so you'll have to expand your horizons a bit.

[wmLambert]

...I think you mean Gordan Sondland.  He's the DNC's "star" witness for the claim that Trump was seeking a quid pro quo, notwithstanding Trump personally told him there was no quid pro quo.  He's the one that admitted he "presumed" it on cross examination after he testified about it on direct.

You're correct. Sondland said, “I presumed that the aid suspension had become linked to the proposed anticorruption statement.” Vindman was the guy who said Trump, who is the only one who makes official policy, must follow the unofficial policy supported by unelected bureaucrats. The searing point in the interviews was when the entire panel was asked if any of them had any knowledge of wrong-doing, and none did.

[TheDeamon]

Look at Bill Clinton, and how he tried to stave off impeachment for having sex with an intern, by claiming "All the past presidents did it!"

I assume this is a very sloppy projection on your part, unless you actually have a quote where he said that.

It was very sloppy on his part. To my memory, Bill Clinton never tried to deflect things in that manner.

James Carville, and the legion of other various assorted Clintonite flunkies? They're an entirely different ball game, and I DO remember JFK and Marilyn Monroe, as well as Thomas Jefferson and his slave mistress both being brought up as counter examples during the time.

[TheDeamon]

Fen, you might as well not bother. There's no room there for understanding the difference between what you actually say and what he wants you to have said for argument purposes.

It's unfortunate because I've put some efforts into trying to establish clear communications, and it has never succeeded.

It seems to be an increasingly common problem for people who identify as being "on the left" they don't bother to listen anymore.

If you're against them on something, they're immediately placing you "in a box" which they have pre-defined for you, and any protestation on your part about being mis-categorized is to be met with derision, and disdain, if it receives any attention at all.

They are quite literally falling victim to that warning about not responding to opposition with hate, because it will inevitably turn you into the very thing you claim to be against. They are some of the most prejudiced people on the political scene these days.

Plenty of actual racists and bigots out there, but that's only further serving to validate thing for the prejudiced left-wits at this point.

[yossarian22c]

Fen, you might as well not bother. There's no room there for understanding the difference between what you actually say and what he wants you to have said for argument purposes.

It's unfortunate because I've put some efforts into trying to establish clear communications, and it has never succeeded.

It seems to be an increasingly common problem for people who identify as being "on the left" they don't bother to listen anymore.

If you're against them on something, they're immediately placing you "in a box" which they have pre-defined for you, and any protestation on your part about being mis-categorized is to be met with derision, and disdain, if it receives any attention at all.

They are quite literally falling victim to that warning about not responding to opposition with hate, because it will inevitably turn you into the very thing you claim to be against. They are some of the most prejudiced people on the political scene these days.

Plenty of actual racists and bigots out there, but that's only further serving to validate thing for the prejudiced left-wits at this point.

This isn't at all what happened here. Fenring posted something akin to it could be a reasonable argument that the impeachment distracted Trump/white house from the coronavirus. Kasandra responded as if he was making the claim that the impeachment was a distraction. This is really a simple misreading about what Fenring posted. Fenring made the claim that a reasonable argument could be made for the distraction claim and Kasandra basically asked him to justify that argument and he responding by pointing out he didn't say it was reasonable but that it was possibly a reasonable case to make but Fenring lacked insight into how time was spent at the Trump white house was spent to know one way or the other.

There really isn't a need to read so much bad faith into that line of questioning.

[TheDeamon]

This isn't at all what happened here. Fenring posted something akin to it could be a reasonable argument that the impeachment distracted Trump/white house from the coronavirus. Kasandra responded as if he was making the claim that the impeachment was a distraction. This is really a simple misreading about what Fenring posted. Fenring made the claim that a reasonable argument could be made for the distraction claim and Kasandra basically asked him to justify that argument and he responding by pointing out he didn't say it was reasonable but that it was possibly a reasonable case to make but Fenring lacked insight into how time was spent at the Trump white house was spent to know one way or the other.

There really isn't a need to read so much bad faith into that line of questioning.

If you look at this instance on it's own, sure.

Problem is that it has turned into a recurring pattern for Kasandra across multiple threads at this point.

He takes exception to something someone posts, Fenring in particular seems to be a favored target, and from there he starts to impugn motives on the person posting.

IE 1) "He sees something he disagrees with." 2) "He places the person posting the 'objectionable material' into 'a box' which he then defines for them." 3) Then proceeds to malign any attempts to dispute the box definition he provided.

[Seriati]

Should I even bother? The server was cloned by US FBI and intelligence.

Can you provide a source for this?  I have never seen anything that indicates this is true, and there are repeated statements by the FBI that the DNC did not provide such access and that the FBI relied on a review of the third party service provider (CrowdStrike).  Based on CrowdStrike's testimony under oath, there is substantial reason to doubt who and how many different parties took information off of that server.

They made the determination. Crowdstrike's CEO was never given the job to determine what happened. Unless you want to buy the conspiracy that all US intelligence (and some foreign) deliberately framed Russia to make Trump's election look slightly less legitimate, I'm not sure what the point is.

So, the conclusions that it was Russia, that don't seem to have a basis must be true because otherwise it would be some kind of conspiracy theory?  I'd say it was a deliberate fraud.  The conspiracy theory was that Trump's campaign coordinated with the Russians.  The released transcripts make it 100% clear that the outgoing Obama officials had no evidence of this occurring, yet they leaked it repeatedly, they lied about it openly, and they went on and took lucrative contracts in the leftist media to promote it. 

Legitimately, you're seeing the worst scandal in American history unravel real time, and you're going to poo poo it because you'd bought so hard into a fake news item that you can't reset your thinking?

[TheDrake]

Should I even bother? The server was cloned by US FBI and intelligence.

Can you provide a source for this?  I have never seen anything that indicates this is true, and there are repeated statements by the FBI that the DNC did not provide such access and that the FBI relied on a review of the third party service provider (CrowdStrike).  Based on CrowdStrike's testimony under oath, there is substantial reason to doubt who and how many different parties took information off of that server.

They made the determination. Crowdstrike's CEO was never given the job to determine what happened. Unless you want to buy the conspiracy that all US intelligence (and some foreign) deliberately framed Russia to make Trump's election look slightly less legitimate, I'm not sure what the point is.

So, the conclusions that it was Russia, that don't seem to have a basis must be true because otherwise it would be some kind of conspiracy theory?  I'd say it was a deliberate fraud.  The conspiracy theory was that Trump's campaign coordinated with the Russians.  The released transcripts make it 100% clear that the outgoing Obama officials had no evidence of this occurring, yet they leaked it repeatedly, they lied about it openly, and they went on and took lucrative contracts in the leftist media to promote it. 

Legitimately, you're seeing the worst scandal in American history unravel real time, and you're going to poo poo it because you'd bought so hard into a fake news item that you can't reset your thinking?

All you had to was search "crowdstrike server clone" but I did it for you.

We have never taken physical possession of any DNC servers. When cyber investigators respond to an incident, they capture that evidence in a process called “imaging.” It involves making an exact byte-for-byte copy of the hard drives. They do the same for the machine’s memory, capturing evidence that would otherwise be lost at the next reboot, and they monitor and store the traffic passing through the victim’s network. This has been standard procedure in incident response investigations for decades. The images, not the computer’s hardware, provide the evidence.

19 independent agencies in multiple countries concluded that Russia unilaterally (no collusion) sought to influence the US election whether to support Trump or just to destabilize the process in general.

[Seriati]

TheDrake, are you deliberately promoting misinformation?

You quoted from Crowdstrike's web site saying that they never took possession of the DNC servers only cloned them.  That says NOTHING about the FBI.  The FBI never took possession of the servers or a clone of the servers.  There are literally articles stating that the FBI never asked for them, but instead relied on Crowdstrike, which is why Crowdstrike can say they turned over what the FBI asked for.

Please, now that you've wasted both our time, can you verify your statement that the FBI reviewed the servers, cloned or otherwise, or not?

[TheDrake]

Okay, that's fine. I see what you're saying. To me it doesn't matter much if the FBI relied on a third party agent to provide information that they requested, or if they examined the raw data. But I concede that to some it might matter if they start with the assumption that Crowdstrike was deliberately fabricating the forensic data.

Of course, if you're going to buy into the idea that the FBI is crooked, then it hardly matters if they had the servers or not.

[Kasandra]

Problem is that it has turned into a recurring pattern for Kasandra across multiple threads at this point.

He takes exception to something someone posts, Fenring in particular seems to be a favored target, and from there he starts to impugn motives on the person posting.

IE 1) "He sees something he disagrees with." 2) "He places the person posting the 'objectionable material' into 'a box' which he then defines for them." 3) Then proceeds to malign any attempts to dispute the box definition he provided.

Nonsense and rubbish.  You resent being challenged and corrected, so you play the victim.  As often does Fenring, and others.  For example, lookie here:

It seems to be an increasingly common problem for people who identify as being "on the left" they don't bother to listen anymore.

If you're against them on something, they're immediately placing you "in a box" which they have pre-defined for you, and any protestation on your part about being mis-categorized is to be met with derision, and disdain, if it receives any attention at all.

I could just as easily have written that this way:

It seems to be an increasingly common problem for people who identify as being "on the right" they don't bother to listen anymore.

If you're against them on something, they're immediately placing you "in a box" which they have pre-defined for you, and any protestation on your part about being mis-categorized is to be met with derision, and disdain, if it receives any attention at all.

Would you agree with that characterization or not?

[TheDrake]

It seems to be an increasingly common problem for people who identify as being "on the right" they don't bother to listen anymore.

If you're against them on something, they're immediately placing you "in a box" which they have pre-defined for you, and any protestation on your part about being mis-categorized is to be met with derision, and disdain, if it receives any attention at all.

Would you agree with that characterization or not?
[/quote]

Socialist.

[wmLambert]

...You resent being challenged and corrected, so you play the victim.  As often does Fenring, and others.  For example, lookie here:

It seems to be an increasingly common problem for people who identify as being "on the left" they don't bother to listen anymore.

I could just as easily have written that this way:

It seems to be an increasingly common problem for people who identify as being "on the right" they don't bother to listen anymore.

Would you agree with that characterization or not?

This characterization is wrong. Because one party projects so constantly that it is standard M.O., projecting the same thing on any other party just proves the fact.

Look at the comparisons this way:
Schiff lied. Trump did not. Biden lied. Trump did not. Pelosi lied. Trump did not. ...Then: the Fox news team found an inaccuracy, so immediately corrected it. The MSM found many inaccuracies, and then shut down covereage of it, because the news cycle has passed, and no one is interested anymore.

Disinformation is wrong, and not being clever enough to see it is on the disinformed - not on those refuting it.

[TheDrake]

Trump constantly spits out false statements. Whether it is deceit or ignorance is an open question.

[Kasandra]

...You resent being challenged and corrected, so you play the victim.  As often does Fenring, and others.  For example, lookie here:

It seems to be an increasingly common problem for people who identify as being "on the left" they don't bother to listen anymore.

I could just as easily have written that this way:

It seems to be an increasingly common problem for people who identify as being "on the right" they don't bother to listen anymore.

Would you agree with that characterization or not?

This characterization is wrong. Because one party projects so constantly that it is standard M.O., projecting the same thing on any other party just proves the fact.

Look at the comparisons this way:
Schiff lied. Trump did not. Biden lied. Trump did not. Pelosi lied. Trump did not. ...Then: the Fox news team found an inaccuracy, so immediately corrected it. The MSM found many inaccuracies, and then shut down covereage of it, because the news cycle has passed, and no one is interested anymore.

Disinformation is wrong, and not being clever enough to see it is on the disinformed - not on those refuting it.

Pssst, you didn't need to prove my point.

[Kasandra]

It seems to be an increasingly common problem for people who identify as being "on the right" they don't bother to listen anymore.

If you're against them on something, they're immediately placing you "in a box" which they have pre-defined for you, and any protestation on your part about being mis-categorized is to be met with derision, and disdain, if it receives any attention at all.

Would you agree with that characterization or not?

Socialist.

I prefer sociologist.