Donald Trump Jr emails show Russia communication

[dvdjs]

Nice try. You said what I said you did, and it was rudely dismissive. Josie, of course, was far more polite when you demanded she “prove” something she said.

Nice try? What in your imagination was I trying?

 

[josie_L]

“Exploring collusion”? If Mueller is investigating non-crimes that resulted in nothing at all, then his “investigation” really is just a “witch hunt”.

All for the purpose of discrediting/undermining him and creating an atmosphere of RESISTANCE on ALL levels.

Basically, they’re making as much trouble for him as they can.

 

[josie_L]

I will go back and check, even though two or three sounds anecdotal not probative.

Dvdjs, everyone on this planet besides yourself, and people without Televisions and access to the Internet, know that the media has been pushing forth a Russia/Trump narrative. So I am not going to go through almost a year’s worth of articles to appease you (just like I wasn’t going to read the Benghazi report in full, being that it’s hundreds of pages long).

If two or three articles is insufficient, then please, do find others to corroborate my sources.

 

[josie_L]

No need, but thanks. I do not take any of this (or mean any of this) personally at all. It is however, a little difficult to recall the context of the older thread.

I am skeptical of the idea of Trump that the MSM is fake, is making stuff up etc. I think it tendentious at best and dangerous.

When potentially related notions come up here, I am interested in learning how people arrive at the perceptions that they do, what they are reading and how they use information to develop their ideas - especially for serious posters. That is the point of my questions.

But Trump is being unfairly attacked, i.e., most of the media ran with the Steele dossier and have never bothered to look back.

 

[dvdjs]

I am referring to Hillary’s statement only, so can you elaborate?

Hillary used the word “concluded”. As I posted earlier, that was not precise and could have been phrased better, at the risk, however, of sounding pedantic in a public forum.

Daily Caller, in calling her to task, used the phrases “independently concluded” and “conducted independent investigations”. But these phrases are not hers.

A group may publish a joint conclusion; that does not mean all of the members of the group “conducted independent investigations”, or that their conclusions were arrived at independently. One member may have done all of the work and the others concurred on the basis of that member’s work. Still it is fair to attribute the conclusion to the work.

It is not unlikely that she meant something like this. Or perhaps she really did mean what the Daily Caller said. It doesn’t seem like they asked her; they made a tendentious case that she was wrong. Not seeking the truth, but playing gotcha.

But Daily Caller engaged in a cheap rhetorical trick. They made something that someone said seem untrue by changing their words just a bit, but in a highly consequential way.

 

[dvdjs]

But Trump is being unfairly attacked, i.e., most of the media ran with the Steele dossier and have never bothered to look back.

IIRC, most of the serious media reported on the release of the dossier by buzzfeed. Most even questioned the propriety of the release. Most reported on the denials. I am not sure that anyone ran with the contents of the dossier; anything that was reported that coincided with elements of the dossier would have been independently verified.

 

[dvdjs]

All for the purpose of discrediting/undermining him and creating an atmosphere of RESISTANCE on ALL levels.
Basically, they’re making as much trouble for him as they can.

I think that the purpose from the outset has been to discover precisely what our adversaries have done , intruding into our election, and to find ways to stop it. The POTUS should not be an impediment to that; he should be leading the charge. That he isn’t is part of the intrigue.

 

[josie_L]

Hillary used the word “concluded”. As I posted earlier, that was not precise and could have been phrased better, at the risk, however, of sounding pedantic in a public forum.

Daily Caller, in calling her to task, used the phrases “independently concluded” and “conducted independent investigations”. But these phrases are not hers.

A group may publish a joint conclusion; that does not mean all of the members of the group “conducted independent investigations”, or that their conclusions were arrived at independently. One member may have done all of the work and the others concurred on the basis of that member’s work. Still it is fair to attribute the conclusion to the work.

It is not unlikely that she meant something like this. Or perhaps she really did mean what the Daily Caller said. It doesn’t seem like they asked her; they made a tendentious case that she was wrong. Not seeking the truth, but playing gotcha.

But Daily Caller engaged in a cheap rhetorical trick. They made something that someone said seem untrue by changing their words just a bit, but in a highly consequential way.

dvdjs, did you read the whole article, the Daily Caller is not stating that she said this, but her words can be construed as such:

"We have 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyberattacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin, and they are designed to influence our election."

Where are the military agencies of note that concluded this? Is the FBI a military intelligence agency, the NSA, or the DHS? So obviously, she was wrong, and that is why the Daily Caller said that she has overstated her case. Sorry, but there is no other way to look at this, she either lied or she made a mistake, which I find hard to believe being that she was Secretary of State and a Senator. Here’s another statement that she made and is quoted in the Daily Caller:

“Seventeen agencies, all in agreement – which I know from my experience as a senator and secretary of state is hard to get – they concluded with ‘high confidence’ that the Russians ran an extensive information war against my campaign to influence voters in the election.”

Again, giving off the impression that ALL seventeen agencies are in agreement, actually it’s not even an impression, that is what she is saying.

 

[dvdjs]

dvdjs, did you read the whole article, the Daily Caller is not stating that she said this, but her words can be construed as such:

So why construe? Why not ask and find out? Gotcha games.

Where are the military agencies of note that concluded this? Is the FBI a military intelligence agency, the NSA, or the DHS? So obviously, she was wrong, and that is why the Daily Caller said that she has overstated her case. Sorry, but there is no other way to look at this, she either lied or she made a mistake, which I find hard to believe being that she was Secretary of State and a Senator. Here’s another statement that she made and is quoted in the Daily Caller:

I listed the 17 agencies and offices; some are military. The statement was made on behalf of all. I disagree that there is no other way to look at this. I have explained and educated have explained the other way to look at this.

Again, giving off the impression that ALL seventeen agencies are in agreement, actually it’s not even an impression, that is what she is saying.

But there is no indication that that agreement stemmed form independent investigations leading to independent conclusions. Nor that that agreement is uniform in every detail. Just that a statement with the relevant conclusions was issued on behalf of all.

 

[josie_L]

I think that the purpose form the outset has been to discover precisely what our adversaries have done , intruding into our election, and to find ways to stop it. The POTUS should not be an impediment to that; he should be leading the charge. That he isn’t is part of the intrigue.

No, my friend, it’s because he knows its bogus that he’s not leading the charge (Trump/Russia collusion), and the fact of the matter is, is if even he tried, people would accuse him of some sort of conflict of interest and/or possible sabotage of said investigation. Remember, people believe he was in cahoots with Putin to win the election.

 

[dvdjs]

No, my friend, it’s because he knows its bogus that he’s not leading the charge (Trump?Russia collusion), and the fact of the matter is, is if even he tried, people would accuse him of some sort of conflict of interest and/or possible sabotage of said investigation. Remember, people believe he was in cahoots with Putin to win the election.

He is pretty much the ranking government official who feels this way. I wonder why.

 

[josie_L]

So why construe? Why not ask and find out? Gotcha games.

No, it isn’t, and what is there to find out, i.e., that she made a mistake? The Daily Caller didn’t call her a liar, they said she “overstated her claim”, which is a perfectly acceptable thing to say regarding what she said.

I listed the 17 agencies and offices; some are military. The statement was made on behalf of all. I disagree that there is no other way to look at this. I have explained and educated have explained the other way to look at this.

dvdjs, James Clapper, the former director of National Intelligence, set the record straight when he said before Congress:

“The [intelligence community assessment] was a coordinated product from three agencies: CIA, NSA and the FBI, not all 17 components of the intelligence community,” said former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper during a congressional hearing in May. “Those three under the aegis of my former office.”

dailycaller.com/2017/06/01/fact-check-did-17-intel-agencies-all-agree-russia-hacked-the-dnc-podesta/

But there is no indication that that agreement stemmed form independent investigations leading to independent conclusions. Nor that that agreement is uniform in every detail. Just that a statement with the relevant conclusions was issued on behalf of all.

Here is more of what he said:

Franken: The intelligence communities have concluded, all 17 of them, that Russia interfered with this election. And we all know how that’s right.

Clapper: Senator, as I pointed out in my statement, Senator Franken, it was- there were only three agencies that directly involved in this assessment plus my office.

Franken: But all 17 signed on to that?

Clapper: Well, we didn’t go through that process. This was a special situation because of the time limits and …] the sensitivity of the information, we decided – it was a conscious judgment – to restrict it to those three. I’m not aware of anyone who dissented, or disagreed when it came out.

dailycaller.com/2017/06/01/fact-check-did-17-intel-agencies-all-agree-russia-hacked-the-dnc-podesta/

He could not say that the other agencies agreed, only that they did not dissent or disagree, but not all 17 agencies reached an independent conclusion wherein they all agreed with each other, like Hillary Clinton was construing it to be in her interview and/or in the tweet.

She has only herself to blame for that misconception.

 

[josie_L]

He is pretty much the ranking government official who feels this way. I wonder why.

Firstly. because he’s the one under attack (it’s his reputation on the line and therefore he’s taking ownership of that responsibility in the best way he knows how). Secondly, because he knew about the dossier and how it was being used against him by the media (which he couldn’t trust) and even congress. Thirdly, because he would/could be accused of conflict of interest if he entered the fray. If the investigations MUST be done, then it is better he does not get himself involved.

I don’t see that as too hard to understand.

 

[Tuxedo_Mark]

Personally, I rely on a daily dose of Seth Meyers to keep me sane through the Dump Administration.

 

[josie_L]

Here’s an article from the Washington Times, and it might surprise some but it doesn’t surprise me:

Snopes examines lies and misleading claims made by media against Trump

Report breaks down ‘major strand of falsehood about the president that feeds into his persona as a bumbling fool’

Snopes.com is sometimes derided by conservatives as a liberal news operation disguised as a fact-checking site.

But this month, Snopes put out a report favorable to President Trump, concluding that, yes, he is the victim of lies in the news and in social media. In a way, the report bolsters Mr. Trump’s Twitter rants against “fake news.”

Snopes writes about a “major strand of falsehood about the president that feeds into his persona as a bumbling fool, prone to accidents and devoid of any cultural sophistication.”

The Snopes report generally shies away from criticizing the established news media — the liberal New York Times-CNN-Washington Post-led anti-Trump reporting that the president castigates the most.

In fact, none of those three is mentioned by Snopes, even though former FBI director James B. Comey told the Senate Intelligence Committee that “many, many stories” on the Trump-Russia probe are “dead wrong.”

Snopes headlined its article, “The Lies of Donald Trump’s Critics, and How They Shape His Many Personas.”

“This article is intended as a neutral, reliable analysis of the lies, false allegations and misleading claims made about and against Donald Trump since his inauguration in January 2017,” Snopes explains. “We’ve attempted to strip away the hyperbole, name-calling and generalizations, and examine the patterns and trends at work: what characterizes these lies and exaggerations, the effect they have, what might explain them.”

Snopes does mention a few mainstream media errors, such as Politico reporting that the president signed a kid’s hat at the White House Easter egg roll but then carelessly tossed it to the crowd. Video showed he tossed it directly to the owner.

Also cited is a Newsweek report that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi “evaded” Mr. Trump’s “notorious bone-crunching power handshake” by hugging the president instead. Missing from the account, said Snopes, is the fact that hugging is how Mr. Modi likes to greet fellow world leaders.

Snopes did not cite other, more serious mainstream media errors, such as Time’s report that Mr. Trump removed the bust of Martin Luther King form the Oval Office when he had not.
Or the BBC reporting that Mr. Trump snubbed Italy’s prime minister by not wearing an English-translation headset, when in fact he did listen via an earpiece.

Or The New York Times’ report in February that said Trump aides and “senior Russian intelligence officials” had repeated contacts in the year leading up to the election. Mr. Trump’s team denies this, as did a more neutral source — Mr. Comey.

Sen. Tom Cotton, Arkansas Republican, asked Mr. Comey: “Would it be fair to characterize that story as almost entirely wrong?”

“Yes,” Mr. Comey said.

It would be virtually impossible for Snopes to cover all the inaccurate anti-Trump stories, as listed by conservative news sites.

Another egregious story, according to Snopes, was a report that the Trump White House took down all references to climate change and LGBTQ rights from its website, when in fact it was simply transitioning from the Barack Obama home page to the Donald Trump WhiteHouse.gov.

“Another major strand of falsehood about the President is the one that feeds into his persona as a bumbling fool, prone to accidents and devoid of any cultural sophistication,” Snopes said.

In March, Irish Prime Minister Enda Kenny came to the White House for the yearly St. Patrick’s Day White House visit. Recognizing America’s long friendship with Ireland, Mr. Trump read what he said was one of his favorite proverbs: “Always remember to forget the friends that proved untrue, but never forget to remember those that have stuck by you.”

The press immediately pounced, saying the president cited as an Irish proverb words written by a Nigerian poet.

Snopes said Mr. Trump never identified the words as coming from Ireland. The president used it to support his lead-in: “As we stand together with our Irish friends “

“The entire episode is a remarkable example of something bordering on collective hallucination, most likely brought on by confirmation bias,” the Snopes article said. “Here hundreds of thousands of people — including professional journalists working for influential news organizations, and a chat show host with more than three million nightly viewers [Stephen Colbert] — literally heard Trump say something he never said, in most cases probably because it confirmed a pre-existing image of the President as a poorly read, culturally ignorant buffoon.”

The article was written by Dan MacGuill, whom Snopes describes as a “journalist and fact-checker from Dublin, Ireland.”

washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jul/17/snopes-publishes-favorable-donald-trump-report/