Flynn in major trouble for speaking to Russia about sanctions

[Pavlov]

Dodging the questions is the game for you.

What do ents did the FBI use to obtain the FISA warrant after being denied the first time? Who composed said do ents and who paid for said do ents the FBI used?

Stop playing games and answer the questions and then we can discuss why I think it's critically important.

OK, think about what you are saying here.

I don't care about these questions anymore.

You think they are critically important, but will only discuss them if I do care about them enough to jump through your hoops.

You have given me the power to shut down any discussion you want to make about issues critical to you, but about which I no longer care.

OK, since I don't care about that issue anymore, I'm using the power you gave me and I'm shutting you down.
All I have to do is nothing.

Consider yourself shut down.

Edited to add:

[Pavlov]

[djohn2oo8]

lol

[TSA]

OK, think about what you are saying here.

I don't care about these questions anymore.

You think they are critically important, but will only discuss them if I do care about them enough to jump through your hoops.

You have given me the power to shut down any discussion you want to make about issues critical to you, but about which I no longer care.

OK, since I don't care about that issue anymore, I'm using the power you gave me and I'm shutting you down.
All I have to do is nothing.

Consider yourself shut down.

Edited to add:

what a little

And I had a nice little gentleman's bet lined up after our discussion for our competing theories.

[DarrinS]

This theory explains his 2 hour long official talk with Putin, that was originally scheduled for 30 minutes, as well as his desperate attempt to talk to him without anyone else present at the G20.

[Pavlov]

what a little

Hey, you made it personal again.

And I had a nice little gentleman's bet lined up after our discussion for our competing theories.

Hey, you wanted to play yet another game again.

Don't care about your games, so I used the power you gave me to shut you down. Now let the people who want to actually discuss what they actually think about this Trump-Russia business discuss it. You can do so at any time yourself, but you actually have to do it.

[TSA]

Hey, you made it personal again.

Hey, you wanted to play yet another game again.

Don't care about your games, so I used the power you gave me to shut you down. Now let the people who want to actually discuss what they actually think about this Trump-Russia business discuss it. You can do so at any time yourself, but you actually have to do it.

You shut yourself down.

Does this mean I won't have you following me around every day asking for a theory?

[Pavlov]

You shut yourself down.

I'm still discussing Trump-Russia in the de facto Trump-Russia thread. You are trying to play games in the Trump-Russia thread. I'm not discussing issues I think are moot without being convinced they aren't moot and I'm not playing your completely unnecessary games.

Does this mean I won't have you following me around every day asking for a theory?

If you keep acting like you have one I will ask about it until you stonewall.

I'm all for discussing theories if you actually have them. If you have any desire to discuss your apparent FISA theory you will simply state what that theory is. No games.

[TSA]

I'm still discussing Trump-Russia in the de facto Trump-Russia thread. You are trying to play games in the Trump-Russia thread. I'm not discussing issues I think are moot without being convinced they aren't moot and I'm not playing your completely unnecessary games.

If you keep acting like you have one I will ask about it until you stonewall.

I'm all for discussing theories if you actually have them. If you have any desire to discuss your apparent FISA theory you will simply state what that theory is. No games.

How bout a bet based on our theories?

[Pavlov]

How bout a bet based on our theories?

Hey, another game. How utterly predictable.

You can't even bring yourself to say what your theory is without some idiotic game.

How about you just say what your theory is?

[TSA]

Hey, another game. How utterly predictable.

You can't even bring yourself to say what your theory is without some idiotic game.

How about you just say what your theory is?

Another question dodge. A simple yes or no will do.

[Pavlov]

Another question dodge. A simple yes or no will do.

I already said no games before you asked to play another game.

How about you just say what your theory is?

[RandomGuy]

[dishonest argument]

Does the president of the United States write laws?

Yes or no.

[TSA]

I already said no games before you asked to play another game.

How about you just say what your theory is?

A bet is not a game. Would you like to discuss the terms of the bet?

[RandomGuy]

How much will Trump have to pander to Putin, for you to think something is amiss?

What evidence would suffice to show you that he has been compromised?

[TSA]

Does the president of the United States write laws?

Yes or no.

No.

Did you write what I quoted?

Yes or no.

[TSA]

How much will Trump have to pander to Putin, for you to think something is amiss?

What evidence would suffice to show you that he has been compromised?

How about you start with ANY evidence he's been compromised.

[Pavlov]

A bet is not a game.

Of course it is.

Would you like to discuss the terms of the bet?

No. There is no bet.

No bets.

No games.

How about you just say what your theory is?

[RandomGuy]

For reference:

“Today, I have signed into law H.R. 3364, the “Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act.” While I favor tough measures to punish and deter aggressive and destabilizing behavior by Iran, North Korea, and Russia, this legislation is significantly flawed.

In its haste to pass this legislation, the Congress included a number of clearly uncons utional provisions. For instance, although I share the policy views of sections 253 and 257, those provisions purport to displace the President’s exclusive cons utional authority to recognize foreign governments, including their territorial bounds, in conflict with the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Zivotofsky v. Kerry.

Additionally, section 216 seeks to grant the Congress the ability to change the law outside the cons utionally required process. The bill prescribes a review period that precludes the President from taking certain actions. Certain provisions in section 216, however, conflict with the Supreme Court’s decision in INS v. Chadha, because they purport to allow the Congress to extend the review period through procedures that do not satisfy the requirements for changing the law under Article I, section 7 of the Cons ution. I nevertheless expect to honor the bill’s extended waiting periods to ensure that the Congress will have a full opportunity to avail itself of the bill’s review procedures.

Further, certain provisions, such as sections 254 and 257, purport to direct my subordinates in the executive branch to undertake certain diplomatic initiatives, in contravention of the President’s exclusive cons utional authority to determine the time, scope, and objectives of international negotiations. And other provisions, such as sections 104, 107, 222, 224, 227, 228, and 234, would require me to deny certain individuals entry into the United States, without an exception for the President’s responsibility to receive ambassadors under Article II, section 3 of the Cons ution. My Administration will give careful and respectful consideration to the preferences expressed by the Congress in these various provisions and will implement them in a manner consistent with the President’s cons utional authority to conduct foreign relations.

Finally, my Administration particularly expects the Congress to refrain from using this flawed bill to hinder our important work with European allies to resolve the conflict in Ukraine, and from using it to hinder our efforts to address any unintended consequences it may have for American businesses, our friends, or our allies.”

http://www.marke ch.com/story/tex...ill-2017-08-02

Basically:

"I will ignore whatever I can get away with, and actively undermine the intention and execution of this bill."

[RandomGuy]

No.

Did you write what I quoted?

Yes or no.

No.

Does the President of the United states write laws? No. Laws are therefore not an action that Trump can undertake.

Donald Trump did not write this law, and actively spoke out against it. He did not take any action to further it's creation.

Donald Trump signed the law.
Trump, although incompetent and bungling, almost certainly knows what a veto-proof majority is. If he had vetoed it, his veto would have been easily over-ridden, making him look weak, something he has stated that he tries never to do.

Donald Trump did what he was forced to do by Congress. Within the scope of the executive, he has already indicated he will not enforce the sanctions vigorously.

Trump is doing what he has to, and has not undertaken any actions on his own initiative that harm Russian interests.

Did I miss anything?

[RandomGuy]

How about you start with ANY evidence he's been compromised.

ANY evidence?

The Steele Dossier is evidence. Not evidence you like, or consider valid, but it is evidence.

Definitive evidence has yet to emerge, because the investigation into what Trump has been doing, and why is not complete. To suggest that evidence has to come before an investigation is both foolish, and dishonest.

Are you suggesting that evidence has to come before an investigation is complete?

[RandomGuy]

How about you start with ANY evidence he's been compromised.

Cir stantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.

On its own, cir stantial evidence allows for more than one explanation. Different pieces of cir stantial evidence may be required, so that each corroborates the conclusions drawn from the others. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving cir stantial evidence becomes more likely once alternative explanations have been ruled out[citation needed].

Cir stantial evidence allows a trier of fact to infer that a fact exists.[1] In criminal law, the inference is made by the trier of fact in order to support the truth of an assertion (of guilt or absence of guilt).

Testimony can be direct evidence or it can be cir stantial. For instance, a witness saying that she saw a defendant stab a victim is providing direct evidence. By contrast, a witness who says that she saw the defendant enter a house, that she heard screaming, and that she saw the defendant leave with a bloody knife gives cir stantial evidence. It is the necessity for inference, and not the obviousness of a conclusion, that determines whether evidence is cir stantial.

SEE FACTS BELOW:

Your move, Putin'spet.

But then, predicting what Trump will, or won't do is sort of a mugs game. He never fails to do the stupidest possible, just when you think he can't be dumber.

The thing about a good theory though, it that it both explains facts, and you can make testable predictions.

Fact 1:
Russia attempted to hack our electoral process through a multi-pronged attack.

Fact 2:
Donald "look how big my inauguration crowd was" Trump has done nothing but deny this even happened. He has shown no willingness whatsoever to hold Russia to account for anything.

Fact 3:
Donald Trump has a pattern of criticizing anyone, and everyone at the drop of a hat. Allies, enemies, courts, free press, nothing has escaped his remarks and twitter feed, except for ONE/(two) thing(s), and that is Russia/Putin

Fact 4:
Russian efforts appeared designed to support Trump

Fact 5:
Trump directly called on Russia publicly to support his efforts to get elected.

Fact 6:
Donald Trump has gone out of his way to meet and talk with Putin privately in person, with no American witnesses. This is the only leader with which he has acted in this manner.

Theory:
Donald Trump has been compromised in some way. Either he directly owes them money, or they have evidence of some kind of him breaking the law or doing something he does not want others to know about.

This theory explains those facts, and is fully consistent with observed reality.

Prediction:
Donald Trump will take no action personally, nor will he criticize Russia or Putin in any way in regards to the Russian attack on our elections. He may allow his underlings to do some minor, inconsequential stuff, and if forced to do anything by Congress will drag his feet, if not outright attempt to veto any sanctions.


The way to falsify the theory:
1) Trump criticizes Putin/Russia (good)
2) Trump orders/takes action that materially harms Russian interests (definitive)

Bull conspiracy theories fail very often because either: they cannot be falsified, or they directly conflict with observed reality. This theory can be falsified, and does not conflict with what we know as fact.

Donald Trump is unpredictable except for Russia.

He may be stupid enough to fire Mueller if Mueller starts asking questions that will expose how he has been compromised.

If he does so, he will be impeached. The Republican party will have almost no choice at that point. Congress will find their spine, because they want to be re-elected, and Trump will have gone too far for all but the most jaded hacks.

Here comes the test.

Prediction:
Trump will veto, or actively attempt to undermine the sanctions in any way he can.

Russians have already threatened to retaliate.

resident Trump on Wednesday grudgingly signed legislation toughening sanctions on Russia over its interference in the 2016 election, but ripped into the law and mocked its authors in Congress as he vowed to pursue better relations with Moscow.

The “Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act,” which also imposes punitive measures against Iran and North Korea, had sailed through the House and Senate by near-unanimous, veto-proof margins. At the same time, the legislation had drawn angry criticisms from European allies, notably over concerns it would cripple ongoing energy projects, and from Russia.

In a pair of statements, Trump condemned the law as a “significantly flawed” policy that risks damaging U.S. foreign policy and contains “clearly uncons utional provisions” that improperly encroach on his presidential powers.
He also signaled he might not enforce it as vigorously as its authors intended.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-sig...161349886.html

[RandomGuy]

The facts and cir stantial evidence have not changed.

Donald Trump has yet to criticize Putin in any meaningful way, to my knowledge.


So we are left with:

Fact 1:
Russia attempted to hack our electoral process through a multi-pronged attack.

Fact 2:
Donald "look how big my inauguration crowd was" Trump has done nothing but deny this even happened. He has shown no willingness whatsoever to hold Russia to account for anything.

Fact 3:
Donald Trump has a pattern of criticizing anyone, and everyone at the drop of a hat. Allies, enemies, courts, free press, nothing has escaped his remarks and twitter feed, except for ONE/(two) thing(s), and that is Russia/Putin

Fact 4:
Russian efforts appeared designed to support Trump

Fact 5:
Trump directly called on Russia publicly to support his efforts to get elected.


We can now add further:

Fact 6:
Donald Trump has gone out of his way to meet and talk with Putin privately in person, with no American witnesses. This is the only leader with which he has acted in this manner.

[Blake]

A bet is not a game.

Ruh roh got real

[RandomGuy]

How about you start with ANY evidence he's been compromised.

How about you show any evidence that Donald Trump has criticized Vladimir Putin in any meaningful way, or undertaken any action on his own initiative that has harmed Russian interests.

Prove that Donald Trump is putting the interests of the United States of America ahead of those of Russia.

(Edit)

Because I am oooh so helpful:

This can be done by showing any action where our interests conflict, and he has undertaken to put American interests first.

One such place is in Syria. We are supporting anti-Assad rebels. Russia supports Assad.

What action did Donald Trump undertake to support those rebels?