It wasn't a hoax

Perhaps he has a selective memory.

A former top Trump campaign official on Tuesday testified that President Donald Trump talked to political trickster Roger Stone about WikiLeaks during the 2016 campaign.

That testimony by Rick Gates at Stone’s trial contrasts with Trump’s claim last November that he did not recall speaking to Stone about WikiLeaks, the document disclosure group that during the 2016 campaign released emails stolen from the Democratic Party and Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s own campaign chief.

Gates testified in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., that less than a minute after finishing a July 2016 call from Stone, Trump indicated that “more information would be coming” from Wikileaks.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/12/trump-had-call-with-roger-stone-about-wikileaks-rick-gates-says.html

 

I appreciate that, and if you have paid the cost to download the filing how would you feel about sharing the part that confirms your claims about it?

 

Vacuous claims are a non argument.

 

Trump invited Russia's help.

When it came, welcomed it.

When it came, did nothing to stop it.

When it came, denied it was happening.

His Campaign manager divulged proprietary voter demographic data to a russian spy.


Russia, in turn, used that data to target key areas for their anti Hillary campaigns, and what is bad for hillary,
is good for Trump.

His campaign hired Cambridge Analytica, who were working with Russians.

https://www.euractiv.com/section/gl...-cambridge-analytica-shared-data-with-russia/

CA were forced to close operations.

And, there was obstruction, that is clear cut.

I believe there was collusion.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/08/19/yes-there-was-collusion/

 

You didn't make an argument either. You clung to information you had from years ago. We know better today. It was a hoax. Zero question about it.

 

Make your case.

 

And the Trump Tower meeting. There were reports that Manafort had notes on his phone regarding 'donations' to the GOP; likely was encrypted and/or destroyed before those devices were impounded. Mueller's report indicated that phone data was destroyed or wiped by quite a few of Trump's inner circle. These folks knew how to cover tracks well enough.

 

Make yours.

 

You wrote......"You didn't make an argument either. You clung to information you had from years ago. We know better today. It was a hoax. Zero question about it."

Surely you have a defense for that assertion.

 

Not if I don't want to defend it. I refer you to conservative media where you can find he information. Your media still lives in the past because he past was to its benefit.

 

My claim was supported by the IG report, that is a legitimate argument.

And, FYI, facts are ageless, until proven otherwise.

You are free to refute, and you have tried, but you have not supported that claim.

Until you do, it is vacuous. That's what the word means, ie.., 'unsubstantiated' 'empty'.

Vacuous claims are not an argument.

Anyone can say anything, these are vacuous claims, they are not arguments. At the minimum, you could
describe, which is to say, provide a thorough path of logic and reasoning why your point is true, and although a well reasoned claim is an argument, but it would not trump a counter argument supported by documents, available and thorough research, that sort of thing.

You might want to do that in the next reply to avoid making a vacuous claim, because a vacuous claim is not an argument, a supported claim is, however.

Note, that supporting a claim can be proven as true, unless the 'evidence' is strong but not fool proof, and if that is the case, the argument is stronger, depending on the degree and caliber of the supporting documents. Horowitz has investigated rather thoroughly and found evidence that the investigation started long before the Steel docs were offered to the FBI, hence his conclusion.. I would assert that my argument is strong, unless you have evidence to the contrary.

 

Perhaps when it was written. Since then we have learned much.

It assumes they are facts. Russia collusion has been ripped to shreds in the intervening years.

You are free to refute, and you have tried, but you have not supported that claim.

Sorry, I don't do requests. The hoax information is readily available in the media you don't read. I will leave it up to you to expand the content of your reading. I'm content with you spewing your misinformation. I don't really care. Thanks for the lengthy explanation of the term vacuous. Don't know what I would have done without it.

 

I repeat, a vacuous claim is not an argument. Anyone can say anything. You need to do more than just make a claim
for it to be an argument.

I provided a path of logic to refute that claim, your rebuttal is vacuous, and, as such, not an argumenet.

If you can't refute or rebut a post with an argument, then don't waste everyone's time, just don't respond.

Every post is an invitation to rebut, not a request, noting that a rebuttal is not a vacuous claim.

 

Yawn.

 

IOW you're

 

Durham Says He Forgot About Key Piece Of Evidence

In a late Friday-night court filing, Special Counsel John Durham made a strange admission: he had already seen a key piece of evidence, in 2018, that he claimed not to have known about until last week.Durham said that during a 2018 investigation, he reviewed two FBI cell phones belonging to the bureau’s former general counsel, James Baker.

Last year, Durham’s grand jury indicted lawyer Michael Sussmann, charging that the attorney failed to tell Baker that he was acting on behalf of a client during a 2016 meeting in which Sussmann relayed information about a supposed link between a Trump organization server and a Russian bank. Baker was Durham’s chief — and only — witness.

The case against Sussmann was a head-scratcher. It has been criticized as minor, irrelevant to the broader question of the FBI’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election, and a politically motivated attempt to follow Trump’s call to investigate the investigators.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/durham-says-he-forgot-about-key-piece-of-evidence

Oops.

 

Meh. Don't be distracted by surface phenomena.

 

Now that's the real witch-hunt.

 

An observation that should be directed at Durham.

More Evidence Muddles Durham’s Case on Lawyer’s Meeting With F.B.I.
One disclosure dovetails with the special counsel John Durham’s indictment against Michael Sussmann, while several others clash with it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/08/us/durham-sussmann-fbi-trump-russia.html

The indictment also said that in February 2017, Mr. Sussmann met with the C.I.A. and conveyed similar and related concerns, citing a post-meeting memorandum by two agency employees that said he was “not representing a particular client.” Mr. Durham portrayed that as showing Mr. Sussmann had repeated a false statement.

But at the hearing on Wednesday, a lawyer for Mr. Sussmann, Sean Berkowitz, cited evidence turned over by the prosecutors last week that muddies that picture by suggesting he may instead have told them he had a client.

Emails by agency personnel ahead of the meeting, Mr. Berkowitz said, included statements like “Sussmann said he represents a client who does not want to be known” and “the plan should be to convince Sussmann that it is in his and his client’s interest to go to the F.B.I.” A draft version of the agency’s post-meeting memo also referred to Mr. Sussmann having a client, he said.

Oops. Keep digging John. I'm sure you'll find the holy grail you and Billy the Bagman hope you'll find any day now.

 

Then what point, precisely, are YOU making?

If you make a claim, and you do not substantiate it, in some way, such as linking to supporting testimony, documents, etc,, or, at the minimum, providing a solid line of reasoning and some quotations, etc., to support your claim, if you do not do it, you are only expressing a vacuous claim, and as such, vacuous claims are not arguments.

You don't make a vacuous claim and merely link to a website believe that the website will do your work for you, you have to cite the specific point on the site, quote it, and then link to it to back it up. (and you are not even doing that, you say so go on convervative media and look for it, yourself. NO, you're the one making the claim, the onus is on you )

See, the whole point of being on this forum is to debate, or that is my understanding ( there are other forums for chit chatting, eh?)

So... What do we debate?

Arguments.

Anyone can blurt out anything, those are not arguments.

If you can't do that, then why are you here?

 

We shall see.

 

I am amazed at how many people do not even understand what an argument actually is.

 

That we shall. https://link.motherjones.com/public/25096320

 

What specifically are you call horse manure and what is being obfuscated?

"As he documents the role of Hillary Clinton’s campaign in generating false allegations of Trump-Russia collusion, Special Counsel John Durham has also previewed a challenge to the FBI’s claims about how and why its counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign began. At stake is the completeness of the official reckoning within the U.S. government over the Russiagate scandal – and whether there will be an accounting commensurate with the offense: the abuse of the nation's highest law enforcement and intelligence powers to damage an opposition presidential candidate turned president, at the behest of his opponent from the governing party he defeated."

And what exactly are you asserting are the authors motivations?

 

If you're counting on David Corn then you're hoping for a specific outcome.