Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

North Korea's Loch Ness Monster (2016)

earthnutshell.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 72 posts

Re: North Korea's Loch Ness Monster (2016)

#61

Post by notahacker »

throwawaylinux wrote: post #58
notahacker wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The report consists of nearly 400 pages of evidence supporting three of the central "Russiagate" claims - that Russian agents sought to help Trump, that multiple Trump campaign staff had meetings with Russian operatives, and that Trump himself personally encouraged his campaign staff to take steps to obtain and disseminate Hillary's unlawfully obtained emails as part of his campaign messaging. You will forgive me for…

So there is all this evidence that Trump's campaign colluded with Russia to interfere with the election, you're absolutely sure it exists, but you can't actually point to it. Same as this Korean wall. The Mueller report concluded that there was no evidence of collusion (conspiracy), bu that doesn't mean anything because it's like how you can't see the wall from South Korea.

yawns

I'm absolutely sure my previous post contains a direct quote summarising the state of the evidence from Mueller himself "the Office’s investigation uncovered evidence of numerous links (i.e., contacts) between Trump Campaign officials and individuals having or claiming to have ties to the Russian government" was how Mueller opened his summary. Not "we couldn't find any evidence of any of the alleged meetings actually happening" or "actually conclusive proof exists that these individuals were in a different country at the time". Or perhaps your argument is that they definitely met but there was no evidence the Russians did anything to help the Trump campaign, but Mueller said they were "sweeping and systematic" and prosecuted individuals for their role in it.

I mean, if you've read, say, page 85 in which senior Trump officials set up meetings with people who have emailed them offering "very high level and sensitive information" as "part of Russia and its government's support to Trump", it's kind of difficult to argue that Mueller's statement that proving that they were "knowing" and "wilful" in violating laws in court might be difficult means there's no evidence of any form of collusion between Russian agents offering hacked material and the Trump campaign.

By the same token the Comey investigation into Hillary Clinton found "no pervasive evidence of systematic, deliberate mishandling of information", but only someone arguing in bad faith would suggest this proved that reports of email servers were just North Korean style propaganda inventions.

Re: North Korea's Loch Ness Monster (2016)

#62

Post by throwawaylinux »

notahacker wrote: post #61
throwawaylinux wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So there is all this evidence that Trump's campaign colluded with Russia to interfere with the election, you're absolutely sure it exists, but you can't actually point to it. Same as this Korean wall. The Mueller report concluded that there was no evidence of collusion (conspiracy), bu that doesn't mean anything because it's like how you can't see the wall from South Korea.

yawns I'm absolutely sure my previous post contains a direct quote summarising the state of the evidence from Mueller himself "the Office’s investigation uncovered evidence of numerous links (i.e., contacts) between Trump Campaign officials and individuals having or claiming to have ties to the Russian government" was how Mueller opened his summary. Not "we couldn't find any evidence of any of the alleged meetings ac…

There's no evidence Trump colluded with Russia to interfere with the election. Just say what the evidence is if you have any. Mueller did not, as the report explicitly states. That is why you can't point to anything from the report except vague snippets of things that are not evidence that Trump colluded with Russia to interfere with the election.

Re: North Korea's Loch Ness Monster (2016)

#63

Post by CorrectHorseBat »

throwawaylinux wrote: post #59
CorrectHorseBat wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You have many people who believe Trump told his supporters to drink bleach in other to fight coronavirus. Indeed, he merely suggested to inject bleach in order to fight the coronavirus [1]. Of course afterwards he said that was sarcastic, but even if that was true it's not really much better. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33QdTOyXz3w

Wow, it's hard to listen to these cringy old politicians rambling for more than a minute so I might have missed it later but but is this what you're talking about? "And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that? By injection inside or or almost a cleaning. Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lun…

I think it's that yes.

While it's not as bad as telling people to inject or drink bleach, I think it's still pretty bad. First, politicians should be really careful what they say because some people will only half listen to them.

Second, seriously, the president of the United States is suggesting such ridiculous things? He should realise that what he's suggesting is insane and either have them clarify it beforehand or just keep his mouth shut. And if it's just a joke the timing is totally inappropriate.

Re: North Korea's Loch Ness Monster (2016)

#64

Post by notahacker »

throwawaylinux wrote: post #62
notahacker wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yawns I'm absolutely sure my previous post contains a direct quote summarising the state of the evidence from Mueller himself "the Office’s investigation uncovered evidence of numerous links (i.e., contacts) between Trump Campaign officials and individuals having or claiming to have ties to the Russian government" was how Mueller opened his summary. Not "we couldn't find any evidence of any of the alleged meetings ac…

There's no evidence Trump colluded with Russia to interfere with the election. Just say what the evidence is if you have any. Mueller did not, as the report explicitly states. That is why you can't point to anything from the report except vague snippets of things that are not evidence that Trump colluded with Russia to interfere with the election.

yawns

Two can play at the gish gallop game. Please point me to the line in the Mueller report which 'explicitly states' that 'there is no evidence Trump colluded with Russia to interfere with the election.'

If this section of the report is any less imaginary than the great Korean wall I assume you would have pointed to that, and not vague snippets referring to insufficient evidence to support specific criminal charges, following Mueller's actual statements on collusion and evidence which were that "we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of collusion" and "A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts".

Perhaps you wish to argue that the Trump campaign meeting with Russian agents for the primary purpose of receiving documents about Hillary Clinton as part of what Mueller established to be an organised Russian campaign to support his election using unlawfully obtained material does not meet your personal thresholds for "collusion" between the two campaigns. Understanding of the applicability of what Mueller calls "the commonly discussed term collusion" to the established fact of the Trump campaign taking that meeting is a matter of opinion rather than fact, after all. The Mueller report did, however, establish that the meeting was not invented by propagandists but definitely took place.

Re: North Korea's Loch Ness Monster (2016)

#65

Post by jd115 »

throwawaylinux wrote: post #40
jd115 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We must live on different planets. There are literally mountains of evidence publicly available, and many thoroughly researched books by respected lawyers and political scientists on the subject. You can't live in denial of the obvious and at the same time have the chutzpah to accuse others of lacking evidence. Who's the propaganda victim here?

> We must live on different planets. This was my point. > There are literally mountains of evidence publicly available, and many thoroughly researched books by respected lawyers and political scientists on the subject. The Mueller report didn't find any such mountains. Some of the biggest peddlers of the conspiracy theory have been recently been forced into embarrassing back downs https://nypost.com/2021/11/09/ex-sta…

[flagged]

Re: North Korea's Loch Ness Monster (2016)

#66

Post by throwawaylinux »

notahacker wrote: post #64
throwawaylinux wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no evidence Trump colluded with Russia to interfere with the election. Just say what the evidence is if you have any. Mueller did not, as the report explicitly states. That is why you can't point to anything from the report except vague snippets of things that are not evidence that Trump colluded with Russia to interfere with the election.

yawns Two can play at the gish gallop game. Please point me to the line in the Mueller report which 'explicitly states' that 'there is no evidence Trump colluded with Russia to interfere with the election.' If this section of the report is any less imaginary than the great Korean wall I assume you would have pointed to that, and not vague snippets referring to insufficient evidence to support specific criminal charge…

So you can't point to any evidence, despite insisting and "knowing" it exists. The fact that the Mueller report states they found no evidence the Just like this invisible Korean wall.

Re: North Korea's Loch Ness Monster (2016)

#67

Post by throwawaylinux »

CorrectHorseBat wrote: post #63
throwawaylinux wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, it's hard to listen to these cringy old politicians rambling for more than a minute so I might have missed it later but but is this what you're talking about? "And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that? By injection inside or or almost a cleaning. Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lun…

I think it's that yes. While it's not as bad as telling people to inject or drink bleach, I think it's still pretty bad. First, politicians should be really careful what they say because some people will only half listen to them. Second, seriously, the president of the United States is suggesting such ridiculous things? He should realise that what he's suggesting is insane and either have them clarify it beforehand o…

> While it's not as bad as telling people to inject or drink bleach,

In your previous post you said it was suggesting people inject bleach though. Now it's not?

> I think it's still pretty bad.

Why is it bad?

> First, politicians should be really careful what they say because some people will only half listen to them.

No that's ridiculous. They should be careful in what they say, but not because people only half listen. And zero people out of 300 million injected disinfectant into their bodies after watching Trump ask this doctor about the research they were conducting, believing it would help them.

And if anyone actually did, it would have been because they heard a lie from a "news" corporation claiming that is what Trump said.

> Second, seriously, the president of the United States is suggesting such ridiculous things?

He suggested that medical research be done on some treatments or lines of investigation or promise that he'd obviously just been briefed on. He probably did the usual politician thing and got confused about highly technical details. Which is a cringy thing lots of politicians unfortunately do. Not all that outlandish though.

> He should realise that what he's suggesting is insane and either have them clarify it beforehand or just keep his mouth shut. And if it's just a joke the timing is totally inappropriate.

I'd much rather that than more wars and interventions and regime change though. Strange how this absolute nothing was lied about and propagandized by many who were so quiet about those other things. Makes you think.

Re: North Korea's Loch Ness Monster (2016)

#68

Post by notahacker »

throwawaylinux wrote: post #66
notahacker wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yawns Two can play at the gish gallop game. Please point me to the line in the Mueller report which 'explicitly states' that 'there is no evidence Trump colluded with Russia to interfere with the election.' If this section of the report is any less imaginary than the great Korean wall I assume you would have pointed to that, and not vague snippets referring to insufficient evidence to support specific criminal charge…

So you can't point to any evidence, despite insisting and "knowing" it exists. The fact that the Mueller report states they found no evidence the Just like this invisible Korean wall.

Yes, your failure to find the page where "the Mueller report states they found no evidence" as requested is very much like the failure to find the Korean wall.

I think we're going round in circles now, but I understand that if your claim that Russiagate was just propaganda rests on claiming that Mueller stated there was no evidence of any collusion, it's particularly hard to refute direct quotes from Mueller that he didn't assess whether they fit the "concept of collusion" and him not establishing stuff didn't mean there was no evidence for it. But perhaps he contradicted himself by stating that they found no evidence of any collusion in invisible ink only you can read?

It seems entirely reasonable for millions of people to continue to believe that the Mueller-established facts of Russian hacking, Trump campaign enthusiasm about using the hacked material and Trump campaign meetings with declared Russian operatives for the stated purpose of receiving sensitive information point towards collusion between the campaigns if the only argument you are able to make against this conjecture is a claim that Mueller made a statement he did not make.

Wishing you and whatever your non-throwaway account is better faith lines of argument (preferably on different subjects) in the New Year.

Re: North Korea's Loch Ness Monster (2016)

#69

Post by lucian1900 »

nradov wrote: post #60
lucian1900 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Western” is a shortcut for the dominant alliance of imperialist countries: US, UK, most of Western Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand. Materially also Israel and Japan, but rarely in rhetoric. The concept is used both to critique the imperialist countries and to strengthen their alliance, by different people.

Rather odd to describe Canada and New Zealand as imperialist. How far do their empires extend?

Canadian finance capital own a great deal of the worldwide mining operations, if not a majority by now. They extract a great deal of value from poor countries through unequal exchange.

New Zealand is a less prolific exporter of capital, but does it all the same.

Re: North Korea's Loch Ness Monster (2016)

#70

Post by throwawaylinux »

notahacker wrote: post #68
throwawaylinux wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you can't point to any evidence, despite insisting and "knowing" it exists. The fact that the Mueller report states they found no evidence the Just like this invisible Korean wall.

Yes, your failure to find the page where "the Mueller report states they found no evidence" as requested is very much like the failure to find the Korean wall. I think we're going round in circles now, but I understand that if your claim that Russiagate was just propaganda rests on claiming that Mueller stated there was no evidence of any collusion, it's particularly hard to refute direct quotes from Mueller that he…

This is your wild conspiracy theory. You can't just tell everyone else they have to prove it's not true otherwise that's proof it is true! Typical conspiracy theorist tactic.

You said there is evidence. Where is it? The idea that Trump colluded with Putin to interfere with the election under Obama's nose somehow and then hid all the evidence from the Mueller investigation somehow is utterly ridiculous. Such an extraordinary claim without evidence is just worthless.

Post reply on HN