Impeachment Standards: Dershowitz and Philbin

[Sam]

You want me to cite what he didn't say?

Make the affirmative argument for why stolen emails and disinformation-believed-to-be-credible do not fit under Philbin's criteria.

That's a simple challenge, easily understood. You understand the task fine. Refusal to substantiate your position constitutes justification for adverse inference.

--Sam

[seer]

Plenty of people were saying Trump was a Russian agent and your position (now) is that if Obama believed that to be credible information, he not only legally could be should use information gleaned from foreign sources to propagate that charge through a campaign.

You've argued vociferously for the opposite principle in the past, complaining that what you allege Obama did -- directly or indirectly siccing the FBI on Trump in 2016 -- was highly inappropriate, if not illegal.

--Sam

Remember what Sparko said: What if the information is true? Such as a candidate is working as a Russian Agent. Then yes you should make political hay out of it.

[Sam]

Remember what Sparko said: What if the information is true? Such as a candidate is working as a Russian Agent. Then yes you should make political hay out of it.

It was true that numerous Trump campaign officials had serious and conflicting ties with Russian intelligence agencies and other foreign influencers. You did not argue, at any time prior to today, that Obama would have been justified shouting that "true information" from the rooftops to keep Trump from being elected.

And the Philbin/Dershowitz argument here is that a candidate merely has to believe such information to be credible. If it doesn't end up being true, oh well.

You can't ret-con the last three years into anyone believing you thought this sort of thing would have been acceptable if Obama had tried it in 2016.

--Sam

[rogue06]

Plenty of people were saying Trump was a Russian agent and your position (now) is that if Obama believed that to be credible information, he not only legally could be should use information gleaned from foreign sources to propagate that charge through a campaign.

You've argued vociferously for the opposite principle in the past, complaining that what you allege Obama did -- directly or indirectly siccing the FBI on Trump in 2016 -- was highly inappropriate, if not illegal.

--Sam

One huge (or should I say "yuuge") difference. The allegation that Trump was a Russian agent is one that was concocted out of whole cloth by the Democrats.

Wait. What am I saying? You're one of those tinfoil hat wearers who still thinks there was collusion.

Never mind.

I'll stop wasting my time. It's like talking to JohnMartin about geocentrism.

[seer]

It was true that numerous Trump campaign officials had serious and conflicting ties with Russian intelligence agencies and other foreign influencers. You did not argue, at any time prior to today, that Obama would have been justified shouting that "true information" from the rooftops to keep Trump from being elected.

And the Philbin/Dershowitz argument here is that a candidate merely has to believe such information to be credible. If it doesn't end up being true, oh well.

You can't ret-con the last three years into anyone believing you thought this sort of thing would have been acceptable if Obama had tried it in 2016.

--Sam

Nonsense Sam, I never said true facts were out of bounds. For instance Manafort's connections to former (pro Russian) Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych was leaked in Aug of 2016, which cost him his job. So what are you talking about?

[Sam]

One huge (or should I say "yuuge") difference. The allegation that Trump was a Russian agent is one that was concocted out of whole cloth by the Democrats.

Wait. What am I saying? You're one of those tinfoil hat wearers who still thinks there was collusion.

Never mind.

I'll stop wasting my time. It's like talking to JohnMartin about geocentrism.

And please don't come back until you're willing to contribute something worthwhile to the thread.

--Sam

[Sam]

Nonsense Sam, I never said true facts were out of bounds. For instance Manafort's connections to former (pro Russian) Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych was leaked in Aug of 2016, which cost him his job. So what are you talking about?

You've been complaining for years about Manafort's Russian connections being outed in 2016 and alleging illicit ties to the DNC and the Clinton campaign. Now you're not only saying that sort of thing is legal but that it's what should have happened.

You're walking around here in a blatant contradiction.

--Sam

[seer]

You've been complaining for years about Manafort's Russian connections being outed in 2016 and alleging illicit ties to the DNC and the Clinton campaign. Now you're not only saying that sort of thing is legal but that it's what should have happened.

You're walking around here in a blatant contradiction.

--Sam

What are you talking about? Where have I been complaining about that Manafort thing?

[Mountain Man]

Make the affirmative argument for why stolen emails and disinformation-believed-to-be-credible do not fit under Philbin's criteria.

Easy: beause he didn't say anything about "stolen emails and disinformation-believed-to-be-credible".

Done.

Now would you like to talk about what he actually said? Or do you want to keep putting words in his mouth and disingenuously asking us to defend an argument he never presented?

[Sam]

Easy: beause he didn't say anything about "stolen emails and disinformation-believed-to-be-credible".

Done.

Now would you like to talk about what he actually said? Or do you want to keep putting words in his mouth and disingenuously asking us to defend an argument he never presented?

I've presented Philbin's argument fairly, outlined his criteria for what's acceptable, and explained its application to stolen emails and disinformation.

You understand that and you choose instead to mischaracterize what I've requested from you.

--Sam

[Mountain Man]

I've presented Philbin's argument fairly...

No, you haven't. You added qualifications to his argument that he never even hinted at and deceptively implied in your opening post that it was something he actually said. That's nether fair nor honest.

[Sam]

No, you haven't. You added qualifications to his argument that he never even hinted at and deceptively implied in your opening post that it was something he actually said. That's nether fair nor honest.

If you are going to respond to posts -- mine or others -- do not cut off sentences or thoughts.

I did not add any qualifications to Philbin's criteria. I applied two types of information that fit under Philbin's criteria and even went back to check and quote the criteria he was using.

I obviously hold honesty in high regard and will not be falsely accused. I've substantiated my assertions; you have failed to do the same.

--Sam

[Mountain Man]

At this point, I'll allow Mr. Dershorwitz to speak for himself since we can't trust Sam to honestly speak for him:


This last remark may as well have been directed at Sam:

"Critics have an obligation to respond to what I said, not to create straw men to attack."

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortne...ation-n2560398

[Sparko]

Plenty of people were saying Trump was a Russian agent and your position (now) is that if Obama believed that to be credible information, he not only legally could be should use information gleaned from foreign sources to propagate that charge through a campaign.

You've argued vociferously for the opposite principle in the past, complaining that what you allege Obama did -- directly or indirectly siccing the FBI on Trump in 2016 -- was highly inappropriate, if not illegal.

--Sam

The Obama administration DID open an investigation into Trump. Based on information from a foreign agent who was paid by the Clinton Campaign. If they didn't screw it up so badly and it was actually proven Trump WAS a Russian agent, don't you think that should have been used by the Obama administration to disallow Trump to run for President?

[Sam]

The Obama administration DID open an investigation into Trump. Based on information from a foreign agent who was paid by the Clinton Campaign. If they didn't screw it up so badly and it was actually proven Trump WAS a Russian agent, don't you think that should have been used by the Obama administration to disallow Trump to run for President?

Your argument is that if Obama received information from a foreign source, he should send it to the FBI for investigation. That's not what happened -- Obama was not involved with any FBI decision to investigate the Trump campaign -- but you're arguing that if Obama received such information, that's what he should do instead of using that information -- not the results of a lawful investigation -- for campaign purposes.

seer is arguing that a candidate should do both -- send the info over to the FBI while [i]simultaneously[i] using that uninvestigated information for campaign purposes.

So you're arguing, in effect, that 1) what the Obama administration did in 2016 regarding Trump's purported Russian ties was appropriate and 2) that what Trump said he might do with such information (not turn it over to FBI) is inappropriate. I agree with that.

--Sam