Jill Stein looped into widening investigation of Russia and Trump Jr. connections

[Jim Lane]

46. Total reading comprehension fail

The Senate Committee requested documents from Don, Jr. and Manafort. I even boldfaced it for you. What more can I do? Yet you write:

There is indeed indication they asked for documents. It's in the OP and the article: 
"The letter asks for the documents by Aug. 2." 

Yes, the letter asks for documents from Don, Jr. and from Manafort, as your own article states. You see “The letter asks for documents...” and you decide to read it as “The letter asks for documents from Stein” (which the article doesn’t say) and extrapolate from that to “There actually are such documents from Stein” (which wouldn’t follow even if there had been a request to her, which there wasn’t, but you find it polemically convenient to smear her as corresponding with Don, Jr.), and then you even go on to “Stein is refusing to comply” (refusing to comply with a nonexistent request, but, hey, Joe McCarthy never let facts get in the way of a good smear job, so why should we).

You also write: “Why is she claiming it's a witch hunt?” Gee, maybe it’s because she loves to get publicity and she sees posing as a victim as a good way to get herself talked about? That’s just my guess. I’m not privy to Jill Stein’s decision-making.

But then comes the coup de grâce when you write: “You're so reality-based you defend the same DNC law suit touted on Infowars.”

Let me quote one passage from the post of mine that you linked:

The judge made no finding, one way or the other, about the DNC’s conduct.

Misunderstanding about the procedure has given rise to a couple of other errors. Some comments have said that Judge Zloch found as a fact that the DNC violated its neutrality rules.  No, he merely assumed it, as the applicable federal rules required him to do.

Alternatively, because he dismissed the case, other comments have said that he must have found as a fact that the DNC did not violate its neutrality rules. That’s also wrong. He (correctly) made no finding of fact at all on that point, either way.

 
So, yeah, reality-based. The handful of Sanders supporters who are still refighting the primary and want to make the DNC look bad read the decision as confirming their attacks on the DNC. The Bernie-and-all-his-supporters-are-evil camp who don’t want the DNC’s conduct questioned in any way read the decision as refuting the attacks on the DNC. The reality is that both those views are wrong, and I said so. If it means that I make enemies here and on JPR for telling the truth, well, it won’t be the first time.

If you think that something in my post about the case was inaccurate, please identify which point in an excruciatingly long post you’re disputing, and explain your reason for disagreeing. If, on the other hand, you think that merely linking to JPR, plus tossing in a totally tangential reference to Infowars, proves that everything I say is false, then we have nothing more to discuss. Your mode of “reasoning”, if such it can be called, is just too far apart from mine.