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

[Jim Lane]

82. My response

You write:

I do find it interested you site her word as supposed evidence. It is not. Then you turn around and dismiss her tweets crying persecution as playing to publicity. You're very selective in determining which of her comments are relevant.

If by “evidence” you mean “would be admissible in court in a trial”, then Stein’s tweet is not evidence because it’s not under oath – but, of course, nothing in the article you linked to would be evidence, either. Because this isn’t a court, I was skipping over the “oath” part. If there were a trial and Stein testified under oath to what was in her tweet, then, yes, it would be evidence. That doesn’t mean her assertion proves the point beyond any doubt, or even makes its truth more likely than not. It just means that it’s one thing the jury can consider.

Both her comments are relevant. Her statement that she didn’t correspond with Don, Jr. is relevant to that issue. Her charge that the inquiry is a “witch hunt” is relevant to assessing her motives.

You write:

Whereas you are certain that my asking those two questions amount to a "McCarthyite smear." Funny how I don't see you rise to the defense of Stein, Pelosi, Clinton, or any Democrats attacked on this site. 

It was McCarthyite because it was based on a misstatement of fact (which you’ve now corrected, thank you) and also based on the underlying assumption that, if a Congressional committee starts an investigation of someone, then that someone must have done something wrong. As to defending people on this site, you’re right that I don’t post in response to everything I read here that’s wrong. I don’t even read everything here, let alone try to correct it. Just reading and responding to all the vitriol directed at Bernie Sanders and anyone who supported him would be a full-time job.

You write:

Gothmog has already explained to you how you were wrong about the lawsuit. He's an attorney with an interest in election law. ... I don't assume non-specialists read literature in my field, yet you somehow insist average citizens are expected to read legal opinions to have an opinion.

No, Gothmog has not explained one damn thing to me. His “explanations” consisted of saying that I amused him, making personal attacks on the plaintiffs and their counsel, and endlessly reiterating his opinion that the DC Code provision cited in the complaint doesn’t cover political donations. In vain did I point out to him that Judge Zloch had not addressed the scope of the DC Code provision in the decision. In vain did I point out to him that I, like Judge Zloch, had not expressed a conclusion, one way or the other, about the scope of the DC Code provision. In vain did I ask for a verbatim quotation from one of my posts of what I said that was supposedly erroneous.

And, while I’m on the subject of things I never said, no, I do not insist that average citizens read legal opinions to have an opinion. As with so many of the straw-man arguments that these threads have generated, I have no idea where you got that. Go argue with the people who actually insisted on it.

You write:

Spare me your persecution complex: 

"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."

You are the only one associating that lawsuit with "Bernie and all of his supporters."

 

This is more reading comprehension fail. I’m a Bernie supporter who, like Bernie himself, voted for Clinton in November. It’s obvious from the numbers (Bernie 13 million votes, Stein 1 million votes) that the vast majority of us did likewise. My point was that some people are still refighting the primary and are keen to believe that Bernie and all his supporters are evil. If you look at the whole paragraph that I wrote, you’ll see that I was characterizing a point of view that I go on to say is wrong. I don't know of anyone who has associated that lawsuit with Bernie and all of his supporters, although it wouldn't surprise me if someone said that.

You write:

I have no interest in reading your post over there. The fact you left it at JPR tells me everything there is to know about you.

I wasn't asking you to read my post over there. It was first mentioned in this thread in post #17, which I didn't write.

If it makes you feel any better, I posted at JPR that I thought we should vote for Clinton. For that I was called a Hillbot by one person.

The obvious fact is that there are areas of disagreement among Trump’s opponents. One reaction to the division is to call anyone who voted for Clinton a Hillbot. Another reaction to it is to say that the mere act of posting at JPR is enough to dismiss someone (and, BTW, guilt by association is another example of McCarthyism). As long as people on both sides maintain such attitudes, no one will benefit except Trump.