Carter Page testifies that he DID meet with Russian government officials on Moscow trip
64 replies, posted
[QUOTE=sgman91;52869753]Gowdy didn't grill him about that, he clarified how he was using those words. For any discussion to be clear, the people within the discussion need to agree on how words are being used (technically called "defining terms") So that's what Gowdy did.
For example, on page 52, Page clarified that when he said he "met" someone that he didn't mean he sat down and had a meeting with them. He just meant that he "met" them in the sense that he greeted them, shook their hand, exchanged a few words, etc.
Gowdy has the correct response to this: he says, "I'm more interested in the content as opposed to the duration. I don't really care how long the handshake took." Gowdy went to the meat of the issues, which is the substance of the conversation, not whether the word "meet," or "meeting" applies.
Page answers by saying that the conversation had "No substantive content."
Gowdy responds to this clear statement by dropping the point and moving on. Unlike Schiff, Gowdy doesn't really express his opinion on whether he thinks it's true or not.
[editline]8th November 2017[/editline]
This sort of response really makes me question if you're reading with any comprehension at all. I've responded, this entire time, by giving Page's response to those questions, in his own words. I'm not sure how you can think I'm trying to twist his words by quoting his own words and analysis of the statements in question.
Page is the one making these claims. If you think he's a big fat liar, then fine, but they are his words. I'm not twisting them at all.[/QUOTE]
You change the context of that with your memory and re-telling
[IMG]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DN_3ZioV4AAPcdU.jpg:large[/IMG]
He is definitely defining terms, but he's not doing so in a cordial way, he quite clearly seems annoyed with Pages inability to offer clear answers without either invoking the fifth(to documents they already have incriminating him more so) or being "Extremely careful" with his answers to such a degree one does have to question his honesty.
But you know what? I don't care about this argument enough to really have it any further than I already have. You refuse to see things for what they are, you refuse to see the forest for the trees, you refuse to acknowledge that there are aspects of this that your mentality and biases are preventing you from looking at this honestly.
You can peddle this is a another nothing burger of a story, as you have for literally everything Trump does(despite you saying you don't like the man, you defend him constantly and find reasons to dismiss genuine controversy and criticism) but we'll both see the reality of the situation as this unveils from here on out. If you're so secure in Page being an honest individual, then fine, but I don't think you've offered any reasoning anyone here would find sufficient to actually make that argument.
sgman is literally developing some orwellian doublethink, good god
has our country become this indoctrinated?
[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;52869861]sgman is literally developing some orwellian doublethink, good god
has our country become this indoctrinated?[/QUOTE]
Yes
The problem is that Page himself is stumbling over his own words. On the one hand, he states in his email he had a "private conversation" with Dvorkovich, who supposedly expressed great support. He also states that he has been in contact with multiple representatives of Putin's administration, who offered incredible insights and outreach.
When questioned, he tries to pass off that "private conversation" as nothing more than a simple greeting, lasting 5-10 seconds, with no real information exchanged. He also tries to pass off the "incredible insights and outreach" he received from multiple representatives of Putin's administration is actually just a gut feeling based on the vibe he got from people on the street (lol).
Sgman is loving this argument because, at it's core, it's about arguing over what the definition of "is" is. Can a "private conversation" and a "5-10 second greeting" be the same thing? Can "incredible outreach and support from multiple high ranking Putin officials" be the same thing as "general sentiments from scholars and the public." Reasonably: no. Carter Page is lying through his teeth. His explanations make no fucking sense. If you're an apologist for Trump's collusion, Page's lies give you just enough wiggle room to pretend that "is" means something else.
Again, seems pretty clear to me. [I]Everything[/I] that has come to light so far points to a conspiracy between Trump's campaign the Kremlin. Every new piece of information only lends further credence to the accusations.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.