independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Mon 17th Jun 2019 12:12pm
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > Mueller Report Redux
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 17 of 21 « First<12131415161718192021>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Reply #480 posted 05/19/19 7:06am

benni

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

the keft is funny... haha Keft...that was a typo but it fits... is so mad that trump did not collude and did not break the law... But but he asked someone to do something... so he thought about conspiring to plan to... to what? Stonewall? (which is NOT obstruction) (and remember as is always the case...ALWAYS... anyone who was ever ordered to testify could have always just refused to speak. And if held in contempt. That is better than a prejury trap)

Oh he asked someone to fire someone? and was told what? LOL


all these straws the left...i mean Keft is grasping are going to end up in the sea of your own tears!



I take it you didn't read the Mueller report.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #481 posted 05/19/19 7:41am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

benni said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

the keft is funny... haha Keft...that was a typo but it fits... is so mad that trump did not collude and did not break the law... But but he asked someone to do something... so he thought about conspiring to plan to... to what? Stonewall? (which is NOT obstruction) (and remember as is always the case...ALWAYS... anyone who was ever ordered to testify could have always just refused to speak. And if held in contempt. That is better than a prejury trap)

Oh he asked someone to fire someone? and was told what? LOL


all these straws the left...i mean Keft is grasping are going to end up in the sea of your own tears!



I take it you didn't read the Mueller report.

all of it? No have you? I have read several sections that some on the left want to make into "obstruction" when what was happening is they were trying to stonewall or make it go away... see a person who knows if they did it or not may act very much the same way. They want it to just go away. Discussing strategies to that end is NOT the same as obstruction. Not being cooperative is NOT necessarily obstruction. Just Like I have always said that Bill Clinton did not purger himself or obstruct but he damn sure did more stonewalling that trump did...even if we take the report at its worst.


Being a die-hard civil rights champion,
Being a die-hard libertarian,
Sometimes I have to defend
that which I find distasteful.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #482 posted 05/19/19 7:46am

benni

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

benni said:



I take it you didn't read the Mueller report.

all of it? No have you? I have read several sections that some on the left want to make into "obstruction" when what was happening is they were trying to stonewall or make it go away... see a person who knows if they did it or not may act very much the same way. They want it to just go away. Discussing strategies to that end is NOT the same as obstruction. Not being cooperative is NOT necessarily obstruction. Just Like I have always said that Bill Clinton did not purger himself or obstruct but he damn sure did more stonewalling that trump did...even if we take the report at its worst.



Yes, I have. Including the part in which they hid or destroyed evidence. That is not a "make it go away", that is a "we've got something to hide and don't want it found out."

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #483 posted 05/19/19 8:00am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

benni said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

all of it? No have you? I have read several sections that some on the left want to make into "obstruction" when what was happening is they were trying to stonewall or make it go away... see a person who knows if they did it or not may act very much the same way. They want it to just go away. Discussing strategies to that end is NOT the same as obstruction. Not being cooperative is NOT necessarily obstruction. Just Like I have always said that Bill Clinton did not purger himself or obstruct but he damn sure did more stonewalling that trump did...even if we take the report at its worst.



Yes, I have. Including the part in which they hid or destroyed evidence. That is not a "make it go away", that is a "we've got something to hide and don't want it found out."

I think you mean that the could have or might have hid or destroyed evidence... they might have deleted a message... maybe it was evidence?

Being a die-hard civil rights champion,
Being a die-hard libertarian,
Sometimes I have to defend
that which I find distasteful.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #484 posted 05/19/19 8:10am

maplenpg

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

benni said:


Yes, I have. Including the part in which they hid or destroyed evidence. That is not a "make it go away", that is a "we've got something to hide and don't want it found out."

I think you mean that the could have or might have hid or destroyed evidence... they might have deleted a message... maybe it was evidence?

"Further, the Office learned that some of the individuals we interviewed or whose conduct we investigated-including some associated with the Trump Campaign---deleted relevant communications or communicated during the relevant period using applications that feature encryption or that do not provide for long-term retention of data or communications records."


There is no 'could have', 'might have' - they deleted relevant communications.

If love is the answer, what was the question? - Carter USM.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #485 posted 05/19/19 8:20am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

maplenpg said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

I think you mean that the could have or might have hid or destroyed evidence... they might have deleted a message... maybe it was evidence?

"Further, the Office learned that some of the individuals we interviewed or whose conduct we investigated-including some associated with the Trump Campaign---deleted relevant communications or communicated during the relevant period using applications that feature encryption or that do not provide for long-term retention of data or communications records."


There is no 'could have', 'might have' - they deleted relevant communications.

as I said... maybe it was or maybe it was not evidence of collusion... it is speculation. Notice the use of the word "OR" that it was "reveant" Or "at the time in question."


Being a die-hard civil rights champion,
Being a die-hard libertarian,
Sometimes I have to defend
that which I find distasteful.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #486 posted 05/19/19 8:24am

maplenpg

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

maplenpg said:

"Further, the Office learned that some of the individuals we interviewed or whose conduct we investigated-including some associated with the Trump Campaign---deleted relevant communications or communicated during the relevant period using applications that feature encryption or that do not provide for long-term retention of data or communications records."


There is no 'could have', 'might have' - they deleted relevant communications.

as I said... maybe it was or maybe it was not evidence of collusion... it is speculation. Notice the use of the word "OR" that it was "reveant" Or "at the time in question."


"Soon after the firing of Corney and the appointment of the Special Counsel, however, the President became aware that his own conduct was being investigated in an obstruction-of-justice inquiry. At that point, the President engaged in a second phase of conduct, involving public attacks on the investigation, non-public efforts to control it, and efforts in both public and private to encourage witnesses not to cooperate with the investigation."

If love is the answer, what was the question? - Carter USM.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #487 posted 05/19/19 8:34am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

maplenpg said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

as I said... maybe it was or maybe it was not evidence of collusion... it is speculation. Notice the use of the word "OR" that it was "reveant" Or "at the time in question."


"Soon after the firing of Corney and the appointment of the Special Counsel, however, the President became aware that his own conduct was being investigated in an obstruction-of-justice inquiry. At that point, the President engaged in a second phase of conduct, involving public attacks on the investigation, non-public efforts to control it, and efforts in both public and private to encourage witnesses not to cooperate with the investigation."

yeah? we know all of this... so what? A good defence team would do the same... there is a line and so far I do not see that it was crossed.

Being a die-hard civil rights champion,
Being a die-hard libertarian,
Sometimes I have to defend
that which I find distasteful.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #488 posted 05/19/19 8:52am

benni

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

benni said:


Yes, I have. Including the part in which they hid or destroyed evidence. That is not a "make it go away", that is a "we've got something to hide and don't want it found out."

I think you mean that the could have or might have hid or destroyed evidence... they might have deleted a message... maybe it was evidence?



President Trump reacted negatively to the Specia l Counsel's appointment. He told advisors that it was the end of his presidency, sought to have Attorney General Jefferson (Jeff) Sessions unrecuse from the Russia investigation and to have the Special Counse l removed, and engaged in efforts to curtail the Specia l Counsel's investigation and prevent the disclosure of evidence to it, including through public and private contacts with potential witnesses. Those and related actions are described and ana lyzed in Volume II of the report.


Further, the Office learned that some of the individuals we interviewed or whose conduct we investigated-including some associated with the Trump Campaign---deleted relevant communications or communicated during the relevant period using applications that feature encryption or that do not provide for long-term retention of data or communications records. In such cases, the Office was not able to corroborate witness statements through comparison to contemporaneous communications or fully question witnesses about statements that appeared inconsistent with other known facts. Accordingly, while this report embodies factual and legal determinations that the Office believes to be accurate and complete to the greatest extent possible, given these identified gaps, the Office cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional light on (or cast in a new light) the events described in the report.



  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #489 posted 05/19/19 9:14am

maplenpg

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:



maplenpg said:




OnlyNDaUsa said:





as I said... maybe it was or maybe it was not evidence of collusion... it is speculation. Notice the use of the word "OR" that it was "reveant" Or "at the time in question."




"Soon after the firing of Corney and the appointment of the Special Counsel, however, the President became aware that his own conduct was being investigated in an obstruction-of-justice inquiry. At that point, the President engaged in a second phase of conduct, involving public attacks on the investigation, non-public efforts to control it, and efforts in both public and private to encourage witnesses not to cooperate with the investigation."




yeah? we know all of this... so what? A good defence team would do the same... there is a line and so far I do not see that it was crossed.


Then we differ.
If love is the answer, what was the question? - Carter USM.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #490 posted 05/19/19 9:22am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

benni said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

I think you mean that the could have or might have hid or destroyed evidence... they might have deleted a message... maybe it was evidence?



President Trump reacted negatively to the Specia l Counsel's appointment. He told advisors that it was the end of his presidency, sought to have Attorney General Jefferson (Jeff) Sessions unrecuse from the Russia investigation and to have the Special Counse l removed, and engaged in efforts to curtail the Specia l Counsel's investigation and prevent the disclosure of evidence to it, including through public and private contacts with potential witnesses. Those and related actions are described and ana lyzed in Volume II of the report.


Further, the Office learned that some of the individuals we interviewed or whose conduct we investigated-including some associated with the Trump Campaign---deleted relevant communications or communicated during the relevant period using applications that feature encryption or that do not provide for long-term retention of data or communications records. In such cases, the Office was not able to corroborate witness statements through comparison to contemporaneous communications or fully question witnesses about statements that appeared inconsistent with other known facts. Accordingly, while this report embodies factual and legal determinations that the Office believes to be accurate and complete to the greatest extent possible, given these identified gaps, the Office cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional light on (or cast in a new light) the events described in the report.



your bold part is what I said... I added the yellow to include the OR section because they do not know what if anything relevant was or may have been lost.

I agree it was a bad move. And that they should have taken reasonable steps to preserve the communications... were they said to be government officials or just campaign workers?

Being a die-hard civil rights champion,
Being a die-hard libertarian,
Sometimes I have to defend
that which I find distasteful.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #491 posted 05/19/19 9:23am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

maplenpg said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

yeah? we know all of this... so what? A good defence team would do the same... there is a line and so far I do not see that it was crossed.

Then we differ.

and then you differ with mueller too...

Being a die-hard civil rights champion,
Being a die-hard libertarian,
Sometimes I have to defend
that which I find distasteful.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #492 posted 05/19/19 10:00am

benni

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

benni said:



President Trump reacted negatively to the Specia l Counsel's appointment. He told advisors that it was the end of his presidency, sought to have Attorney General Jefferson (Jeff) Sessions unrecuse from the Russia investigation and to have the Special Counse l removed, and engaged in efforts to curtail the Specia l Counsel's investigation and prevent the disclosure of evidence to it, including through public and private contacts with potential witnesses. Those and related actions are described and ana lyzed in Volume II of the report.


Further, the Office learned that some of the individuals we interviewed or whose conduct we investigated-including some associated with the Trump Campaign---deleted relevant communications or communicated during the relevant period using applications that feature encryption or that do not provide for long-term retention of data or communications records. In such cases, the Office was not able to corroborate witness statements through comparison to contemporaneous communications or fully question witnesses about statements that appeared inconsistent with other known facts. Accordingly, while this report embodies factual and legal determinations that the Office believes to be accurate and complete to the greatest extent possible, given these identified gaps, the Office cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional light on (or cast in a new light) the events described in the report.



your bold part is what I said... I added the yellow to include the OR section because they do not know what if anything relevant was or may have been lost.

I agree it was a bad move. And that they should have taken reasonable steps to preserve the communications... were they said to be government officials or just campaign workers?


Except that this came straight from the Mueller report and he does not add the "OR" section and states emphatically that it was relevant communications.

It says in the report, "some associated with the Trump Campaign". It does not specify if it was government officials or campaign workers - just that they were associated with the campaign.

Considering who has been indicted, who has been jailed, I would say that some of those "associated with the Trump Campaign" were fairly close to Trump.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #493 posted 05/19/19 10:12am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

benni said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

your bold part is what I said... I added the yellow to include the OR section because they do not know what if anything relevant was or may have been lost.

I agree it was a bad move. And that they should have taken reasonable steps to preserve the communications... were they said to be government officials or just campaign workers?


Except that this came straight from the Mueller report and he does not add the "OR" section and states emphatically that it was relevant communications.

It says in the report, "some associated with the Trump Campaign". It does not specify if it was government officials or campaign workers - just that they were associated with the campaign.

Considering who has been indicted, who has been jailed, I would say that some of those "associated with the Trump Campaign" were fairly close to Trump.

you posted the quote with the OR not me..



"some associated with the Trump Campaign" could mean a whole lot of things...

Being a die-hard civil rights champion,
Being a die-hard libertarian,
Sometimes I have to defend
that which I find distasteful.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #494 posted 05/19/19 10:16am

benni

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

benni said:


Except that this came straight from the Mueller report and he does not add the "OR" section and states emphatically that it was relevant communications.

It says in the report, "some associated with the Trump Campaign". It does not specify if it was government officials or campaign workers - just that they were associated with the campaign.

Considering who has been indicted, who has been jailed, I would say that some of those "associated with the Trump Campaign" were fairly close to Trump.

you posted the quote with the OR not me..



"some associated with the Trump Campaign" could mean a whole lot of things...


So what "yellow section" did you supposedly add to your reply to me? (Besides this one)

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #495 posted 05/19/19 10:21am

benni

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

maplenpg said:

"Further, the Office learned that some of the individuals we interviewed or whose conduct we investigated-including some associated with the Trump Campaign---deleted relevant communications or communicated during the relevant period using applications that feature encryption or that do not provide for long-term retention of data or communications records."


There is no 'could have', 'might have' - they deleted relevant communications.

as I said... maybe it was or maybe it was not evidence of collusion... it is speculation. Notice the use of the word "OR" that it was "reveant" Or "at the time in question."



I think you are misreading this, Only. He is stating that they learned some of the indivduals they interviewed OR investigated. He is stating that they deleted relevant information OR they communicated during the period he was investigating them that they used applications that feature encryption or do not provide for long-term retention.

In other words, yes, they deleted relevant information. And they also used applications. This isn't an "either/or" but rather that some individuals deleted, some used an application. Not that they either did this or they did that.

It's more of a "they did both at various times of the investigative period."

[Edited 5/19/19 10:22am]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #496 posted 05/19/19 10:27am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

benni said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

you posted the quote with the OR not me..



"some associated with the Trump Campaign" could mean a whole lot of things...


So what "yellow section" did you supposedly add to your reply to me? (Besides this one)

i highlighted it to include it for consideration... i did not add it. you appeared to have accidentally excluded it. (An "Or" statement consisting of one or any number of clauses is is true if only ONE clause is true. Like when you win "A new car, $5,000, a 7 day cruse. or one of our other fabulous prizes..." guess what? you won one of their other prizes.)

Being a die-hard civil rights champion,
Being a die-hard libertarian,
Sometimes I have to defend
that which I find distasteful.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #497 posted 05/19/19 10:34am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

benni said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

as I said... maybe it was or maybe it was not evidence of collusion... it is speculation. Notice the use of the word "OR" that it was "reveant" Or "at the time in question."



I think you are misreading this, Only. He is stating that they learned some of the indivduals they interviewed OR investigated. He is stating that they deleted relevant information OR they communicated during the period he was investigating them that they used applications that feature encryption or do not provide for long-term retention.

In other words, yes, they deleted relevant information. And they also used applications. This isn't an "either/or" but rather that some individuals deleted, some used an application. Not that they either did this or they did that.

It's more of a "they did both at various times of the investigative period."

[Edited 5/19/19 10:22am]

no... that is not how the "Or" works.




EDIT: and not during the investigative period... but during the period that was investigated. Are campaigns required to maintain and preserve communication records?

[Edited 5/19/19 10:37am]

Being a die-hard civil rights champion,
Being a die-hard libertarian,
Sometimes I have to defend
that which I find distasteful.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #498 posted 05/19/19 10:59am

maplenpg

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

maplenpg said:

OnlyNDaUsa said: Then we differ.

and then you differ with mueller too...

Mueller had a job to do, which he did. I don't know what his personal thoughts were. IMO, encouraging witnesses not to cooperate, deleting files, publicly attacking the investigation, and making non-public efforts to control the investigation amounts to obstructing the process. Obviously the law might say there is not enough evidence to prove the deleted files had anything incriminating in them, or that encouraging witnesses not to cooperate does not necessarily mean there is something to hide, but in my opinion, as the President of the most powerful country in the world, if he had nothing to hide, he wouldn't have gone to the lengths he did to hamper the investigation. Geez, even he said he was fucked, he must have breathed a heavy sigh of relief when he got away with it.

If love is the answer, what was the question? - Carter USM.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #499 posted 05/19/19 11:05am

benni

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

benni said:


I think you are misreading this, Only. He is stating that they learned some of the indivduals they interviewed OR investigated. He is stating that they deleted relevant information OR they communicated during the period he was investigating them that they used applications that feature encryption or do not provide for long-term retention.

In other words, yes, they deleted relevant information. And they also used applications. This isn't an "either/or" but rather that some individuals deleted, some used an application. Not that they either did this or they did that.

It's more of a "they did both at various times of the investigative period."

[Edited 5/19/19 10:22am]

no... that is not how the "Or" works.




EDIT: and not during the investigative period... but during the period that was investigated. Are campaigns required to maintain and preserve communication records?

[Edited 5/19/19 10:37am]


So when he says, "some of the individuals we interviewed or whose conduct we investigated-including some associated with the Trump Campaign" what he is meaning to say is that "some of the individuals we interviewed or investigated, but not both". That's not what he is saying, at all.


It is the choice between the two groups, not the activities. Some that were interviewed did these activities (one or the other) and some they investigated did the activities (one or the other).


Or in the spoken/written language might be exclusive or inclusive.


And/or (also and or) is a grammatical conjunction used to indicate that one or more of the cases it connects may occur. For example, the sentence "He will eat cake, pie, and/or brownies" indicates that although the person may eat any of the three listed desserts, the choices are not mutually exclusive; the person may eat one, two, or all three of the choices.

It is used as an inclusive "or" (as in logic and mathematics), while an "or" in spoken language might be inclusive or exclusive.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #500 posted 05/19/19 11:17am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

benni said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

no... that is not how the "Or" works.




EDIT: and not during the investigative period... but during the period that was investigated. Are campaigns required to maintain and preserve communication records?

[Edited 5/19/19 10:37am]


So when he says, "some of the individuals we interviewed or whose conduct we investigated-including some associated with the Trump Campaign" what he is meaning to say is that "some of the individuals we interviewed or investigated, but not both". That's not what he is saying, at all.


It is the choice between the two groups, not the activities. Some that were interviewed did these activities (one or the other) and some they investigated did the activities (one or the other).


Or in the spoken/written language might be exclusive or inclusive.


And/or (also and or) is a grammatical conjunction used to indicate that one or more of the cases it connects may occur. For example, the sentence "He will eat cake, pie, and/or brownies" indicates that although the person may eat any of the three listed desserts, the choices are not mutually exclusive; the person may eat one, two, or all three of the choices.

It is used as an inclusive "or" (as in logic and mathematics), while an "or" in spoken language might be inclusive or exclusive.

yeah I know... that is what I said. it can mean both but not necessarly both. If he meant it was both he would have said AND.

Being a die-hard civil rights champion,
Being a die-hard libertarian,
Sometimes I have to defend
that which I find distasteful.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #501 posted 05/19/19 11:24am

benni

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

benni said:


So when he says, "some of the individuals we interviewed or whose conduct we investigated-including some associated with the Trump Campaign" what he is meaning to say is that "some of the individuals we interviewed or investigated, but not both". That's not what he is saying, at all.


It is the choice between the two groups, not the activities. Some that were interviewed did these activities (one or the other) and some they investigated did the activities (one or the other).


Or in the spoken/written language might be exclusive or inclusive.


And/or (also and or) is a grammatical conjunction used to indicate that one or more of the cases it connects may occur. For example, the sentence "He will eat cake, pie, and/or brownies" indicates that although the person may eat any of the three listed desserts, the choices are not mutually exclusive; the person may eat one, two, or all three of the choices.

It is used as an inclusive "or" (as in logic and mathematics), while an "or" in spoken language might be inclusive or exclusive.

yeah I know... that is what I said. it can mean both but not necessarly both. If he meant it was both he would have said AND.



Not necessarily. He stated, that those he interviewed or those he investigated engaged in one activity or the other, which is an inclusive statement. Some he interviewed did one and some he investigated did the other. He was not using the term as an exclusive term.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #502 posted 05/19/19 11:27am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

benni said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

yeah I know... that is what I said. it can mean both but not necessarly both. If he meant it was both he would have said AND.



Not necessarily. He stated, that those he interviewed or those he investigated engaged in one activity or the other, which is an inclusive statement. Some he interviewed did one and some he investigated did the other. He was not using the term as an exclusive term.

i do not agree.

Being a die-hard civil rights champion,
Being a die-hard libertarian,
Sometimes I have to defend
that which I find distasteful.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #503 posted 05/19/19 11:38am

benni

avatar

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #504 posted 05/19/19 11:41am

maplenpg

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

benni said:



Not necessarily. He stated, that those he interviewed or those he investigated engaged in one activity or the other, which is an inclusive statement. Some he interviewed did one and some he investigated did the other. He was not using the term as an exclusive term.

i do not agree.

https://adamsdrafting.com...And-Or.pdf

If love is the answer, what was the question? - Carter USM.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #505 posted 05/19/19 11:51am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

maplenpg said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

i do not agree.

https://adamsdrafting.com...And-Or.pdf

i am not debating the meaning of "And" and "Or" I am saying when "Or" is used in any context... exclusive or inclusive only one part need be true for the statement to be true.



"a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, or, l" if any letter or letters or all are true then the statement is true.

Being a die-hard civil rights champion,
Being a die-hard libertarian,
Sometimes I have to defend
that which I find distasteful.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #506 posted 05/19/19 11:58am

maplenpg

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

maplenpg said:

https://adamsdrafting.com...And-Or.pdf

i am not debating the meaning of "And" and "Or" I am saying when "Or" is used in any context... exclusive or inclusive only one part need be true for the statement to be true.



"a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, or, l" if any letter or letters or all are true then the statement is true.

but the statement me and Benni posted was x or y did a or b or c, therefore for the statement to be true then either x or y, or both, did either a or b or c or a combination of them.

If love is the answer, what was the question? - Carter USM.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #507 posted 05/19/19 12:17pm

2freaky4church
1

avatar

Let Mueller testify first.

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #508 posted 05/19/19 1:42pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

maplenpg said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

i am not debating the meaning of "And" and "Or" I am saying when "Or" is used in any context... exclusive or inclusive only one part need be true for the statement to be true.



"a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, or, l" if any letter or letters or all are true then the statement is true.

but the statement me and Benni posted was x or y did a or b or c, therefore for the statement to be true then either x or y, or both, did either a or b or c or a combination of them.

yes... I know. So it is not known what may have deleted or otherwise not preserved. Someone may have deleted information or maybe not.

Being a die-hard civil rights champion,
Being a die-hard libertarian,
Sometimes I have to defend
that which I find distasteful.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #509 posted 05/21/19 2:23pm

DiminutiveRock
er

avatar

eek

benni said:

eek

"'Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.'' - Thomas Jefferson
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 17 of 21 « First<12131415161718192021>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > Mueller Report Redux