[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Firebot

Reread what I quoted and try again.

Do you want to try and do the same thing? Your post that I quoted where I joked about how you always go over the top had almost nothing to do with Dong but you decided to get on your soapbox over what literally comes down to a difference of opinion between whether or not the CPC stood to gain something politically from the Michaels getting released.

I mean I even bolded it for you. You couldn't ascertain how on earth the CPC could benefit from the Michaels being released early, and you still can't acknowledge when the CSIS summary has Han Dong giving the exact same conclusion I did.

So basically you’re saying my opinion is wrong because a liberal MP disagrees with me? Is the chatgpt server down today or are you just feeling under the weather? I maintain my position that I think it’s ridiculous for anyone to think the Michaels being released would have benefited the CPC more than the liberals politically.

The summary states that Dong strongly insinuated that the release of the Michaels early would help the CPC, but even as the summary states this, you are going about 'well it still doesn't say to actually delay the Michaels release'.

Spin spin spin.

So you’re agreeing with me that it doesn’t say what you’re saying it does? Well that’s progress I guess.

You already don't acknowledge CSIS's words

False

as you continuously discredit them,

False (assuming you don’t work for CSIS )

and even the summary of the source, which confirms the leaker source as legitimate, is not enough for you.

You really don’t know the meaning of hard evidence, do you? I’m sorry if my not being as quick as you are to jump to conclusions based on circumstantial evidence offends you. You must really have an axe to grind with the court system.

If you want to hinge all hope on the transcript translations that's your hill to die on.

I’ll happily die on the hill of relying on facts rather than hypotheticals.

There's a reason why Han Dong stated he doesn't recall what he said in a conversation, because he knows the transcripts exist, and his whole defense hinges on a mistranslation (of a transcript which is still confidential at this time but of which we have a summary no less).

Are you his lawyer or something? Where are you getting your inside scoop? He’s already stated that he always advocated for their release so I’m assuming(perhaps foolishly) that you must have something to substantiate your claims that’s he’s lied about that and aren’t just bull####ting here.

You know what else was revealed in Han Dong's testimony and cross examination that I did not mention?

That conversation occurred in Feb 2021. What happened within a month after that conversation?

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/michaels...neau-1.1578590

How convenient! Of course you will be right here to state this court date release is a pure coincidence and pure conjecture and spin it again.

You really seem to enjoy trying to put words in my mouth. Could it be related? Yes absolutely. Does it lend some credibility to your argument? Also yes. Is it the smoking gun that you’re trying to make it out to be? No.

You want to continue this silly spin path?

I’m actually really enjoying the irony of you constantly accusing people of spinning things and being partisan so I’m gonna go with whatever keeps that going. I think everyone’s a winner that way.

If anything it's only going to get worse as we get more info. The transcript exists, CSIS is aware of the info and what actually transpired (as does Dong). It being confidential does not exonerate Han Dong nor does it make you win an argument by default on the basis of 'no evidence'.

Until the actual evidence that proves wrongdoing is released it certainly helps me win the argument that there isn’t enough evidence available to prove the allegations. If the full transcript gets released and shows that Dong did explicitly take actions to delay their release I’ll happily acknowledge that he did what you’re saying he did. I’m not sure why you find that to be so unreasonable.

What I don't understand is why you are even on such a staunch defense to begin with for any reason outside of blind partisanship.

That’s because you really seem to struggle with accepting the fact that people who disagree with you aren’t always politically motivated to do so, also people generally don’t appreciate when others try to put words in their mouth.

I mean it’s pretty silly for you to suggest that someone is being partisan by saying the evidence needed to make a determination hasn’t been released when you yourself have admitted that. If I was saying that there’s no way Dong did any of the stuff you’re accusing him of that’d be one thing, but I haven’t said that at all. Heck it’d even be something if I actually voted for the party you’re accusing me of being blindly partisan towards, but I didn’t do that either. Unfortunately as we’ve already already established many times over, you’re not a big fan of facts that don’t support your(ironically partisan) narratives.

Oh well.