Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

You'd better rethink the Chinese robbers analogy. If most of the media sensationalized this story in the same way that they sensationalize everything else, you haven't identified anything special about this story. I'm not telling you that the media handled this story perfectly. I'm telling you that the media performed on this story about as well as they ever perform.

The media created the story that Trump was certainly guilty of collusion, and guilty as hell. It convicted in advance.

Certainly you understand the difference between sensationalizing a story (say as the media did the OJ trial, covering every facet of the case in obscene detail) and deciding in advance and telling the public in advance what the result of an investigation was all but assuredly going to be.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The media created the story that Trump was certainly guilty of collusion, and guilty as hell. It convicted in advance.

I mean, Don Jr tweeted it out, but okay.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The media created the story that Trump was certainly guilty of collusion, and guilty as hell. It convicted in advance.

You are totally fucked in the head. Trump publicly invited the Russians to hack Clinton campaign emails, and then they did. It all happened in front of us. The media played along. Did you have your head up your ass? It's all happened in plain site. Trump's remarkable gift is just to keep bullshitting along and to delegitimize anyone who questions him.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

You are totally fucked in the head. Trump publicly invited the Russians to hack Clinton campaign emails, and then they did.

Not. A. Crime.

If it were, Mueller would have so noted. And Barr would have no choice but to report.

What you or TM or your wife or the mailman or your beer drunk cousin in a lawn chair with a four inch goatee and his life before him like a thunderhead think "collusion" is Does. Not. Matter. Here.

All that mattered here was whether Trump or his people engaged collusion for which Mueller could charge them with something. That Trump "colluded" within the personal statutes in your head means nothing. You have no jurisdiction.

I think Trump is unfit to be President. Wanna guess how far his meeting my standard for impeachment is going to matter regarding whether he actually gets impeached?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Not. A. Crime.

No shit, Sherlock. I didn't say Trump committed a crime. I said there was no question that the Trump campaign colluded with Russians.

All that mattered here was whether Trump or his people engaged collusion for which Mueller could charge them with something. That Trump "colluded" within the personal statutes in your head means nothing. You have no jurisdiction.

I think Trump is unfit to be President. Wanna guess how far his meeting my standard for impeachment is going to matter regarding whether he actually gets impeached?

You simultaneously say that Barr must be telling the truth, because Lord have mercy imagine how upset everyone would be if he misled by omission, and that all that matters is whether Trump can be charged with a crime.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

More of your typical pro-lefty media bias.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

More of your typical pro-lefty media bias.

Still unrefuted (if not totally avoided): https://taibbi.substack.com/p/russia...imes-a-million

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Still unrefuted (if not totally avoided): https://taibbi.substack.com/p/russia...imes-a-million

This time I stopped at the second paragraph, where Taibbi says that Mueller did not come up with "anything that would meet the layman’s definition of 'collusion' with Russia." That's just flatly stupid, like Taibbi has had his head stuck up Glenn Greenwald's ass for the last two years, which is not even possible. You acknowledged as much earlier when you said that the massive collusion wasn't a crime. And if you read this (I'm not holding my breath), you'll see that Mueller surely gave Barr evidence that suggests that Trump committed obstruction, which also happened in public in front of us.

But this is all the media's fault too, because these facts have been widely reported, but not in a way that got you or Taibbi to pay attention. Clearly that's the media's fault.

Anyway, the Taibbi link is completedly, wantonly unrelated to what I posted. I don't think you would see media bias against the left if it hit you in the fact, but you can try it -- scroll back to my post and slap yourself with a few times, and see if you get it then.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Here’s Greenwald on air laughing at the media: https://theintercept.com/2019/03/25/...ueller-report/

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

No shit, Sherlock. I didn't say Trump committed a crime. I said there was no question that the Trump campaign colluded with Russians.



You simultaneously say that Barr must be telling the truth, because Lord have mercy imagine how upset everyone would be if he misled by omission, and that all that matters is whether Trump can be charged with a crime.

If there is no crime, this is all over politically in terms of impeachment. But if Barr misled and there were potentially indictable offenses which the Democrats can suggest another AG or Special Counsel might have prosecuted, Barr is setting Trump up for a huge problem. And if he’s as much a Trump hack as you and TM say, and as clever a manipulator and strategist as suggested, this would be a monumental instance of malpractice and quite against character.

The Meuller Report sans grand jury testimony will see light. You’re betting a super-shrewd Trump devotee is putting his boss in extreme peril.

Possible. Highly unlikely.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

But if Barr misled and there were potentially indictable offenses which the Democrats can suggest another AG or Special Counsel might have prosecuted, Barr is setting Trump up for a huge problem.

I don't know how you can have observed even the last two years of history, much less any more of it, and believe this. Barr has already set the GOP's beliefs in stone. Like you, they will yell "exonerated" and "no evidence of collusion," regardless of what facts are in the report. Trump has done it with the backup of Fox News on countless issues already. They have immunity by senate majority and they are not afraid to use it.

And they did it with Iran Contra too.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

I don't know how you can have observed even the last two years of history, much less any more of it, and believe this. Barr has already set the GOP's beliefs in stone. Like you, they will yell "exonerated" and "no evidence of collusion," regardless of what facts are in the report. Trump has done it with the backup of Fox News on countless issues already. They have immunity by senate majority and they are not afraid to use it.

And they did it with Iran Contra too.

I'm not saying he's exonerated. That's again you, assuming. I'm saying there was a finding that there was not a conspiracy between Trump and the Russian Govt. If you consider that exonerated, great. I consider it what Mueller said it was (paraphrased by Barr), which I just stated.

Mueller explicitly said Trump was "not exonerated" on the obstruction stuff. That means there is evidence that one could say supports a criminal charge of obstruction. But on that point, it was all done in plain sight. Are you suggesting a public figure should not have the right to say anything he damn well pleases about his investigators? Perhaps Mueller was faced with an issue of first impression: Do I make law by deciding it's a crime to say bad things about a Special Counsel or an investigation? Do I decide that a President firing an FBI director, which he has the right to do for any reason, is a crime because he did so because that Director might investigate his ties to Russia? ...And how in the hell do I prove motive there, where the other side of my investigation has uncovered that there was no conspiracy with Russian Govt?

Maybe that was Mueller's dilemma. Maybe he's a man of such principle he decided he had no choice but to leave this to Congress. I suspect that's what he did. But again -- That Is Not a Conviction of Trump. At best, that is a suggestion that under some novel criminal theory or in a political setting Trump might be charged for obstruction.

Your point about Barr's letter casting exoneration in stone for Trumpers and Fox fans it true. I think that's part of his calculation. However, as I noted earlier, that's insanely dangerous if Barr is misstating the report's contents, because the Mueller Report will come out in full (sans GJ testimony). Also, what benefit is that to Trump? He already has the GOP and the Fox watchers. If Mueller came out with a recommendation of criminal charges after Trump leaves office, Fox and the GOP already had talking points to brand Mueller's quest a "witch hunt" and reject all of its findings.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The media created the story that Trump was certainly guilty of collusion, and guilty as hell. It convicted in advance.

I had to skip a lot of this bullshit, but I can't let this one go. What the fuck does this mean?

First, the media is not a monolithic entity acting in concert. Each newsroom reported tons of evidence of everyone in his sphere meeting with Russia, asking for information (including him), and connecting the dots. But this "the media is guilty of __________" (other than trying to sell ad space) is for weak fucking minds.

Second, the Mueller report (according to fucking Barr) declined to bring additional indictments for lack of evidence that would reach the threshold of beyond a reasonable doubt. And, as it relates to the President, I think Mueller is deferring to Congress to determine whether there was collusion that amounts to meeting the lower high crime and misdemeanor threshold.

There is no world in which the evidence we have at this very moment does not demonstrate that there was collusion. I can list it all, but what's the fucking point? The questions are:

Is it a crime?
Is it a high crime and/or misdemeanor?
Is it a crime for which Mueller has evidence beyond a reasonable doubt or does he have enough evidence that a high crime and misdemeanor has been committed?
If not (or even, if so when it comes to the President), who is the right body to take the next step(s)?

If you get, "No collusion" out of all of that, you are being played (and I think you are willingly getting played).

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Certainly you understand the difference between sensationalizing a story (say as the media did the OJ trial, covering every facet of the case in obscene detail) and deciding in advance and telling the public in advance what the result of an investigation was all but assuredly going to be.

Covering every facet of this case is literally what the media is there for. If you're going to conflate talking heads with all of the media, then you truly do have a weak fucking mind. And whenever there was a talking head that drew this conclusion based on the existing evidence, there was always someone from the other side to draw the exact opposite conclusion.

The fact that Barr and the entire Republican Party can succeed in pulling you this far in the opposite direction of what your eyes can actually see, while trying to bury the actual fucking report is mesmerizingly amazing. They took the entire report and boiled it down to two conclusions they want cemented before the thing leaks and you are their willing fucking tool, tool.

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

I had to skip a lot of this bullshit, but I can't let this one go. What the fuck does this mean?

It means what it says. The media decided Trump was guilty of collusion before Mueller had the final word.

First, the media is not a monolithic entity acting in concert. Each newsroom reported tons of evidence of everyone in his sphere meeting with Russia, asking for information (including him), and connecting the dots. But this "the media is guilty of __________" (other than trying to sell ad space) is for weak fucking minds.

I noted above, there are exceptions. But the large media outlets (WaPo, the Big three, NYTimes, LA Times... they all ran with the story Trump was almost certainly guilty. And as Taibbi, who'd school an unlearned blowhard like you on the facts, has detailed, these outlets ran with loads of dubious "evidence" of such guilt. And never self-corrected when it was later determined they were full of shit.

Second, the Mueller report (according to fucking Barr) declined to bring additional indictments for lack of evidence that would reach the threshold of beyond a reasonable doubt.

Oh, so Barr is the water handler for Trump. Look, I can understand why you'd cling to that. But get a grip. He knows that report is leaking. And he knows that if he's presenting an unduly exculpatory picture now, he's only fucking himself and his boss beyond comprehension in the near future.

And, as it relates to the President, I think Mueller is deferring to Congress to determine whether there was collusion that amounts to meeting the lower high crime and misdemeanor threshold.

I agree. Following Jaworski in Watergate. But that misses the issue, which was the media telling everyone proof of crimes by Trump which could be prosecuted in court, rather than things for which he could be impeached, was all but definitely coming. We were promised indictable offenses, and more indictments, included Don Jr.'s. They couldn't even find a basis to indict Jr. for meeting with Russians.

There is no world in which the evidence we have at this very moment demonstrates that there was collusion. I can list it all, but what's the fucking point?

Except the Mueller has been quoted by Barr as saying there's no evidence of collusion -- even by Don Jr., who admitted meeting with Russians!

There was no criminal offense here. Telling the Russians to hack Hillary may offend you. To others, that may just be politics. But here's what the ex-head of the FBI just said: It's not a crime. Nor is meeting with Russians to get dirt on a candidate, apparently.

Covering ever facet of this case is literally what the media is there for. If you're going to conflate talking heads with all of the media, then you truly do have a weak fucking mind. And whenever there was a talking head that drew this conclusion based on the existing evidence, there was always someone from the other side to draw the exact opposite conclusion.

Read Taibbi on this point. There was a waterfall of "opinion reporters" pronouncing Trump guilty on one side, and a bullshit propaganda network (Fox) defending him on the other. WaPo, Times, Buzzfeed, you name it... They were all running the Trump is Going Down story. Trump didn't even have the usual conservatives behind him. Kristol and NRO were in the NeverTrump camp. He had the Washington Times, which no one reads.

Ty loves to accuse me of false equivalence. To see parity between the depth and range of voices convicting Trump before the report was out versus those defending him is comparing a A380 and a private jet.

The fact that Barr and the entire Republican Party can succeed in pulling you this far in the opposite direction of what your eyes can actually see, while trying to bury the actual fucking report is mesmerizingly amazing. They took the entire report and boiled it down to two conclusions they want cemented before the thing leaks and you are their willing fucking tool, tool.

You keep clinging to that vain hope. The report will be leaked at some point, and it may say Trump engaged in shady shit. What it won't say is that Trump engaged in collusion with the Russian Govt which was a crime. And I use that little caveat at the end there because its obvious you and everyone else who did not get what he expected in this report is pivoting to "There's collusion... it's just not technically criminal."

If you're saying that, I've a preferable alternative for you: Say nothing.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

But the large media outlets (WaPo, the Big three, NYTimes, LA Times... they all ran with the story Trump was almost certainly guilty.

Please share just one example of a news story from one of those three outlets that says Trump was almost certainly guilty.