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

[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.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I see your reasoning, but this is arguing that the clown car known as the Trump Admin and Its Extended Cronies defeated Mueller. I'm having a hard time imagining incompetents somehow defeated Mueller's team.

Nah. It's what you said a long time ago. Trump doesn't communicate other than in person or over the phone, so not having had contemporaneous wire taps, there's no direct evidence on him.

Meanwhile, Manafort's a sophisticated criminal with quite a bit personal at stake, and he wasn't willing to give up the president or any of his Russian contacts.

It could be that the efforts to collude were narrow contained. Or that it wasn't really necessary as they could do so tacitly. I'd like to know what Mueller knows.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Nah. It's what you said a long time ago. Trump doesn't communicate other than in person or over the phone, so not having had contemporaneous wire taps, there's no direct evidence on him.

Meanwhile, Manafort's a sophisticated criminal with quite a bit personal at stake, and he wasn't willing to give up the president or any of his Russian contacts.

It could be that the efforts to collude were narrow contained. Or that it wasn't really necessary as they could do so tacitly. I'd like to know what Mueller knows.

Yeah, but what Mueller said (paraphrased and quoted by Barr) was that not only was Trump not found to have colluded, but neither was anyone in his campaign. I understand the man at the top retaining plausible deniability, but usually they at least nail someone below (See Scooter Libby):

"The Special Counsel's report is divided into two parts. The first describes the results of the Special Counsel's investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The report outlines the Russian effort to influence the election and documents crimes committed by persons associated with the Russian government in connection with those efforts. The report further explains that a primary consideration for the Special Counsel's investigation was whether any Americans – including individuals associated with the Trump campaign – joined the Russian conspiracies to influence the election, which would be a federal crime. The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

"The Special Counsel's investigation determined that there were two main Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election. The first involved attempts by a Russian organization, the Internet Research Agency (IRA), to conduct disinformation and social media operations in the United States designed to sow social discord, eventually with the aim of interfering with the election. As noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that any U.S. person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with the IRA in its efforts, although the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian nationals and entities in connection with these activities.

"The second element involved the Russian government's efforts to conduct computer hacking operations designed to gather and disseminate information to influence the election. The Special Counsel found that Russian government actors successfully hacked into computers and obtained emails from persons affiliated with the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations, and publicly disseminated those materials through various intermediaries, including WikiLeaks. Based on these activities, the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian military officers for conspiring to hack into computers in the United States for purposes of influencing the election. But as noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Yeah, but what Mueller said (paraphrased and quoted by Barr) was that not only was Trump not found to have colluded, but neither was anyone in his campaign. I understand the man at the top retaining plausible deniability, but usually they at least nail someone below (See Scooter Libby):

"The Special Counsel's report is divided into two parts. The first describes the results of the Special Counsel's investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The report outlines the Russian effort to influence the election and documents crimes committed by persons associated with the Russian government in connection with those efforts. The report further explains that a primary consideration for the Special Counsel's investigation was whether any Americans – including individuals associated with the Trump campaign – joined the Russian conspiracies to influence the election, which would be a federal crime. The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

"The Special Counsel's investigation determined that there were two main Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election. The first involved attempts by a Russian organization, the Internet Research Agency (IRA), to conduct disinformation and social media operations in the United States designed to sow social discord, eventually with the aim of interfering with the election. As noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that any U.S. person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with the IRA in its efforts, although the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian nationals and entities in connection with these activities.

"The second element involved the Russian government's efforts to conduct computer hacking operations designed to gather and disseminate information to influence the election. The Special Counsel found that Russian government actors successfully hacked into computers and obtained emails from persons affiliated with the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations, and publicly disseminated those materials through various intermediaries, including WikiLeaks. Based on these activities, the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian military officers for conspiring to hack into computers in the United States for purposes of influencing the election. But as noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.

Right, but what does "find" mean here? I'm guessing it means he did not find that he could prove beyond a reasonable doubt, not that he did not find any evidence.

And I'm positing that perhaps Manafort was the only real conduit and he isn't talking.

ETA: Yes, repeated offers that weren't accepted doesn't seem consistent with ongoing coordination via Manafort.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

1. Sensationalism is one thing. Convicting Trump in advance is another. The former is very common and accrues from the market forces you describe. The latter is rare, and something unique. Like the WMD mess, there the media is pushing a specific narrative. The Chinese Robbers fallacy applies to the sensationalism. It does not apply to the narrative-crafting.

And it's not tinfoil hat stuff at all. You know me so you know when I'm talking about media bias, I am not talking out my ass. I've been in numerous studios and hung out with a lot of fucking media people. They'll even admit there's media bias. (And you were never going to get away with burying the lede like that. You have to try a bit harder.)

I agree that the media have biases. We just disagree about what those biases are. Specifically here, I disagree that the media had some particular agenda with regard to Trump and Russia, or was pushing a very specific narrative. Please show me a news story from the New York Times or the Washington Post that "convicted Trump in advance." Just one.

2. Take that up with Robert Mueller. You two apparently do not agree.

Uh, no. I would still like to find out what Mueller thinks, rather than have it filtered through the Attorney General.

Among the other things that we have learned about the ties between Trumpworld and Russia:

- Trump seeks to talk to Putin alone, without anyone else from the government
- Trump was looking to do a real estate development in Moscow while he was running for President
- Multiple people in his campaign met with Russians during the campaign and lied about it
- On the campaign stump, Trump asked Russians to hack Hillary's email
- Roger Stone was in communication with Assange (widely understood to be a Russian tool) and was giving the campaign a heads-up that damaging leaks would be released
- Manafort owed huge sums to Russian oligarchs and worked for Trump for free
- Manafort shared campaign data assets with Russians with close ties to the government
- Just about everyone in Trumpland lied about most of the above

"Collusion" is not a crime, so the notion of having proof to charge it is specious. I'm not sure whether any of the above was a crime. Barr's letter does not deny any of the above, which we know thanks to Mueller's investigation. There is absolutely no doubt that Trump's organization has been coordinating with Russians, even if it's not criminal.

A few weeks ago, you were defending Manafort from the awful treatment he received from Mueller -- how unfair it was! Now you've discovered that Mueller is to be believed. Your urge to defend the Trumps here is odd. I look forward to the discussion we have in five years where you explain how we all knew the Trumps were in the bag for Putin, just like we all knew there were no WMD.

[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.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Yeah, but what Mueller said (paraphrased and quoted by Barr) was that not only was Trump not found to have colluded, but neither was anyone in his campaign. I understand the man at the top retaining plausible deniability, but usually they at least nail someone below (See Scooter Libby):

"The Special Counsel's report is divided into two parts. The first describes the results of the Special Counsel's investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The report outlines the Russian effort to influence the election and documents crimes committed by persons associated with the Russian government in connection with those efforts. The report further explains that a primary consideration for the Special Counsel's investigation was whether any Americans – including individuals associated with the Trump campaign – joined the Russian conspiracies to influence the election, which would be a federal crime. The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

"The Special Counsel's investigation determined that there were two main Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election. The first involved attempts by a Russian organization, the Internet Research Agency (IRA), to conduct disinformation and social media operations in the United States designed to sow social discord, eventually with the aim of interfering with the election. As noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that any U.S. person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with the IRA in its efforts, although the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian nationals and entities in connection with these activities.

"The second element involved the Russian government's efforts to conduct computer hacking operations designed to gather and disseminate information to influence the election. The Special Counsel found that Russian government actors successfully hacked into computers and obtained emails from persons affiliated with the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations, and publicly disseminated those materials through various intermediaries, including WikiLeaks. Based on these activities, the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian military officers for conspiring to hack into computers in the United States for purposes of influencing the election. But as noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.

What you both are missing is that Barr refers specifically to "the Russian government." The Trump campaign repeatedly interacted with people who can be assumed to be assets of the Russian government. Look at the second paragraph:

"The second element involved the Russian government's efforts to conduct computer hacking operations designed to gather and disseminate information to influence the election. The Special Counsel found that Russian government actors successfully hacked into computers and obtained emails from persons affiliated with the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations, and publicly disseminated those materials through various intermediaries, including WikiLeaks. Based on these activities, the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian military officers for conspiring to hack into computers in the United States for purposes of influencing the election. But as noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.

If you can't figure out how to drive a truck through the gaping hole in the last sentence, you aren't much of a lawyer. It's right there, in front of your face.

[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.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Pretty sure Tommy Lee's penis business end was getting to a different neighborhood than where you were playing. You'll be fine.

Now yes. 1981. Not so much. But at least I got there 1st.

Outable IRL but my most depressing memory is when Vince Neil came up to me because he was a fan. Never knew who he was until I saw his record and said “Ohhh that was the dude from the Whiskey”. Come to think of it I’ve shared the Roxy the stripper story but never knew they hit it off (ooh bad take?) after.

I tell people I don’t want to hear about depressing is until they’ve gone from rock star at 19 to document decades later.

[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.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

And you are their willing fucking tool, tool.

That is going to be the name of my emo chillwave band.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

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



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.

I got to the part about Barr and gave up. You are indeed a tool. The only reason Barr is the current AG is because he auditioned for the position by saying there was no obstruction. The fact that Comey was fired and replaced with that asshole is evidence in itself of obstruction.

Whatever. This conversation is pointless. Bye.

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

What you both are missing is that Barr refers specifically to "the Russian government." The Trump campaign repeatedly interacted with people who can be assumed to be assets of the Russian government. Look at the second paragraph:

"The second element involved the Russian government's efforts to conduct computer hacking operations designed to gather and disseminate information to influence the election. The Special Counsel found that Russian government actors successfully hacked into computers and obtained emails from persons affiliated with the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations, and publicly disseminated those materials through various intermediaries, including WikiLeaks. Based on these activities, the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian military officers for conspiring to hack into computers in the United States for purposes of influencing the election. But as noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.

If you can't figure out how to drive a truck through the gaping hole in the last sentence, you aren't much of a lawyer. It's right there, in front of your face.

You've soiled yourself here.

If Mueller found that Trump had colluded with Russians, govt or non-govt, and it was material, it would have been in the report. And Barr would be batshit crazy to so misrepresent by omission here.

This country is nuts. People are so dug in that even when a final report is in, they must cling to some shred of the narrative... some thin tether to validate their position that, "Trump is bad, dammit! And bad with Russians!"

If this had gone the other way, and Barr had issued a letter quoting Mueller finding that Trump had engaged in crimes, you'd be arguing that Barr was a surprisingly non-partisan AG and that the system had worked, and justice had been done. There'd be no trucks to drive through any holes in any letter or report.

But that's not what the facts showed. So here we are, in Crazyland.

You might still see Trump get justice. But it'll be in the SDNY.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I got to the part about Barr and gave up. You are indeed a tool. The *only* reason Barr is the current AG is because he auditioned for the position by saying there was no obstruction. The fact that Comey was fired and replaced with that asshole is evidence in itself of obstruction.

Whatever. This conversation is pointless. Bye.

TM

You think I'm not aware of that interview memo he offered? Of course he's a hack. But even a hack has his hands tied, and his hands were tied here.

You're Trumpian in your pissiness. I did not get what I wanted and I don't like it and I'm going to take my ball and go home.