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

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

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

Here we go with this shit again. You're Pavlovian.

I can do the google thing right now and pick up dozens. But you know what? Nope. Why? Because this statement is just too stupid. All it would create is a litany of posts from you picking apart every headline and displaying intentional obtuseness.

Suffice it to say, Taibbi didn't write his article out of whole cloth. And the media isn't getting its moment in the barrel now because it was an honest broker. Everybody who saw this rush to judgment is pointing at the media for good reason. And you aren't carving around that.

The media fucked up, badly. And it's just desserts and then some for both this and the fuck-up on the Iraq War for which they somehow escaped adequate derision.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

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

I wasn't questioning quality or quantity, just depth. it was a joke, because Tommy has a big one.

[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?

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

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.

I don't care what you're aware of. I care about what you say. That's really all that counts. I hope it's informed, but if it is, it's so often so objectively ridiculous, it's very hard to tell.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

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.

Not at all. Debating you is like banging my whole family's heads (going back generations) against a border wall. It is pointless.

TM

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

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

If you go from document inspector to rock star you will be the opposite of depressed!

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I wasn't questioning quality or quantity, just depth. it was a joke, because Tommy has a big one.

Ohhhhh. True that. He’s the pacific. I’m the kiddie pool.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

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.

Yes, because that's how these things work...

Totally what happened to him with Iran Contra too.

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!

I don't know if you need to read more carefully or speak more carefully, but not even Barr said "no evidence." He said, "did not find that." Surely you can see the difference.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

People are so dug in that even when a final report is in

It's not. That's the point. We have not seen the final report. We have seen a characterization of the final report by someone with every incentive to present it in the most exculpatory light possible, who was put in place to do exactly that, and who has done that in the past.

And we're seeing people - even you - misinterpret what was surely carefully couched language as though it really means that Mueller said there was no evidence of any wrongdoing. That's not at all what Barr even said.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Adder

It's not. That's the point. We have not seen the final report. We have seen a characterization of the final report by someone with every incentive to present it in the most exculpatory light possible, who was put in place to do exactly that, and who has done that in the past.

What's amazing is that the final report could also uncover vast evidence of impeachable offenses, which don't necessarily amount to actual crimes for which Mueller could secure indictments (especially as they relate to the fucking President since we already know Mueller has agreed that his office can't indict a sitting President). And Mueller would specifically decline to comment on any of that, deferring (as he should) to Congress. But Barr and McConnell will do their best to keep any of that from happening.

TM

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

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.

If you trust Barr in this context, you are nuts. First, Barr has a long history. Second, he got the jump by telling Trump, unsolicited, what he wanted to hear about the Mueller investigation. Third, Barr's predecessor lost his job by not doing making the Mueller investigation go away. Fourth, there is no other issue Trump cares about more. Your faith in Barr's probity is ridiculous. Fifth, just read this.

Set Barr aside. On any given day, you cannot pick up the newspaper without finding out that people in the White House lied to make the President look better. As Jeet Heer says, the media has not figured out how to deal with this. (When you mull over the media biases that trouble you, maybe you could spare a moment for this one.) There are no consequences for lying to the press in today's White House. You'd have to be batshit crazy not to do it.

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!"

I'd like to see the final report. Then I'll believe what's in it.

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.

Barr is a partisan. When he acts in a partisan way, he is suspect. When he acts against interest, less so. Even you understand that.

But that's not what the facts showed.

You have no idea what the facts showed. You are happy to take Barr's word for it instead.

I didn't ever believe that Mueller would say that the President committed crimes, because of the DOJ policy that a sitting President can't be indicated. I believed that he would put together a comprehensive factual report and pass it up the chain. I also believed -- and we are seeing it -- that the Administration would try to keep it under wraps. I have no doubt that it will be profoundly damaging to the White House and Trump, because I believe that there is a lot that Mueller knows that hasn't been leaked, because he wasn't leaking -- that was being done by defense attorneys and the White House. I also think Barr is going to try to keep it within DOJ, and Republican Senators are going to support him, because when it finally does come out -- and someday it will -- they are all going to want to say, I had no idea.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I can do the google thing right now and pick up dozens.

No you can't, because you are full of shit. Best case, you watch cable TV and confuse talking heads with the print media. Just because Bill Maher says something doesn't mean the Washington Post reported it as fact. Worst case, you are just being hyperbolic and know it.

[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

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.

[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