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

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Y

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

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.

You know very well I can, but I’m not engaging your “show me evidence exactly meeting a standard I will adjust to reject your evidence however I must” bullshit.

You know damn well the people who write that stuff slide it into numerous stories, “burying the lede” as I flagged you for doing earlier.

The press is not “in the barrel” here because rabid right wing firebrands (I feel like I need to emphasize the irony) like Taibbi and Greenwald are suddenly making up conspiracies. It’s in the barrel because everybody saw its bullshit in plain sight, just as they do the bullshit of Trump, the adversary it perfectly deserves.

[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/

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You know very well I can.

I know you well enough to know that you make hyperbolic, ridiculous statements about the media that have no basis in fact, and will work much harder to keep bullshitting then the three seconds you pretend it would take to use the Google to show that even one such article exists. Just like this. Keep at it.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I know you well enough to know that you make hyperbolic, ridiculous statements about the media that have no basis in fact, and will work much harder to keep bullshitting then the three seconds you pretend it would take to use the Google to show that even one such article exists. Just like this. Keep at it.

Allow me to take another shit on your porch: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/ar...hat-we-learned

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I know you well enough to know that you make hyperbolic, ridiculous statements about the media that have no basis in fact, and will work much harder to keep bullshitting then the three seconds you pretend it would take to use the Google to show that even one such article exists. Just like this. Keep at it.

Listen, I know it’s tough to wear the tinfoil hat. But you’re styling one as high as the Pope’s mitre right now.

Conspiracy! Conspiracy! Look at this blog! This place resembles a left wing Zerohedge right now.

Is Barr a hack? Of course. Is he misrepresenting the findings of Mueller, a man he’s known and worked with for 30 years? Are you mad? Do you think these people dont realize they’ll all be subpoenaed before Congress? You think Mueller would allow his sterling reputation to be shit upon like that so his friend Barr can save Trump, a man both of them all but certainly personally loathe?

Fuck Outta Here.

Have a drink. Trump’s still in jeopardy in SDNY. Fight on the hill where you might win. This one is lost. But if you were looking closely from the start, instead of buying the media’s bullshit, and the left wing blogosphere’s super-bullshit, you could see there was a lot of hype surrounding some very thin evidence.

That Trump acted guilty proves nothing. That idiot was probably just concerned about protecting his tax returns. That Flynn lied means nothing. He’d already broken the law and was stuck with no other option. What should he have said? “Yeah, I lobbied while unregistered. Ya got me. But can I. Keep this cool new job? Please?”

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Listen, I know it’s tough to wear the tinfoil hat. But you’re styling one as high as the Pope’s mitre right now.

Conspiracy! Conspiracy! Look at this blog! This place resembles a left wing Zerohedge right now.

Is Barr a hack? Of course. Is he misrepresenting the findings of Mueller, a man he’s known and worked with for 30 years? Are you mad? Do you think these people dont realize they’ll all be subpoenaed before Congress? You think Mueller would allow his sterling reputation to be shit upon like that so his friend Barr can save Trump, a man both of them all but certainly personally loathe?

Fuck Outta Here.

Have a drink. Trump’s still in jeopardy in SDNY. Fight on the hill where you might win. This one is lost. But if you were looking closely from the start, instead of buying the media’s bullshit, and the left wing blogosphere’s super-bullshit, you could see there was a lot of hype surrounding some very thin evidence.

That Trump acted guilty proves nothing. That idiot was probably just concerned about protecting his tax returns. That Flynn lied means nothing. He’d already broken the law and was stuck with no other option. What should he have said? “Yeah, I lobbied while unregistered. Ya got me. But can I. Keep this cool new job? Please?”

It's funny to hear all of this from someone who thought there was something to the Hillary's emails scandal. You just keep on keeping on.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

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.

“There’s evidence your honor. It’s just not been found.”

You should look into what font Barr chose, and whether he used Oxford commas to find further clues.

https://www.thenation.com/article/rip-russiagate/

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Listen, I know it’s tough to wear the tinfoil hat. But you’re styling one as high as the Pope’s mitre right now.

Conspiracy! Conspiracy! Look at this blog! This place resembles a left wing Zerohedge right now.

Is Barr a hack? Of course. Is he misrepresenting the findings of Mueller, a man he’s known and worked with for 30 years? Are you mad? Do you think these people dont realize they’ll all be subpoenaed before Congress? You think Mueller would allow his sterling reputation to be shit upon like that so his friend Barr can save Trump, a man both of them all but certainly personally loathe?

Fuck Outta Here.

Have a drink. Trump’s still in jeopardy in SDNY. Fight on the hill where you might win. This one is lost. But if you were looking closely from the start, instead of buying the media’s bullshit, and the left wing blogosphere’s super-bullshit, you could see there was a lot of hype surrounding some very thin evidence.

That Trump acted guilty proves nothing. That idiot was probably just concerned about protecting his tax returns. That Flynn lied means nothing. He’d already broken the law and was stuck with no other option. What should he have said? “Yeah, I lobbied while unregistered. Ya got me. But can I. Keep this cool new job? Please?”

So you don't actually want to see the report or hear what Mueller himself has to say?

[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.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The press is not “in the barrel” here because rabid right wing firebrands (I feel like I need to emphasize the irony) like Taibbi and Greenwald are suddenly making up conspiracies. It’s in the barrel because everybody saw its bullshit in plain sight, just as they do the bullshit of Trump, the adversary it perfectly deserves.

It's funny that you think being scolded by Taibbi and Greenwald is "in the barrel."

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

So you don't actually want to see the report or hear what Mueller himself has to say?

No. I want to see all the gory details because I'm sure there'll be some really spicy stuff in it.

But do I think Barr has misrepresented it materially? No. Do I think Ty or anyone else is warranted in thinking there will be facts in it on which indictments should have been brought? No.

Will there be enough to impeach? Perhaps. But this thread was about the media's misleading the public to believe an indictment was a foregone conclusion. (This includes print and TV and online media, because Ty is going to try to carev around the allegation by saying, "Maddow's a hack, but WaPo isn't.") The media led people to believe the odds were overwhelming that Trump or his kids or someone close to him would be found to have "colluded" with Russians in some way that led to indictments for such acts. They led people to conclude and anticipate, in both overt and indirect ways, that criminal action of some kind, at least against Don Jr, who admitted meeting with Russians, was coming.

Mueller left a trail of evidence like Jaworski did in Watergate. And the House may impeach. But impeachment here is dancing with your sister, because the Senate will never convict. What the Left wanted and needed was a criminal act. It got none of that. So what's it doing now? The media, and the Left, are crying, "It was never about that! It was about showing Trump is a scoundrel!" Or, "Barr is engaged in a conspiracy!"

This is a meltdown. The media soiled itself, and the people who bought its BS appear credulous.

So yeah, I want to see the full report, and I think there will be ugly stuff in it. But the difference between that stuff and what was promised by the media and hoped for by Trump haters will be the difference between, well, dancing with the hottest cheerleader on whom you have a huge crush and dancing with your sister.

(I know you're not in the Deep South or Appalachia, where that analogy might fail.)

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

It's funny that you think being scolded by Taibbi and Greenwald is "in the barrel."

I don't. You're assuming that.

They're one of hundreds of voices taking the media to ask.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Is he misrepresenting the findings of Mueller, a man he’s known and worked with for 30 years? Are you mad? Do you think these people dont realize they’ll all be subpoenaed before Congress?

I think there are underlying factual findings that Barr is attempting to cover up by not releasing this report. Actually, I know there are underlying facts that Barr is attempting to cover up, because a fair number of them have already been reported on.

I do not think Mueller wrote that he did not "find collusion." I think it much more likely that he wrote about the facts and concluded that he could not prove any additional crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. The public should know what those facts are and congress should decide whether they constitute high crimes or misdemeanors.

But if you were looking closely from the start, instead of buying the media’s bullshit, and the left wing blogosphere’s super-bullshit, you could see there was a lot of hype surrounding some very thin evidence.

If you were looking closely form the start, you already know that the campaign chairman, son and other advisors to the president took a meeting with Russian operatives explicitly on the promise of dirt on their opponent. You also know that the campaign chairman shared confidential internal polling data with a Russian operative and lied about doing so. And that said campaign chairman was in hock to Russians with close ties to the Russian government and was working for free.

In other words, if you were looking closely, you should probably believe that it's much more likely that there was some collusion but that witnesses who could prove it declined to cooperate than there was no collusion (in part because we already know there was some).