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

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

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

Again, Barr did not say there was no evidence. He said "did not find collusion." I don't know what that means and neither do you, but I'm pretty sure those are not the words Mueller used.

[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.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

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.

I don't think anyone is making that claim.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

I don't think anyone is making that claim.

That's the only useful claim left to be made, so if no one is making that one, no one's saying much of anything worth following.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

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.

Yeah, and I think it's a characterization, not a paraphrase, because prosecutors usually talk terms of what they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt, not what they didn't find.

Mueller explicitly said Trump was "not exonerated" on the obstruction stuff.

If you want to continue is the media criticism game, you might want to talk about how the exact opposite of that statement is now a right wing media, and presidential, talking point.

Are you suggesting a public figure should not have the right to say anything he damn well pleases about his investigators?

Of course.

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?

He does not have the "right" to fire the FBI director with the corrupt intent to impede an investigation into himself. That's not even a hard call, and it was more or less decided as much when Nixon resigned.

Maybe that was Mueller's dilemma.

I, mean, Barr more or less said as much.

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).

The danger just isn't there. They have immunity by senate majority and right wing propaganda machine.

Also, what benefit is that to Trump? He already has the GOP and the Fox watchers.

It gives the senators something to point to.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

That's the only useful claim left to be made, so if no one is making that one, no one's saying much of anything worth following.

Here's my claim: Mueller found evidence we don't yet know and Barr and the White House are seeking to cover it up.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

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.

You are so full of shit about this, and you should turn off the idiot box. If you have to lump together Maddow and the WaPo to make your point, enough said. I don't watch Maddow, so I have no idea whether she's a hack. I asked you for the NYT, WaPo or LAT because *you* named them, Einstein.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

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.

I said this yesterday, and Sebby's response was that it wasn't a crime. Just don't ask why he keeps moving the goalposts.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Here's my claim: Mueller found evidence we don't yet know and Barr and the White House are seeking to cover it up.

No contest to that. They're definitely covering up something. I don't think it's much in terms of material gravity, but it'll definitely be embarrassing.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

You are so full of shit about this, and you should turn off the idiot box. If you have to lump together Maddow and the WaPo to make your point, enough said. I don't watch Maddow, so I have no idea whether she's a hack. I asked you for the NYT, WaPo or LAT because *you* named them, Einstein.

I did say the print media was BS'ing, and they were. You pulled that bullshit, "Show me an exact article where they say Trump is guilty." You know very well that's not how it's done. It's done through numerous articles insinuating it.

Can I find an article where WaPo or NYT uses the header, "Trump All But Certainly Guilty"? Of course not. Even Fox doesn't do something that flagrant.

And the meta irony here is that you'll take any shred of circumstantial evidence and accept whatever spin is offered by the media to argue Trump is liable for some nefariousness. Yet when I say the media has spun him to be guilty and I make this claim using better than circumstantial evidence (which everyone in the world who is criticizing the media right now agrees is all over the endless anti-Trump articles written by these outlets), you suddenly apply a literal standard: "Show me where, exactly."

You're utterly full of shit on this. You discount Taibbi, Greenwald, the Nation, Bloomberg... I could offer an endless list of outlets right now taking the media to task for doing what it did. And you'll go down arguing, "But show me exactly what I demanded."

You're all over the map, grasping at straws. "Barr only cited the Russian 'Government.' Trump could have colluded with other Russians!" "Barr is throwing his friend under the bus to save Trump!" "The media didn't rush to judgment here. Nevermind that dozens of media analysts are writing articles saying it did, and citing things the media explicitly said and did in support of that argument... Nothing to see there unless Sebby gives me the exact narrowly defined proof I demand!"

You do intentionally obtuse too much. Makes you look silly in an instance like this, where that simply does not work. You can try to reframe this as you do anything where you're plainly wrong. It's not going to work for you. The media fucked up here, badly. And everyone knows it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I did say the print media was BS'ing, and they were. You pulled that bullshit, "Show me an exact article where they say Trump is guilty." You know very well that's not how it's done. It's done through numerous articles insinuating it.

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.

Someone certainly is full of bullshit and hype.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Someone certainly is full of bullshit and hype.

They ran with the story that Trump was almost certainly guilty. How’d they do that? Through countless suggestions, insinuations, sometimes direct assertions.

That’s the general story they ran with. Now, your little game here is to suggest you’re too dumb to understand that story can be used to mean the general narrative of those outlets and also to mean one particular story.

That’s why you asked me to show you one particular story. Because you know the narrative here - the overarching “story” - is built of many statements and allegations and shaded reporting spread among god only knows how many stories.

Do I really have to go through this “I saw what you did there” exercise with you every time?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

They ran with the story that Trump was almost certainly guilty. How’d they do that? Through countless suggestions, insinuations, sometimes direct assertions.

That’s the general story they ran with. Now, your little game here is to suggest you’re too dumb to understand that story can be used to mean the general narrative of those outlets and also to mean one particular story.

That’s why you asked me to show you one particular story. Because you know the narrative here - the overarching “story” - is built of many statements and allegations and shaded reporting spread among god only knows how many stories.

Do I really have to go through this “I saw what you did there” exercise with you every time?

I think your hyperbole about the media is ridiculous. Can you find individual pieces and outlets that got it wrong? Absolutely. That's not a conversation you ever want to have. You want to indict "the media," you want to make it specifically about Trump, and you overstate your case. The last two of those three are exactly what you complain "the media" did. Extremism is the defense of your own bullshit is no vice, apparently.

The media have massive incentives to give people what they want to hear. That is a fundamental problem with our democracy that has gotten much worse in the last few decades with the proliferation of media outlets. When there were only a few TV networks and newspapers in most markets, they had a strong business incentive to stick to the mainstream to get the largest possible audience. As the outlets have proliferated, the mainstream outlets have lost share and everyone has to work harder to get the eyeballs. You aren't even talking about Facebook and Google here, but those technologies are even better at serving up what the audience wants, whether or not it's true.

If you want to have a real conversation about the media, give it a try. If you want to offer a contrarian take on "the media" based on this week's news cycle that will have the shelf life of warm milk, keep it up.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

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.)

Why speculate? Let's see it and we'll find out.

The soiling may well be happening now, because people have four pages and have filled four days of news with it. When those four pages can all be verified pretty easily.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

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?”

You are absolutely fucking crazy. If they weren't trying to bury what is in Mueller's report, they would just release it to show just how little it contains. They will not because it contains a whole lot of shit about Trump (and his entire Administration) they don't want to get out. There is absolutely no getting around that.

TM