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

[ThurgreedMarshall]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/17/u...er-report.html

White House discussed Mueller Report with Justice before the release. What a joke the Republicans have turned the Depart of Justice into.

TM

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I’m citing Barr’s words. If you’d like to put his exact words here, do so.

Please read the think I linked, which is very clear and written at a level you should be able to understand if you wish.

ETA: Fuck it. Here are Barr’s words:

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.”

Are you suggesting that Trump conspired with non-govt actors but, despite charging for every other incidental crime he found, Mueller gave Trump a pass because he was only looking for conspiracies with the Russian “Government”?

If that’s the argument, put on the Tin Foil Mitre.

ETA2: Or are you saying Mueller simply didn’t have enough to prove a conspiracy? Better part of 2 years, thousands of subpoenas, numerous cooperating witnesses, and hundreds of hours of interviews and god only knows how much intel from domestic and foreign sources, but still that mastermind, that cunning genius with so many years of political experience, Donald Trump, was just too damn clever for Mueller to catch?

Fashion yourself some tin foil pajamas.

OK, just read this:

The exoneration for coordination in Mueller’s language, at least, extends only to the Trump campaign, not to rat-fuckers working on the side (one of the things Mueller reportedly asked a lot of witnesses was precisely when and why Stone left the campaign). And at least according to this language, Mueller’s assessment of coordination extended only to coordination with the Russian government. So even if Mueller and the US government are getting close to labeling WikiLeaks a Russian entity, it still wouldn’t count for this assessment. Unsurprisingly, Barr relies on that language to give the Trump campaign a clean bill of health on the hack-and-leak side.

Most cynically, though, even after Barr acknowledges that the Russians used WikiLeaks to disseminate the stolen emails, the very next sentence doesn’t mention the charges Mueller brought against Stone for hiding his own (and through him, the campaign’s, including Donald Trump’s) coordination of the releases “for purposes of influencing the election.”

But we know Stone’s indictment has to be in the report. That’s because the report, by regulation, must list all Mueller’s prosecutorial decisions. So not only would Mueller describe that he indicted Stone, but he probably also explains why he didn’t include a conspiracy charge in Stone’s indictment (which probably relates primarily to First Amendment concerns, and not any illusions about WikiLeaks’ willing service for Russia on this operation). So it must be in the report. But Barr doesn’t mention that, indeed, the Trump campaign, through their associated rat-fucker, did actually coordinate on the hack-and-leak and did actually influence the election by doing so, they just didn’t coordinate directly with the Russian government.

On this matter, it’s crystal clear that Barr cynically limited his discussion of the report to obscure that Mueller had, indeed, found that the campaign “coordinated” on the hack-and-leak for purposes of influencing the election.

eta: note that "ratfucker" is a term of art from Watergate

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I’m citing Barr’s words.

Just for future reference, "citing" and "paraphrasing" do not mean the same thing.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Just for future reference, "citing" and "paraphrasing" do not mean the same thing.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Now Barr is going to give a press conference, which the White House announced before DOJ did, before the (redacted) Mueller report is released. Nothing to see here. Just a typical case of American blind justice.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Please read the think I linked, which is very clear and written at a level you should be able to understand if you wish.



OK, just read this:



eta: note that "ratfucker" is a term of art from Watergate

Read this bolded text:

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.”

You are suggesting Barr:

1. Flagrantly misled Congress within a paragraph exposing such clearly misleading language.

2. Shmuck extraodinaire, Roger Stone, is the Bond villain in this conspiracy, and the device through which Trump outsmarted Mueller. Which would mean, by extension, Mueller shut his enormous investigation down prematurely, before he'd the chance to flip Stone, a goofy media whore who's whining on Instagram about how he's been run out of money.

Look, anything is possible with these fucking bizarre characters. But this article you've been citing is written by someone who is obsessed and needs to get a grip. Maybe see the sun and talk to humans. When I first read that article, my initial reaction to tone and pacing was, "This person might be on to something, but is more likely batshit fucking crazy... maybe, but unlikely, both."

I think it was you who somewhat pompously stated, long ago, that a sign of middling intellect was the owner's self-perceived ability to connect dots between disparate events and circumstances. You should apply that view to this person's rather creative conclusions.

Roger Stone, Trump's "Albino Hitman" as Maher called him -- the smoking gun in Russiagate. It's too rich.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Just for future reference, "citing" and "paraphrasing" do not mean the same thing.

I should have used "quoting." I pulled that from a Times article that put Barr's report in text which could be cut and pasted.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...er-report.html

You're parsing awfully hard for a man who professes to be certain he's going to find a smoking gun tomorrow.

You might. But Roger Stone? It's Pythonesque.

[Hank Chinaski]

1 why several lawyers stick their necks out predicted with some implied certainty what we will see tomorrow is beyond me.

2 Sebby are you concerned that the White House is planning on a rebuttal?

3 Why the fuss about DOJ discussing the report with the White House? Is there some clear reason that was wrong?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You are suggesting Barr:

1. Flagrantly misled Congress within a paragraph exposing such clearly misleading language.

Yes. Based on what Mueller has already said in public.

You are committed to the idea that Barr is not lying, so you're just going to pretend that we don't know anything about what Mueller found with regard to Steone.

2. Shmuck extraodinaire, Roger Stone, is the Bond villain in this conspiracy...

No Bond villain, but his public indictment means we know about him. "According to the charges filed by the special counsel’s office, a top Trump campaign official had dispatched Mr. Stone to get information from WikiLeaks about thousands of hacked Democratic emails stolen by Russians." That's the NYT. I'm sure Mueller knows a lot more that hasn't been made public yet.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Yes. Based on what Mueller has already said in public.

You are committed to the idea that Barr is not lying, so you're just going to pretend that we don't know anything about what Mueller found with regard to Steone.



No Bond villain, but his public indictment means we know about him. "According to the charges filed by the special counsel’s office, a top Trump campaign official had dispatched Mr. Stone to get information from WikiLeaks about thousands of hacked Democratic emails stolen by Russians." That's the NYT. I'm sure Mueller knows a lot more that hasn't been made public yet.

Translation: Hank is on ignore.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Yes. Based on what Mueller has already said in public.

You are committed to the idea that Barr is not lying, so you're just going to pretend that we don't know anything about what Mueller found with regard to Steone.

That's batshit crazy. And I'm not committed to the notion Barr isn't lying. I'm committed to the notion it's highly unlikely he's lying and your assertion he is is weak.

But whether I'm right or wrong, you will use some contorted reasoning and some fact from the full report (or allegation regarding redaction) to assert, "Cazart! I was right all along! It's a cover up!" We know full well that's going to happen no matter what this report ultimately says.

No Bond villain, but his public indictment means we know about him. "According to the charges filed by the special counsel’s office, a top Trump campaign official had dispatched Mr. Stone to get information from WikiLeaks about thousands of hacked Democratic emails stolen by Russians." That's the NYT. I'm sure Mueller knows a lot more that hasn't been made public yet.

That's not the exact charges. That's a journalist describing the charges. Here are the exact charges. https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...nt-012419.html

But let's use your quoted characterization, for amusement. Stone was dispatched by Trump officials to get info on hacked emails from Wikileaks. That's what you have said may prove a criminal conspiracy. And yet is one charged, even though the indictment would indicate Mueller knows someone associated with the campaign sought info from Wikileaks? No. It's not. Why? We can infer one thing. It's not a crime to conspire with Wikileaks to get damaging info on a competitor.

This whole board can be offended by the fact that is not a crime, and not enough to trigger impeachment (regardless of whether a conviction could occur there). I happen to think it's just politics. Hardknuckle, nasty politics I might not like, but ultimately just politics.

But whatever it might be, no one gives a shit what this board thinks. We aren't the law or the arbiters of what's proper and improper politics. (Actually, no one gives a shit about this whole affair according to the Times.)

"I'm sure Mueller knows a lot more that hasn't been made public." Of course that's your last line. If this report doesn't provide what they want, that will be the last line of the tin foil hat brigade for the next two years. Just like Benghazi. Just like Whitewater. Just like Hillary's emails. These things live on forever, stoked by bias and self-righteous indignation. There must be crimes, dammit! I must have justice against the politician I detest!

(For the record, I think the Clintons, Bushes, Reagan, and Trump have engaged in all sorts of unethical shit. Do I think they need or needed to be prosecuted for it? Nah. Even if Hillary had destroyed proof of bad acts in her emails, whatever. It's a mean, ruthless game, and she was being unfairly attacked from so many angles. She gets a pass. The only one who doesn't get a pass is Bush II, for the Iraq war. Some lies are unforgivable.)

But back to the point... Trump's comeuppance - the resistance's glorious revolution over the evil of Trump via the Mueller report - is probably not going to materialize this week or any other. I think you'll have to wait for November of 2020 for that.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

2 Sebby are you concerned that the White House is planning on a rebuttal?

No. Why would that concern me? That thing will be filled with misinformation, but news outlets will pick it up and it will confuse the narrative. It's actually brilliant strategy. I'm surprised they're clever enough to have come up with the idea. It's novel, I think. I've never heard of it before.

The only thing that concerns me is that pundits and reporters will be reading both reports to me endlessly for the next few months.

The reality is, Trump opportunistically exploited Russian interference. And this is not a crime. What you have here are pissed off voters who still can't accept that he won pissed off now a second time because what he did wasn't technically criminal. "It ought to be a crime!" Right. I hear ya. Go pass a law. That's what people on the Left love to do in every situation. The easiest fix for the middle-minded thinker, and the make work gift to armies of jerk off lawyers in this litigation shithole of a country who'd otherwise have nothing to do.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Looking forward to Sebby spinning Barr’s performance this morning.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Now Barr is going to give a press conference, which the White House announced before DOJ did, before the (redacted) Mueller report is released. Nothing to see here. Just a typical case of American blind justice.

If there were any questions about Barr's integrity before today, they have all been answered. The man is a fucking joke.

TM

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I'm committed to the notion it's highly unlikely he's lying and your assertion he is is weak.

I shouldn't have said "lying." I think Barr is doing his utmost to defend the President's personal interests without lying, acting as an advocate for the individual rather than the chief law enforcement officer of the nation. This morning makes that clear.