LawTalkers
Page 22 of 126 « First 122021 22 23243272122 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)
-   Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=883)

sebastian_dangerfield 03-25-2019 02:21 PM
Russiagate = This Generation's WMD (Taibbi)
 
Taibbi grinding through the facts and indicting the media: https://taibbi.substack.com/p/russia...imes-a-million

Long, but worth it. Possibly the most comprehensive collection of facts demonstrating the media's sins in this debacle.

Tyrone Slothrop 03-25-2019 02:21 PM
Re: Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same
 
Slow news weekend.

etsa: Sebby, I don't understand why you think the Mueller investigation was a debacle or why you think the press performed any worse in covering it than it did in covering anything else.

sebastian_dangerfield 03-25-2019 04:20 PM
Re: Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 521606)
Slow news weekend.

etsa: Sebby, I don't understand why you think the Mueller investigation was a debacle or why you think the press performed any worse in covering it than it did in covering anything else.
I don't think the Mueller investigation was a debacle. I think the media coverage of it was a debacle. It was as bad as the non-stop overheated coverage of the Lewinsky/Starr witch hunt against the Clintons, but not quite as bad as the media's carrying of Bush's water in the run up to the Iraq War.

But, really, who cares what I think? Read the pages of assiduously compiled facts that Taibbi, a guy who wrote a hysterical book making fun of Trump (highly recommended), lays out in his article.

The media ran with this scandal for all it was worth. It desperately wanted a Watergate II ratings bonanza. In the end, it got Al Capone's vault.

All the media did here was stoke greater division and embolden Trump. The only silver lining I see is even fewer people will believe their bullshit in the future. It's an embarrassment. Fox went into the gutter of slanted news and everybody else followed. Now we've a British tabloid media. Different sources pick different sides and feed the audience slanted garbage.

And it's not okay for the media to bullshit and over-hype, as some argue, because Trump is some sort of existential threat. He's not. He's a symptom of deeper rot, like the media that covers him. They perfectly deserve each other.

Tyrone Slothrop 03-25-2019 04:40 PM
Re: Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 521607)
I don't think the Mueller investigation was a debacle. I think the media coverage of it was a debacle. It was as bad as the non-stop overheated coverage of the Lewinsky/Starr witch hunt against the Clintons, but not quite as bad as the media's carrying of Bush's water in the run up to the Iraq War.

But, really, who cares what I think? Read the pages of assiduously compiled facts that Taibbi, a guy who wrote a hysterical book making fun of Trump (highly recommended), lays out in his article.

The media ran with this scandal for all it was worth. It desperately wanted a Watergate II ratings bonanza. In the end, it got Al Capone's vault.

All the media did here was stoke greater division and embolden Trump. The only silver lining I see is even fewer people will believe their bullshit in the future. It's an embarrassment. Fox went into the gutter of slanted news and everybody else followed. Now we've a British tabloid media. Different sources pick different sides and feed the audience slanted garbage.

And it's not okay for the media to bullshit and over-hype, as some argue, because Trump is some sort of existential threat. He's not. He's a symptom of deeper rot, like the media that covers him. They perfectly deserve each other.
Yes, it's so different from the judicious, skeptical way the media covered Benghazi and the Clinton email issues, to take two examples.

If you want media that do not respond to free-market incentives to sell ads, you need to think of something else.

sebastian_dangerfield 03-25-2019 04:48 PM
Re: Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 521616)
Yes, it's so different from the judicious, skeptical way the media covered Benghazi and the Clinton email issues, to take two examples.

If you want media that do not respond to free-market incentives to sell ads, you need to think of something else.
Agreed. The media handled those issues horribly. And Fox was the main culprit in that. But the rest of the media joined in when they realized it created some ratings benefit.

But you know what? We've still got actual journalists out there like Taibbi who put all the facts together and write stories explaining the way the media bullshits the public and inflates expectations. That's all his story is about. He's saying, "Here's how the media inflamed this thing to such wild expectations that people are now in shock that there turned out to be no collusion."

He's just tracing all the bullshit. As journalists do. The clowns on Fox and MSNBC can do their shtick -- gloating on one hand, crafting wild conspiracies involving Barr and Rosenstein on the other. As he notes in the piece, they learned nothing after Iraq, and they'll learn nothing from this. And why should they? Bullshit and hype sell ads.

Tyrone Slothrop 03-25-2019 04:56 PM
Re: Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 521617)
Agreed. The media handled those issues horribly. And Fox was the main culprit in that. But the rest of the media joined in when they realized it created some ratings benefit.

But you know what? We've still got actual journalists out there like Taibbi who put all the facts together and write stories explaining the way the media bullshits the public and inflates expectations. That's all his story is about. He's saying, "Here's how the media inflamed this thing to such wild expectations that people are now in shock that there turned out to be no collusion."

He's just tracing all the bullshit. As journalists do. The clowns on Fox and MSNBC can do their shtick -- gloating on one hand, crafting wild conspiracies involving Barr and Rosenstein on the other. As he notes in the piece, they learned nothing after Iraq, and they'll learn nothing from this. And why should they? Bullshit and hype sell ads.
Suggesting that there's something special about the media and this subject seems like a strong example of the Chinese robber fallacy.

sebastian_dangerfield 03-25-2019 05:11 PM
Re: Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 521618)
Suggesting that there's something special about the media and this subject seems like a strong example of the Chinese robber fallacy.
I'll read it, but one question... Is that the Last Psychiatrist resurrected?

Tyrone Slothrop 03-26-2019 12:14 AM
Re: Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 521619)
I'll read it, but one question... Is that the Last Psychiatrist resurrected?
I don't know the Last Psychiatrist, but after a little Googling I don't think so.

sebastian_dangerfield 03-26-2019 12:06 PM
Re: Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 521618)
Suggesting that there's something special about the media and this subject seems like a strong example of the Chinese robber fallacy.
There are grounds to suggest that fallacy applies, but they fade away if you consider the way Russiagate and WMD (to use Taibbi's comparison) were hijacked and driven in a particular direction by the media.

In the run-up to Iraq, the quantum of evidence suggesting Hussein did not have WMD continued to grow. There was a race on the part of neocons in the Administration to get the war started before the emerging evidence reached a tipping point and toppled the effort to start the war. At each turn, the most powerful voices in the mainstream media engaged in willful ignorance. A cynic would argue, and many have, the media wanted a war.

In Russiagate, as Taibbi details, the biggest mainstream media outlets (save Fox, which is a Trump propaganda machine) pushed forth the narrative that there must have been collusion. Every time a story about Russiagate suggested to prove collusion was later found to be either embellished or false (Taibbi notes something like 50 instances of this), the media responded by either:

1. Burying that finding; or,
2. Putting out a new salacious story linking Trump to Russia to cover up the fact that a previous story was found to be false.

All efforts were directed toward one aim: Retaining at all costs the appearance that Mueller was sitting on bombshells, and Trump was not only guilty, but guilty as hell, of collusion.

Only in very limited instances did large media outlets admit and apologize for having published false "proof" of collusion.

If you happened across almost any news source other than Fox (which was busy running a counter narrative just as dishonest), you were also fed "evidence" of dubious quality like the Steele Dossier as though it were reputable. As Taibbi notes, when that evidence was correctly assessed as flawed, the media didn't pivot to an analysis of whether it was or was not flawed. Most mainstream outlets instead advocated for the position the Steele Dossier was credible. They put on lawyers' hats and made arguments rehabilitating it.

Taibbi lays this out much better than I am here. But he wasn't the only one doing this. Glenn Greenwald, a Trump hater, started questioning Russiagate very early in the process. This garnered him considerable criticism from his colleagues. Why? Because people doing what Taibbi and Greenwald did, something called journalism, violate the New Rules of our modern media. We are on the side of good, and so we are licensed to be wrong here and there. It's all for a laudable aim.*

The sneaky reaction to Taibbi's piece has been, "What else should the media have done? We needed to investigate Trump!" That sleight of hand ducks the criticism. The problem wasn't in investigating Trump. That was more than warranted. The problem was in convicting him before Mueller was finished with his investigation. That didn't work out so well, and the media should have suspected it wouldn't have worked out so well given a lot of evidence it presented along the way was of questionable veracity.**

The bigger media outlets offered grudging mea culpas many years after the Iraq War turned out to be a disaster. They admitted that they ran with a false narrative that there was solid evidence of WMD despite considerable evidence to the contrary. I don't think Trump deserves any mea culpa from anyone in the media or otherwise. He certainly acted guilty enough (if I thought him smart, I might think his doing so was the mother of all rope-a-dopes on a credulous media). But the media should (and will of course not) learn this lesson: It is not in the business of crafting the political reality it desires, but reporting on the facts in front of it. To engage in the not-too-far-from-Pravda narrative creation the majority of the media was guilty of in 2003, and now again in Russiagate, while excoriating Russia, provides some very dark comedy.

Does this apply to all of the media? No. Just most, and almost all large media outlets. Which gets me out of the Chinese Robbers box.

_____
* I hear this refrain from the right wing as well. Question a crazy old relative on why he sends out false emails filled with conspiracy nonsense about Democrats or believes crap he hears on Fox and many will admit, "I'm fine with disinformation that brings people to my side and hurts the other side. We need to save this country."
** The politicians who bought into the narrative and proclaimed collusion a foregone conclusion made a grievous tactical error. Pelosi, on the other hand, looks like a sage. AOC is also playing this very well, btw: https://www.gq.com/story/ocasio-cortez-mueller-report

Adder 03-26-2019 01:00 PM
Re: Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 521645)
But the media should (and will of course not) learn this lesson: It is not in the business of crafting the political reality it desires, but reporting on the facts in front of it.
Okay, but the facts in front of it were that there were known contacts between Russia and people close to Trump and that Trump and those other people kept lying about them.

I mean, it could be the rope-a-dope you mentioned, but none of us think they're capable of being that smart.

Meanwhile, we don't actually know what Mueller found, or what he thought he could prove, or the extent to which the investigation was hampered by Trump's refusal to be interviewed, Manafort's willingness to lie, and the lack of access to witnesses aboard. It's pretty hard to prove a conspiracy if none of the people involved are willing to cooperate about it.

My guess is that those things led Mueller to suspect a lot of stuff he couldn't prove.

Tyrone Slothrop 03-26-2019 01:05 PM
Re: Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 521645)
In Russiagate, as Taibbi details, the biggest mainstream media outlets (save Fox, which is a Trump propaganda machine) pushed forth the narrative that there must have been collusion. Every time a story about Russiagate suggested to prove collusion was later found to be either embellished or false (Taibbi notes something like 50 instances of this), the media responded by either:

1. Burying that finding; or,
2. Putting out a new salacious story linking Trump to Russia to cover up the fact that a previous story was found to be false.

All efforts were directed toward one aim: Retaining at all costs the appearance that Mueller was sitting on bombshells, and Trump was not only guilty, but guilty as hell, of collusion.
Two things, each worthy of its own thread:

1) What you describe is exactly the Chinese robber fallacy. The media ran sensational stories designed to excite people rather than to inform. Um, duh. Consider two possible explanations for this. One is that "the media" (excluding Fox) had "one aim" because of a huge conspiracy to get Trump. The other is that the media ran stories that they thought people wanted to see, because by and large they operate on business models that require advertisers and eyeballs. You go with your tinfoil-hat-everyone-is-out-to-get-Trump explanation, and I will go with the the-free-market-isn't-ideal-but-we-haven't-figured-out-a-better-way-to-do-it explanation. My explanation doesn't run into trouble with the fact that the same people who you think conspired to get Trump were fresh of wrecking Hillary's campaign with the email nonsense.

2) There absolutely was collusion between the Trump campaign and key Russians. No question. Your beef with the media here is like apologizing for the Titanic's captain by complaining that no one talks about all the icebergs in the North Atlantic that he successfully avoided.

Tyrone Slothrop 03-26-2019 01:08 PM
Re: Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 521645)
Does this apply to all of the media? No. Just most, and almost all large media outlets. Which gets me out of the Chinese Robbers box.
You'd better rethink the Chinese robbers analogy. If most of the media sensationalized this story in the same way that they sensationalize everything else, you haven't identified anything special about this story. I'm not telling you that the media handled this story perfectly. I'm telling you that the media performed on this story about as well as they ever perform.

sebastian_dangerfield 03-26-2019 01:24 PM
Re: Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 521647)
Two things, each worthy of its own thread:

1) What you describe is exactly the Chinese robber fallacy. The media ran sensational stories designed to excite people rather than to inform. Um, duh. Consider two possible explanations for this. One is that "the media" (excluding Fox) had "one aim" because of a huge conspiracy to get Trump. The other is that the media ran stories that they thought people wanted to see, because by and large they operate on business models that require advertisers and eyeballs. You go with your tinfoil-hat-everyone-is-out-to-get-Trump explanation, and I will go with the the-free-market-isn't-ideal-but-we-haven't-figured-out-a-better-way-to-do-it explanation. My explanation doesn't run into trouble with the fact that the same people who you think conspired to get Trump were fresh of wrecking Hillary's campaign with the email nonsense.

2) There absolutely was collusion between the Trump campaign and key Russians. No question. Your beef with the media here is like apologizing for the Titanic's captain by complaining that no one talks about all the icebergs in the North Atlantic that he successfully avoided.
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.)

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

Unless you're suggesting that there was collusion, just not enough proof of it to charge. In which case, I'd say, the media promised a finding of collusion in Mueller's report, not in Ty's opinion. It did not deliver the former, and the latter is irrelevant.

sebastian_dangerfield 03-26-2019 01:28 PM
Re: Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 521648)
You'd better rethink the Chinese robbers analogy. If most of the media sensationalized this story in the same way that they sensationalize everything else, you haven't identified anything special about this story. I'm not telling you that the media handled this story perfectly. I'm telling you that the media performed on this story about as well as they ever perform.
The media created the story that Trump was certainly guilty of collusion, and guilty as hell. It convicted in advance.

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.

sebastian_dangerfield 03-26-2019 01:39 PM
Re: Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder (Post 521646)
Okay, but the facts in front of it were that there were known contacts between Russia and people close to Trump and that Trump and those other people kept lying about them.

I mean, it could be the rope-a-dope you mentioned, but none of us think they're capable of being that smart.

Meanwhile, we don't actually know what Mueller found, or what he thought he could prove, or the extent to which the investigation was hampered by Trump's refusal to be interviewed, Manafort's willingness to lie, and the lack of access to witnesses aboard. It's pretty hard to prove a conspiracy if none of the people involved are willing to cooperate about it.

My guess is that those things led Mueller to suspect a lot of stuff he couldn't prove.
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.

I think Trump's real reckoning comes from the SDNY.

BTW, Mueller proved my theory that ex-KGB would never attempt direct contact with fuck-ups in the Trump campaign totally wrong. Apparently, they did. But again, bolstering the argument there was no collusion, Mueller (paraphrased by Barr) found that these offers were ignored or rebuffed.

Adder 03-26-2019 01:48 PM
Re: Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 521658)
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 03-26-2019 01:53 PM
Re: Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 521659)
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 03-26-2019 02:06 PM
Re: Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder (Post 521661)
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 03-26-2019 03:15 PM
Re: Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 521662)
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 03-26-2019 03:32 PM
Re: Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 521657)
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.

Quote:
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 03-26-2019 03:35 PM
Re: Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 521658)
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 03-26-2019 03:40 PM
Re: Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 521662)
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 03-26-2019 04:13 PM
Re: Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 521658)
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).

Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 521658)
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 03-26-2019 04:40 PM
Re: Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same
 
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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 03-26-2019 04:43 PM
Re: Holy shit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 521601)
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 03-26-2019 04:44 PM
Re: Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 521676)
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 03-26-2019 04:51 PM
Re: Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 521667)
And you are their willing fucking tool, tool.
That is going to be the name of my emo chillwave band.

ThurgreedMarshall 03-26-2019 04:52 PM
Re: Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 521676)
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 03-26-2019 04:52 PM
Re: Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 521666)
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 03-26-2019 04:55 PM
Re: Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 521680)
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.

sebastian_dangerfield 03-26-2019 05:02 PM
Re: Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 521678)
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 03-26-2019 05:03 PM
Re: Holy shit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icky Thump (Post 521677)
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 03-26-2019 05:08 PM
Re: Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 521665)
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 03-26-2019 05:09 PM
Re: Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 521682)
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 521682)
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 03-26-2019 05:09 PM
Re: Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower (Post 521679)
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 03-26-2019 05:25 PM
Re: Holy shit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 521692)
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 03-26-2019 05:47 PM
Re: Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 521676)
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.

Quote:
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 03-26-2019 05:52 PM
Re: Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 521681)
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 03-26-2019 06:37 PM
Re: Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder (Post 521698)
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 03-26-2019 06:50 PM
Re: Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 521681)
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:48 PM.
Page 22 of 126 « First 122021 22 23243272122 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Hosted By: URLJet.com