Originally Posted by Icky Thump (Post 521842)

Straight up gangster stick up.

Originally Posted by LessinSF (Post 521840)

Avenatti. Extortion or negotiation?

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 521843)

If it’s political, you lost already, you naive shmuck. Let’s talk about Avenatti.

If you don’t understand the only thing left for you given the political climate and D/R split in the Senate is proof Barr misrepresented Mueller in regard to ability to criminally charge, and win, you’re in Crazyland. I’ve no interest in wading into that place.

If you think “collusion” sticks without a criminal charge, you’re delusional.

Drive this through that brick between your ears: Go to SDNY and nail this guy in a forum where you can win. This Russiagate thing is Over.

Don’t get pissy. You asked for the pragmatic take. I’m being polite.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 521846)

Go fuck yourself and stop being polite. We all understand that Mueller was never going to indict Trump, given DOJ policy, and that this Senate was never going to impeach Trump unless things changed a lot. Things could change a lot if Mueller's reports shows facts that Republicans can't spin away. Or not, if the report is not that damaging or if Barr can keep the report bottled up.

But mostly, go fuck yourself. You parrot the conventional wisdom of the latest news cycle and conservative talking points sanctimoniously even as you pretend you're having an original thought. You simultaneously regurgitate the combined wisdom of CNN, MSNBC and Fox, and complain about how the media got it wrong. Try having an independent thought.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 521847)

Might I start with a fashion tip? A long flowing robe is the perfect accompaniment for a tinfoil mitre. You'll want silver piping, of course.



You didn't expect that Mueller was going to issue a report in which he said that regardless of the DOJ reg on not charging a sitting President, there was not enough to charge Trump or his campaign with conspiracy with Russians. That's a gut punch from which the hardcore Trump haters and a majority of the media that wanted Watergate II is still reeling.

That fucks up the core of the narrative about Russian collusion both politically and legally. Of course you never expected an indictment. But what you wanted, and you did not get, was a finding there were crimes. What pisses you off is that Mueller said, even if Trump were a private citizen, there's not enough to charge conspiracy with Russia. That's the obelisk from 2001 that stares you in the face every time you try to resurrect a claim that Trump conspired with Russians. And so a vague "collusion" assertion is all you have left. And that is a lot of the media's claim now. A sour grapes, petulant, "We didn't care. We knew he'd never indict Trump. But Trump 'colluded' nevertheless, and that's just awful." To that I'd say:

We all knew that already. He did that on national TV. So then what was the significance of this Mueller report you've been telling us was going to change everything and torpedo Trump?

The significance, of course, is that, lathered in your disgust for this man, wrapped up in a self-righteous fervor, You Wanted Him in Criminal Crosshairs. And Mueller fucked you.

You're so deluded that you'll argue with me about whether a majority of the media was at fault here. You can't abide any criticism of anything that attacks Trump. To many here, and on the Left generally, to be a skeptic of the anti-Trump camp is indistinguishable from being pro-Trump. You're emotional. You care too much. It's clouding your powers of reason.

Sometimes, the bad guy wins. Actually, most of the time. In this instance, because the good guys made a strategic blunder by making such a big deal of this report.

And your last pathetic argument, an ad hominen (because when you ain't got much else...), is to assert I parrot mainstream media. Taibbi and Greenwald are many things. Mainstream media they most certainly are not. Where I did cite mainstream media supporting the argument that the majority of the media was to blame here, it was Bloomberg and the Nation. These are not right wing sources and the articles were written by people who dislike Trump.

And the silliness of criticizing me for parroting mainstream media is you've been doing exactly that since the Barr letter was issued. Almost every media outlet that was engaged in a conviction-before-report here has been trying to salvage itself from embarrassment by saying that we don't have all the facts, and Barr is engaged in a cover-up. I just drove ten miles and heard Joe Scarborough rattle off those very points. If anyone's swallowing mainstream media kool aid here, it's you.

It's true we don't have all the material facts on obstruction, and you still have some cards to play there. Barr's declination can be criticized. I ultimately think it's ludicrous to assert that obstruction can be based on things a President does in plain sight, defending himself. I think, equitably, you have a right to try to damage and impede an investigation in any means you like aside from destruction of evidence and witness tampering. (Prosecutors already have a deck stacked far too much in their favor.) But some would disagree. And those people are entitled to see the entire report, as are we all, and use the evidence of what they think constitutes obstruction to make an argument that it should have been charged.

But relitigating the Russian conspiracy? Stop. Your team got outsmarted in the election. (Those of us on neither team, like me, were also outsmarted, figuring Hillary had it in the bag.) And it's not a crime to opportunistically, on national TV, invite the Russians to do what they did. If you want it to be a crime, go pass a law. But stop fucking whining.

ETA: If you want to hear how Trump actually won the election, with the assistance of Cambridge Analytica and Facebook, by suppressing millions of likely Hillary votes and bringing out millions of likely Trump votes, through entirely legal manipulation, listen to Brain McNamee, Zuckerberg's early mentor and now critic, walking Sam Harris through the strategy: https://samharris.org/podcasts/152-trouble-facebook/

Originally Posted by lessinsf (Post 521840)

avenatti. Extortion or negotiation?

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 521848)

I think he's actually arguing on behalf of the Fox folks against NBC and wants us to be CNN, giving equal time to morons. Otherwise, yeah, a lot of hot air, no original thoughts. And no worry about whether any of his thoughts have any basis in reality.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 521851)

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 521852)

[IMG]*

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 521839)

But anyone thinking Barr is materially misrepresenting Mueller on collusion is in Crazytown. That’s just too insane.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 521843)

If you think “collusion” sticks without a criminal charge, you’re delusional.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 521855)

Oh, I definitely think there can be lost votes without a criminal charge.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 521847)

Barr's declination can be criticized.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 521856)

Lost votes in the Senate and lost votes in the election, I agree. But not enough in Senate to convict on impeachment. Mueller gave him too much cover for that, and McConnell will ensure the line holds. Because McConnell knows if the GOP was seen as part of a convicting majority, they'll lose the Trump base, and that's pretty much the end of the GOP.