Trump vs Mueller

Over 18 ONLY! For grown-ups. . .

Moderators: Sluggo, Amskeptic

User avatar
hippiewannabe
Old School!
Status: Offline

Re: Trump vs Mueller

Post by hippiewannabe » Fri Mar 29, 2019 5:16 pm

https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/a3b ... -ken-starr

FRUSTRATED YOU CAN’T READ THE MUELLER REPORT? BLAME KEN STARR
Even Starr ultimately agreed the old law should go. So did Janet Reno, Clinton’s Attorney General at the time. During Congressional hearings about the rules in the spring of 1999, Reno called big final reports a “problem.”

“We believe that information obtained during a criminal investigation should, in most all cases, be made public only if there is an indictment and prosecution, not in lengthy and detailed reports filed after a decision has been made not to prosecute,” Reno told Congress at the time. “The final report provides a forum for unfairly airing a target’s dirty laundry…. We have come to believe that the price of the final report is often too high.”

So in the summer of 1999, the old law was allowed to quietly die, and Reno’s DOJ put new regulations in place, which have governed Mueller’s entire investigation into Trump’s ties to Russia. They are the reason his final report isn’t yet public.
Do you actually think Mueller and the dozens of agents and lawyers and forensic accountants who worked for two years on the investigation would stay silent if Barr and Congress tried to whitewash the report and "put the fix in"?

Sorry about the liberal mob thing, it just seems so fitting for the screaming Democrats and pundits with blood in their eyes.
Truth is like poetry.
And most people fucking hate poetry.

User avatar
Amskeptic
IAC "Help Desk"
IAC "Help Desk"
Status: Offline

Re: Trump vs Mueller

Post by Amskeptic » Fri Mar 29, 2019 7:43 pm

hippiewannabe wrote:
Fri Mar 29, 2019 5:16 pm

“The final report provides a forum for unfairly airing a target’s dirty laundry….
the price is often too high.”
In that case . . . it really was dirty laundry. And it was salacious. And it did not have a thing to do with the Presidency and running the Executive Branch, which you will remember, was filled with talented professionals.

hippiewannabe wrote:
Fri Mar 29, 2019 5:16 pm
Do you actually think Mueller and the dozens of agents and lawyers and forensic accountants who worked for two years on the investigation would stay silent if Barr and Congress tried to whitewash the report and "put the fix in"?
I don't think so, but I don't yet know. I just find that Barr's conclusion was oddly written and craftily focused, and Trump and republicans have been crowing with a bit too much energy. Mueller stated that his findings did not exonerate Trump, and Trump starts bellowing that he is exonerated. WTF? He is a mentally unstable man, way in over his head, and he is in real jeopardy, and so is his family and so is his company. It is not just a bunch of democrats screaming for his head. Really too simplistic. The SDNY has known about Trump and his shenanigans for a long time. You did the read the NYT article on Trump's financial improprieties, yes?

hippiewannabe wrote:
Fri Mar 29, 2019 5:16 pm
Sorry about the liberal mob thing, it just seems so fitting for the screaming Democrats and pundits with blood in their eyes.
That sounds like it is out of Fox Central with Sean Hannity. I don't see any of that. I see people who are very concerned that our nation's values are being ripped to shreds by a liar, people who are very concerned about the abrogation of responsibilities in our Congressional representatives, and if you have a discussion with Adam Schiff or Nancy Pelosi, they are intelligent and thoughtful people. So is Rachel Maddow. She has never overtalked a guest. I am so done with screaming republicans with blood in their eyes shredding Alexandra Ocasio Cortez "socialist!"just like they did Hillary Clinton "lock her up!", attempting to shred Adam Schiff just like they did John Kerry, and then they claim that democrats are the screaming mob? Seriously? Look at the news media environment outside of Fox and Alex Jones, and Rush Limbaugh, try the BBC. We are concerned but we are discussing the issues.
Colin
BobD - 78 Bus . . . 112,730 miles
Chloe - 70 bus . . . 217,593 miles
Naranja - 77 Westy . . . 142,970 miles
Pluck - 1973 Squareback . . . . . . 55,600 miles
Alexus - 91 Lexus LS400 . . . 96,675 miles

User avatar
hippiewannabe
Old School!
Status: Offline

Re: Trump vs Mueller

Post by hippiewannabe » Wed Apr 10, 2019 9:05 pm

No doubt Sean Hannity is the loudest and most obnoxious host out there. I can't stand to listen to him. But Rachel Maddow's sarcasm and condescension, while quieter, is just as focused on de-legitimizing and de-humanizing her opponents. I have never seen her talk over a guest, because the only guests I've seen on her show are allies who tell her how smart she is. I've noticed the latest theme is attacking and de-legitimizing Barr, setting up the narrative, as I predicted, that any redactions of the Mueller report are prima facie evidence of a cover up.

*sigh*
Truth is like poetry.
And most people fucking hate poetry.

User avatar
JLT
Old School!
Location: Sacramento CA
Status: Offline

Re: Trump vs Mueller

Post by JLT » Thu Apr 11, 2019 12:20 pm

hippiewannabe wrote:
Wed Apr 10, 2019 9:05 pm
I've noticed the latest theme is attacking and de-legitimizing Barr, setting up the narrative, as I predicted, that any redactions of the Mueller report are prima facie evidence of a cover up.
Well, it would depend on who sees the original report, and who sees the redacted one. The fact that the AG won't allow even the House Subcommittee on Intelligence see the report (and they all have the necessary clearances) makes me suspect that the redactions may not be intelligence issues at all.

What we need is somebody impartial to review the complete report and make the necessary redactions. Barr is hardly that person, since he's on record as being opposed to the thing in the first place, and he owes too much to Trump. As far as I'm concerned he was de-legitimized from the moment he took office, and Maddow had nothing to do with it.
-- JLT
Sacramento CA

Present bus: '71 Dormobile Westie "George"
(sometimes towing a '65 Allstate single-wheel trailer)
Former buses: '61 17-window Deluxe "Pink Bus"
'70 Frankenwestie "Blunder Bus"
'71 Frankenwestie "Thunder Bus"

User avatar
JLT
Old School!
Location: Sacramento CA
Status: Offline

Re: Trump vs Mueller

Post by JLT » Fri Apr 12, 2019 3:54 pm

There's an interesting article in the New Yorker Magazine about Barr and the Mueller report. Here's the URL:

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019 ... rs-choices

It's by Jeffrey Toobin, who does legal analyses for this and other magazines. He's pretty sharp.

The gist of it is that Barr's "redactions" of the report fall under four categories (to be color-coded for your convenience): matters subject to grand-jury secrecy; classified information; matters relating to other pending investigations; and, finally, “information that would unduly infringe on the personal privacy and reputational interests of peripheral third parties.”

The first category is open to a variety of legal interpretations, depending on how Barr wants to spin it. The second category is the least controversial. Toobin describes the third category as a "black box" since we have no way of knowing how legitimate the redactions might be, given the prosecutors' reluctance to discuss them. So we have to trust Barr.

The fourth one is the most interesting. Toobin calls it "an invention on Barr’s part; there is no law or regulation prohibiting disclosures of this kind." (Direct quote.) And because it's uncharted territory, it's totally up to Barr to determine what those reputational interests are, or what undue infringement might be.

None of this gives me much reassurance that we'll see the facts of the matter. And this is why I see this questioning of Barr's intentions as more than "setting up the report to delegitimatize it," as hippiewannabe characterizes it. But I encourage you all to read Toobin's article and draw your own conclusions.
-- JLT
Sacramento CA

Present bus: '71 Dormobile Westie "George"
(sometimes towing a '65 Allstate single-wheel trailer)
Former buses: '61 17-window Deluxe "Pink Bus"
'70 Frankenwestie "Blunder Bus"
'71 Frankenwestie "Thunder Bus"

Abscate
Getting Hooked!
Status: Offline

Re: Trump vs Mueller

Post by Abscate » Tue Apr 30, 2019 3:43 am

Democrats and their media
Stopped reading there. The beauty of the internet is anyone can get their message out, no one can complain they don’t get access.

Progressives get their news from an average of 8 sources and critically evaluate facts

Cons just parrot Fox.

User avatar
hippiewannabe
Old School!
Status: Offline

Re: Trump vs Mueller

Post by hippiewannabe » Tue Apr 30, 2019 10:12 pm

Abscate wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 3:43 am
Democrats and their media
Stopped reading there. The beauty of the internet is anyone can get their message out, no one can complain they don’t get access.

Progressives get their news from an average of 8 sources and critically evaluate facts

Cons just parrot Fox.
Intellectually lazy progressive camp followers just parrot ad hominem BS they pick up from their many sources, rather than discuss issues and critically evaluate facts.
Truth is like poetry.
And most people fucking hate poetry.

User avatar
Amskeptic
IAC "Help Desk"
IAC "Help Desk"
Status: Offline

Re: Trump vs Mueller

Post by Amskeptic » Thu May 09, 2019 7:44 am

hippiewannabe wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 10:12 pm
Intellectually lazy progressive camp followers just parrot ad hominem BS they pick up from their many sources, rather than discuss issues and critically evaluate facts.
That is a "hot air opinion", Don. If you look at the level of analysis provide by Rachel Maddow and compare it to Sean Hannity, for example, your above statement looks almost like a projection. We have documented evidence that Trump parrots Alex Jones and Sean Hannity to the phrase. They are not especially disciplined in their reports. They are on record for lying on air about Sandy Hook massacre not really happening. Meanwhile, Rachel Maddow has a team of investigators who really do bring the facts to the discussion, as does John Oliver.

Intellectually lazy progressive camp followers ... do you have an example?
Colin
BobD - 78 Bus . . . 112,730 miles
Chloe - 70 bus . . . 217,593 miles
Naranja - 77 Westy . . . 142,970 miles
Pluck - 1973 Squareback . . . . . . 55,600 miles
Alexus - 91 Lexus LS400 . . . 96,675 miles

User avatar
hippiewannabe
Old School!
Status: Offline

Re: Trump vs Mueller

Post by hippiewannabe » Fri May 10, 2019 12:08 pm

Amskeptic wrote:
Thu May 09, 2019 7:44 am
hippiewannabe wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 10:12 pm
Intellectually lazy progressive camp followers just parrot ad hominem BS they pick up from their many sources, rather than discuss issues and critically evaluate facts.
That is a "hot air opinion", Don. If you look at the level of analysis provide by Rachel Maddow and compare it to Sean Hannity, for example, your above statement looks almost like a projection. We have documented evidence that Trump parrots Alex Jones and Sean Hannity to the phrase. They are not especially disciplined in their reports. They are on record for lying on air about Sandy Hook massacre not really happening. Meanwhile, Rachel Maddow has a team of investigators who really do bring the facts to the discussion, as does John Oliver.

Intellectually lazy progressive camp followers ... do you have an example?
Colin
My comment was directed at Abscate. He is the intellectually lazy camp follower who chose to attack "cons", presumably me, personally, using well-worn tropes he learned from his favorite propaganda sources. Let's discuss the issue at hand and debate the validity of facts, rather than simply attack the credibility of your interlocutor.

I have no doubt Rachel Maddow has a huge staff of researchers. What I have seen is they search the world for facts that support their chosen narrative, rather than gather all the data and do a balanced analysis. They spent months and months obsessing about Russian Collusion, then when the report came out saying that didn't happen, they immediately pivoted to obstruction without missing a beat.

I have spent probably less than a combined hour in the last month watching Fox, or MSNBC for that matter. It is entirely possible to gather input from BBC, WSJ, NYT and The Economist, and arrive at a conclusion that is consistent with what Fox is promulgating. That doesn't mean one is parroting what they say.
Truth is like poetry.
And most people fucking hate poetry.

User avatar
Amskeptic
IAC "Help Desk"
IAC "Help Desk"
Status: Offline

Re: Trump vs Mueller

Post by Amskeptic » Fri May 10, 2019 6:45 pm

hippiewannabe wrote:
Fri May 10, 2019 12:08 pm
Rachel Maddow has a huge staff of researchers. What I have seen is they search the world for facts that support their chosen narrative, rather than gather all the data and do a balanced analysis. They spent months and months obsessing about Russian Collusion, then when the report came out saying that didn't happen, they immediately pivoted to obstruction without missing a beat.
We do not know the facts yet, because the Mueller Report is still bottled up. We don;t have the facts yet. Barr has not made it any easier with his word-splitting. I want ALL of Congress to see the report and the supporting documentation. What is so difficult about that? Why are they being so weird about it?
When 700 retired prosecutors have to sign on to a statement that declares that obstruction has occurred, it is at least incumbent upon us to have a look at the full report.

We are also FULLY AT-RISK for more meddling because they have been utterly paralyzed with indifference. Mitch McConnell and Co, Devin Nunes, oh my, history is not going to be kind to them.
Colin
BobD - 78 Bus . . . 112,730 miles
Chloe - 70 bus . . . 217,593 miles
Naranja - 77 Westy . . . 142,970 miles
Pluck - 1973 Squareback . . . . . . 55,600 miles
Alexus - 91 Lexus LS400 . . . 96,675 miles

User avatar
JLT
Old School!
Location: Sacramento CA
Status: Offline

Re: Trump vs Mueller

Post by JLT » Sat May 11, 2019 10:31 am

hippiewannabe wrote:
Fri May 10, 2019 12:08 pm
I have no doubt Rachel Maddow has a huge staff of researchers. What I have seen is they search the world for facts that support their chosen narrative, rather than gather all the data and do a balanced analysis. They spent months and months obsessing about Russian Collusion, then when the report came out saying that didn't happen, they immediately pivoted to obstruction without missing a beat.
Here's the thing about this "collusion" business. It is beyond a doubt that the Russians interfered with our election, attempting to swing the results away from Clinton's election. What was debated was whether the Trump campaign actively contributed to it or encouraged it. There was some evidence pointing to that, mostly documented meetings between Russian functionaries and Trump's campaign staff, but we don't know if Mueller's staff found anything to support it. The un-redacted parts of the report do not clearly state that it "didn't happen," as far as I could see. As for the redacted portions, it's anybody's guess what they say. It should be noted that "collusion" isn't a legal term, in the sense of an indictable charge, so Mueller's staff probably wouldn't have used it. If they did, they'd have to go into the same quicksand that prosecutors wade into when they're bringing charges of racketeering or conspiracy.

But there is really only one person who persists in using the word "collusion" and that is Trump. By accusing the media of trumpeting this issue, he's attempting to defuse it. (And, at this point, I tend to disregard anything Trump asserts. If he told me the sun rose in the east, I'd get up tomorrow morning to check it out.)

As for Maddow cherry-picking the facts, that's a serious charge. It implies that they've found evidence that the collusion and obstruction charges are false, and that they're ignoring it in favor of supporting their "chosen narrative," as you put it. Do you have any sources to support that implication?
-- JLT
Sacramento CA

Present bus: '71 Dormobile Westie "George"
(sometimes towing a '65 Allstate single-wheel trailer)
Former buses: '61 17-window Deluxe "Pink Bus"
'70 Frankenwestie "Blunder Bus"
'71 Frankenwestie "Thunder Bus"

User avatar
Amskeptic
IAC "Help Desk"
IAC "Help Desk"
Status: Offline

Re: Trump vs Mueller

Post by Amskeptic » Sat May 11, 2019 8:20 pm

JLT wrote:
Sat May 11, 2019 10:31 am
hippiewannabe wrote:
Fri May 10, 2019 12:08 pm
I have no doubt Rachel Maddow has a huge staff of researchers. What I have seen is they search the world for facts that support their chosen narrative, rather than gather all the data and do a balanced analysis. They spent months and months obsessing about Russian Collusion, then when the report came out saying that didn't happen, they immediately pivoted to obstruction without missing a beat.
As for Maddow cherry-picking the facts, that's a serious charge. It implies that they've found evidence that the collusion and obstruction charges are false, and that they're ignoring it in favor of supporting their "chosen narrative," as you put it. Do you have any sources to support that implication?

Yes, I would like to see supporting information as well.
Colin
BobD - 78 Bus . . . 112,730 miles
Chloe - 70 bus . . . 217,593 miles
Naranja - 77 Westy . . . 142,970 miles
Pluck - 1973 Squareback . . . . . . 55,600 miles
Alexus - 91 Lexus LS400 . . . 96,675 miles

Post Reply