Ministry of Truth?

[Dill]

(05-20-2022, 05:33 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: That's why I am asking you if you agree or disagree that Trump did what Mueller said he did,

and if you agree, whether you think Trump's actions were against the law. 
If you don't think they were against the law, would you also argue that they shouldn't be--that a president who obstructs an investigation into his actions is well within his rights, and shouldn't be subject to accountability? 

If we agree with Mueller that Trump did what he did, and if we agree with the law that it was wrong,
then I don't see how one could argue back from non prosecution to say "no case there." 

Sure, to read the MR I would probably say 'yeah it sounds like Trump did those things. And yes if he did, they're against the law.' But at this point and until they're proven in a court of law, they're really just accusations. It's one side. So to say that he definitively did them....? IDK. Give me a trial, then I will KNOW for sure. But Garland isn't doing that and his opportunity to do so is rapidly evaporating. So really, we can talk until we're blue in the face, but we will never really know for sure.  Show. Me. The indictment. 

Your legal logic is still questionable.
 
I can think of plenty of instances in which prosecutors, judges and ordinary citizens would agree that a crime has "definitively" been committed, even if no one is charged. E.g., if police find a body with hands tied and a bullet hole in the back of the head, or someone embezzles a million dollars from your local bank. Few would say those cases only "sound like" crimes, and we cannot know for sure until there is an indictment.
 
In the above examples, there is only a question of who did it. But there is no such question of who, in a public interview with Lester Holt, confirmed that he repeatedly asked Comey if Trump himself was under investigation, and then had the “made-up [Russia investigation] story” in mind when he fired him. https://www.factcheck.org/2017/05/trump-fire-comey/.* There is no question that WH and DOJ officials—Trump’s own men—are ON RECORD as refusing to carry out Trump directions to hinder investigation—including to fire Mueller.
 
But you can’t be sure Trump actually did the things we saw him do in public interviews, or that his own people testify to, unless there is a trial? You can’t be sure the law says these actions are wrong?
 
*Post Mueller, Trump has also, in a public interview, claimed that firing Comey saved his presidency.
https://news.yahoo.com/trump-draws-attention-admission-fired-145805083.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall

(05-20-2022, 05:33 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: Are you faulting Garland for NOT indicting when you think he should?
Or are you, as I wondered, arguing that if Trump has not been indicted then there must not be a case there, and that's why Garland has no "confidence"? Not because (as J and W suggest in one of their hypotheses) the DOJ is swamped with other Trump damage--1/6 and the Green Bay Sweep? 

The Statute of Limitations has already expired on several of the charges in the Mueller Report with several more expiring by the end of summer. 
Why if there was anything that Garland thought significant enough and was a strong enough case to win against Trump, would he not indict, especially given that their SOLs are expiring? 

Lol, that makes zero sense. It's now or never with several of the charges in the MR. Given the SOLs, don't you think that those crimes should take precedence over 1/6 and the GB Sweep? You and J and W are suggesting that they're going to just give up on the chance to ever prosecute the crimes in the Mueller Report because of 1/6 whose SOLs won't be expiring for another 4 plus years. 

Well no, I don't think Trump obstruction charges should take precedence over 1/6 and the Green Bay Sweep. A direct attempt to subvert the valid results of a presidential election originating within the Executive, and coordinating RNC members in seven states with sitting members of Congress, is a FAR MORE SERIOUS CRIME with far more serious consequences for democratic government.

 
The results of Trump obstruction should have been impeachment. Trump is past that now. If charged now, the result would at best be fines and perhaps some imprisonment, what others have gotten for much less obstruction. Further, as J and W explain, that prosecutors have allowed the SOL to run out on some of the MR’s charges doesn’t mean they will allow the more serious ones to elapse. So it's a bit premature to write that off, and illogical to assume that absence of prosecution is somehow evidence the obstruction didn't occur.
 
Trump’s party protected him from illegally disrupting U.S. foreign policy to coerce an ally into creating disinformation helpful to Trump's re-election campaign, and the Senate could not even impeach him for siccing a mad crowd on the Capitol to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power and threaten their own lives. This continued placing of party above the law brings us to another point:
 
There is a statute of limitations on the 1/6 and Green Bay Sweep investigations as well—much shorter than any MR charges against Trump. If the Republicans win Congress in 2022, the Republican Party leadership will end investigations into the Republican Party leadership. 

[Dill]

(05-26-2022, 07:40 AM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: No, you literally said there was a SOL on 1/6 and GBS that was shorter than what was in the MR. If I missed the point, it's the way in which you conveyed your point. 

What I "literally" said was this: 

(05-24-2022, 02:36 PM)Dill Wrote: There is a statute of limitations on the 1/6 and Green Bay Sweep investigations as well—much shorter than any MR charges against Trump. If the Republicans win Congress in 2022, the Republican Party leadership will end investigations into the Republican Party leadership. 

The second statement defines what I meant by the first. It explains why the Dems have a short time in which to finish these investigations. That's how I "conveyed my point." It's like you read the two sentences, set together in a paragraph, as if they had no relation to one another--as if the first were a claim about the law and second about an altogether different topic.

(05-26-2022, 07:40 AM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: Even so, it still makes no sense. If you're up against the clock because of the mid terms, why would you not indict on something, anything that you can rather than try to rush to build an investigation before a November deadline? Especially if a key goal is to prevent Trump from running in 2024. From the way I understand it, that was the driving reason behind the 2nd impeachment, so why wouldn't you move to indict since a conviction would accomplish the same thing? 

The goal of ANY impeachment is to prevent the impeached from holding government office ever again. The "key goal" of an obstruction prosecution would be to determine whether laws have been broken and if so, whether the law breakers can and should be prosecuted. However much House Dems might want to find the prosecution track which will convict Trump of at least something, that is not how the DOJ works under non-Trump administrations.

(05-26-2022, 07:40 AM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: Also, you're assuming that it's either/or, that the government can't walk and chew gum at the same time. The government is fully capable of doing both, indicting Trump on what's in the MR while continuing to investigate the GBS and 1/6. 

Actually, I am not sure what the gov. is "capable" of in this case, in terms of resources. I'm not assuming that both cases cannot be prosecuted at the same time, but I don't have a clear idea of how the prosecution of the insurrection and GBS are soaking up time and resources. 

(05-26-2022, 07:40 AM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: No indictment = not a strong enough case to win in court. Not a strong enough case to win in court = we really don't know for sure and we can only speculate. 

Added thought....
See what you are doing here? You know damn well that if there was enough evidence, or strong enough evidence in the MR, that Garland would've indicted Trump by now, especially in light of the expiring SOLs. You don't just throw away the time, money, effort, and the stress that the country endured because something something bigger came along in 16 and GBS, or whatever other excuse has been offered up. 

Surely you don't believe that but here you are convincing yourself that is the case so that you don't face the facts about the MR. And this is what Im talking about when I say come to the Indy side. You wouldn't have to twist yourself in knots trying to defend the MR.

So you still have not taken the trouble to actually read the charges/relevant law in the MR, while telling me that I "don't face the facts about the MR."  

Instead of reasoning forward from the facts of the case and law you yourself have assessed, you continue reasoning backwards that no prosecution yet means, in principle, that no crime was ever committed--as if AG's ALWAYS prosecute EVERY possible charge against a criminal, rather assessing which are most worthy of court time and resources. As if everything you "know" about the MR isn't just what someone else told you--and in the case of one of your most highly rated Youtube sources, someone who like you, has clearly not read the document while appealing to "the facts." 

And you are simply dismissing the rather comprehensive and plausible legal explanations given in your own link to J and W., including 1) a possible challenge to DOJ resources, which makes time better spent in pursuit of the more serious stuff, and 2) that indictments are being prepared, we just don't know about them. That's just looking for any old reason to believe what you want to believe about the report, without actually reading it yourself. 

Why would an "independent" spend so much time dismissing the validity of charges against Trump while remaining an arms length away from the evidence? 

[Dill]

(05-20-2022, 05:36 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: Quote:he sent more troops to Syria, supposedly to "combat Russian influence." But Obama first sent troops there to fight ISIS, and Mattis resigned because Trump was pulling them out after Al Baghdadi was killed, leaving hundreds of our Kurdish allies to be killed by the Turks. 

Do you think that it was a bad idea for Biden to pull troops out of Afghanistan? 
Answer carefully (this should be interesting). 

Don't want to forget this.

Yes, I do think it was a bad idea for Biden to pull troops out of Afghanistan.

So what do you find "interesting" here?

[StrictlyBiz]

(05-27-2022, 08:25 AM)Dill Wrote: Well no, I don't think Trump obstruction charges should take precedence over 1/6 and the Green Bay Sweep. A direct attempt to subvert the valid results of a presidential election originating within the Executive, and coordinating RNC members in seven states with sitting members of Congress, is a FAR MORE SERIOUS CRIME with far more serious consequences for democratic government.

 
The results of Trump obstruction should have been impeachment. Trump is past that now. If charged now, the result would at best be fines and perhaps some imprisonment, what others have gotten for much less obstruction. Further, as J and W explain, that prosecutors have allowed the SOL to run out on some of the MR’s charges doesn’t mean they will allow the more serious ones to elapse. So it's a bit premature to write that off, and illogical to assume that absence of prosecution is somehow evidence the obstruction didn't occur.
 

Again, they can do both. They can indict and they can continue to investigate and work to prosecuting 1/6 and GBS. 
If they have the evidence AND they feel that it is enough to convict, there's nothing stopping them from indicting him. 

The ONLY reason to impeach a past President is to stop him from running again. If impeachment is no longer an option, then indicting him a getting a conviction will accomplish the same. 

Maybe they will indict him on some of the charges with sol's expiring later. But so far, about 1/2 of them have either or are going to expire. 

Quote:What I "literally" said was this: 
"There is a statute of limitations on the 1/6 and Green Bay Sweep investigations as well—much shorter than any MR charges against Trump. If the Republicans win Congress in 2022, the Republican Party leadership will end investigations into the Republican Party leadership. "

The second statement defines what I meant by the first. It explains why the Dems have a short time in which to finish these investigations. That's how I "conveyed my point." It's like you read the two sentences, set together in a paragraph, as if they had no relation to one another--as if the first were a claim about the law and second about an altogether different topic.

It's only clear to you because you know what you were trying to say. Had you put 'statute of limitations' in quotes and/or started your second statement with "And that statute is..." or something similar, it would be more clear. 
But here we are yet again taking another diversion.

Quote:What the Clinton campaign "wanted" is pretty clear from Hilary's tweet. "Federal authorities" should investigate the server communication between the Trump server and Alpha Bank, hopefully finding out why Trump is so soft on Putin.

No, the tweet came well after one of their lawyers, Michael Sussman, went to the FBI "as a concerned private citizen" and told them about the Alpha Bank server. He's currently on trial for lying to them. What Clinton wanted and got was an October Surprise. 

Quote:Also, you seem to assume there is something inherently unethical in reporting on "incomplete" investigations. Yet that often is in the public interest.  If a Trump lawyer is arrested for fraud, journalists should not wait until the trial is over to report that. If that lawyer claims he arranged hush money for one of Trump's porn star sexual partners, that is also legitimate news before court findings, especially if the checks are there for the court to view. 

No, it's not unethical to report on an incomplete investigation. What is unethical is the way in which the article was written. Don't be naive, you know exactly what the writer was after.

[Dill]

(05-30-2022, 03:47 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: No, it's not unethical to report on an incomplete investigation. What is unethical is the way in which the article was written. Don't be naive, you know exactly what the writer was after.

I've asked you to demonstrate what you think was wrong with the Slate article. Why not do that instead of just claiming the way it was written was "unethical."  What would have to be different to pass muster for you?  

I mentioned points about that article which I think indicate good journalism in post # 258.

I don't understand why you call Foer's Slate article "highly suggestive." A RWM article demanding to know why the MSM is ignoring the Hilary sex trafficking rumors is highly suggestive. But reporting on how computer scientists cross check the results of their investigation into an anomaly everyone agrees is there, certainly is not. Again, HOW does this place "party over journalistic standards"? Select a line from Foer's article which you think exemplifies this, and then show me how an “independent” would rewrite it. If you cannot, then you are just shooting the messenger.

The remark "It's hard to evaluate the findings of an investigation that hasn't ended" was in reference to Alpha Bank's internal investigation, not the investigation into the link between Trump org. and Alpha Bank, which the scientists were currently working on.

All through his article. Foer reports people trying to figure out what is going on, but admitting their bafflement. Yet you claim that it is only at the end of this very long piece that Foer disclaims "We don't yet know what this server was for," as if that uncertainty hadn't been FRONT AND CENTER the entire article.  

[Dill]

(05-30-2022, 03:47 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: Again, they can do both. They can indict and they can continue to investigate and work to prosecuting 1/6 and GBS. 
If they have the evidence AND they feel that it is enough to convict, there's nothing stopping them from indicting him. 

The ONLY reason to impeach a past President is to stop him from running again. If impeachment is no longer an option, then indicting him a getting a conviction will accomplish the same. 

Maybe they will indict him on some of the charges with sol's expiring later. But so far, about 1/2 of them have either or are going to expire. 

Nothing new here.

Of course they can do both--unless, of course, they are resource challenged because of other Trump mischief, and so, as many prosecutors
do, focus on what they think will get a crook off the streets.

Al Capone was convicted on income tax evasion, not murder and raketeering

--although the latter were crimes, even if he was not convicted for them. 

[StrictlyBiz]

(05-30-2022, 11:28 PM)Dill Wrote: Nothing new here.

Of course they can do both--unless, of course, they are resource challenged because of other Trump mischief, and so, as many prosecutors
do, focus on what they think will get a crook off the streets.

Al Capone was convicted on income tax evasion, not murder and raketeering

--although the latter were crimes, even if he was not convicted for them. 

All I am reading are excuses. 
You don't spend $32M of the publics money investigating serious criminal allegations, all while putting the country through a political and emotional wringer, to not indict because all of the sudden you're too busy with other stuff....which have SOLs that are still 3+ years away.

It defies logic. 

[StrictlyBiz]

(05-30-2022, 11:23 PM)Dill Wrote: I've asked you to demonstrate what you think was wrong with the Slate article. Why not do that instead of just claiming the way it was written was "unethical."  What would have to be different to pass muster for you?  

I mentioned points about that article which I think indicate good journalism in post # 258.

I don't understand why you call Foer's Slate article "highly suggestive." A RWM article demanding to know why the MSM is ignoring the Hilary sex trafficking rumors is highly suggestive. But reporting on how computer scientists cross check the results of their investigation into an anomaly everyone agrees is there, certainly is not. Again, HOW does this place "party over journalistic standards"? Select a line from Foer's article which you think exemplifies this, and then show me how an “independent” would rewrite it. If you cannot, then you are just shooting the messenger.

It's hard to cite a singular line from an article when the entire thing is an absolutely sensationalized piece of propaganda, force fed from the Clinton campaign. 

This wasn't investigative journalism, it was nothing more than a summary of CrowdStrike's findings while investigating the DNC email hack that was aggressively pushed out to the media by Fusion GPS. I'll concede that Foer did a good job of summarizing the technicalities of CrowdStrikes findings, but that's it. The rest his pure garbage. A legitimate journalist with integrity would've sought out independent sources to discover, explain, and understand any inconsistencies with CrowdStrike's findings before writing the article. Foer didn't. He only sought outsiders who supported the underlying theme that this was something nefarious from the Trump campaign. 

https://theintercept.com/2016/11/01/heres-the-problem-with-the-story-connecting-russia-to-donald-trumps-email-server/
https://blog.erratasec.com/2016/11/debunking-trumps-secret-server.html#.YpXcipPMIqt

Fusion shopped this story around to several journalists who investigated and decided against running it. Until they found their rube, their useful idiot in Foer. This story was pushed to the New York Times, Reuters, and ABC among others. All of which refused to report on it. 

Peter Fritsch, a Fusion lawyer, emailed to a Reuters reporter “do the ***** alfa bank secret comms story...it is hugely important. forget the wikileaks sideshow” To an ABC reporter he emailed "dude this is huge."


And then they found their dupe. Foer's email reply to Fritsch.....
"My editors are very excited about this piece...We’ve been at the vanguard of the Russia story and they want to keep aggressively pushing. They can’t understand the tentativeness of the Times. We know that we need to move quickly. Anything you could do to help connect me with the source would help immensely. This is a big deal story. One of the biggest of the campaign"


Yeah, they're non-partisan and w/o an agenda 


And what does Foer do? He writes the piece and then SENDS A FULL PREPUBLICATION BACK TO FRITSCH to proof read it? Are you kidding me? And you claim that this was somehow not equivalent to Trump going to Hannity? IT'S THE EXACT SAME THING! I find it comical that you said the campaign gave it to the reporter so that he could vet the story, and it turns out that his 'vet-ing' was to go back to the source and ask for a review.  Well, duh how do you think that's going to turn out? Is that unethical enough for you? (my guess is, no)


https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/alfa-bank-ping-russiagate/



This whole story is a closed loop, a bubble, an echo chamber, and you're stuck squarely in the middle.
1. CrowdStrike finds something questionable
2. Fusion takes these findings, aggressively shops them to the media
3. Finds it's dupe in Foer 
4. Foer verifies it by going BACK TO THE SOURCE
5. Foer writes the sensationalized hit piece
6. People who are predisposed to hating Trump eat it up like candy because its WHAT THEY WANT TO HEAR RUSSIA! RUSSIA! RUSSIA!


Most people now know that this story is phony and dismiss it as such. Congrats on being part of the very few who are willing to go down with the ship. If nothing else, I admire your loyalty. You're so far in, you'd make Joe McCarthy blush. 



  

[Dill]

For some reason, I keep getting an error message when I try to reply to the above email, so I am trying this route.

I am traveling right now and on internet only intermittently, using the time to read your sources.

In the meantime, I have these three points:

1. If you can tell the Slate article is "sensationalized propaganda," it should be VERY EASY to pick out examples. NOT HARD. E.g., that's what I took the time to do with your first K.K. youtube post. I saw the errors and exposed them. Kyle said if Barr misrepresented Mueller, Mueller would say so.* I showed that Mueller DID say so. Kyle said reading the MR would not change anything Barr concluded. I showed how, for the rest of the world, it did just that. And I just did something similar on another thread regarding a Hill article. I am doing the critical unpacking MYSELF in each case, based on knowledge of primary documents.

2. So far, it looks like you find out what others say about an article; then your argument is--"there, what he said!" I still cannot tell if you have actually read the slate article, because you say things like this:

A legitimate journalist with integrity would've sought out independent sources to discover, explain, and understand any inconsistencies with CrowdStrike's findings before writing the article. Foer didn't. He only sought outsiders who supported the underlying theme that this was something nefarious from the Trump campaign.

Foer clearly did seek out many "outsiders," showing how he cross-checked claims among different computer scientists and their response to "inconsistencies." I.e., he actually did what you said he should have done. And how have you determined none of these outsiders are "independent"? How do you know that those who "supported the underlying theme" did not do so because the evidence convinced them? And what IS the underlying them according to Foer? Can you use HIS words to explain, rather someone else's? That's the only way I can be sure you know what Foer actually claimed and DID NOT claim.

3. Going back to a primary source for preview is common when reporters deal with "expert" topics, to make sure they got the sources views/statements right. But that is not the "vetting" Foer was expected to do. That's what occurred when he cross checked a number of computer scientists with each other.

*The logic here is similar to your attempt to de-criminalize Trump's obstruction by saying "It has not been prosecuted. So there can't be anything there."

[Forever Spinning Vinyl]

I can't use the quote function either. It keeps giving me an error message for most of today.

[treee]

---

https://www.dhs.gov/ntas/advisory/national-terrorism-advisory-system-bulletin-june-7-2022

DHS notes foreign actors are actively contributing to the incitement of unstable individuals in the US