(05-14-2022, 11:14 AM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah, so what shall we do about that now :)
I could make a thousand points, but maybe just this. I could not imagine Biden calling into an MSNBC show, staying on for over an hour into the next one and talking wildly incoherently about conspiracies (like DNC servers in Ukraine and whatnot) and then have Maddow call him a genius. Would not happen.
I agree this could go back and forth for days. But I will point out that you're talking about the same CNN that was supporting, advising, and protecting Andrew Cuomo for years.
Also, there is this....
Quote:And Tucker spouts so much nonsense and lies that even in court FOX argued that no serious person could ever mistake what he does with truthful news. No CNN or MSNBC host would ever resort to that defense.
That's not quite exactly what was argued, nor did Carlson himself offer that defense. If you dig into it, it's a lot more nuanced than what is being spread around......that "no serious person could ever mistake what he does with truthful news"
(05-14-2022, 04:37 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: I agree this could go back and forth for days. But I will point out that you're talking about the same CNN that was supporting, advising, and protecting Andrew Cuomo for years.
Oh sure, through his brother alone CNN sure had an unhealthy closeness to Cuomo. To be fair, they wouldn't know about his history of harassment. And when they figured how big a role his brother had in Cuomo's doing, he got ousted.
When it became clear that Hannity has an unhealthy closeness to Trump, includigng sharing the same sleazy lawyer, however... well, whatever. That's not too much of a defense and doesn't intend to be. I do not like CNN.
(05-14-2022, 04:37 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: Also, there is this....
Yep, I remember, they sure deserve credit for that. It's often a story of differences within the network. I had a high opinion of Chris Wallace, for example, who no one but Trump mistook for a liberal, but who seemed pretty fair minded, while still being a conservative host on FOX.
On the other side, SFF rightfully reminded me of Joy Reid, and I have a similar opinion than him on her, she's close to the worst FOX offenders to me as well. Not that I know her too well, but from what I heard it seems true.
(I did not know about Tiffany Cross, btw, just if SFF reads this response. I am but a foreigner, after all.)
(05-14-2022, 04:37 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: That's not quite exactly what was argued, nor did Carlson himself offer that defense. If you dig into it, it's a lot more nuanced than what is being spread around......that "no serious person could ever mistake what he does with truthful news" Midway on page 5 https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/7216968/9-24-20-McDougal-v-Fox-Opinion.pdf
Yeah, well, I probably oversimplified that one a bit. Mr. Carlson’s statements “cannot reasonably be interpreted as facts” is still devastating, imho. There isn't much context to change that, it's not like Tucker clearly made a joke or anything. He said McDougal tried to criminally extort Donald Trump, no ninja emoji.
I have to admit though there would have been better points for me to make than this one. It's just so fitting really.
(05-14-2022, 04:37 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: I'd rather not defend Tucker because frankly, I don't like him and his phony and contrived laugh, but I am interested in knowing the truth.
That one I totally get. I don't want to defend CNN either.
And if you hadn't compared Maddow to FOX, I probably would not even have interjected. But that one is just too hard to swallow for me.
(05-14-2022, 04:32 PM)Dill Wrote: But in a nutshell,yes, I am going to pretend CNN, MSNBC and Rachel Maddow are not the equivalent of Fox, if we are talking about the evening commentators. I can do that if I show that I am drawing logically consistent, falsifiable-in-principle conclusions from facts and data, can’t I? And I am even going so far as to say Maddow is a good journalist/commentator, who serves the public interest well.* Can you think of a Maddow episode similarly stoking emotions beyond any factual warrant or promoting a conspiracy theory? Once she claimed to have a Trump tax return for one year, but it turned to be only partial and uninteresting. People cite that one instance sometimes to prove she is no different from Fox. People who have succumbed to Hannity sometimes offer the "Russia hoax" (i.e., the Russia investigation) as an example of Maddow malfeasence, which she covered closely, placing the texts before us as she read and interpreted them, sometimes alongside Barr's version.
See, this is your blind spot.
The "Russian Hoax" is just that, a hoax. The media fell for it hook, line, and sinker. And Maddow was probably the biggest fish to take the bait. Everyone who gets their information from somewhere other than MSNBC knows this.
But not only do you still not realize that it was a big nothing-berger, you label anyone who knows the truth as having "succumbed to Hannity."
The implication being that if you think that Russia-gate wasn't true and that Trump didn't collude with the Russians, you're a right-wing FOX viewing nut job.
It's not just FOX News viewers. I personally don't like Tucker (see above post), can't watch Hannity more than 5 minutes, and can't watch Angry Laura more than 3. So outside of Gutfeld, I DON'T WATCH FOX. Yet here I am, fully aware that Russia-gate was a farce.
Saagar Engeti, Krystal Ball, and Kyle Kulinski are about the furthest you can get from right wing FOX viewers (spoiler...they hate FOX). Pay close attention to the first video and what Kyle says about FOX and Republicans.
(05-14-2022, 04:10 PM)Dill Wrote: Still looks to me like having a dept. devoted to flagging disinformation from Russian troll farms and the like isn’t much different from the Coast Guard interdicting contraband, except a DoDis would not have that enforcement power. Really, who’s to say which drugs/weapons/human cargoes should be classified as legal or illegal? Do we want to leave that up to the government? Well, I am ready to, so long as we understand that government is not some separate entity over and above the people, but something we the people supposedly control and watch over.
Yeah, because the 50 senior intelligence officials sure did nail that Hunter Biden laptop story as coming from Russian troll farms.
(05-14-2022, 10:08 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: See, this is your blind spot.
The "Russian Hoax" is just that, a hoax. The media fell for it hook, line, and sinker. And Maddow was probably the biggest fish to take the bait. Everyone who gets their information from somewhere other than MSNBC knows this.
But not only do you still not realize that it was a big nothing-berger
This just is not accurate. Under no perspective was Russia a big hoax.
Neither was Russian election influence a big hoax, nor was the involvement of Roger Stone to get Podesta's hacked Emails (he was found guilty), that btw. also were actually hacked, or highly indebted Paul Manafort giving away information about the campaign to a Russian oligarch while working as Trump's campaign manager for free (also found guilty on several counts; could you imagine what "nothingburger" that alone would have been for FOX et al. if it were Podesta?), nor was a meeting of Don jr. with Russians that he was told wanted to give away dirt about Hillary. And the FBI led investigation, think of its merit what you will, was also not a hoax, and also not just based on a questionable Steele dossier. Or the Republican-led investigations in House and Senate, or the existence of a special councel appointed by a Republican deputy attorney general, or Sessions lying to the Senate about Russian contacts, all the weird stuff Mr. Flynn was doing. Oh and that's certainly not all of it. The Mueller report also is a looker and not quite the exoneration Trump made it out to be. This is all real and it's all massive news, no matter the outcome, and the media did not invent all this.
Now I can understand if someone claims they reported on Russia too much, ok, I can see that as being reasonable. But calling it a hoax, that is just not true.
(05-14-2022, 10:08 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: See, this is your blind spot.
The "Russian Hoax" is just that, a hoax. The media fell for it hook, line, and sinker. And Maddow was probably the biggest fish to take the bait. Everyone who gets their information from somewhere other than MSNBC knows this.
But not only do you still not realize that it was a big nothing-berger, you label anyone who knows the truth as having "succumbed to Hannity."
The implication being that if you think that Russia-gate wasn't true and that Trump didn't collude with the Russians, you're a right-wing FOX viewing nut job.
YOW! I happened upon your post just before I was going to bed. After listening to 22 minutes of your first youtube item, I thought I should at least say something about that one right away.
Context: apparently Rachel and fellow liberals are raising critical questions about Barr’s summary of the Mueller Report, before the Report has become public. Does it accurately reflect the Report, they ask? Well Kulinski is having none of it. The “hoax” is over, and there is no need to question Barr’s integrity or wait for the Report. IT’S OVER. I distilled three arguments from all the shouting and agitated speech, which I summarize here: 1.If Barr’s summary were off, then Mueller would have publicly said ”Whoa Whoa Whoa! He got it wrong!” (4:17-44). BUT HE DID NOT, which “leads you to believe the summary is correct.” So K. needs Rachel to stop misleading people, to “STOP ALL THE LYING!” 2.“There’s three things you cannot get around,” K. says quoting Barr, whom he believes to be quoting Mueller, “No evidence of collusion,” and “no more indictments coming,” and “no recommendation of impeachment!” So “you can’t obfuscate and deflect your way out of those three facts.” Releasing the report is “not going to change anything.” 7:14-8:31 3.And finally, regarding Rachel’s question 15—“Will Trump recognize that Russia attacked our election?” After calling her “the liberal Glen Beck,” he says “notice what she did there,” using the extreme language-- “attacked us”—to describe a troll farm making memes of a “muscular Bernie Sanders” and “cartoons like Hilary was Satan,” just to get clicks and make money. “This is what they are using to say Russia attacked us.” 11:21-12:54. So the attack on our election did no real damage, and Dems are only upset because the DNC, not the RNC, was hacked. No harm, no foul. Rather than admit she was totally wrong, Rachel is trying to salvage her rep through hyperbole, keeping a non-story alive.
Responding systematically to these arguments: 1.Mueller did publicly question Barr’s summary. It was a pretty big issue in fact. In a letter to Barr on March 27, 2019 he said this: “The summary letter the [Juatice] Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature and substance of this Office’s work and conclusions. We communicated that concern to the Department on March 25. There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigation.” https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/01/politics/mueller-letter-to-barr/index.html 2.Releasing the report did change something. It resulted in a series of hearings, interviews and news reports on the discrepancies between Barr’s summary and the actual report—exactly the question Rachel was raising. It was not that the Report found no collusion whatsoever; both sides were willing, but the level of coordination required for prosecution was not met. Like prostitutes looking for johns and johns cruising for prostitutes, but they keep driving past one another. That so many of the president’s team were talking to spies and eager to collude should not seem a “nothing burger” any more than a discovery that your partner was cruising should seem ok if unsuccessful the time you know about. The most important discrepancy was that Mueller found PLENTY of obstruction, an impeachable offense, and took the time to cite the relevant statues to show the president’s office could not be used to protect him from investigation, nor could it prevent prosecution. Given the numerous offenses, M. EXPLICITLY stated that the Report did not exonerate Trump. However, he said it was beyond his pay grade to indict and prosecute the president. That was the role of Congress. Barr’s intervention totally obscured this hand off to Congress, giving the impression it was only up to Barr to determine whether the Report had found a prosecutable offense. And Trump’s man said “no.” So Barr, stepping beyond his role, jumped out in front of the Report, and thus set the narrative, so troubling to Mueller, of Trump’s total exoneration. And with some help from the RWM, that was amplified to “hoax all along”—as if there was nothing here voters needed to know about a corrupt President and the team protecting him. 3.Regarding the “attack on our election,” the Mueller Report found quite a bit more than memes from troll farms—e.g., efforts to hack into voting registrations. And knowledge of the extent of that attack has increased after 2019. Why was K. so ready to trust the obviously untrustworthy Barr before reading the report? But it’s getting late I and have sleep, so suggestion—tomorrow let’s you and I stop comparing reporters to reporters and take a look at that Mueller Report ourselves. Then Barr’s letter. Once we've done that, we can assess the accuracy of our reporters, ok? If you’ve not read the whole thing before, we can at least review the executive summaries for each section. https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/18/politics/full-mueller-report-pdf/index.html. If that’s too tedious, we might begin with the American Constitution Society’s “Key Findings” https://www.acslaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/ACS-CREW-Final-Mueller-Report-Highlights.7.19.pdf[url=https://www.acslaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/ACS-CREW-Final-Mueller-Report-Highlights.7.19.pdf][/url]
(05-14-2022, 10:09 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: Yeah, because the 50 senior intelligence officials sure did nail that Hunter Biden laptop story as coming from Russian troll farms.
??? Looks like you are aware of some "breaking news" that I am not.
Perhaps some Trump minions and their press "found" a laptop and made some claims about it.
And then maybe some liberal types skeptical of the claims, like Jankowicz, refused to swallow the spin right away.
And then maybe some patiently working group authenticated some of Hunter's emails, which don't incriminate
him for anything, and that group still doesn't know what to make of the files that added after it was no longer in Biden's possession.
And then maybe some right wing types spun that up as "right all along!" and J's skepticism was "a LIE!!!"
Regarding the Report, I've suggested we go to the report and Barr's letter first, then judge from there. In this case, maybe we could start with stuff people are JUST SAYING about the laptop, and then see if we can find what evidence has actually been validated, preferably by forensic and computer professionals?
Bet that would lead us closer to the truth than snark.
Gosh Biz, this one is worse, bad, and in the sad way.
I don't want to work up another long post refuting points. I just want to ask you a couple of questions to help focus critique.
Do you agree with K. that if the FBI/CIA assign "probable" to an intel assessment, that means they have no proof?
Do you agree that "the media" have claimed Trump was a Putin "puppet," and that weapons shipments to the Ukraine (allegedly Trump's) prove them wrong?
This is so far off it just makes me dizzy, but you are offering it as more proof of my blind spot, so you must have some
reason accepting this as the way more credible alternative to Rachel.
(05-15-2022, 10:52 AM)Dill Wrote: In this case, maybe we could start with stuff people are JUST SAYING about the laptop, and then see if we can find what evidence has actually been validated, preferably by forensic and computer professionals?
I like how you threw "by a forensic computer professional" in there as a qualifier, thereby delegitimizing any validation that may come from....The New York Times? https://www.vox.com/22992772/hunter-biden-laptop
Anyway, Im glad that you brought this up. We've kinda spun off topic a bit and this post brings us right back on point.
I really don't give a rats-ass about the personal stuff on the laptop and Im kinda numb to the potential corruption revealed on it, I guess because I truly don't know how much is true and Im saving my anger for when/if it is verified.
My concern is how the story was completely buried in the media and on social media. There was a concerted and successful by effort by Twitter and 51 former intelligence officials, who wrongly alleged that it was Russian disinformation, to suppress the story. The MSM followed suit and failed to cover it, dismissing it Russian disinformation. They all got it wrong. It was/is a real story.
And, bringing it full circle, this is why I am vehemently against disinformation board. If a group of 'former officials' can wield enough power to silence a story, just imagine the power of the actual elected officials and those that they've appointed.
(05-15-2022, 03:01 AM)Dill Wrote: But it’s getting late I and have sleep, so suggestion—tomorrow let’s you and I stop comparing reporters to reporters and take a look at that Mueller Report ourselves. Then Barr’s letter. Once we've done that, we can assess the accuracy of our reporters, ok?
Better yet, why don't we answer the $64,000 question...
"If what is in the Mueller Report is so damning, why hasn't Merrick Garland indicted Trump?"
Not only does he have the power and ability to do so, he's been the Attorney General for 15 months. There's nothing stopping him from doing so.
The Statute of Limitations has already expired on some of the charges and it will expire on several more in the next few months.
Here are some more but they're from an ultra right wing conservative. <----that's sarcasm, *editing for clairity
We've kinda of spun away again into the defend Rachel Maddow topic.
These are more on the topic of the Russian collusion claims by democrats, CNN, and MSNBC that dogged the country for four years.
In fairness, here's a rebuttal regarding the previous post. Note though that what he's actually addressing is FOX News up-spin of the story by falsely claiming that Hillary and the DNC hacked and planted evidence. They did not.
(05-15-2022, 02:22 PM)Dill Wrote: Gosh Biz, this one is worse, bad, and in the sad way.
I don't want to work up another long post refuting points. I just want to ask you a couple of questions to help focus critique.
Do you agree with K. that if the FBI/CIA assign "probable" to an intel assessment, that means they have no proof?
Do you agree that "the media" have claimed Trump was a Putin "puppet," and that weapons shipments to the Ukraine (allegedly Trump's) prove them wrong?
I don't agree with his claim that "probably" means that they have no proof.
But I also don't like that my CIA is using the word "probably" in an assessment of something as important as a Russian investigation. It leaves a gray area where there shouldn't be.
Both can be true.
You also left out sanctions and the pipeline. Why focus only on 1/3 of the evidence? Kyle is dead right in that assessment. It defies the logic that Trump is a Putin puppet. It always has. If you still actually (or ever) believe(d) that Trump is a Putin puppet, then I have no words. It only ever made sense to those with a deep, unhealthy, and irrational hatred of him.
Dr Prasad nails it right here. The fact that a government official, the FDA Commissioner, can make such a wildly absurd and false claim and then suggest that something should be done about it, should give you pause. Especially since he's in a position to heavily influence policy. Watch the whole video but pay particular attention between 2:20 and 4:10 where he perfectly states why a disinformation board is a bad idea.
(05-15-2022, 03:31 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: I don't agree with his claim that "probably" means that they have no proof. But I also don't like that my CIA is using the word "probably" in an assessment of something as important as a Russian investigation. It leaves a gray area where there shouldn't be.
Both can be true.
You also left out sanctions and the pipeline. Why focus only on 1/3 of the evidence? Kyle is dead right in that assessment. It defies the logic that Trump is a Putin puppet. It always has. If you still actually (or ever) believe(d) that Trump is a Putin puppet, then I have no words. It only ever made sense to those with a deep, unhealthy, and irrational hatred of him.
LOL, you put a lot on my plate yesterday, Biz, but I thank you for hanging in there. Don't know if I can get to all of it. Again, my general goal is to keep our focus on primary documents and factual records, and then what can be legitimately inferred from that.
My response to your first Kulinski "report" should have raised a lot of red flags about that guy. E.G. why would a "progressive" rush to trust, of all people, a Barr summary of a report detailing Trump's illegal actions? Now moving to the second, I'll respond to the above with two posts, this one addressing the bolded. If a reporter from the National Enquirer asserts that Trump "probably" paid Jewish moon lizards to control the weather on his golf days, and the reporter won't show us his evidence, then we have a right to dismiss the whole account, even if he appeals to his "expertise" as a journalist. But intel assessments are rather different: they proceed in stages involving scientific as well as interpretive standards, and collective reviews by professionals comprised of both parties and independents. By "stages" I mean types of intel (sigint, geoint, humint, etc.) are collected by one group of people trying to get the basic facts right, and their work is then passed on to another group which "fits" it with already existing intel across types to look for connections and patterns (e.g., 17 different officials from a presidential campaign speaking to Russian spies). "Interpretation" is scrupulously avoided until the final stage by people separate from the previous stages, who may working with analysts from other depts. (Coast Guard, CIA, Army, Treasury) who will create a "product" for policy makers (e.g., the PDB), which may include predictions (e.g., likely Russian troop levels in Belarus one month from now) and will include an assessment of the product's reliability in terms of various levels of CONFIDENCE. Everyone in the profession knows even the highest levels of confidence are still "grey" (to use your term); they are discerning the picture on a jigsaw puzzle with 10, 25, or maybe 60 percent of the pieces. Never 100. And yet, there are times when we need to act, and so have to go with the imperfect picture we have. Ike couldn’t hold up DDay because the Allies were still in the dark about German troop movements near St. Lo. The interpretation at this stage is not political, but simply synthesis and summary--NO POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS WHAT SO EVER. That is solely the province of the client. "Professionals" here means they are at every stage trained to focus on accuracy, producing the best factual product, regardless of which party their product might help or harm A "rogue" agent at the first three levels who text messages a friend about what a douche Biden is can hardly influence the data even if he urgently wants to. So this intel is a very different sort of product from a report by two journalists, reviewed by one or two editors (one of whom may be heavily weighing the profit motive), occasionally in consultation with experts. "Spin" generally begins with the policy maker, who shapes what goes to the news. Or, as in the Bush WH, leavens it with "unprofessional" intel, and then presents the mixture as a professional product. Once the product, or part of it, is out in the public, and people ask about sources, they may only be partially or not at all satisfied, and for good reason. Analysts don't want sources and methods revealed. That's why it was such an international scandal (among our allies' intel agencies) when Trump invited the Russian foreign minister to the White House, parading him around unsupervised, and dropping bits of classified intel. Since our own “fake news” was not invited, this event was reported in Russian state news, which revealed Trump name dropping Israeli sources to impress his guests, and risked one of their asset's life in Syria while negatively affecting trust between our services and that of ALL our allies. (But it is VERY HARD to withhold evidence from someone legally entitled to ALL of it, no matter how highly classified, and hard to control what he does with it.) So someone like your source Kyle, who treats intel assessments the same way we treat NE reporters, either knows nothing of this process or does but is knowingly distorting it so people who don't know will buy the conclusions he wants them to.
Next post I want to examine the alleged claim that Trump was a “Putin puppet,” and consider why it is at least NOT far-fetched to suppose Putin preferred him over all other presidential candidates, Republican or Democrat, and delighted in his performance.
(05-16-2022, 10:19 AM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: Dr Prasad nails it right here. The fact that a government official, the FDA Commissioner, can make such a wildly absurd and false claim and then suggest that something should be done about it, should give you pause. Especially since he's in a position to heavily influence policy. Watch the whole video but pay particular attention between 2:20 and 4:10 where he perfectly states why a disinformation board is a bad idea.
Just a quick note on this.
I agree with Prasad that a government official should not make such a "wildly absurd and false claim," even if it is not a claim like "masks don't work," which might actually lead to deaths.
However, did you also notice that while he is claiming disinformation is so impossibly hard to define and identify, he is defining and identifying it? *
A single official "giving pause" does not really persuade me that "the government" as a whole does not do a good job identifying misinformation, scams and the like in the medical field, or that they should not have an authoritative say in what counts as disinformation here.
Among the causes of distrust in government, he lists politicians misinforming for their own end, but he CONSPICUOUSLY does not list people--corporations, politicians and commentators--sowing and amplifying distrust to enhance their own power. Your Ryan Grimm report focuses on such an example, in taking down the Fox/Watters' claim Hillary planted evidence on Trump's server, etc. That so many Trump followers believe that the vaccine is more dangerous than COVID itself does likely lead to deaths and is NOT a consequence of "government misinformation."
If its misinformation/disinformation really creates "distrust", then how is it that the stream of disinformation flowing from Trump enhances his trustworthiness in the eyes of his followers, while accurate reporting on that disinformation only creates more distrust of MSM among Trump followers? I suppose one could argue that Trump WAS "government" while he was in office, telling us the COVID plague would dissipate by spring. But one could also argue that his COVID mis/disinformation during his last year in office was strengthening Trump trust in MAGA world. For those outside MAGA world, it was not creating distrust in government, but distrust in Trump.
*Prasad claims it is false to say that the number COVID deaths cannot be quantified. It is inherently so. Califf might counter-argue, in this case, that his point was not that it is hard to quantify quantities, but that it is hard to establish the quantify, i.e., difficult to determine which cases were really due to misinformation (e.g., maybe Herman Cain's, and other Trump rally attendees) and which resulted from uncontrollable spread.
(05-17-2022, 10:25 AM)Dill Wrote: However, did you also notice that while he is claiming disinformation is so impossibly hard to define and identify, he is defining and identifying it? *
*Prasad claims it is false to say that the number COVID deaths cannot be quantified. It is inherently so. Califf might counter-argue, in this case, that his point was not that it is hard to quantify quantities, but that it is hard to establish the quantify, i.e., difficult to determine which cases were really due to misinformation (e.g., maybe Herman Cain's, and other Trump rally attendees) and which resulted from uncontrollable spread.
Holy word salad, Batman.
Am I conversing with Kamala Harris?
I think we need to work together so that we can understand that working together will allow us to understand how important it is to work together to better understand how important working together is.
If Im reading that right, Prasad is saying what you are claiming Califf's counter argument would be.
BTW, it has been duly noted that you've yet to answer the question "if what was in the Mueller Report was so damning, why hasn't Merrick Garland indicted Donald Trump?"
Also, you skirted around addressing Biden's new Press Secretary lying and spreading misinformation in 2020 about Brian Kemp stealing the 2018 Georgia Gubernatorial election from Stacey Abrahams.
(05-17-2022, 10:22 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: Holy word salad, Batman.
Am I conversing with Kamala Harris?
I think we need to work together so that we can understand that working together will allow us to understand how important it is to work together to better understand how important working together is.
If Im reading that right, Prasad is saying what you are claiming Califf's counter argument would be.
BTW, it has been duly noted that you've yet to answer the question "if what was in the Mueller Report was so damning, why hasn't Merrick Garland indicted Donald Trump?"
Also, you skirted around addressing Biden's new Press Secretary lying and spreading misinformation in 2020 about Brian Kemp stealing the 2018 Georgia Gubernatorial election from Stacey Abrahams.
Pu$$ie$ like Garland and his Katherine Hepburn vocal impersonation is one of the many reasons that I can't be a Democrat.
And Kemp did steal the election from her.
I explained this situation to the President of the AmVets Post like this.
Imagine you and I are running for President of the post.
I have a 45 to 40 vote advantage three months leading up to the election, but I am in charge of running the election and approving new members.
You, in plenty of time before the cutoff date, recruit 10 new members and pretty much guaranteed yourself of a victory . . . but since I'm in charge of the election and approving new members, I just let those applications sit on my desk until after the election.
(05-17-2022, 10:22 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: Holy word salad, Batman.
Am I conversing with Kamala Harris?
I think we need to work together so that we can understand that working together will allow us to understand how important it is to work together to better understand how important working together is.
If Im reading that right, Prasad is saying what you are claiming Califf's counter argument would be.
BTW, it has been duly noted that you've yet to answer the question "if what was in the Mueller Report was so damning, why hasn't Merrick Garland indicted Donald Trump?"
Also, you skirted around addressing Biden's new Press Secretary lying and spreading misinformation in 2020 about Brian Kemp stealing the 2018 Georgia Gubernatorial election from Stacey Abrahams.
Sounds like you missed my point about Prasad. YOu think it "word salad" if I say that identifying misinformation (and rather easily at that), is not the best way to argue that identifying misinformation is too difficult to entrust to government? What do you think his argument is? Is yours that, because one official tried to scare people into taking a serious problem seriously, government is not to be trusted with vetting and promulgating medical research/information? For the history of small pox and polio vaccine have settled that. I'm glad the government steps in to insure that our food is hygienically prepared. I'm glad they protect dying people from scams like Laetrile. I'll bet Prasad agrees. So why is he using this minor example to undermine trust in government in general?
As for Garland and the Mueller Report, I think the Juresic/Wittes article sums it up well enough. They give 5 reasons why Garland may or may not be acting on this. I am fine with everything they say. What could I add? I hope you are not trying to argue that if Garland is not prosecuting, then the documented obstruction really wasn't there, and really wasn't illegal.
You have thrown up a lot of Youtube presentations. It would be difficult to respond to all. And it seems a bit one sided if I write
pages of critique and then you just post MORE videos or articles and want immediate answers, as if I were somehow shirking or deflecting.
Look at the work I have put into the first one you sent. Your man clearly had Mueller Report wrong. He was clearly
mislead by Barr, and was misleading his viewers. But you have not addressed that at all. Do you agree with my critique?
So to repeat myself--why not begin with primary sources, with the Report itself, BEFORE throwing out other people's opinions as a kind of proxy argument? Why trust THEM before working through the evidence yourself? What is your arguments in your words, based on what? Mueller says Trump obstructed justice a number of ways, attempting to falsify documents and firing someone investigating him. That did Nixon in. So before you again show me what someone else said, tell me if YOU think Trump obstructed justice, and if not, why not? Do you agree that he did what Mueller says he did? If not, why not?
Meantime, on my side, I want to continue with the second "Russiagate" video. I'm kind of busy but hopefully I can post that tomorrow.
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
