Sorry to throw myself into a debate that does fine without me, I just want to make one point. I don't know about Americans, but for me the whole Russia affair did not just circle around the question whether Trump did something illegal. It was way more about whether he did morally reprehensible things. And that he absolutely did, the Mueller report alone is full of it. Having a campaign manager that passes on information to a Russian he owes money to, having someone contact Assange for leaking the Hillary emails, all kinds of attempts to break the law that were only prohibited by others, eg McGann saying the president wants him to do crazy shit, the constant lieing to the public about Russian interference, the Helsinki embarrassment (ok not in Mueller, but still) and so on and so forth. If there would have been an indictment without the special AG policy is unknown, but that policy hindered it in principle, even if Barr lied about that initially. And Garland might be well advised to not pick up an issue that is 50/50 no matter the facts. But how important is that in the greater light of things, eg. of a president that clearly shows how little regard he has for the law or for any sort of honorable principles.
How so many believed this ended up being a win for him is uncomprehensible to me.
So Hillary approved a false story of Trump's connection to a Russian bank. Her people went to the media and ultimately the secret service with it. Then puts out a tweet saying.. Heh look what they found.... Good stuff. And her own people are saying this happened.
(05-20-2022, 05:40 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: Yes. Yes it's the same. It's Russian disinformation designed to affect the outcome of our election. It's just delivered differently. One through cyber channels, the other through Clinton operatives and an obsessed and deranged media who lapped it up and regurgitated it because they hated Trump.
I probably won't get to your posts until tomorrow.
But a couple of questions here, at least:
1. Who determined there was "Russian disinformation" in the Steele Dossier, and how?
2. Given the dossier's existence and circulation, should any news organization have reported on it?
3. When you speak of "obsessed and deranged media who lapped it up and regurgitate it because they hated Trump," I am not sure exactly what you mean and whom you are referring to. These are Hannity-style adjectives and attributions of motivation, not Maddow-style.
Are you saying or implying that reporters believed the dossier and reported it as factual finding, as opposed to reporting its existence and provenance, with precautions? "Media" here includes whom or what?
So Hillary approved a false story of Trump's connection to a Russian bank. Her people went to the media and ultimately the secret service with it. Then puts out a tweet saying.. Heh look what they found.... Good stuff. And her own people are saying this happened.
???????????
There is no evidence to support Musk's claim that Sussmann or the Clinton campaign peddled information they knew was untrue. Multiple witnesses testified that respected cyber experts harbored genuine national security concerns about the data. Sussmann's lawyers repeatedly said he had no reason to doubt the accuracy of the material when he provided it to the FBI.
(05-21-2022, 08:33 PM)Dill Wrote: I probably won't get to your posts until tomorrow.
But a couple of questions here, at least:
1. Who determined there was "Russian disinformation" in the Steele Dossier, and how?
It's common knowledge to anyone who doesn't rely solely on CNN, MSNBC, and Rachel Maddow for their news. It's been slowly debunked over the past several years with the most recent shoe to drop being the arrest of Igor Danchenko in November. If you're sourcing the previous news agencies for your news, you probably don't know about him.
Quote:2. Given the dossier's existence and circulation, should any news organization have reported on it?
Responsibly? Yes.
Responsible is hardly how it was reported on
|
|
|
\|/
Quote:3. When you speak of "obsessed and deranged media who lapped it up and regurgitate it because they hated Trump," I am not sure exactly what you mean and whom you are referring to. These are Hannity-style adjectives and attributions of motivation, not Maddow-style.
Are you saying or implying that reporters believed the dossier and reported it as factual finding, as opposed to reporting its existence and provenance, with precautions? "Media" here includes whom or what?
"Precautions"
Unless you include the 5 second disclaimer @ 6:40, there were absolutely zero "precautions" in this entire off-the-rails and looney conspiracy theory 12 minute and 27 second video of misinformation.
Maddow heavily implies that the Russians are blackmailing Trump, even going as far as to strongly suggest Obamas last second build up of troops to Europe is due directly Trump being compromised.
Maddow was obsessed with Trump and it's painfully obvious to anyone except her most ardent fans.
There is no evidence to support Musk's claim that Sussmann or the Clinton campaign peddled information they knew was untrue. Multiple witnesses testified that respected cyber experts harbored genuine national security concerns about the data. Sussmann's lawyers repeatedly said he had no reason to doubt the accuracy of the material when he provided it to the FBI.
Three things
1. This is the last paragraph from the article. It is the authors opinion. Every bit of the article before it is not opinion, but rather the reporter reporting the facts. Oddly, he injects his opinion in at the end. This is a big problem with all media today, opinion is often injected into the facts and presented as such. It is very hard to differentiate.
2. So now for something to be labeled misinformation, it has to be false and knowingly distributed as such? Is that how you want to define it now? Im cool with it, just be consistent. Just realize that someone who is telling people to ingest Safe-Guard Equine Paste Horse Dewormer for covid isn't misinformation if that person has horses and notices that Ivermectin is an active ingredient and truly believes that he can eat it to treat CV
3. "A campaign staffer later passed the information to a reporter from Slate magazine, which the campaign hoped the reporter would "vet it out, and write what they believe is true," Mook said."
Really? That doesn't strike you as, at the very least, irresponsible, and at the very worst willfully ignorant knowing what it was going to lead to?They're admitting that the Clinton campaign wasn't sure if it was true, but passed along anyway and hoped that the media would verify it for them? C'mon, how would you react if it was found out that the Trump people passed along a story to FOX in hope that Hannity would verify it. You'd be okay with it?
(05-22-2022, 04:23 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: Really? That doesn't strike you as, at the very least, irresponsible, and at the very worst willfully ignorant knowing what it was going to lead to?They're admitting that the Clinton campaign wasn't sure if it was true, but passed along anyway and hoped that the media would verify it for them? C'mon, how would you react if it was found out that the Trump people passed along a story to FOX in hope that Hannity would verify it. You'd be okay with it?
This did happen all the time though. Eg. Obama spied on me, that sick guy! Hannity, go out and 'verify' it.
The actions of the Clinton team probably weren't squeaky clean. I am willing to cut them some slack. They faced an opponent that contacted Assange for timed hacked Hillary emails leaks and made imprisoning Hillary a chant for the masses. Which is a bit of a gloves off situation.
I really should stop interrupting though. Last time.
(05-09-2022, 10:45 AM)hollodero Wrote: But these debates in the end always lead me to the point that there's a reason why so many non-liberal people are so willingly swallowing each and every anti-liberal talking point. Imho it's not just them being them, but there's an external factor to that, it being that so many liberals feel and outright claim they are the side of reason, decency, humanity, intelligence etc and therefore the other side are those primitive, backwards rubes that oppose those noble things. From observing debates, I can understand why there's so much anger towards the liberal side that imho often reeks of sheer arrogance.
And in the end, creating such a board plays right into that narrative. At the very least it deepens the trenches even further. At least that's my take.
(05-09-2022, 12:42 PM)hollodero Wrote: For sure, I can not really answer your question on what to do instead. My approach often is to stop the conviction terror and to not be so arrogant towards the conservatives, that might lead to an actual conversation instead of trading insults and digging in. I get why that does not fare well with you, for you do not really see this arrogance as part of the problem the way I do. I also have to acknowledge that it is a tough ask to not be arrogant towards people that claim Trump is the savior, a genius, the smartest person on earth who never lies and so on. To me, your system created the perfect everlasting rift and Trump is the perfect specimen for it. He's actually everything the liberals perceive republicans to be. But one could try to be better still, especially with those that also dislike Trump (or say the style Trump represents), but just dislike liberals even more. Which imho are more people than the actual Trump fans.
If I understand you correctly here, Hollo, you are asserting a cause/effect relation—a fairly strong and uncomplicated one—such that liberal “arrogance” leads “non-liberal people” to “willingly [swallow]each and every anti-liberal talking point.” You believe it an important, perhaps primary, driver of illiberal anger. You’ve brought this up twice on this thread and at least once before on another thread, in response to my posts, and you note, in the bolded, that your claim “does not fare well with [me],” that I don’t see “arrogance as part of the problem the way [you] do.” The latter part is correct. Since the issue is likely to rise again, I’m taking a little time to explain why I don’t spend much time addressing “liberal arrogance,” or even see it as an important driver of illiberal anger.
First point to make here is that while “both sides do it,” as you acknowledge, in your reference to self-proclaimed “stable genius” (whose arrogance, you might agree, is exponentially greater than any liberal example), both sides are not equally grieved. Maddow does not go on every night about the illiberal elites who think they know more than everyone else, whereas such projected snobbery is the staple of many Fox commentators, mixed with distrust of government. It is common in the character attacks used to undermine Dem politicians and government officials.
Second point—complaints about “liberal arrogance” are not always about actual arrogance. The charge that “liberals” act like smarty pants goes back to the 19th century, post-Civil War, when U.S. universities converted to the German research model and linked to the economy and government. Suddenly “experts” were teaching Darwin’s theory of evolution, historical criticism of the Bible, and sociological theories about the origins of poverty in something other than laziness were being considered in policy circles. By the Scopes trial of 1925, newspaper commentators like H.L. Mencken were writing pieces which referred to the anti-science crowd as “rubes” and ignoramuses, certainly, but this was hardly a consensus view, as plenty of journalists thought it the height of stupidity to suppose people “came from monkeys.” (Remember, Scopes lost, and it was illegal to teach evolution in Tennessee schools.) The dominance of science and prevalence of university of education post-WWII pretty much expunged anti-science attitudes from students who were leaving the universities to staff government, corporations, and teach in public schools. Post-war civil rights clashes, “big government” solutions to inequality, and the rise of feminism iced the cake, so to speak, reducing the Far Right to a fringe by the ‘60s and early ‘70s.
So no question, illiberals, especially of the evangelical variety (but not only), do not see themselves reflected in a modern, cosmopolitan world order based on science and diversity-embracing expertise. They resent the way “science” is invoked to settle policy issues ranging from climate change to COVID by their “political masters” (as Michael Anton frequently terms Dems in power). Complaints about liberal arrogance look to me, for the most part, to be complaints about modernity, about the displacement of traditional views and values, and an inability to argue effectively for them, leaving politics and law the only option. Merely laying out the kind of historical account I just did is often enough to trigger the charge.
My final point here harks back to the first—this anti-modernity is a kind of grievance which can be stoked to achieve the aforementioned political and legal control. That is part of why the aforementioned “fringe” has moved back to the center of our politics, even capturing the presidency and the SCOTUS. When what look to me like legitimate invocations of science, history and sociology are termed “arrogance,” or arrogance is massively and generally attributed to liberal voters, politicians, and “big government,” I do not often take the charges at face value—as you have noted. Thus, by my lights, the actual pomposity of some liberals (whose existence I don’t contest) doesn’t effectively explain what motivates masses of people to believe that COVID vaccines are just a form of government control or that Biden stole the election. That is a kind of directed political achievement, a long time in the making, and it is a power that requires breaking down trust institutions required for the functioning of our liberal democracy This thread is one skirmish in this larger battle.
Just wanted to get this out there, one time, on one thread, before this cold issue completely froze over. Remember, I'm just explaining why you are correct about my inattention to "arrogance." Back to Biz now, though I'm happy to hear any response you might have to this.
Dill Wrote: Wrote:There is no evidence to support Musk's claim that Sussmann or the Clinton campaign peddled information they knew was untrue. Multiple witnesses testified that respected cyber experts harbored genuine national security concerns about the data. Sussmann's lawyers repeatedly said he had no reason to doubt the accuracy of the material when he provided it to the FBI.
Three things
1. This is the last paragraph from the article. It is the authors opinion. Every bit of the article before it is not opinion, but rather the reporter reporting the facts. Oddly, he injects his opinion in at the end. This is a big problem with all media today, opinion is often injected into the facts and presented as such. It is very hard to differentiate.
It is even harder when people disagree on where the line is drawn between "opinion" (a word I only use with reference to genres of legal and editorial writing) and "fact." E.g., the points I quoted from Goalpost's link look rather factual to me. Is someone of the "opinion" that Sussman's lawyers did NOT say "he had no reason to doubt the accuracy of the material," etc. Maybe multiple witness DID NOT testify that "respected cyber experts harbored genuine national security concerns" etc.? The reporter is just guessing about that? None of this, including the presence or absence of evidence, is part of a court record anywhere? Or if it is, it's still "opinion"?
Also, it hardly seems possible that reporters could report "just the facts" on some event without contextualizing them. That would make it much easier for politicians to manipulate news and control news cycles.
(05-22-2022, 04:23 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: 2. So now for something to be labeled misinformation, it has to be false and knowingly distributed as such? Is that how you want to define it now? Im cool with it, just be consistent. Just realize that someone who is telling people to ingest Safe-Guard Equine Paste Horse Dewormer for covid isn't misinformation if that person has horses and notices that Ivermectin is an active ingredient and truly believes that he can eat it to treat CV
Here is how I have ALWAYS wanted to "define it." "Misinformation" is false information believed to be true--like your horse dewormer example. "Disinformation" is information known to false, but distributed anyway for dishonest purposes, like Trump's claim that Biden stole the election. "Malinformation" is information which is not false, but distributed to damage reputation, usually involving violations of privacy. E.g., a porn star reveals that Trump paid her to remain silent.
(05-22-2022, 04:23 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: 3. "A campaign staffer later passed the information to a reporter from Slate mpagazine, which the campaign hoped the reporter would "vet it out, and write what they believe is true," Mook said."
Really? That doesn't strike you as, at the very least, irresponsible, and at the very worst willfully ignorant knowing what it was going to lead to?They're admitting that the Clinton campaign wasn't sure if it was true, but passed along anyway and hoped that the media would verify it for them? C'mon, how would you react if it was found out that the Trump people passed along a story to FOX in hope that Hannity would verify it. You'd be okay with it?
At the very least, I don't see "willful ignorance" here at all. Passing information of this sort on to a legitimate investigative reporter is not the same as Trump passing something on to "breaking-news" Hannity. (Remember what I have said about the assymmetry of the MSM and Fox?)From the Clinton campaign's side, there is risk the reporter will investigate and find nothing, and so report nothing, or report the signals anomaly--which does exist--adding that nothing, as yet, was found to explicitly connect Trump with Russia, as the campaign perhaps hoped. Which is what happened in the brilliantly informative article that the Slate reporter published a month before the election. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/10/was_a_server_registered_to_the_trump_organization_communicating_with_russia.html
I'll grant you this: the campaign statement, authored by Jake Sullivan, is over the top. The Slate article info does not really promise to explain Trump's apparent adoration of Putin and the like, though it certainly establishes that a Russian bank was communicating with a Trump server designed to accept communication only from certain sources, and whoever runs the server then tried to reroute those communications once this knowledge became public. Both the reporter and the computer scientists are far more cautious in this respect. It is understandable that the FBI should want to look into this. Hillary's motivation might be understandable, after the final Benghazi investigation uncovered her private email server and the DNC was hacked to Russian advantage.
Were the Clinton's adopting a Trump trick? Perhaps. But they were clearly not as good at it, and could not expect the press amplification the other side regularly gets. For that you need reporters willing to place party over journalistic standards.
(05-22-2022, 04:33 PM)hollodero Wrote: This did happen all the time though. Eg. Obama spied on me, that sick guy! Hannity, go out and 'verify' it.
The actions of the Clinton team probably weren't squeaky clean. I am willing to cut them some slack. They faced an opponent that contacted Assange for timed hacked Hillary emails leaks and made imprisoning Hillary a chant for the masses. Which is a bit of a gloves off situation.
I really should stop interrupting though. Last time.
lol, well I, for one, appreciate these interruptions.
We are a long way from "equivalence" here, for sure.
(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? I would be hard to determine his intent? *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. 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.
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.
(05-22-2022, 03:53 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: dill: 1. Who determined there was "Russian disinformation" in the Steele Dossier, and how?
It's common knowledge to anyone who doesn't rely solely on CNN, MSNBC, and Rachel Maddow for their news. It's been slowly debunked over the past several years with the most recent shoe to drop being the arrest of Igor Danchenko in November. If you're sourcing the previous news agencies for your news, you probably don't know about him.
1. The question I asked you was, "debunked" by "WHOM?" As in whose definition of "disinformation" was applied in the Steele case, by whom, when and where, to get this result?
"It's common knowledge" does not answer a question about the SOURCE of that supposedly common knowledge.
2. Are you saying that CNN, MSNBC and Rachel Maddow did not cover the Danchenko arrest?
(05-22-2022, 03:53 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: Quote:2. Given the dossier's existence and circulation, should any news organization have reported on it?
Responsibly? Yes.
Responsible is hardly how it was reported on
|
|
|
\|/ Quote:
3. When you speak of "obsessed and deranged media who lapped it up and regurgitate it because they hated Trump," I am not sure exactly what you mean and whom you are referring to. These are Hannity-style adjectives and attributions of motivation, not Maddow-style.
Are you saying or implying that reporters believed the dossier and reported it as factual finding, as opposed to reporting its existence and provenance, with precautions? "Media" here includes whom or what?
"Precautions"
Unless you include the 5 second disclaimer @ 6:40, there were absolutely zero "precautions" in this entire off-the-rails and looney conspiracy theory 12 minute and 27 second video of misinformation.
Maddow heavily implies that the Russians are blackmailing Trump, even going as far as to strongly suggest Obamas last second build up of troops to Europe is due directly Trump being compromised.
Maddow was obsessed with Trump and it's painfully obvious to anyone except her most ardent fans.
The Rachel video explains that entrapment was long a method of the KGB, whose officers kept their jobs into the new Russian state as members of the FSB. That is not "misinformation." She juxtaposes this knowledge with Trump's surprising pro-Russia behavior, also not misinformation, while reminding us of Trump camp denials and cautioning that nothing has been definitively established. No misinformation there, either. That is NOT reporting the Steele Dossier as a factual finding.
She raises a question--might kompromat explain Trump's fixation on Putin? That would be way out of line, were it not for the genuine question of Trump's behavior. I don't see any implication Obama's build up is connected to fear of Trump Kompromat and the Steele Dossier, rather, the build up is, if anything, a result of well founded fears that Trump might ease up on Russia (as Flynn promised to do in his secret talks with Lavrov). And these are founded on pre-dossier behavior. The FBI had been investigating Trump for months before Maddow's video, and not because of the Steele Dossier.
Maddow appears incredibly scandalous and "looney" to you because you do not agree that Trump's decade-long admiration of Putin is a security concern. I don't think you even agree there is something unusual here. Hannity himself, as late as March 11, 2022, still could not get Trump to condemn Putin, whom he called a "genuis" for the Ukraine invasion. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-sean-hannity-putin-evil_n_622abf90e4b0d1329e82b82b
Even if Maddow were "looney" for wondering why Putin favored Trump and Trump Putin, often at risk to Trump's own standing, that would still not be enough to support your picture of an "obsessed and deranged media who lapped it up."NYT and WaPo reporting on Trump and the Steele Dossier seem as sober as ever. Same for the New Yorker and The Atlantic. It was a story which should be reported on.
(05-23-2022, 02:09 PM)Dill Wrote: Passing information of this sort on to a legitimate investigative reporter is not the same as Trump passing something on to "breaking-news" Hannity. (Remember what I have said about the assymmetry of the MSM and Fox?)
Yes it is. Especially when what you got was the piece that the reporter penned (your link above and below in the text box).
Quote:From the Clinton campaign's side, there is risk the reporter will investigate and find nothing, and so report nothing, or report the signals anomaly--which does exist--adding that nothing, as yet, was found to explicitly connect Trump with Russia, as the campaign perhaps hoped. Which is what happened in the brilliantly informative article that the Slate reporter published a month before the election.
Lol, you do realize that the article that you've linked to IS the article in question, right? This IS the article written based on the information that Mook passed along after Clinton okayed him to do so.
So let me get this straight.....your point is that it was risky for the Clinton campaign to pass this information along to the reporter because the reporter could investigate and find nothing and report nothing, or find no connection to Trump as they had hoped...and you cite the actual article that was published that the MSM ran with and pushed out to its viewers, and that Hillary Clinton TWEETED about as proof? <----Notice the Clinton failed to mention in anyway that the this was still an ongoing investigation and that it was incomplete and therefore hard to evaluate the findings.
Bahahahaha! Thanks for proving my point. It sounds to me like it wasn't a risk at all, and they got EXACTLY the reaction that they were hoping for. Thanks for making this reply an easy lay-up for me.
Quote:Were the Clinton's adopting a Trump trick? Perhaps. But they were clearly not as good at it, and could not expect the press amplification the other side regularly gets. For that you need reporters willing to place party over journalistic standards.
Ah, no. They were masterful at it and it got EXACTLY what they wanted with the help of a reporter who placed party over his journalistic standards.
This is how it went for the Clintons.....
1. Take information from an incomplete, inconclusive, and still on going internal investigation and
2. Pass it along to a reporter who
3. Writes a highly suggestive article that details the current information, only mentioning at the end of a VERY long piece that "It’s hard to evaluate the findings of an investigation that hasn’t ended" and "We don’t yet know what this server was for" as a way to preserve his "journalistic integrity." Article is then
4. Mentioned in a tweet by the person who fed the reporter the information and is
5. Picked up and reported on by an overzealous and overeager media who reports it as fact because they hate Trump.
You're a smart guy, but you really need to open your eyes and expand your sources beyond what the MSM feeds you. We need well thought out and researched people like you on the Independent side. C'mon on over, it's quite refreshing when you break out of the dichotomy of the two party system. Sure you might have to **gasp** agree with Republicans sometimes, but the feeling of being true to your beliefs instead of twisting, spinning, and bending them to stay aligned with one party is worth it.
In our world, Trump can be an ego maniac, narcissistic, asshole AND have been smeared, spied on, and conspired against at the same time. BOTH can be true. It's not either/or.
(05-24-2022, 02:36 PM)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. 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.
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.
What is highlighted in red is 100% false but it is the crux of your argument of why Garland let many of the charges in the MR expire.
Obstruction and Criminal conspiracy both have 5 year SOLs, just like the charges in the MR, and wont expire until early 2026.
(05-24-2022, 04:04 PM)Dill Wrote: Maddow appears incredibly scandalous and "looney" to you because you do not agree that Trump's decade-long admiration of Putin is a security concern. I don't think you even agree there is something unusual here. Hannity himself, as late as March 11, 2022, still could not get Trump to condemn Putin, whom he called a "genuis" for the Ukraine invasion. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-sean-hannity-putin-evil_n_622abf90e4b0d1329e82b82b
Even if Maddow were "looney" for wondering why Putin favored Trump and Trump Putin, often at risk to Trump's own standing, that would still not be enough to support your picture of an "obsessed and deranged media who lapped it up."NYT and WaPo reporting on Trump and the Steele Dossier seem as sober as ever. Same for the New Yorker and The Atlantic. It was a story which should be reported on.
And Maddow doesn't appear looney to you because you have been tricked into being scared of the Russians* and thinking that they're lurking around every corner, McCarthy style. She feeds into that because she's been duped as well, probably because shes vulnerable and susceptible due to her being blinded by her fervent dislike of him.
*this doesn't mean that I do not think that they aren't a political adversary and aren't actively engaged in disseminating propaganda (as are we to them). I just do not believe them to be this dangerous boogeyman that many would have you believe.
(05-25-2022, 02:58 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: What is highlighted in red is 100% false but it is the crux of your argument of why Garland let many of the charges in the MR expire.
Obstruction and Criminal conspiracy both have 5 year SOLs, just like the charges in the MR, and wont expire until early 2026.
Possibly you missed the point here.
I was saying that if the Republicans take the House this year, expect them to shut down the 1/6 and Green Bay Sweep investigations.
I was not making a literal statement about some actual statute of limitations on Congressional investigations.
The SOL in this case is a POLITICAL one.
If you want to disagree with me on this "100% false" point, then you need to explain why we should NOT expect the Republican leadership to shut down an investigation into the Republican leadership. They protected Trump legal consequences, but they won't protect themselves?
(05-25-2022, 09:58 AM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: Yes it is. Especially when what you got was the piece that the reporter penned (your link above and below in the text box).
Lol, you do realize that the article that you've linked to IS the article in question, right? This IS the article written based on the information that Mook passed along after Clinton okayed him to do so.
So let me get this straight.....your point is that it was risky for the Clinton campaign to pass this information along to the reporter because the reporter could investigate and find nothing and report nothing, or find no connection to Trump as they had hoped...and you cite the actual article that was published that the MSM ran with and pushed out to its viewers, and that Hillary Clinton TWEETED about as proof? <----Notice the Clinton failed to mention in anyway that the this was still an ongoing investigation and that it was incomplete and therefore hard to evaluate the findings.
Trump passed all manner of stories on to Hannity, who is NOT an investigative reporter. He does not wait to find if and to what degree stories have been verified, and he often continues to repeat them after they have been debunked. In his world, Saddam still had WMDs and Hillary did give stand down orders during the Benghazi attack.
The Slate article in question is not the liberal version of Hannity "breaking news," calling people "liars" and pushing rumor, only questioning why the hypocritical "media mob" is "ignoring" the story. Rather Foer's is neutral, descriptive and explanatory, giving the background of cyber monitoring and who does it, and interviewing the scientists who were tracking the anomalous communication between a Russian bank and a Trump-owned server. And Foer solicited and received responses from both Alpha Bank and the Trump org. Foer raises technical questions and lets a variety of respected computer scientists answer them, quoting their words and showing a graph mapping out the anomalies, and especially explaining how they cross check each other. It is clearly meant to pass muster before expert computer scientists in this field. In the final two paragraphs, he places the investigation in the larger context of other emerging Trump campaign connections to Russia, which are also not “made up” stories. That helps people understand why the story is important. But you say this reporter was placing party above journalistic standards. How? Where? Can you quote a line or paragraph which establishes this? Is your standard that any reporting on Trump’s many connections to Russia is its by definition party propaganda? This is a story which SHOULD have been before the public, and if you don't think Foer’s is responsible reporting then it is hard to know what you mean by "responsible," especially if Trump-->Hannity is your term of comparison. It was a story the computer scientists were already trying to publicize without prompting from Hilary, and which the NYT was already researching. Hilary or no, it would have come out.
Your example of how the MSM “ran with” and “pushed” the story is odd. That there was all this anomalous communication between a Trump server and Russian banks in the run up to the election, and that still no one has an explanation for it two years later, is legitimate news, and is hardly to compare with, say, Benghazi level amplification of a Hilary staffer’s mysterious death, listing it with other Clinton "victims." The server communication is a legitimate story. And part of the story is that there isn’t a valid and official explanation.
As far as the Clinton tweet, it runs with a point which is already established--there was indeed an active connection between a Trump server and a Russian bank. No "ongoing investigation" about WHETHER that occured, only what it means. Sullivan, in the Tweet, SPECULATES that this link may reveal something about the mysterious fondness of Trump for Putin. Clearly, that relation has not been established yet. The campaign is APPEALING for further investigation. How is that presenting the investigation as other than "incomplete"? Your complaint seems to be that people are talking about yet another Trump-Putin connection at all.
(05-25-2022, 09:58 AM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: Quote:Were the Clinton's adopting a Trump trick? Perhaps. But they were clearly not as good at it, and could not expect the press amplification the other side regularly gets. For that you need reporters willing to place party over journalistic standards.
Bahahahaha! Thanks for proving my point. It sounds to me like it wasn't a risk at all, and they got EXACTLY the reaction that they were hoping for. Thanks for making this reply an easy lay-up for me.
Ah, no. They were masterful at it and it got EXACTLY what they wanted with the help of a reporter who placed party over his journalistic standards.
This is how it went for the Clintons.....
1. Take information from an incomplete, inconclusive, and still on going internal investigation and
2. Pass it along to a reporter who
3. Writes a highly suggestive article that details the current information, only mentioning at the end of a VERY long piece that "It’s hard to evaluate the findings of an investigation that hasn’t ended" and "We don’t yet know what this server was for" as a way to preserve his "journalistic integrity." Article is then
4. Mentioned in a tweet by the person who fed the reporter the information and is
5. Picked up and reported on by an overzealous and overeager media who reports it as fact because they hate Trump.
You're a smart guy, but you really need to open your eyes and expand your sources beyond what the MSM feeds you. We need well thought out and researched people like you on the Independent side. C'mon on over, it's quite refreshing when you break out of the dichotomy of the two party system. Sure you might have to **gasp** agree with Republicans sometimes, but the feeling of being true to your beliefs instead of twisting, spinning, and bending them to stay aligned with one party is worth it.
In our world, Trump can be an ego maniac, narcissistic, asshole AND have been smeared, spied on, and conspired against at the same time. BOTH can be true. It's not either/or.
You are inviting me to the "independent" side??
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. Did the article trigger a Federal investigation? The most Clinton got was that the investigation was finally made public and added to the list of other Trump connections to Russia; That's not "exactly" what they wanted, if they were hoping a federal investigation would finally and definitively connect Trump to Putin 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. 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. Nothing in your tweet example of MSM picking up the story establishes anyone was treating the story "as fact" beyond what actually was fact, or were "overzealous and overeager" and motivated only by "Trump hate" rather than legitimate news. One woman asks why AFTER TWO YEARS, there is no answer to the questions of why and what? The only thing clearly unethical in your Hilary tweet is that her campaign does not disclose who clued the Slate reporter to the story, a story which the NYT was working up anyway.
(05-25-2022, 03:54 PM)Dill Wrote: Possibly you missed the point here.
I was saying that if the Republicans take the House this year, expect them to shut down the 1/6 and Green Bay Sweep investigations.
I was not making a literal statement about some actual statute of limitations on Congressional investigations.
The SOL in this case is a POLITICAL one.
If you want to disagree with me on this "100% false" point, then you need to explain why we should NOT expect the Republican leadership to shut down an investigation into the Republican leadership. They protected Trump legal consequences, but they won't protect themselves?
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.
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?
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.
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.
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
