The Mueller Report thread

[hollodero]

(04-22-2019, 10:09 AM)Goalpost Wrote: Duh.  The left wants to disparage Graham and Barr.

It would be odd if they wouldn't, right. Called a rival for a reason.
But all left aside, Barr did misinform the public on many occasions about the Mueller report. I find that to be quite objectively true. He also spun the findings in Trump's favor as far as humanly possible. That's also not so wrong to say and is not exactly trustworthy behaviour.

More subjectively, I'd also say that this guy is an actual top-notch fixer. Unlike Cohen.

[BmorePat87]

(04-19-2019, 04:13 PM)Dill Wrote: You were asked for ONE example.  Sounds like you are referring to MANY.

I watched a deal of Fox news last night.  Tucker, Hannity Ingraham and guests were celebrating the total vindication of Fox's two years of denial of collusion and demanding apologies from the MSM which "of course they won't give" because they will never admit they were wrong.  Barr proved he was on the side of the people and defending the Constitution.

I was flipping through the TV at my hotel (just got back from the beach) and I passed MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News.

MSNBC and CNN had pretty generic captions signaling that they were discussing the contents of the report. Fox News had "Should Dems apologize to Trump family?" 

[*bfine32*]

(04-22-2019, 09:44 AM)GMDino Wrote: It's only an insult if you feel it was wrong.

If someone says they refuse to read something but still insist their opinion must be taken seriously about it I will make fun of the opinion and its obvious underlying bias.




It's hard to have a legitimate discussion on something when one side refuses (and his proud to say they refuse) to educate themselves on the topic.

I guess there are some that feel being called bias and lazy is not a personal insult, I just happen not to fall in that category.

Make fun all you want, no one will stop you, but my opinion is I will rely on experts in the field to provide me with specifics the rest in innuendo. We all have bias as to recognize them is a plus. I am doing just that. I have not given my opinion (other than I have none) on the content of the report. 

Once again you lie to slur. No where have I said I refuse to educate myself on the topic; I simply said I have no inclination to read the 500 page report.

I'm willing to go out on a limb and suggest anyone who read the full report or claim to have done so. Have little if any more insight than I from getting mine from multiple reports on the report by those that are much more versed on reading legal documents than I. 

BTW, you might want to make fun of Pat. I understand he went to the beach this weekend instead of educating himself on the Mueller report.

[Dill]

(04-22-2019, 11:45 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I guess there are some that feel being called bias and lazy is not a personal insult, I just happen not to fall in that category.

Make fun all you want, no one will stop you, but my opinion is I will rely on experts in the field to provide me with specifics the rest in innuendo. We all have bias as to recognize them is a plus. I am doing just that. I have not given my opinion (other than I have none) on the content of the report. 

Once again you lie to slur. No where have I said I refuse to educate myself on the topic; I simply said I have no inclination to read the 500 page report.

I'm willing to go out on a limb and suggest anyone who read the full report or claim to have done so. Have little if any more insight than I from getting mine from multiple reports on the report by those that are much more versed on reading legal documents than I. 

BTW, you might want to make fun of Pat. I understand he went to the beach this weekend instead of educating himself on the Mueller report.

Bfine, The NYT and WaPo and networks like MSNBC, CNN, CNS and NPR have all pretty much agreed on the obstruction story, presenting legal experts comments on specific examples of obstruction.

Others on this thread have been presenting THAT expert commentary to you along with examples of the evidence--not their unversed legal opinions. 

I think Dino and others are just a little perplexed that, given their ubiquity online at the moment, you cannot seem to find either the examples of the aforesaid expert commentary or of legal accounts of obstruction.  Outside of Fox News (which you never watch), and Barr, who himself clearly misrepresented the Report while asking us to just trust him, there is no one who thinks Trump was simply cleared of obstruction. It is not as if were just "mad" and didn't understand executive privilege and the underlings he ordered to break the law were just "setting him straight."  (That was Barr's spin. Is he your example of someone you can trust, "more versed on reading legal documents"?) Why would they have to set him straight over and over again over the course of a year?  Why would he fire Comey and publicly state it was because he continued the Russia investigation? Why would he appoint AG's likely to act as personal counsel? And why do we want some one in the top office in the land who has to be "set straight" over and over again?

Instead you frame your disagreement with others on this thread as your skeptical, no-nonsense, not-easily-fooled self that won't rely on "innuendo" vs people who are just making groundless claims and apparently relying on innuendo.

That is perhaps why Dino thought you biased and lazy. You're pushing Barr's contested framing of the obstruction issue while ignoring the ubiquitous counter-evidence to that framing.  So you appear to be selecting experts with the opinion you want (bias) and not fact-checking them (lazy). 

Rather than turning description into a "personal attack," you should be demonstrating why your "experts" should be taken more seriously than MSNBC or the NYT's.  

[Dill]

(04-22-2019, 10:58 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I was flipping through the TV at my hotel (just got back from the beach) and I passed MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News.

MSNBC and CNN had pretty generic captions signaling that they were discussing the contents of the report. Fox News had "Should Dems apologize to Trump family?" 

Apologize to Trump's family for his lies and misdirection and obstruction?

LOL it's truly an alternative reality on that network.  I heard someone on Laura Ingraham Saturday night flatly declare that Trump had been absolved of obstruction.

Your brief observation points up the contrast. Rachel Maddow walked her audience through the report step by step, example by example; then Ingraham did a segment making fun of her, presenting a montage of Maddow's "boring" reading and legal definitions, and much laughter from her guests about how out of control she and MSM media were. No need to really look at the MSM and all their factual reporting; laugh along with Fox and celebrate Trump's big win.

[*bfine32*]

(04-22-2019, 12:42 PM)Dill Wrote: Bfine, The NYT and WaPo and networks like MSNBC, CNN, CNS and NPR have all pretty much agreed on the obstruction story, presenting legal experts comments on specific examples of obstruction.

Others on this thread have been presenting THAT expert commentary to you along with examples of the evidence--not their unversed legal opinions. 

I think Dino and others are just a little perplexed that, given their ubiquity online at the moment, you cannot seem to find either the examples of the aforesaid expert commentary or of legal accounts of obstruction.  Outside of Fox News (which you never watch), and Barr, who himself clearly misrepresented the Report while asking us to just trust him, there is no one who thinks Trump was simply cleared of obstruction. It is not as if were just "mad" and didn't understand executive privilege and the underlings he ordered to break the law were just "setting him straight."  (That was Barr's spin. Is he your example of someone you can trust,  "more versed on reading legal documents"?) Why would they have to set him straight over and over again over the course of a year?  Why would he fire Comey and publicly state it was because he continued the Russia investigation? Why would he appoint AG's likely to act as personal counsel? And why do we want some one in the top office in the land who has to be "set straight" over and over again?

Instead you frame your disagreement with others on this thread as your skeptical, no-nonsense, not-easily-fooled self that won't rely on "innuendo" vs people who are just making groundless claims and apparently relying on innuendo.

That is perhaps why Dino thought you biased and lazy. You're pushing Barr's contested framing of the obstruction issue while ignoring the ubiquitous counter-evidence to that framing.  So you appear to be selecting experts with the opinion you want (bias) and not fact-checking them (lazy). 

Rather than turning description into a "personal attack," you should be demonstrating why your "experts" should be taken more seriously than MSNBC or the NYT's.  

I have not taken taken the word of one expert over another; you'd have to show me where I have done than instead of simply claiming it. I am taking the action(s) of our elected officials as my statute. I'm not even taking their words as they can be biased as well. 

As to Comey, I think it was pretty much universally accepted that he failed in his duties. I have not pushed Barr's framing nor have a pushed POTUS' stance of complete exoneration. From the very beginning I have said the complete un-redacted report should be made available to a qualified bi-partisan committee.  I have simply stated I have no intention of reading a 500 page, highly redacted, legal report and place my judgement in the findings of the experts. Do you think you and I could read a report on a zone reconnaissance and come up with the same conclusions?

But you'll forgive me if I consider being called lazy and bias to be a slur.   

[*bfine32*]

Honesty time: How many have read the complete report?

[GMDino]

(04-22-2019, 11:45 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I guess there are some that feel being called bias and lazy is not a personal insult, I just happen not to fall in that category.

Make fun all you want, no one will stop you, but my opinion is I will rely on experts in the field to provide me with specifics the rest in innuendo. We all have bias as to recognize them is a plus. I am doing just that. I have not given my opinion (other than I have none) on the content of the report. 

Once again you lie to slur. No where have I said I refuse to educate myself on the topic; I simply said I have no inclination to read the 500 page report.

I'm willing to go out on a limb and suggest anyone who read the full report or claim to have done so. Have little if any more insight than I from getting mine from multiple reports on the report by those that are much more versed on reading legal documents than I. 

BTW, you might want to make fun of Pat. I understand he went to the beach this weekend instead of educating himself on the Mueller report.

"Everyone has a bias"


"I'll trust 'the experts'"




Did you read the summary I posted?

Would you rather have the audio version?

Because refusing to even attempt to read any of it yourself (you or anyone) is lazy.  Hell, just skim it so you have a base knowledge of what "the experts" (the ones YOU trust) are talking about.

Otherwise you (or anyone with an opinion) sound ridiculous.

And yes you have an opinion.  Your opinion is that until people start talking about President Pence there is "nothing" in the report.

(04-18-2019, 05:42 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I've read reports of the report and all I see is POTUS being pissed that an investigation was launched.

In your extensive reading of the worst attack on America by a foreign state since Pearl Harbor, what specific instances do you have of obstruction (intended or otherwise).

As to Hills: I've always stated she broke the law but it was decided she didn't commit a crime.  

(04-18-2019, 10:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Folks have read the report and we don't have President Pence.

Hopefully, I didn't put words in Sunset's mouth, just giving my $0.02

(04-19-2019, 02:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Oh I didn't mean nothing in the literal sense; I concede it has a lot of words in it. The purpose of the report was not to determine how Barr Acts as AG; it was to determine if their was Russian collusion/influence/medaling in the 2016 election. media made it more of an indictment into "Trump and the Russians". Until I am talking about President Pence I'm going to consider it to be nothing of merit.   One's bias will determine the damnation and I doubt 1 person that was already anti-trump will be swayed same as anyone pro-Trump.

I've asked for one example of obstruction listed in the report and all I get is "read the report". I have 0 inclination to read a document that I felt was not needed to be made public in the first place. have unbiased, qualified folks read and let them report.

Trump once said (paraphrasing) "I could shoot someone and not lose voters"; similarly he could save a life and not gain any. Folks minds are set.

(04-11-2019, 01:34 PM)bfine32 Wrote: WTS, many folks in this thread have 0 issue with making themselves look biased beyond reason.

Amen.

[Dill]

(04-22-2019, 01:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I have not taken taken the word of one expert over another; you'd have to show me where I have done than instead of simply claiming it. I am taking the action(s) of our elected officials as my statute. I'm not even taking their words as they can be biased as well. 

As to Comey, I think it was pretty much universally accepted that he failed in his duties. I have not pushed Barr's framing nor have a pushed POTUS' stance of complete exoneration. From the very beginning I have said the complete un-redacted report should be made available to a qualified bi-partisan committee.  I have simply stated I have no intention of reading a 500 page, highly redacted, legal report and place my judgement in the findings of the experts. Do you think you and I could read a report on a zone reconnaissance and come up with the same conclusions?

But you'll forgive me if I consider being called lazy and bias to be a slur.   

Well I won't forgive you if you ARE being lazy and biased.   You did say that you preferred to rely on others' legal opinions.

Instead of simply claiming you have taken the word of one expert over another, I'll show you your own post--the one in which you clearly DO accept Barr's framing.  Outside of Fox news commentators and Barr, who else is saying Trump did not obstruct?  

(04-19-2019, 04:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As of 4/19/19 bfine's mindset is:
Russia tried to meddle in the 2016 Presidential Election
There is nothing to point to the fact that Donald Trump colluded with Russia in this meddling
Trump was mad that he was becoming the focus of the report and felt he had certain Executive privileges and over-estimated them, but was set straight by counsel.
Trump did not obstruct the investigation.

How is this not exoneration?
Instead of simply claiming you were being lazy, I'll show you the same post Dino was reacting to:

(04-19-2019, 02:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Oh I didn't mean nothing in the literal sense; I concede it has a lot of words in it. The purpose of the report was not to determine how Barr Acts as AG; it was to determine if their was Russian collusion/influence/medaling in the 2016 election. media made it more of an indictment into "Trump and the Russians". Until I am talking about President Pence I'm going to consider it to be nothing of merit.   One's bias will determine the damnation and I doubt 1 person that was already anti-trump will be swayed same as anyone pro-Trump.

I've asked for one example of obstruction listed in the report and all I get is "read the report". I have 0 inclination to read a document that I felt was not needed to be made public in the first place. have unbiased, qualified folks read and let them report.

Trump once said (paraphrasing) "I could shoot someone and not lose voters"; similarly he could save a life and not gain any. Folks minds are set.

While others are looking at evidence to determine what they should believe, you are ignoring evidence and asserting people will just believe what they want. And so you have "O inclination" to read the evidence directly, and 100% inclination to repeat a narrative created for Trump supporters.

Then you claim Dino has "slurred" you because that's just what it is when one person says someone else is lazy or biased--dismissing whether or not the terms are actually describing your behavior.  This is the same kind of disjunct apparent in your claim people just hate Trump, and that is why they criticize his disgusting and unpresidential behavior.  They don't hate him because he is unpresidential and disgusting.  A similar separation of cause and effect in both cases.

[*bfine32*]

(04-22-2019, 02:26 PM)Dill Wrote: Well I won't forgive you if you ARE being lazy and biased.   You did say that you preferred to rely on others' legal opinions.

Instead of simply claiming you have taken the word of one expert over another, I'll show you your own post--the one in which you clearly DO accept Barr's framing.  Outside of Fox news commentators and Barr, who else is saying Trump did not obstruct?  
How is this not exoneration?
Instead of simply claiming you were being lazy, I'll show you the same post Dino was reacting to:


While others are looking at evidence to determine what they should believe, you are ignoring evidence and asserting people will just believe what they want. And so you have "O inclination" to read the evidence directly, and 100% inclination to repeat a narrative created for Trump supporters.

Then you claim Dino has "slurred" you because that's just what it is when one person says someone else is lazy or biased--dismissing whether or not the terms are actually describing your behavior.  This is the same kind of disjunct apparent in your claim people just hate Trump, and that is why they criticize his disgusting and unpresidential behavior.  They don't hate him because he is unpresidential and disgusting.  A similar separation of cause and effect in both cases.

As I thought you are unable to show me where I have taken one expert's opinion over another. Yes, I accept the DOJ's findings. Didn't he actually says Trump could not say yes or no to obstruction by Trump? I did read his report (does that count?) Now it's up to congress to determine if they accept the findings and it seems they did as they wanted to know more about possible obstruction.

Please share with me what insight you gained from reading the full report. Then maybe we can see if someone were being lazy or prioritized the implicit cost of their time and efforts. 

Only in PnR can being called lazy not be considered a slur. But of course it does matter who is doing the slurring. Can we at least agree that the reply was more and the person posting it than the subject at hand? I've heard we're not big fans of that, but of course with given earlier disclaimer.

[fredtoast]

(04-22-2019, 02:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Only in PnR can being called lazy not be considered a slur. But of course it does matter who is doing the slurring. 

The guy who accuses everyone who disagrees with Trump of being mentally ill is crying about being a victim of slurring?


This is priceless.

[*bfine32*]

(04-22-2019, 03:01 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The guy who accuses everyone who disagrees with Trump of being mentally ill is crying about being a victim of slurring?


This is priceless.

The cost of it aside.

Do you agree it's a slur to call someone lazy? 

And I've never said everyone who disagrees with Trump is mentally ill. It's just another straw man. Hell I disagree with him a lot. His recent decision to pull out of Syria comes to mind. Also his current claims of "total Exoneration" may be too much

[Belsnickel]

(04-22-2019, 01:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Honesty time: How many have read the complete report?

I pretty much skipped over volume one. I read the executive summary of volume two that Mueller wrote, and the conclusion. This is why I have kept my commentary on the report itself to why Mueller did not chose to indict, since that was laid out in the portions I read. I hope to read more of it once things calm down for me; I have it downloaded on my laptop.

[GMDino]

(04-22-2019, 02:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As I thought you are unable to show me where I have taken one expert's opinion over another.

One sentence later:

(04-22-2019, 02:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yes, I accept the DOJ's findings.

(04-22-2019, 02:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Didn't he actually says Trump could not say yes or no to obstruction by Trump? I did read his report (does that count?) Now it's up to congress to determine if they accept the findings and it seems they did as they wanted to know more about possible obstruction.

Please share with me what insight you gained from reading the full report. Then maybe we can see if someone were being lazy or prioritized the implicit cost of their time and efforts. 

The "insight" is a base knowledge of what is available so one can ascertain if the "expert" that one chooses to believe is talking out the arse or no.

The report has been out since last week. REFUSING to read ANY of it is not simply "prioritizing" one's time.

[*bfine32*]

(04-22-2019, 03:13 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I pretty much skipped over volume one. I read the executive summary of volume two that Mueller wrote, and the conclusion. This is why I have kept my commentary on the report itself to why Mueller did not chose to indict, since that was laid out in the portions I read. I hope to read more of it once things calm down for me; I have it downloaded on my laptop.

Different strokes for different folks. As mentioned I most likely will not read the report, but I will read summaries made by those that do. It is why my first question here was to ask for one specific example of obstruction. That was immediately met with ridicule. 

My reading word for word the entire report will not change one thing and skimming is nothing more that reading the direct quotes others point to that are more qualified to read it. But as I've said from jump: If POTUS committed a crime he should be impeached at a minimum. I'm just not versed enough in government legalities to determine was can be considered obstruction and what can be considered objection.  

[GMDino]

I wondered how long until he egoness had to let everyone know NO ONE questions his orders!  

.@Kevinliptakcnn and I reported over the weekend that, in wake of the Mueller report, Trump has been seeking assurances from his current staff that his orders are being treated like those of a president, not like suggestions. https://t.co/Dw7owZuKlp

— Kaitlan Collins (@kaitlancollins) April 22, 2019

 

[GMDino]

(04-22-2019, 03:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Different strokes for different folks. As mentioned I most likely will not read the report, but I will read summaries made by those that do. It is why my first question here was to ask for one specific example of obstruction. That was immediately met with ridicule. 

My reading word for word the entire report will not change one thing and skimming is nothing more that reading the direct quotes others point to that are more qualified to read it. But as I've said from jump: If POTUS committed a crime he should be impeached at a minimum. I'm just not versed enough in government legalities to determine was can be considered obstruction and what can be considered objection.  

Or that he didn't have to be found of committing a crime. 

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(04-22-2019, 03:32 PM)GMDino Wrote: I wondered how long until he egoness had to let everyone know NO ONE questions his orders!  

.@Kevinliptakcnn and I reported over the weekend that, in wake of the Mueller report, Trump has been seeking assurances from his current staff that his orders are being treated like those of a president, not like suggestions. https://t.co/Dw7owZuKlp

— Kaitlan Collins (@kaitlancollins) April 22, 2019

 

I'd like to say I called this on here even before the election, in a thread about Hillary being more dangerous than Trump.

10-17-2016
Me:

Quote:Almost everyone in the government hates him.

So whatever stupid ideas Trump has, likely won't be able to be carried out.

[GMDino]

(04-22-2019, 04:15 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I'd like to say I called this on here even before the election, in a thread about Hillary being more dangerous than Trump.

10-17-2016
Me:

I don't know if it was "hate" or just people who understand what is "legal".  Either way they saved his orange rear from his own worst instincts.

I wonder how long that can last?

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(04-22-2019, 04:40 PM)GMDino Wrote: I don't know if it was "hate" or just people who understand what is "legal".  Either way they saved his orange rear from his own worst instincts.

I wonder how long that can last?

Yeaaaah... "not 5.5 more years" is probably a safe bet.