US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1245

On March 25 2019 22:29 Logo wrote:
I know there's still a lot to be revealed and people have varying levels of trust in Barr... but can we at least take a moment for self reflection here and how people who were left, but critical of "Russiagate" (and sure right leaning ones too) were treated this whole time?

All the times say Glenn Greenwald (but many other too) was called a Russian stooge, even in this thread, or people laughed when he called things unsourced. Which by the way those things still were never collaborated by other publications.

Can we at least think how that sort of rhetoric was incredibly harmful in hindsight? How it did nothing but fuel a hype train and quash legitimate discussions?

You can call it harmful but I consider it more harmful to let people spread their fake reality without opposition.

On March 25 2019 23:01 Logo wrote:


Isn't that defending my point? Huge portions of what was said about what Mueller would find, what he has found, or what happened seem by our best evidence standards to just be a fabricated reality? Voices like Glenn Greenwald are the opposition to that fake reality.

On March 25 2019 22:38 Gorsameth wrote:
I find it hard to take anyone serious that doesn't believe in 'Russiagate' when the President himself has admitted that it happened.

You can call it harmful but I consider it more harmful to let people spread their fake reality without opposition.

On March 25 2019 23:25 xDaunt wrote:

The problem with this line of thought is that it a belies a lack of understanding regarding what was actually admitted, both factually and legally. Again, the proof is in the pudding: there were no charges for those admissions. That fact demonstrably proves the errors underpinning your presumptions.

On March 25 2019 23:32 Plansix wrote:
We also need to differentiate between people who cautioned that the investigation might not yield the results democrats were hoping for and people who said the investigation never should have happened/is illegal. One of those is pragmatic and the other can just be ignored.

On March 25 2019 23:34 Logo wrote:


Yeah that's a good distinction, but is anyone talking about the latter group to begin with?

On March 25 2019 23:29 Gorsameth wrote:
My opinion is not a court of law and doesn't follow the same standards.
Plus lets find out first if it was Mueller or Barr that decided there was no case.

On March 25 2019 23:32 Plansix wrote:
We also need to differentiate between people who cautioned that the investigation might not yield the results democrats were hoping for and people who said the investigation never should have happened/is illegal. One of those is pragmatic and the other can just be ignored.

On March 25 2019 23:47 xDaunt wrote:

This post is not going to age well. Illegality is all over this investigation for all of the reasons that have been pointed out, starting with FISA abuse. There is a reason why multiple criminal referrals are being made by Nunes and company to the DOJ.

On March 25 2019 23:47 xDaunt wrote:

This post is not going to age well. Illegality is all over this investigation for all of the reasons that have been pointed out, starting with FISA abuse. There is a reason why multiple criminal referrals are being made by Nunes and company to the DOJ.

On March 25 2019 23:55 Plansix wrote:

Until you take the time to articulate that argument is a substantive fashion that isn’t “See my work in GH’s blog over the span of several months” and linking long lists of articles for us to sift through, I’m going to continue to call your claims of illegality a lazy effort to trick people into attempting to prove a negative. You can’t have it both ways where you lead on Barr’s findings, but also claim you now about top secret illegal actions to that started this investigation.

You can’t call into question the findings of the same justice department and FBI when it came to Clinton and then turn around and support them when it comes to Trump. Well, you can, but we aren’t going to take you that seriously if you do.

On March 26 2019 00:08 xDaunt wrote:

I just laid it out here a week or so ago. Remember all of the posts about using the dossier to get the FISA warrant? Go re-read those. Maybe the significance will sink in now that we know that Mueller has nothing to support the dossier.

And no, I’m not having it both ways with the DOJ. Barr’s departmental is materially different from Obama’s. All of the top Obama era brass were shitcanned or are otherwise gone. This is basic factual stuff you should know.

Attorney General William Barr has reported to Congress that special counsel Robert Mueller has cleared President Trump and his campaign team of claims of conspiring with Russia during the 2016 election. This is more than an exoneration. It’s a searing indictment of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, as well as a reminder of the need to know the story behind the bureau’s corrosive investigation.

Mr. Mueller’s report likely doesn’t put it that way, but it’s the logical conclusion of his no-collusion finding. The FBI unleashed its powers on a candidate for the office of the U.S. presidency, an astonishing first. It did so on the incredible grounds that the campaign had conspired to aid a foreign government. And it used the most aggressive tools in its arsenal—surveillance of U.S. citizens, secret subpoenas of phone records and documents, even human informants.

The wreckage is everywhere. The nation has been engulfed in conspiracy theories for years. A presidency was hemmed in by the threat of a special counsel. Citizens have gone to jail not for conspiracy, but for after-the-fact interactions with Mr. Mueller’s team. Dozens more have spent enormous amounts of money and time defending their reputations.

None of this should ever have happened absent highly compelling evidence—from the start—of wrongdoing. Yet from what we know, the FBI operated on the basis of an overheard conversation of third-tier campaign aide George Papadopoulos, as well as a wild “dossier” financed by the rival presidential campaign. Mr. Mueller’s no-collusion finding amounts to a judgment that there never was any evidence. The Papadopoulos claim was thin, the dossier a fabrication.

Which is all the more reason Americans now deserve a full accounting of the missteps of former FBI Director James Comey and his team—in part so that this never happens again. That includes the following: What “evidence” did the FBI have in totality? What efforts did the bureau take to verify it? Did it corroborate anything before launching its probe? What role did political players play? How aware was the FBI that it was being gulled into a dirty-trick operation, and if so, how did it justify proceeding? How intrusive were the FBI methods? And who was harmed?

On March 25 2019 23:51 Excludos wrote:


So we shouldn't trust the outcome of the investigation then is that what you're saying?