|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
It's going to take a while to read through all pages, but I just have to reply to one thing reading the forum:
On April 18 2019 23:54 On_Slaught wrote:
Barr is rightfully getting chewed up, including by conservatives, for coming off as a shill of the President.
It's also worth pointing out the joke that is Barr giving the WH the report last night, thus allowing them to get the first narrative out there before everyone else can read it.
Even the most fervent Trump/Barr supporters must realize why the way Barr has done this serves only increase people's concerns about the report being fairly treated. Guy sounds and acts like a member of Trumps PR team.
]You would think that but earlier we had xdaunt defending Barr giving the WH the report last night. There is nothing that would cause xdaunt any concern whatsoever. He entirely thinks it is appropriate.
On April 18 2019 12:01 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2019 11:41 Ayaz2810 wrote:If there was any doubt that Barr is a hack dedicated to only protecting Trump (there wasn't any doubt, but let's pretend), this puts the nail in the coffin. "Justice Department officials have had numerous conversations with White House lawyers about the conclusions made by Mr. Mueller, the special counsel, in recent days, according to people with knowledge of the discussions. The talks have aided the president’s legal team as it prepares a rebuttal to the report and strategizes for the coming public war over its findings." No one in attendance at the "press conference" from the actual investigative team tomorrow. The silence is deafening. It almost seems like a protest. When Mueller testifies or someone on his team blows the whistle, it will have so much more weight because of their continued professionalism and adherence to norms. This is so blatant it's absurd. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/17/us/politics/trump-mueller-report.html Here's my big question for you: so what? The investigation is over. Sure, Barr is helping the president politically. What's the big deal with it? It's not interfering with any investigation. And if the Mueller report is the work of a biased hack that many think it is, then I'm all in favor of Barr giving the president the heads up so that he can respond in timely fashion. In fact, I like the fact that the president will be submitting a formal written rebuttal within hours of the Mueller report's release. That's fairness in action. You're getting gaslit over a bigger nothingburger than the Mueller report.
|
On April 19 2019 02:16 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 02:11 Gorsameth wrote:On April 19 2019 02:06 Plansix wrote:
The campaign talked with a lot of Russians and thought the Russian interference would help them. They were overtly open to conspiring with the Russians. However, the investigation was unable to find the smoking gun that proves there was a conspiracy. I'll be reading the report myself tonight but my biggest question since Mueller finished has been how to square what your saying here about the lack of a smoking gun with the existence of the Trump Tower meeting and what we know about it. No witness that is willing to testify to what was said during that meeting. Without a witness, it is all hearsay and speculation. The gulf between we know to be true and what can be proven to a court is quite wide.
Is preponderance of the evidence enough here or would it have to include witnesses?
It pretty much like saying we see a shitton of smoke pouring out of the building, we see some rooms in the place glowing red, but because there's no fire directly visible, we cannot conclusively say there's a fire.....
I'm pretty glad to see that the report pretty much confirms that Barr is a partisan hack, and the rumours surrounding Trump over the last couple years is confirmed. I'm hoping to see action on the report now that it's at least partially released and available for congress. Even the unredacted portions are pretty damning.
|
On April 19 2019 02:05 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 01:54 Danglars wrote:On April 19 2019 01:12 Mohdoo wrote:On April 19 2019 00:55 Danglars wrote:On April 19 2019 00:27 PoulsenB wrote:On April 19 2019 00:20 Danglars wrote:On April 19 2019 00:09 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 18 2019 23:44 Danglars wrote:On April 18 2019 23:14 Nouar wrote:On April 18 2019 23:12 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
It's about time to recognize that there will always be a next crime once the previous crime peters out. The last one was a fake investigation, this next one is a real investigation ... until I say it isn't a real investigation a few months from now, because then this other thing is the real investigation. It's just the character of the opposition, and one way they never have to reckon with their past conduct. Maybe if this president started to behave like a president, instead of giving the appearance of corruption and unfitness for office at ANY occasion he has (this includes recruiting non-idiots to official positions), things would not go that far. For reference, I believed Bush Jr to be an idiot (manipulated behind the scenes), but at least he tried to show some dignity and didn't look that obviously corrupt in every decision he took. Naturally, one direction for you to take is to assert unique circumstances. Because you're fearful of his "appearance" of corruption and unfitness, you can carry on ignoring the past allegation forgotten, and the current allegation enjoying its one day to several months (2 years if Mueller) of fame. Poppycock. I don't care how grating you find his behavior, don't make yourselves out to be absolute fools in your passionate reactionary vigor. I think this is the heart of ignoring everything xDaunt was posting informing people: your critical faculties are never reached because you can't get over how unfit you feel he is and how much you dislike playboy billionaires. Does one even need particularly developed critical faculties to accurately figure out Trump though? In hypothetical land where Trump says ‘I think this is politically motivated and I shall be shown exonerated, but we have to trust in our rule of law and institutions.’ and largely left it at that, vs how he behaves in actuality, there’s a world of difference there. You can’t divorce how he generally behaves from an investigation into him when he himself drags them together. To consider if what he's saying is wholly or partially right, you must first get past the hurdles of how he says things, who he's insulted recently, the breaking of norms, all the imputed racism and sexism, and your own opinion. I think that's what's shortcutting people that would otherwise actually be interested in whether or not Trump has fully legitimate ire at enemies within the government that used their positions of power against him out of animus. Your theory goes, you can't neglect that the person you're dealing with sold weed to kids when you go to see if he murdered someone, or was robbed and beaten. I say you're letting your dislike permeate your consideration and won't therefore reach accurate conclusions. Only Trump isn't some "Dr House" type that is "an asshole, but a brilliant asshole who does great work", he repeatedly lies and says outright stupid stuff, courts dictators like Putin and Kim, handwaved the Saudis chopping a journalist to pieces in an embassy, and has a history of shady business practices, among other things. Hence when it comes to questions like domestic surveillance, abuse of FISA warrants, illegal leaks, you're really not thinking about that stuff and the facts. You're going through how much you hated the Putin summit, or when he called the media "Enemies of the People." It's almost a karmic calculation. I am curious what your thoughts are on Flynn once you finish reading the parts about him. I think the last three things I was interested in hearing your response to were left to hang, so maybe we both get disappointed on that score. This says plenty and gave me all the satisfaction I needed  thank you! I stopped checking this thread as often until the report dropped, so I'm sorry if I missed posts. If you happen to still have links I'd be happy to respond!
The subscribed threads -> my quoted posts is invaluable to see who responded to you with quotes. I think one or two of mine did a full quote. It was on how you favored an increase in investigations and the surveillance state or experts.
I post as things interest me to post. There still could be some stuff in there that I'm piqued enough to post in my own right. I just won't be doing so to satisfy your own curiosity so soon after disappointing mine, if that makes sense to you.
|
On April 19 2019 02:24 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 02:05 Mohdoo wrote:On April 19 2019 01:54 Danglars wrote:On April 19 2019 01:12 Mohdoo wrote:On April 19 2019 00:55 Danglars wrote:On April 19 2019 00:27 PoulsenB wrote:On April 19 2019 00:20 Danglars wrote:On April 19 2019 00:09 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 18 2019 23:44 Danglars wrote:On April 18 2019 23:14 Nouar wrote:
[quote]
Maybe if this president started to behave like a president, instead of giving the appearance of corruption and unfitness for office at ANY occasion he has (this includes recruiting non-idiots to official positions), things would not go that far.
For reference, I believed Bush Jr to be an idiot (manipulated behind the scenes), but at least he tried to show some dignity and didn't look that obviously corrupt in every decision he took. Naturally, one direction for you to take is to assert unique circumstances. Because you're fearful of his "appearance" of corruption and unfitness, you can carry on ignoring the past allegation forgotten, and the current allegation enjoying its one day to several months (2 years if Mueller) of fame. Poppycock. I don't care how grating you find his behavior, don't make yourselves out to be absolute fools in your passionate reactionary vigor. I think this is the heart of ignoring everything xDaunt was posting informing people: your critical faculties are never reached because you can't get over how unfit you feel he is and how much you dislike playboy billionaires. Does one even need particularly developed critical faculties to accurately figure out Trump though? In hypothetical land where Trump says ‘I think this is politically motivated and I shall be shown exonerated, but we have to trust in our rule of law and institutions.’ and largely left it at that, vs how he behaves in actuality, there’s a world of difference there. You can’t divorce how he generally behaves from an investigation into him when he himself drags them together. To consider if what he's saying is wholly or partially right, you must first get past the hurdles of how he says things, who he's insulted recently, the breaking of norms, all the imputed racism and sexism, and your own opinion. I think that's what's shortcutting people that would otherwise actually be interested in whether or not Trump has fully legitimate ire at enemies within the government that used their positions of power against him out of animus. Your theory goes, you can't neglect that the person you're dealing with sold weed to kids when you go to see if he murdered someone, or was robbed and beaten. I say you're letting your dislike permeate your consideration and won't therefore reach accurate conclusions. Only Trump isn't some "Dr House" type that is "an asshole, but a brilliant asshole who does great work", he repeatedly lies and says outright stupid stuff, courts dictators like Putin and Kim, handwaved the Saudis chopping a journalist to pieces in an embassy, and has a history of shady business practices, among other things. Hence when it comes to questions like domestic surveillance, abuse of FISA warrants, illegal leaks, you're really not thinking about that stuff and the facts. You're going through how much you hated the Putin summit, or when he called the media "Enemies of the People." It's almost a karmic calculation. I am curious what your thoughts are on Flynn once you finish reading the parts about him. I think the last three things I was interested in hearing your response to were left to hang, so maybe we both get disappointed on that score. This says plenty and gave me all the satisfaction I needed thank you! I stopped checking this thread as often until the report dropped, so I'm sorry if I missed posts. If you happen to still have links I'd be happy to respond! The subscribed threads -> my quoted posts is invaluable to see who responded to you with quotes. I think one or two of mine did a full quote. It was on how you favored an increase in investigations and the surveillance state or experts.
omg game changer. I remember this being a requested feature but I had no idea it ever got implemented! Thank you!
edit: I can't find subscribed threads  i am noob
|
Northern Ireland24428 Posts
Yeah cheers Danglars, ‘twas news to me as well
|
ii. Conduct of the Meeting
Trump Jr., Manafort, and Kushner participated on the Trump side, while Kaveladze, Samochomov, Akhmetshin, and Goldstone attended with Veselnitskaya.
722
The Office spoke to every participant except Veselnitska a and Trum Jr., the latter of whom declined to be voluntaril interviewed b the Office
Page 117. So Trump Jr declined to be interviewed by the OSC.
I still cannot wrap my head on why he wasn't subpoenaed to testify or indicted for accepting a meeting where it was clearly stated that a foreign government wanted to help his father get elected by providing incriminating information about his opponent (even if it was a nothingburger and they ended up dissapointed).
Maybe they thought he was just too much of an idiot, acting without nefarious intent, just stupidity, and that didn't warrant to look into it more ?
ps : thanks Danglars, neat features that I didn't know after 13 years on this forum...
On April 19 2019 02:27 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 02:24 Danglars wrote:On April 19 2019 02:05 Mohdoo wrote:On April 19 2019 01:54 Danglars wrote:On April 19 2019 01:12 Mohdoo wrote:On April 19 2019 00:55 Danglars wrote:On April 19 2019 00:27 PoulsenB wrote:On April 19 2019 00:20 Danglars wrote:On April 19 2019 00:09 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 18 2019 23:44 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Naturally, one direction for you to take is to assert unique circumstances. Because you're fearful of his "appearance" of corruption and unfitness, you can carry on ignoring the past allegation forgotten, and the current allegation enjoying its one day to several months (2 years if Mueller) of fame. Poppycock. I don't care how grating you find his behavior, don't make yourselves out to be absolute fools in your passionate reactionary vigor. I think this is the heart of ignoring everything xDaunt was posting informing people: your critical faculties are never reached because you can't get over how unfit you feel he is and how much you dislike playboy billionaires. Does one even need particularly developed critical faculties to accurately figure out Trump though? In hypothetical land where Trump says ‘I think this is politically motivated and I shall be shown exonerated, but we have to trust in our rule of law and institutions.’ and largely left it at that, vs how he behaves in actuality, there’s a world of difference there. You can’t divorce how he generally behaves from an investigation into him when he himself drags them together. To consider if what he's saying is wholly or partially right, you must first get past the hurdles of how he says things, who he's insulted recently, the breaking of norms, all the imputed racism and sexism, and your own opinion. I think that's what's shortcutting people that would otherwise actually be interested in whether or not Trump has fully legitimate ire at enemies within the government that used their positions of power against him out of animus. Your theory goes, you can't neglect that the person you're dealing with sold weed to kids when you go to see if he murdered someone, or was robbed and beaten. I say you're letting your dislike permeate your consideration and won't therefore reach accurate conclusions. Only Trump isn't some "Dr House" type that is "an asshole, but a brilliant asshole who does great work", he repeatedly lies and says outright stupid stuff, courts dictators like Putin and Kim, handwaved the Saudis chopping a journalist to pieces in an embassy, and has a history of shady business practices, among other things. Hence when it comes to questions like domestic surveillance, abuse of FISA warrants, illegal leaks, you're really not thinking about that stuff and the facts. You're going through how much you hated the Putin summit, or when he called the media "Enemies of the People." It's almost a karmic calculation. I am curious what your thoughts are on Flynn once you finish reading the parts about him. I think the last three things I was interested in hearing your response to were left to hang, so maybe we both get disappointed on that score. This says plenty and gave me all the satisfaction I needed thank you! I stopped checking this thread as often until the report dropped, so I'm sorry if I missed posts. If you happen to still have links I'd be happy to respond! The subscribed threads -> my quoted posts is invaluable to see who responded to you with quotes. I think one or two of mine did a full quote. It was on how you favored an increase in investigations and the surveillance state or experts. omg game changer. I remember this being a requested feature but I had no idea it ever got implemented! Thank you! edit: I can't find subscribed threads i am noob
Top of the page, next to your name and private messages, icon with a folder.
|
On April 19 2019 02:27 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 02:24 Danglars wrote:On April 19 2019 02:05 Mohdoo wrote:On April 19 2019 01:54 Danglars wrote:On April 19 2019 01:12 Mohdoo wrote:On April 19 2019 00:55 Danglars wrote:On April 19 2019 00:27 PoulsenB wrote:On April 19 2019 00:20 Danglars wrote:On April 19 2019 00:09 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 18 2019 23:44 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Naturally, one direction for you to take is to assert unique circumstances. Because you're fearful of his "appearance" of corruption and unfitness, you can carry on ignoring the past allegation forgotten, and the current allegation enjoying its one day to several months (2 years if Mueller) of fame. Poppycock. I don't care how grating you find his behavior, don't make yourselves out to be absolute fools in your passionate reactionary vigor. I think this is the heart of ignoring everything xDaunt was posting informing people: your critical faculties are never reached because you can't get over how unfit you feel he is and how much you dislike playboy billionaires. Does one even need particularly developed critical faculties to accurately figure out Trump though? In hypothetical land where Trump says ‘I think this is politically motivated and I shall be shown exonerated, but we have to trust in our rule of law and institutions.’ and largely left it at that, vs how he behaves in actuality, there’s a world of difference there. You can’t divorce how he generally behaves from an investigation into him when he himself drags them together. To consider if what he's saying is wholly or partially right, you must first get past the hurdles of how he says things, who he's insulted recently, the breaking of norms, all the imputed racism and sexism, and your own opinion. I think that's what's shortcutting people that would otherwise actually be interested in whether or not Trump has fully legitimate ire at enemies within the government that used their positions of power against him out of animus. Your theory goes, you can't neglect that the person you're dealing with sold weed to kids when you go to see if he murdered someone, or was robbed and beaten. I say you're letting your dislike permeate your consideration and won't therefore reach accurate conclusions. Only Trump isn't some "Dr House" type that is "an asshole, but a brilliant asshole who does great work", he repeatedly lies and says outright stupid stuff, courts dictators like Putin and Kim, handwaved the Saudis chopping a journalist to pieces in an embassy, and has a history of shady business practices, among other things. Hence when it comes to questions like domestic surveillance, abuse of FISA warrants, illegal leaks, you're really not thinking about that stuff and the facts. You're going through how much you hated the Putin summit, or when he called the media "Enemies of the People." It's almost a karmic calculation. I am curious what your thoughts are on Flynn once you finish reading the parts about him. I think the last three things I was interested in hearing your response to were left to hang, so maybe we both get disappointed on that score. This says plenty and gave me all the satisfaction I needed thank you! I stopped checking this thread as often until the report dropped, so I'm sorry if I missed posts. If you happen to still have links I'd be happy to respond! The subscribed threads -> my quoted posts is invaluable to see who responded to you with quotes. I think one or two of mine did a full quote. It was on how you favored an increase in investigations and the surveillance state or experts. omg game changer. I remember this being a requested feature but I had no idea it ever got implemented! Thank you! edit: I can't find subscribed threads i am noob
You have your logout button, PMs, subscribed threads, and my stream in upper left*.
Threads may be subscribed to at the bottom of any page of the thread (look at bottom left button), or you may enable the option to auto-subscribe to any thread you post in. Your subscribed threads will sort based on latest response, and the link will immediately take you to the first unread post on the page (or the first fully unread page if you've loaded a page before with the posts but didn't finish reading it).
|
|
|
On April 19 2019 02:37 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 02:27 Mohdoo wrote:On April 19 2019 02:24 Danglars wrote:On April 19 2019 02:05 Mohdoo wrote:On April 19 2019 01:54 Danglars wrote:On April 19 2019 01:12 Mohdoo wrote:On April 19 2019 00:55 Danglars wrote:On April 19 2019 00:27 PoulsenB wrote:On April 19 2019 00:20 Danglars wrote:On April 19 2019 00:09 Wombat_NI wrote:
[quote]
Does one even need particularly developed critical faculties to accurately figure out Trump though?
In hypothetical land where Trump says ‘I think this is politically motivated and I shall be shown exonerated, but we have to trust in our rule of law and institutions.’ and largely left it at that, vs how he behaves in actuality, there’s a world of difference there.
You can’t divorce how he generally behaves from an investigation into him when he himself drags them together.
To consider if what he's saying is wholly or partially right, you must first get past the hurdles of how he says things, who he's insulted recently, the breaking of norms, all the imputed racism and sexism, and your own opinion. I think that's what's shortcutting people that would otherwise actually be interested in whether or not Trump has fully legitimate ire at enemies within the government that used their positions of power against him out of animus. Your theory goes, you can't neglect that the person you're dealing with sold weed to kids when you go to see if he murdered someone, or was robbed and beaten. I say you're letting your dislike permeate your consideration and won't therefore reach accurate conclusions. Only Trump isn't some "Dr House" type that is "an asshole, but a brilliant asshole who does great work", he repeatedly lies and says outright stupid stuff, courts dictators like Putin and Kim, handwaved the Saudis chopping a journalist to pieces in an embassy, and has a history of shady business practices, among other things. Hence when it comes to questions like domestic surveillance, abuse of FISA warrants, illegal leaks, you're really not thinking about that stuff and the facts. You're going through how much you hated the Putin summit, or when he called the media "Enemies of the People." It's almost a karmic calculation. I am curious what your thoughts are on Flynn once you finish reading the parts about him. I think the last three things I was interested in hearing your response to were left to hang, so maybe we both get disappointed on that score. This says plenty and gave me all the satisfaction I needed thank you! I stopped checking this thread as often until the report dropped, so I'm sorry if I missed posts. If you happen to still have links I'd be happy to respond! The subscribed threads -> my quoted posts is invaluable to see who responded to you with quotes. I think one or two of mine did a full quote. It was on how you favored an increase in investigations and the surveillance state or experts. omg game changer. I remember this being a requested feature but I had no idea it ever got implemented! Thank you! edit: I can't find subscribed threads i am noob You have your logout button, PMs, subscribed threads, and my stream in upper right. Threads may be subscribed to at the bottom of any page of the thread (look at bottom left button), or you may enable the option to auto-subscribe to any thread you post in. Your subscribed threads will sort based on latest response, and the link will immediately take you to the first unread post on the page (or the first fully unread page if you've loaded a page before with the posts but didn't finish reading it).
Thanks, I'll write up replies and PM you so that I don't derail the thread. I value our conversations since you keep me honest and basically serve as a audit system for my worldviews. Same with GH.
|
Several features of the conduct we investigated distinguish it from typical obstruction-ofjustice cases. First, the investigation concerned the President, and some of his actions, such as firing the FBI director, involved facially lawful acts within his Article II authority, which raises constitutional issues discussed below. At the same time, the President s position as the head of the Executive Branch provided him with unique and powerful means of influencing official proceedings, subordinate officers, and potential witnesses-all of which is relevant to a potential obstruction-of-justice analysis. Second, unlike cases in which a subject engages in obstruction of justice to cover up a crime, the evidence we obtained did not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference. Although the obstruction statutes do not require proof of such a crime, the absence of that evidence affects the analysis of the President s intent and requires consideration of other possible motives for his conduct. Third, many of the President s acts directed at witnesses, including discouragement of cooperation with the government and suggestions of possible future pardons, took place in public view. That circumstance is unusual, but no principle of law excludes public acts from the reach of the obstruction laws. If the likely effect of public acts is to influence witnesses or alter their testimony, the harm to the justice system s integrity is the same.
Book 2, Page 7 (219 scribd)
General statements about the president's conduct :
1) His position grants him the possibility to conduct obstruction using facially legal moves (firing Comey) and to influence subordinates or witnesses. Makes it harder to determine intent when the moves are legal.
2) They found no underlying crime, so they had to review the evidence to re-evaluate the intent and consider other motives.
3) Stupid tried to discourage cooperation and play on pardons in public, duh.
|
On April 19 2019 02:40 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 02:16 On_Slaught wrote:On April 19 2019 02:05 IgnE wrote:On April 19 2019 01:49 On_Slaught wrote:On April 19 2019 01:45 IgnE wrote:On April 19 2019 01:36 Plansix wrote:On April 19 2019 01:33 IgnE wrote:
Didn’t we already know all this? What’s new here? Presumably xdaunt doesn’t disagree with any of the factual claims in the report. I’m not sure that in the dozens of pages of discussion on this issue that two people, one from each side, have directly disputed a coherent factual narrative. There just seems to be a lot of arguing about which events are actually important I didn't know that the president said he was fucked and the investigation was the end of his presidency in the oval office upon receiving news the special counsel was appointed. Or the number of times he asked McGahn to fire Mueller. Or that Corey Lewandowski delivered a message to Sessions to curtail the investigation. But the report is public, you can just read it like the rest of us. honestly none of that surprises me. maybe I didnt “know it” in all of the particulars, but again, simply grafting some details onto an irrelevant tree doesn’t make it relevant without argument. didnt everyone already suspect that trump wiuld act like that? even xdaunt and danglars probably thought so By "act like that" do you mean a multi year operation, which he tried to cover up, to try and kill an investigation into himself? That some people might argue that doesnt rise to an indictable offense doesnt change what is clear for everyone to see. And thankfully, for the first time it really is clear for all to see. frankly, yes, i do mean that. it’s strange how you guys take a couple of trump’s tweets so seriously when you know that he’s a liar. nobody here was on the fence. we already know that more “data” is not persuasive to people ideologically divided. the only relevant question for me is how to convince people to contextualize the data differently. this is largely a matter for rhetoric, that ancient discipline recently much-maligned. the report may help with constructing the argument but it doesn’t suffice on its own and petty back and forths miss the target. what i want is a cogent, targeted response. the only person i’ve seen do that consistently on this topic is kwark, tonwhom danglars and xdaunt do not respond, perhaps because they do not significantly disagree with the underlying propositions I'm not so sure both sides agreed on the facts to the point where a debate about whether the facts meet the elements of the crime was appropriate. There were too many unknowns. That's why this report being public is so important; it lets everyone see what happened in chronological order and with great detail. Now if we could get xDaunt and co. to come out and state that what Mueller lays out in the report is the final and complete fact set, then, and only then, can we move on to contextualizing with regards to the elements of the law. That last week victory lap is not aging well based on the full report. That being said when they thought the report was a "nothingburger" they agreed that Mueller had been thorough and done a good job. I wonder if that sentiment remains or if now all the info that Trump is incompetent, back boneless, wanted help from the Russians and so on if that will remain. Or if now Mueller will go back to being a "partisan" hack. I also enjoyed when Nettles showed back up with his fox talking points and no substance right before the report that proves them all foolish drops. He couldn't have timed that worse, which is awesome.
He probably hasn't noticed that this is what happened to be honest.
|
So Papadopoulis was investigated for crimes by acting as an unregistered agent of the Israeli government. I did not see that one coming, not in a million years. Also barely a half of a page with footnotes on the Papadopoulos-Downer meet, originally hailed as the spark for the 2016 anti-Trump investigation. (See Rod Rosenstein memo)
Low amount of redactions compared to what I expected.
There's plenty of embarrassing stuff for Trump as expected. I might have to finish Saturday.
|
On April 19 2019 02:16 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 02:05 IgnE wrote:On April 19 2019 01:49 On_Slaught wrote:On April 19 2019 01:45 IgnE wrote:On April 19 2019 01:36 Plansix wrote:On April 19 2019 01:33 IgnE wrote:
Didn’t we already know all this? What’s new here? Presumably xdaunt doesn’t disagree with any of the factual claims in the report. I’m not sure that in the dozens of pages of discussion on this issue that two people, one from each side, have directly disputed a coherent factual narrative. There just seems to be a lot of arguing about which events are actually important I didn't know that the president said he was fucked and the investigation was the end of his presidency in the oval office upon receiving news the special counsel was appointed. Or the number of times he asked McGahn to fire Mueller. Or that Corey Lewandowski delivered a message to Sessions to curtail the investigation. But the report is public, you can just read it like the rest of us. honestly none of that surprises me. maybe I didnt “know it” in all of the particulars, but again, simply grafting some details onto an irrelevant tree doesn’t make it relevant without argument. didnt everyone already suspect that trump wiuld act like that? even xdaunt and danglars probably thought so By "act like that" do you mean a multi year operation, which he tried to cover up, to try and kill an investigation into himself? That some people might argue that doesnt rise to an indictable offense doesnt change what is clear for everyone to see. And thankfully, for the first time it really is clear for all to see. frankly, yes, i do mean that. it’s strange how you guys take a couple of trump’s tweets so seriously when you know that he’s a liar. nobody here was on the fence. we already know that more “data” is not persuasive to people ideologically divided. the only relevant question for me is how to convince people to contextualize the data differently. this is largely a matter for rhetoric, that ancient discipline recently much-maligned. the report may help with constructing the argument but it doesn’t suffice on its own and petty back and forths miss the target. what i want is a cogent, targeted response. the only person i’ve seen do that consistently on this topic is kwark, tonwhom danglars and xdaunt do not respond, perhaps because they do not significantly disagree with the underlying propositions I'm not so sure both sides agreed on the facts to the point where a debate about whether the facts meet the elements of the crime was appropriate. There were too many unknowns. That's why this report being public is so important; it lets everyone see what happened in chronological order and with great detail. Now if we could get xDaunt and co. to come out and state that what Mueller lays out in the report is the final and complete fact set, then, and only then, can we move on to contextualizing with regards to the elements of the law.
I already said last night that the Mueller report will have to read in conjunction with what Giuliani's team puts out. Between those two reports, we should have a fairly comprehensive set of facts regarding the propriety of Trump's actions, though these documents likely will not reach issues regarding the propriety of the underlying investigation(s). We'll have to wait longer for that.
|
The future scholarship comparing the way Trump talks to his subordinates to how mobsters talk are going to be fascinating. He is a master of innuendo and requesting actions without directly asking for them.
Edit: also I agree with Danglars. I'm surprised, and pleased, by the low amount of redactions (in volume 2 at least).
|
United States42260 Posts
On April 19 2019 02:16 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 02:11 Gorsameth wrote:On April 19 2019 02:06 Plansix wrote:
The campaign talked with a lot of Russians and thought the Russian interference would help them. They were overtly open to conspiring with the Russians. However, the investigation was unable to find the smoking gun that proves there was a conspiracy. I'll be reading the report myself tonight but my biggest question since Mueller finished has been how to square what your saying here about the lack of a smoking gun with the existence of the Trump Tower meeting and what we know about it. No witness that is willing to testify to what was said during that meeting. Without a witness, it is all hearsay and speculation. The gulf between we know to be true and what can be proven to a court is quite wide.
Cohen testified on what Jr told Sr after the meeting. He was in the room.
|
On April 19 2019 03:01 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 02:16 On_Slaught wrote:On April 19 2019 02:05 IgnE wrote:On April 19 2019 01:49 On_Slaught wrote:On April 19 2019 01:45 IgnE wrote:On April 19 2019 01:36 Plansix wrote:On April 19 2019 01:33 IgnE wrote:
Didn’t we already know all this? What’s new here? Presumably xdaunt doesn’t disagree with any of the factual claims in the report. I’m not sure that in the dozens of pages of discussion on this issue that two people, one from each side, have directly disputed a coherent factual narrative. There just seems to be a lot of arguing about which events are actually important I didn't know that the president said he was fucked and the investigation was the end of his presidency in the oval office upon receiving news the special counsel was appointed. Or the number of times he asked McGahn to fire Mueller. Or that Corey Lewandowski delivered a message to Sessions to curtail the investigation. But the report is public, you can just read it like the rest of us. honestly none of that surprises me. maybe I didnt “know it” in all of the particulars, but again, simply grafting some details onto an irrelevant tree doesn’t make it relevant without argument. didnt everyone already suspect that trump wiuld act like that? even xdaunt and danglars probably thought so By "act like that" do you mean a multi year operation, which he tried to cover up, to try and kill an investigation into himself? That some people might argue that doesnt rise to an indictable offense doesnt change what is clear for everyone to see. And thankfully, for the first time it really is clear for all to see. frankly, yes, i do mean that. it’s strange how you guys take a couple of trump’s tweets so seriously when you know that he’s a liar. nobody here was on the fence. we already know that more “data” is not persuasive to people ideologically divided. the only relevant question for me is how to convince people to contextualize the data differently. this is largely a matter for rhetoric, that ancient discipline recently much-maligned. the report may help with constructing the argument but it doesn’t suffice on its own and petty back and forths miss the target. what i want is a cogent, targeted response. the only person i’ve seen do that consistently on this topic is kwark, tonwhom danglars and xdaunt do not respond, perhaps because they do not significantly disagree with the underlying propositions I'm not so sure both sides agreed on the facts to the point where a debate about whether the facts meet the elements of the crime was appropriate. There were too many unknowns. That's why this report being public is so important; it lets everyone see what happened in chronological order and with great detail. Now if we could get xDaunt and co. to come out and state that what Mueller lays out in the report is the final and complete fact set, then, and only then, can we move on to contextualizing with regards to the elements of the law. I already said last night that the Mueller report will have to read in conjunction with what Giuliani's team puts out. Between those two reports, we should have a fairly comprehensive set of facts regarding the propriety of Trump's actions, though these documents likely will not reach issues regarding the propriety of the underlying investigation(s). We'll have to wait longer for that.
If this report only shows one thing its that the word of Trump and his people are worth nothing (fuck you Sanders especially). Literally everything they say should be presumed false. Count me as curious as to what actual evidence Guilinai has which counters the hundreds of pages of evidence Mueller got over 2 years. Anything he says without evidence should be considered a politically motivated lie until shown otherwise.
|
On April 19 2019 03:01 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 02:16 On_Slaught wrote:On April 19 2019 02:05 IgnE wrote:On April 19 2019 01:49 On_Slaught wrote:On April 19 2019 01:45 IgnE wrote:On April 19 2019 01:36 Plansix wrote:On April 19 2019 01:33 IgnE wrote:
Didn’t we already know all this? What’s new here? Presumably xdaunt doesn’t disagree with any of the factual claims in the report. I’m not sure that in the dozens of pages of discussion on this issue that two people, one from each side, have directly disputed a coherent factual narrative. There just seems to be a lot of arguing about which events are actually important I didn't know that the president said he was fucked and the investigation was the end of his presidency in the oval office upon receiving news the special counsel was appointed. Or the number of times he asked McGahn to fire Mueller. Or that Corey Lewandowski delivered a message to Sessions to curtail the investigation. But the report is public, you can just read it like the rest of us. honestly none of that surprises me. maybe I didnt “know it” in all of the particulars, but again, simply grafting some details onto an irrelevant tree doesn’t make it relevant without argument. didnt everyone already suspect that trump wiuld act like that? even xdaunt and danglars probably thought so By "act like that" do you mean a multi year operation, which he tried to cover up, to try and kill an investigation into himself? That some people might argue that doesnt rise to an indictable offense doesnt change what is clear for everyone to see. And thankfully, for the first time it really is clear for all to see. frankly, yes, i do mean that. it’s strange how you guys take a couple of trump’s tweets so seriously when you know that he’s a liar. nobody here was on the fence. we already know that more “data” is not persuasive to people ideologically divided. the only relevant question for me is how to convince people to contextualize the data differently. this is largely a matter for rhetoric, that ancient discipline recently much-maligned. the report may help with constructing the argument but it doesn’t suffice on its own and petty back and forths miss the target. what i want is a cogent, targeted response. the only person i’ve seen do that consistently on this topic is kwark, tonwhom danglars and xdaunt do not respond, perhaps because they do not significantly disagree with the underlying propositions I'm not so sure both sides agreed on the facts to the point where a debate about whether the facts meet the elements of the crime was appropriate. There were too many unknowns. That's why this report being public is so important; it lets everyone see what happened in chronological order and with great detail. Now if we could get xDaunt and co. to come out and state that what Mueller lays out in the report is the final and complete fact set, then, and only then, can we move on to contextualizing with regards to the elements of the law. I already said last night that the Mueller report will have to read in conjunction with what Giuliani's team puts out. Between those two reports, we should have a fairly comprehensive set of facts regarding the propriety of Trump's actions, though these documents likely will not reach issues regarding the propriety of the underlying investigation(s). We'll have to wait longer for that.
You sais that Barr's summary of the report was entirely accurate. So I'm not entirely sure why anyone should take your advice faithfully on what should or should not be read.
|
The original report is not text-searchable, but people now have uploads where you can search through with normal applications.
|
On April 19 2019 03:25 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 03:01 xDaunt wrote:On April 19 2019 02:16 On_Slaught wrote:On April 19 2019 02:05 IgnE wrote:On April 19 2019 01:49 On_Slaught wrote:On April 19 2019 01:45 IgnE wrote:On April 19 2019 01:36 Plansix wrote:On April 19 2019 01:33 IgnE wrote:
Didn’t we already know all this? What’s new here? Presumably xdaunt doesn’t disagree with any of the factual claims in the report. I’m not sure that in the dozens of pages of discussion on this issue that two people, one from each side, have directly disputed a coherent factual narrative. There just seems to be a lot of arguing about which events are actually important I didn't know that the president said he was fucked and the investigation was the end of his presidency in the oval office upon receiving news the special counsel was appointed. Or the number of times he asked McGahn to fire Mueller. Or that Corey Lewandowski delivered a message to Sessions to curtail the investigation. But the report is public, you can just read it like the rest of us. honestly none of that surprises me. maybe I didnt “know it” in all of the particulars, but again, simply grafting some details onto an irrelevant tree doesn’t make it relevant without argument. didnt everyone already suspect that trump wiuld act like that? even xdaunt and danglars probably thought so By "act like that" do you mean a multi year operation, which he tried to cover up, to try and kill an investigation into himself? That some people might argue that doesnt rise to an indictable offense doesnt change what is clear for everyone to see. And thankfully, for the first time it really is clear for all to see. frankly, yes, i do mean that. it’s strange how you guys take a couple of trump’s tweets so seriously when you know that he’s a liar. nobody here was on the fence. we already know that more “data” is not persuasive to people ideologically divided. the only relevant question for me is how to convince people to contextualize the data differently. this is largely a matter for rhetoric, that ancient discipline recently much-maligned. the report may help with constructing the argument but it doesn’t suffice on its own and petty back and forths miss the target. what i want is a cogent, targeted response. the only person i’ve seen do that consistently on this topic is kwark, tonwhom danglars and xdaunt do not respond, perhaps because they do not significantly disagree with the underlying propositions I'm not so sure both sides agreed on the facts to the point where a debate about whether the facts meet the elements of the crime was appropriate. There were too many unknowns. That's why this report being public is so important; it lets everyone see what happened in chronological order and with great detail. Now if we could get xDaunt and co. to come out and state that what Mueller lays out in the report is the final and complete fact set, then, and only then, can we move on to contextualizing with regards to the elements of the law. I already said last night that the Mueller report will have to read in conjunction with what Giuliani's team puts out. Between those two reports, we should have a fairly comprehensive set of facts regarding the propriety of Trump's actions, though these documents likely will not reach issues regarding the propriety of the underlying investigation(s). We'll have to wait longer for that. You sais that Barr's summary of the report was entirely accurate. So I'm not entirely sure why anyone should take your advice faithfully on what should or should not be read.
At least he changed his tune from it's 'deranged to suggest that Barr is partial' a week ago to 'so what if he's partial' the other day.
Here's the money shot from vol. 2 page 78 regarding that discussion
"How could you let this happen, Jeff?" The President said the position of Attorney General was his most important appointment and that Sessions had "let [him] down," contrasting him to Eric Holder and Robert Kennedy. Sessions recalled that the President said to him, "you were supposed to protect me", or words to that effect.
|
On April 19 2019 03:25 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 03:01 xDaunt wrote:On April 19 2019 02:16 On_Slaught wrote:On April 19 2019 02:05 IgnE wrote:On April 19 2019 01:49 On_Slaught wrote:On April 19 2019 01:45 IgnE wrote:On April 19 2019 01:36 Plansix wrote:On April 19 2019 01:33 IgnE wrote:
Didn’t we already know all this? What’s new here? Presumably xdaunt doesn’t disagree with any of the factual claims in the report. I’m not sure that in the dozens of pages of discussion on this issue that two people, one from each side, have directly disputed a coherent factual narrative. There just seems to be a lot of arguing about which events are actually important I didn't know that the president said he was fucked and the investigation was the end of his presidency in the oval office upon receiving news the special counsel was appointed. Or the number of times he asked McGahn to fire Mueller. Or that Corey Lewandowski delivered a message to Sessions to curtail the investigation. But the report is public, you can just read it like the rest of us. honestly none of that surprises me. maybe I didnt “know it” in all of the particulars, but again, simply grafting some details onto an irrelevant tree doesn’t make it relevant without argument. didnt everyone already suspect that trump wiuld act like that? even xdaunt and danglars probably thought so By "act like that" do you mean a multi year operation, which he tried to cover up, to try and kill an investigation into himself? That some people might argue that doesnt rise to an indictable offense doesnt change what is clear for everyone to see. And thankfully, for the first time it really is clear for all to see. frankly, yes, i do mean that. it’s strange how you guys take a couple of trump’s tweets so seriously when you know that he’s a liar. nobody here was on the fence. we already know that more “data” is not persuasive to people ideologically divided. the only relevant question for me is how to convince people to contextualize the data differently. this is largely a matter for rhetoric, that ancient discipline recently much-maligned. the report may help with constructing the argument but it doesn’t suffice on its own and petty back and forths miss the target. what i want is a cogent, targeted response. the only person i’ve seen do that consistently on this topic is kwark, tonwhom danglars and xdaunt do not respond, perhaps because they do not significantly disagree with the underlying propositions I'm not so sure both sides agreed on the facts to the point where a debate about whether the facts meet the elements of the crime was appropriate. There were too many unknowns. That's why this report being public is so important; it lets everyone see what happened in chronological order and with great detail. Now if we could get xDaunt and co. to come out and state that what Mueller lays out in the report is the final and complete fact set, then, and only then, can we move on to contextualizing with regards to the elements of the law. I already said last night that the Mueller report will have to read in conjunction with what Giuliani's team puts out. Between those two reports, we should have a fairly comprehensive set of facts regarding the propriety of Trump's actions, though these documents likely will not reach issues regarding the propriety of the underlying investigation(s). We'll have to wait longer for that. You sais that Barr's summary of the report was entirely accurate. So I'm not entirely sure why anyone should take your advice faithfully on what should or should not be read.
And what is inaccurate about it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
