The Mueller Probe is Complete - Longer OP Edition

[Fahran]

Lack of a conviction doesn't mean that the investigation wasn't warranted and Muellers job was to investigate Russian interference and any other crimes that are discovered during that investigation.

I never said the investigation wasn't warranted. It's something that was inevitable and necessary given the severity of the allegations put forward. The framing of it, however, was problematic and has been so biased that many people will never accept that Trump didn't engage in criminal conspiracy regardless of how little evidence materializes. What would it take for you to give up on this?

Concern trolling.

What?

Republican senators are calling for investigations into the FBI and Clinton. Me posting on NS is unlikely to swing Wisconsin in 2020.

No, but the fact that a good many people in positions of power are listening to opinions like yours could effectively result in further polarization and mud-raking.

Also, nothing could be done to sway the people still with trump. They're a lost cause.

I'm contemplating voting for Trump because of the current positions of the Democratic Party. I opposed Trump throughout the primary and voted for an alternative party instead of casting a vote for him or Clinton. You're assuming a bit much about people you need to win over if your faction is going to regain political power.

True. I should have said by the standards of the developed world. FWIW, on the issue of guns, Republicans are extreme by every standard.

An argumentum ad populum isn't altogether convincing. The reason the United States has such liberal gun laws is because the 2nd Amendment and arguments tend to favor the pro-gun folks. It probably helps that we're considerably more rural than a good many developed nations and considerably less authoritarian than a good many developing nations. But, yeah, in the broader scheme of things, America is more classically liberal than Europe as a rule, yes.

[Tobleste]

I don't know of many important Democrats calling for open borders, Obama deported millions of illegals, left wing activists are arguing for removing ICE, removing the electoral college would only give them domination because they have more voters, the Covington thing was more the media than the Democrats and witness testimony is evidence.

On the other hand, Republicans have given control of nuclear weapons to the idiot from the apprentice, shrugged while he locks up children, defends attendees at a neo nazi march and foreign dictators and runs a blatantly corrupt administration.

I'm going to go ahead and break this down REALLY simple for you concerning two things.

Electoral College: This allows EQUAL representation for all STATES in our Union. This system is designed to make sure that the ENTIRE NATION is represented, including places like the mid west, so that there needs/concerns are voiced. Removing the electoral college would literally push us into a single-party dictatorship where the only campaigning you would need to do is in NYC, SF, Chicago and other MAJOR liberal cities.

lower population states would literally be enslaved by metropolitan areas.

Lowering the Voting Age to 16: Again, this is a power play by Dems to get more voters. The school system is notoriously left-wing and 16 year olds are also notoriously naive and easily persuaded(shit, I was a communist in highschool for that exact reason).

When the two above are enacted the United States will literally cease to exist as we know it.

That's not what the EC does, that's not what would happen if repealed and the school system seems left wing for reasons that say more about the American right. Trump supporters can't complain about others being naive and gullible.

I won't do the research for you.

[Nazeroth]

I'm going to go ahead and break this down REALLY simple for you concerning two things.

Electoral College: This allows EQUAL representation for all STATES in our Union. This system is designed to make sure that the ENTIRE NATION is represented, including places like the mid west, so that there needs/concerns are voiced. Removing the electoral college would literally push us into a single-party dictatorship where the only campaigning you would need to do is in NYC, SF, Chicago and other MAJOR liberal cities.

lower population states would literally be enslaved by metropolitan areas.

Lowering the Voting Age to 16: Again, this is a power play by Dems to get more voters. The school system is notoriously left-wing and 16 year olds are also notoriously naive and easily persuaded(shit, I was a communist in highschool for that exact reason).

When the two above are enacted the United States will literally cease to exist as we know it.

That's not what the EC does, that's not what would happen if repealed and the school system seems left wing for reasons that say more about the American right. Trump supporters can't complain about others being naive and gullible.

I won't do the research for you.

Can you please enlighten the class on the purpose of the Electoral College then?

[Tobleste]

Lack of a conviction doesn't mean that the investigation wasn't warranted and Muellers job was to investigate Russian interference and any other crimes that are discovered during that investigation.

I never said the investigation wasn't warranted. It's something that was inevitable and necessary given the severity of the allegations put forward. The framing of it, however, was problematic and has been so biased that many people will never accept that Trump didn't engage in criminal conspiracy regardless of how little evidence materializes. What would it take for you to give up on this?

Concern trolling.

What?

Republican senators are calling for investigations into the FBI and Clinton. Me posting on NS is unlikely to swing Wisconsin in 2020.

No, but the fact that a good many people in positions of power are listening to opinions like yours could effectively result in further polarization and mud-raking.

Also, nothing could be done to sway the people still with trump. They're a lost cause.

I'm contemplating voting for Trump because of the current positions of the Democratic Party. I opposed Trump throughout the primary and voted for an alternative party instead of casting a vote for him or Clinton. You're assuming a bit much about people you need to win over if your faction is going to regain political power.

I don't think he colluded with Russia. I think that he did enough wrong that it's bizarre that some are saying it's nothing.

Concern trolling is where you pretend to care about an issue and offer counter productive advice.

The only response to Republican behaviour is to respond proportionately.

And why are you considering voting for him exactly?

[Tobleste]

That's not what the EC does, that's not what would happen if repealed and the school system seems left wing for reasons that say more about the American right. Trump supporters can't complain about others being naive and gullible.

I won't do the research for you.

Can you please enlighten the class on the purpose of the Electoral College then?

Find a non crap source of news and learn for yourself.

[Nazeroth]

Can you please enlighten the class on the purpose of the Electoral College then?

Find a non crap source of news and learn for yourself.

I gave you my reasoning on the Electoral College, but when asked yours you just say "Google it" more or less

[Vassenor]

Find a non crap source of news and learn for yourself.

I gave you my reasoning on the Electoral College, but when asked yours you just say "Google it" more or less

Maybe you could try backing up your arguments with actual sources.

[Nazeroth]

I gave you my reasoning on the Electoral College, but when asked yours you just say "Google it" more or less

Maybe you could try backing up your arguments with actual sources.

I was asking for his view on it, I don't need a source, just his opinion.

[Vassenor]

Maybe you could try backing up your arguments with actual sources.

I was asking for his view on it, I don't need a source, just his opinion.

And I'm asking for the sources behind your view. Because right now it just seems like regurgitated right wing talking points.

[Nazeroth]

I was asking for his view on it, I don't need a source, just his opinion.

And I'm asking for the sources behind your view.

It's my opinion, you can agree/disagree if you like.

[Farnhamia]

I was asking for his view on it, I don't need a source, just his opinion.

And I'm asking for the sources behind your view.

And I'm wondering why you're talking about the Electoral College in a thread on the Mueller Report.

[Gravlen]

I think proven that trumps campaign was effectively a convention of grifters and criminals, it should be a big deal though obviously won't.

He also wasn't cleared of obstruction.

It's a nothing burger because the standard for trump is so low that anything short of him referring to Putin as "Comrade" would feel anti climactic.

It's already been said by Barr that there is insufficient evidence for obstruction. If you do not have evidence then it's kind of hard to prove someone did something wrong.

But please, continue grasping at straws.

That's not exactly what he said.

He said:

Generally speaking, to obtain and sustain an obstruction conviction, the government would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person, acting with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct with a a sufficient nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding. In cataloguing the President’s actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgement, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department’s principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of-justice offense.

The problems with what he did say is illustrated in this opinion piece:

At Slate, David R. Lurie homes in on Barr's assertion that Trump could not have obstructed justice because "the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to election interference." Lurie points out that this is not the mainstream legal consensus on what obstruction of justice means.

According to Barr, because Mueller concluded that "the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to election interference," it would be difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury that the president had a "corrupt intent" to interfere with a grand jury or other official proceeding. Barr's argument thus suggests that if a subject of a criminal investigation avoids indictment for the underlying offense — whether it be insider trading, burglary, or election interference — he should not be charged with criminal liability for efforts to obstruct the investigation of the potential offense, either.

That is simply not the law. Proof of an underlying crime is not an element of an obstruction charge, and individuals are regularly charged with obstruction without facing criminal liability for an underlying offense. To take just one example, Martha Stewart was charged with obstructing an investigation into insider stock trading without facing criminal liability for her trades.

http://digg.com/2019/mueller-report-barr-letter-what-to-read

And further arguments can be made:

On the law, Mr. Barr’s letter also obliquely suggests that he consulted with the Office of Legal Counsel, the elite Justice Department office that interprets federal statutes. This raises the serious question of whether Mr. Barr’s decision on Sunday was based on the bizarre legal views that he set out in an unsolicited 19-page memo last year.

That memo made the argument that the obstruction of justice statute does not apply to the president because the text of the statute doesn’t specifically mention the president. Of course, the murder statute doesn’t mention the president either, but no one thinks the president can’t commit murder. Indeed, the Office of Legal Counsel had previously concluded that such an argument to interpret another criminal statute, the bribery law, was wrong.

As such, Mr. Barr’s reference to the office raises the question of whether he tried to enshrine his idiosyncratic view into the law and bar Mr. Trump’s prosecution. His unsolicited memo should be understood for what it is, a badly argued attempt to put presidents above the law. If he used that legal fiction to let President Trump off the hook, Congress would have to begin an impeachment investigation to vindicate the rule of law.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/24/opinion/barr-mueller-report.html

So.. it's not quite clear.

[Fahran]

No, but politically it would matter if Mueller's report suggest, for example, that there's clear and convincing evidence that Trump attempted to enter into a criminal conspiracy, but that the evidence they have doesn't clear the threshold of reasonable doubt (because, say, they lacked criminal intent and were simply incompetent and poor judgement). That would be a huge difference from a report which suggests, for example, that there is no evidence of any attempted wrongdoing.

That might be a politically salient issue, but I'm not certain it's incumbent on the Department of Justice to furnish political dirt on the President of the United States in this situation, especially when there's a reasonable assumption that any information released would be employed in bad faith to portray him in the most negative light possible. If the assumption is nothing will come of this aside from an attempt to sway public opinion, then would it be fair to call most of the intentions behind these demands politically motivated and partisan? I think concern for truth left us a good while ago.

To put it differently, if it's 80% - 90% likely that Trump attempted criminal acts, the situation should be handled very differently (politically) than if it's 0% - 10% likely that he did so.

I agree on this, but we're getting into really nebulous territory at that point. Especially given that Mueller wasn't keen to even bring charges against Trump.

Well, you don't need evidence to impeach a person, strictly speaking. You just need political will.

In practice, that's true. Ideally, you would hope the impeachment process isn't abused and that an impeached president has actually committed high crimes and misdemeanors.

No, not presently. I believe the report should be released, and we should take it from there.

I don't really disagree with that. I actually think it'd probably serve both the truth and Trump at this point. If he can keep investigations going to 2020 and nothing comes out, he'll be even further vindicated.

[The South Falls]

The main purpose of the electoral college was to deflect voting from the unwashed masses into the hands of more educated people who were "more able" to vote.

[Diarcesia]

The main purpose of the electoral college was to deflect voting from the unwashed masses into the hands of more educated people who were "more able" to vote.

The alternative of only popular and first-past-the-post (yuck) elections is that politicians will just vote buy their constituents to power. EC abolitionists tend to be the same sort to laugh at third worlders electing authoritarians yet they advocate for a very similar voting systems.

Edit: This is for another topic though.

[Farnhamia]

The main purpose of the electoral college was to deflect voting from the unwashed masses into the hands of more educated people who were "more able" to vote.

The alternative of only popular and first-past-the-post (yuck) elections is that politicians will just vote buy their constituents to power. EC abolitionists tend to be the same sort to laugh at third worlders electing authoritarians yet they advocate for a very similar voting system.

The EC is irrelevant to this thread.

[Diarcesia]

The alternative of only popular and first-past-the-post (yuck) elections is that politicians will just vote buy their constituents to power. EC abolitionists tend to be the same sort to laugh at third worlders electing authoritarians yet they advocate for a very similar voting system.

The EC is irrelevant to this thread.

I feel the thread already ran its course.

[Gravlen]

No, but politically it would matter if Mueller's report suggest, for example, that there's clear and convincing evidence that Trump attempted to enter into a criminal conspiracy, but that the evidence they have doesn't clear the threshold of reasonable doubt (because, say, they lacked criminal intent and were simply incompetent and poor judgement). That would be a huge difference from a report which suggests, for example, that there is no evidence of any attempted wrongdoing.

That might be a politically salient issue, but I'm not certain it's incumbent on the Department of Justice to furnish political dirt on the President of the United States in this situation, especially when there's a reasonable assumption that any information released would be employed in bad faith to portray him in the most negative light possible. If the assumption is nothing will come of this aside from an attempt to sway public opinion, then would it be fair to call most of the intentions behind these demands politically motivated and partisan? I think concern for truth left us a good while ago.

I think there's a responsibility to dinish this properly, no matter what the outcome is. No matter what any of his political opponents have said and done, Trump has himself carried out so many overt attacks on the integrity of the system that those alone makes it incumbent on the DoJ to release the report and show their work.

To put it differently, if it's 80% - 90% likely that Trump attempted criminal acts, the situation should be handled very differently (politically) than if it's 0% - 10% likely that he did so.

I agree on this, but we're getting into really nebulous territory at that point. Especially given that Mueller wasn't keen to even bring charges against Trump.

That is another matter entirely, since there's an unresolved question about whether a sitting president can be indicted (except through the process of impeachment). As such, Mueller would most likely never have brought charges against Trump, no matter what he had found.

Well, you don't need evidence to impeach a person, strictly speaking. You just need political will.

In practice, that's true. Ideally, you would hope the impeachment process isn't abused and that an impeached president has actually committed high crimes and misdemeanors.

No, not presently. I believe the report should be released, and we should take it from there.

I don't really disagree with that. I actually think it'd probably serve both the truth and Trump at this point. If he can keep investigations going to 2020 and nothing comes out, he'll be even further vindicated.

In a normal presidency, I would mabye have agreed with you. Trump, however, will continue to be Trump and say things like he believes Putin over the US intelligence community, and how he (now) wants SCOTUS to strike down Obamacare without any replacement... The report itself will be forgotten.

[Fahran]

I don't think he colluded with Russia. I think that he did enough wrong that it's bizarre that some are saying it's nothing.

What crimes do you believe he committed?

Concern trolling is where you pretend to care about an issue and offer counter productive advice.

Who precisely are you accusing of concern trolling?

The only response to Republican behaviour is to respond proportionately.

Even if the result is foppery?

And why are you considering voting for him exactly?

We have a strong economy at present, we haven't escalated our involvement in a foreign conflict that we'll abandon in five years, we aren't actively promoting policies rooted in what I would consider a largely nihilistic philosophy, we aren't investing in economic overhauls that will balloon our deficit, etc. I like a good many Democratic positions actually. I actually want to raise taxes and implement a tax on externality costs for instance. I don't mind nationalism and solidarity movements within minority communities under the umbrella of a broader American nationalism. I like immigration reform and criminal justice reform. But the social policies and vitriol are alienating - and the inevitable comparisons to Martin Luther King, Jr. whenever someone calls them out on it aren't really endearing either because the contrast in behavior, rhetoric, and ethics is pretty glaring in many cases. I also doubt that the Democrats will follow through on their promises aside from driving the culture war even further to the left.

[Farnhamia]

The EC is irrelevant to this thread.

I feel the thread already ran its course.

So stop posting in it.

[Shofercia]

That's a moronically broad question.

I've had it with your completely dishonest style of posting. Either that or you are actively incapable of carrying a conversation.

You're asking the equivalent of "what's the meaning of life?" in thread about politics. You asked: "What is a crime to you?"

We're done here. I don't have time for people who are unwilling or unable to not lie, ignore and denigrate other people.

Throughout the debate you lied about your misunderstanding of the Steele Dossier, pretending that I wanted to investigate it in order to investigate Clinton, which is idiotic; if I wanted to investigate Clinton, I'd go after the Clinton Foundation. You attempted to denigrate me with smiley spam, and you ignored whatever you thought was irrelevant. In that quote Forsher, you are describing your posting style in this very thread. Are you unable to live with it?

[Bear Stearns]

I think Mueller really just did this so he could right his tell-all novel in 10 years.

I smell a blockbuster.

[Shofercia]

House Democrats are requesting that Barr release the full report to Congress by April 2.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congre ... -2-n987241

I definitely want to see the full report released. I don't trust Barr's summary at all.

I'm all for releasing it - but April 2nd? Talk about an unreasonable deadline. Mueller had years to investigate it, and Barr has less than a week to release it? At least give the guy a month or two. Even here the Democrats managed to successfully land on their face.

This thread is getting saltier than the Dead Sea and I fucking love it.

I mean, its not. At all. We have people discussing the topic at hand civilly and the potential ramifications. This Trumpist obsession with salt has you seeing it where there is none, seemingly believing in a shared delusion that people are being salty because you actually believe you are owning libs. In reality you are just making nonsensical nonsequitars that contribute nothing to the conversation because, ultimately, you have nothing meaningful to contribute nor any inclination to maturely discuss an issue.

But I digress.

I don't have a Trumpist obsession with salt, but OEP is correct. Those who revile Trump are latching onto every word, akin to a nerd who was just dumped, but refuses to believe it. "It wasn't collusion, it was coordination, ok maybe not coordination, but something illegal, or perhaps something naughty, something bad? And if not he's still a meany poo-poo head!" There is no point in owning the libs when it comes to talking about the Mueller Report, you guys are doing that to yourselves.

I'm not a fan of Trump. Not at all. But I always thought that the Mueller probe was a nothingburger (hence, "Russiagate"). The neoliberal media gave this way more attention than they should've. I'd much rather see more attention placed on the crippling poverty, or the need for Medicare for All, or police brutality.

I don't know. What do I know anyways?

You do realise people are capable of doing more than one thing at once, right?

You do know how broadcasting works, right? If you're doing a segment on Trump being a meany poo-poo head, (I'm surprised that the Democrats haven't dug up Trump's kindergarten yearbook yet,) then you're not using that time to talk about salient issues, like healthcare, poverty, etc.

You can, but time and money are limited resources. Every minute spent reporting on a nothing burger is a minute that could have been spent reporting on genuine policy or social problems. Every dollar spent investigating someone for something that didn't happen is a dollar not spent on subsidizing a homeless shelter, commissioning a nuclear torpedo, or giving tax credits to a solar panel company. Never mind that the media narrative actually had people believing things that probably weren't grounded in any factual basis.

Not sure where the nothingburger thing is coming from given the number of people indicted.

Let's actually look at who was indicted, and what they were indicted for:

Roger Stone: lying to Congress, obstruction, witness tampering
Michael Cohen: lying to Congress (brought back by the Democrats to be questioned on the very case he lied about, there's "no way" this is coming to bite Democrats in the ass: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiIN0Zfgp8c) I guess Cohen lying's ok when it's blue, but not when it's red, "stellar" job there Cummings.
Paul Manafort: tax fraud, bank fraud, money laundering, obstruction
George Papadoupolous: lying to the FBI
Michael Flynn: lying to the FBI
Rick Gates: conspiracy, lying to the FBI, lying to Mueller
Alex van der Zwann: lying to the FBI
Ricardo Pinedo: Identity Fraud
Konstantin Kilimnik: obstruction of Justice, conspiracy to obstruct Justice
25 Russians, 12 of whom are allegedly GRU agents

So we have 34 indictments, 25 of whom are not going to be questioned, 7 are procedural indictments, meaning that if they simply plead the fifth, there'd be no indictments. There was one case of identity fraud, and one case of money laundering combined with tax and bank fraud.

That's it. Sauce: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 266050002/

Proof of collusion? None. Proof of conspiring with the Russians? None. Proof that Clinton would've won if she knew how online security works? None. Proof that it's all a nothingburger? Van Jones' very own admission. Also this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXQ0AwHEz0I

But muh 34 indictments...

[Shofercia]

In a normal presidency, I would mabye have agreed with you.

Since when did you become an arbiter of what a "normal" presidency is? Each presidency is different, each is about supporting its base. Trump's base was ignored, (and hurt by Obamacare,) so his presidency is going to be about taking out Obamacare. That's normal. It's normal to cater to your base. And while his statement was unfortunate, presidents say unfortunate things all the time.

As secretary of state, Clinton joked "we came, we saw, he died, hahaha" or something like that. Trump was attacked by certain members, so he lashed out at their agencies - yeah it was dumb, but to declare an entire presidency "abnormal" over a single comment - that'd make you an abnormal poster, so are you going to impeach yourself from NSG, Gravlen? Of course not, that'd be stupid, applied to anyone else but Trump. I am getting very tired of this "Orange Man Bad" tirade.

Abnormal presidency. What's next, Trump secretly controlled by illuminati? Trump's pod originally landed at Roswell? This is why people laugh when you're annoyed, the bullshit implications like "it's not a normal presidency" and other such buffoonery.

[Forsher]

I've had it with your completely dishonest style of posting. Either that or you are actively incapable of carrying a conversation.

You're asking the equivalent of "what's the meaning of life?" in thread about politics. You asked: "What is a crime to you?"

Prove it.

And, no, Shof, quoting my saying:

What is a crime to you?

Doesn't prove it because I actually said this:

No, Shof, I'm not. I want to know what you're talking about. So... what do you think should count as a crime. What is a crime to you?

See that bit in red? That means the bit in blue is referring to "what you're talking about". It's not an abstract question which came out of no-where but a contextually defined contribution to a single thought. In other words, there is no way to read English correctly and come to the valid conclusion that I asked about the "meaning of life". And you see what I just did there? That's a metaphor. That means the literal meaning of the words is not the meaning of the sentence. Again, thinking otherwise is illiterate.

But wait... it gets worse. You see, I didn't just write that paragraph in isolation... it was part of a conversation and therefore not all the context is contained within that paragraph... watch:

Why are you trying to argue a hypothetical?

Do you think, or do you not think, that trying and failing to change the outcome of an election in a foreign country should be considered a crime?

That's the only question here. What is your answer.

Define "trying to change the outcome of an election"

Nope.

You tell me what you think should be a crime or not. That's what that question wants you to do... no more, no less.

Now, for once, you're not the only person who had a problem understanding this so clearly the question should be rephrased.

You want to debate, yet you won't define what terms your bitching about this time? You're the one screaming about it being a crime - so define it. What part of trying to change the outcome of an election is a crime? What's next, a post full of smiley faces?

You see that bit in green? That's why we saw the other bit in green before. Do you see me "bitching about it being a crime"? No. Because I'm not doing that and never was. But what's more... I'm not even saying anything that can be validly construed that way. I mean, maybe, if you read every sentence as being completely independent of every other sentence I have but that's not how the English language works. It is, however, the way that Shof reads my posts... as shown here with reference to this post.

This is what's happening in this conversation if we include parts of this that quoting would take up too much time for:

1. Shof: people were gloating and that's stupid
2. Forsher: gloating isn't a problem, it's just having an emotional response based on a predicted outcome such as OJ's being found guilty which in the end didn't happen
3. Shof: the difference is OJ could have done it, it was impossible for Russia to succeed in rigging the election
4. Forsher: being capable of succeeding isn't the question here... the problem is that they're believed to have tried, so you're mischaracterising the issues
5. Shof: Russia either had the means or they didn't, end of story
6. Forsher: the question of means is irrelevant since trying is a crime too... if your point is that trying shouldn't be a crime, please just say so
7. Shof: tries to argue a hypothetical... what it says is not germane to this breakdown since I refuse to entertain it saying:
8. Forsher: why are you arguing a hypothetical... the question is "Do you think, or do you not think, that trying and failing to change the outcome of an election in a foreign country should be considered a crime?"
9. Shof: define trying to change an election (note that this question has nothing to do with what I want to know... what I want to know is whether or not Shof believes that Russia's actions that actually happened ought to constitute a crime. My point is specifically tied to actual events and Shof's beliefs about what those events were and nothing more than that).
10. Forsher: you tell me what should be a crime or not... that's what is being asked but clearly it should be rephrased since you're not the only person who had trouble here. That other incident is worthy of fuller examination:
    
    1. Yusseria: define crime
    2. Forsher: if you're answering the question, you define it
    3. Yusseria: I need to know what you mean by "crime" to answer the question properly. Foreign nations conducting intelligence operations against one another is not really a crime (In other words Yusseria is clearly aware that we're not talking about some abstract question but instead are instead talking about something concrete)
    4. This conversation continues a bit longer but no longer has anything informative to say about the Shof/Forsher one it splintered from
11. Shof: why are you not defining terms you're bitching about? (Despite Forsher's not having been bitching about anything.) What part of trying to change the outcome of an election is a crime? (Asking exactly the same question of Forsher that Forsher still hasn't received an answer for... but also showing explicitly that Shof knows Shof and Forsher are not talking about abstract matters at this stage.)
12. Forsher: No, Shof, I'm not. I want to know what you're talking about. So... what do you think should count as a crime. What is a crime to you?
13. Shof: that's a moronically broad question

So... in the space of two posts Shof goes from engaging with a concrete question to somehow believing it's an abstract one. Even worse is that he also even tried to answer this question later on... but before he characterised it as being akin to the meaning of life. But that incident also gives us a third person (including the Shof who understood the question) understanding that it's concrete despite any ambiguities that clearly exist:

You want to debate, yet you won't define what terms your bitching about this time? You're the one screaming about it being a crime - so define it. What part of trying to change the outcome of an election is a crime? What's next, a post full of smiley faces?

But isn't trying to change the outcome of an election a crime, or at least should be, by definition?

To which I responded:

This being the question that Shof has refused to answer. I want to know if Shof thinks election meddling should be a crime... and I want to know what of the many things Shof thinks can count election meddling ought to be crimes.

My definition of "crime" or "election meddling" is irrelevant when the question is wholly what Shof thinks.

Which does rather beg the question of what are the many things Shof's brought up? Well, if I were to include those I might as well still be continuing this conversation. But I'm not. I have advanced none of the substantive points nor even attempted to do so here. Rather, I have simply demonstrated that Shof cannot prove that

Forsher's asking the equivalent of "what's the meaning of life?" in thread about politics. Forsher asked: "What is a crime to you?"

Because I have, quite simply, done no such thing. Which reminds me:

Throughout the debate you lied about your misunderstanding of the Steele Dossier, pretending that I wanted to investigate it in order to investigate Clinton, which is idiotic; if I wanted to investigate Clinton, I'd go after the Clinton Foundation. You attempted to denigrate me with smiley spam, and you ignored whatever you thought was irrelevant. In that quote Forsher, you are describing your posting style in this very thread. Are you unable to live with it?

I've done none of these things either.

I didn't even ignore what I thought was irrelevant beyond the tautology created by my having ignored what I had already demonstrated to be irrelevant. It's like I think the square root of two is an irrational number. It's true. But the reality is that I know the square root of two is an irrational number so to claim that I merely "think" it is true is a strawman and doesn't reflect my behaviour at all. In other words, the statement:

you ignored whatever you thought was irrelevant

isn't really true since I actually did something else. Sure, what I did is a special case of this but we don't do abstract things... we do specific things.

Here's a heuristic for interpreting the internet... if it were true, it'd be easy, if it were easy, it'd be done and if it were done, it'd be true.

Since it's a heuristic, it doesn't always work... indeed the reasoning is completely flawed from a logical point of view. I mean, look at all the trouble it took to show why Shofercia's quote mining mangled my meaning and behaviour... or look at the years of work that goes into proving many theorems. Hell, the heuristic might even be generally wrong since I only ever bring it up in situations where it's true (compare: confirmation bias). Which is the point. Despite the heuristic's many problems... if it were true that I had done these many things that Shofercia claims I have done... they would be easily demonstrated. They are not. They are merely more assertions that Shof's throwing against the wall and in the hope they'll stick. It's not like when I claimed Shof's points were irrelevant and demonstrated them quickly and easily.

And, notice, this bit:

You attempted to denigrate me with smiley spam

I didn't do this. I definitely didn't spam smileys but I know what Shofercia is describing in this calculatedly false manner... what I didn't do is denigrate Shof in this fashion. What I did was laugh at the idea that certain aspects of what Shof was writing had any bearing on our discussion. This is not the same thing.

tl;dr -- don't make up shit.