The Mueller Probe is Complete - Longer OP Edition

[Shofercia]

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.

"I'm done with you, I'm done with all of it, we're done here!"

*writes essay in next post and spoilers 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".

I think it's rather obvious from the context what I was talking about, considering that all I asked was not to equate rare crimes, to common crimes. They're both crimes.

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?

Responded after you claimed that you were done, thus denigrating the value of your statements? Next time you say "we're done here" I'll know that you mean "watch out for an essay in my next response!"

But wait... it gets worse. You see, I didn't just write that paragraph in isolation...

I never argued that you wrote it from an isolated cell.

it was part of a conversation and therefore not all the context is contained within that paragraph...

You mean like when you ignored the context and asked "what is a crime?"

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"

When I said that, it was probably after I explained that almost anything can be regarded as "trying to change the outcome of an election" ranging from someone writing an article and sharing it with numerous followers, which should be regarded normal for a country that champions the American Bill of Rights, to hacking the ballot boxes, which is wrong. It's a vague statement, so I wanted a definition.

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"?

Since you enjoy semantic games, I'll simply point out that I accused you of bitching about terms that you refuse to define, and screaming about election interference being a crime. Again, I asked - what is election interference? Is it merely writing tweets? Is it leaking truthful documents before someone else leaked them? Is it hacking ballot boxes? The latter is certainly a crime. But for a country that champions the Bill of Rights, the United States, tweeting shouldn't be 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.

You forgot to add an MLA citation at the end.

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

Talk about an idiotic summary... reading that is like watching CNN. In the first post cited, here's what I said:

You can investigate it, but what the MSNBC, CNN, and several Congressmen did, is claim that there will be impeachment and clear collusion found, before the investigation was completed. That didn't happen, so now there's going to be gloating from the other camp.

Note, how I'm talking about the main issue here, namely that there's a difference between calmly calling for an investigation, and engaging in a witch hunt. Forsher ignored that, that summarized the post as:

people were gloating and that's stupid

So after summarizing this post: you can investigate it, but what the MSNBC, CNN, and several Congressmen did, is claim that there will be impeachment and clear collusion found, before the investigation was completed. That didn't happen, so now there's going to be gloating from the other camp.

merely as: people were gloating and that's stupid

Forsher demands that other posters adhere to his amazing debating skills... I'd rather not sink to that level, but that's a lesson for all of NSG about how Forsher is "debating" in this thread. So what's the issue here for Forsher, what caused this most recent tirade? It's not the lack of reading comprehension, it's my point that he asked 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.

I didn't say it's abstract, I said that it's moronically broad, unless we're using the standard definition, in which case the inquiry would be pointless.

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.

I characterized it's broadness to another broad question.

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:

Forsher be like: this person agrees with me, so he totally understands it!

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

Writing an op-ed for your readers can be construed as trying to change the outcome of an election, but shouldn't be construed as a crime in a country that loves the Bill of Rights as much as the United States.

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.

You asked me if I thought "election meddling" was a crime - so I asked what you mean by "election meddling" for you to define it. Is an op-ed election meddling? Again, the phrase, "trying to change the election" is extremely broad. If President Trump says "I'd prefer that the next President of Ukraine not be a drunk" - is that election meddling?

Which does rather beg the question of what are the many things Shof's brought up?

Considering that you completely misread my post, as demonstrated above, you should stop begging for that question, go and reread that post.

Well, if I were to include those I might as well still be continuing this conversation. But I'm not.

Writing a giant response to a conversation, is equivalent to not continuing the conversation, in Forsher's mind. Not sure if the rest of NSG feels this way.

I have advanced none of the substantive points nor even attempted to do so here.

Just here?

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.

Really? You didn't try to accuse me of going after Clinton when all I wanted was an investigation into the Steele Dossier?

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...

Quote mining? Is that when this: you can investigate it, but what the MSNBC, CNN, and several Congressmen did, is claim that there will be impeachment and clear collusion found, before the investigation was completed. That didn't happen, so now there's going to be gloating from the other camp.

Becomes this: people were gloating and that's stupid

Was that an example of your quote mining, Forsher? Why yes, yes it was!

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...

Such as the quote mining noted above?

they would be easily demonstrated. They are not.

Just because you fail to see the demolition, does not mean that it does not exist.

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.

By writing an essay about it? Yes Forsher, your quickness is something that makes all of NSG green with envy.

I didn't do this.

Posting five or more "ROFL" smilies in a single response post is not attempting to denegrate your opponent with smiley spam? I guess in your mind, Forsher, it doesn't, not sure if that includes the rest of NSG.

I definitely didn't spam smileys

...

^_^ ...

^-^ ...

^_^ ...

...

^_^ ...

...

...

...

...

...

...

Not smiley spam according to Forsher, just his normal debating style.

but I know what Shofercia is describing in this calculatedly false manner... what I didn't do is denigrate Shof in this fashion.

I never said you did, I said that you attempted to do so. An attempt and an act, are two different hings Forsher, I am saddened that you have forgotten that.

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.

Must've been a lot of laughing. Maybe that's what led you to forget the difference between an attempt and an act.

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

Like pretending that I said that I wanted Clinton investigated when I was talking about investigating the Steel Dossier?

[Forsher]

And, no, Shof, quoting my saying:



Doesn't prove it because I actually said this:



See that bit in red? That means the bit in blue is referring to "what you're talking about".

I think it's rather obvious from the context what I was talking about, considering that all I asked was not to equate rare crimes, to common crimes. They're both crimes.

Wrong.

Your first post in this conversation thread. Notice the absence of any kind of comparison on your part?

[The Democracy of Red Star]

Hhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmm shouldn’t this be talked about on the maga thread?

[Forsher]

Talk about an idiotic summary... reading that is like watching CNN. In the first post cited, here's what I said:

You can investigate it, but what the MSNBC, CNN, and several Congressmen did, is claim that there will be impeachment and clear collusion found, before the investigation was completed. That didn't happen, so now there's going to be gloating from the other camp.

Note, how I'm talking about the main issue here, namely that there's a difference between calmly calling for an investigation, and engaging in a witch hunt. Forsher ignored that, that summarized the post as:

people were gloating and that's stupid

So after summarizing this post: you can investigate it, but what the MSNBC, CNN, and several Congressmen did, is claim that there will be impeachment and clear collusion found, before the investigation was completed. That didn't happen, so now there's going to be gloating from the other camp.

merely as: people were gloating and that's stupid

Just because the words are there doesn't mean they matter.

The problem here is that I'm saying that "people [loosely, Democrats] were gloating and that's stupid" whereas in your post you're saying "because the Democrats were being stupid, there's going to be gloating by the other camp [loosely, Republicans]".

See the difference? "People were gloating and that's stupid" is entirely an accurate description of your post. Quoting the end part of your post... which is why you suggest I'm doing... would not be. More than that, the end part of your post is not relevant to the conversation that ensued. Notice how I immediately started talking about... yes, that's right the reaction of the Democrats. Or, in othe words, this bit:

what the MSNBC, CNN, and several Congressmen did, is claim that there will be impeachment and clear collusion found, before the investigation was completed.

aka "people were gloating"

Notice the word "were"? Even ignoring that it is a gross oversight on my part to use the word you associate with the behaviour of the Republicans to describe the behaviour of the Democrats, the tense change should have clued you in.

But, fine, Shof really hates being paraphrased.

[Forsher]

To which I responded:

You asked me if I thought "election meddling" was a crime - so I asked what you mean by "election meddling" for you to define it. Is an op-ed election meddling? Again, the phrase, "trying to change the election" is extremely broad. If President Trump says "I'd prefer that the next President of Ukraine not be a drunk" - is that election meddling?

Did you seriously just take a post asking "what of the many things you think can count as election do you you think ought to be crimes" and think an appropriate response was to confirm that you think "many things can count as election meddling"? Yes, you did. Pay attention:

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.

You have literally just clarified that there is confusion over two things:

• 1. what Shof believes is election meddling
• 2. of the various things Shof counts as election meddling which should be crimes

It's like responding to the question, "I don't know your favourite colour so what is your favourite colour?" by saying "You don't know my favourite colour." Shocking. That the asker didn't know your favourite colour is explicitly stated in the question.

[Forsher]

Quote mining? Is that when this: you can investigate it, but what the MSNBC, CNN, and several Congressmen did, is claim that there will be impeachment and clear collusion found, before the investigation was completed. That didn't happen, so now there's going to be gloating from the other camp.

Becomes this: people were gloating and that's stupid

Was that an example of your quote mining, Forsher? Why yes, yes it was!

Not. Even. Close.

The main problem is probably that I use gloating to describe Democrats and Shof uses it to describe Republicans but let's clarify quote mining anyway:

Quoting out of context (sometimes referred to as contextomy or quote mining) is an informal fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.

Now recognising that the distinction between quoting and paraphrasing here is trivial, what is the meaning of Shofercia's post:

• investigating the possibility of colluding with election meddling (Aclion's term) is fine
• raving about punishing the alleged colluders before knowing if the election meddling actually happened is stupid
• a group of (people reasonably labelled) Democrats did rave about those punishments prior to knowing if the collusion actually happened
• there wasn't actually any collusion
• therefore, there has been some gloating by (people reasonably labelled) Republicans

What did this get paraphrased into?

people were gloating and that's stupid

Substitute raving for gloating and you have all the meanings in Shofercia's post except the trivial matter of what the Republicans did in response to the raving/gloating, i.e. some gloating of their own.

Technically you could say that Shofercia's post is actually just saying:

• Democrats claimed Trump colluded before knowing if any collusion occurred
• Collusion didn't happen
• Therefore, gloating by Republicans is happening

Observe how I present raving as "claiming" here. This is a straight breakdown of what Shofercia says whereas before I present what it means. There is, in context, a valude judgement of the raving/claiming being made by suggesting gloating is an obvious response.

Either way, the existence of the Republican gloating isn't relevant since the next step in the conversation is:

gloating [raving, claiming] 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

Which again clarifies immediately that different people were gloating (Republicans) in Shofercia's post to (Democrats) in Forsher's.

And, similarly, these posts are just to provide context for Point 3 in the list. I had to start somewhere and rather than going back to find the first post in the conversation, i.e. beyond even Aclion's post, and listing all of those I chose to start with Shofercia's entry to it. By the way here are those posts:

Twelve Russian nationals, two russian shell companies and a russian troll farm indicted.

That's great. But the fact that russia is meddling in our elections isn't justification for going after trump. And I think any reasonable person would assume Russia is meddling. Russia is Russia after all. What was sold to the people was that Trump colluded with russia to interfere in the elections, and it doesn't appear that the Mueller probe will support that claim. So now Democrats have a choice. they can walk back their claim, they can admit they lied or they can continue pushing a narrative that, at this point, goes in the same bin as 9/11 truthers. It looks like they're incapible of doing anything but the latter.

and

so after 2 years of blowing smoke up everyones ass, probably millions in tax payer money wasted annnnnnnnnnd the stroking of the media's massive ego what do we have to show for it?

In hindsight it seems obvious that Shof was always going to completely ignore that the conversation determines what is relevant... and therefore which parts of his post/s will be paraphrase... and therefore starting with his first contribution to the chain was foolish, but Christ if I still don't think it was a natural starting place. Also, re conversations determining relevance, from the list:

1. Shof: tries to argue a hypothetical... what it says is not germane to this breakdown since I refuse to entertain it saying:
2. 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?"

btw even if you were right about having been misrepresented in the first step, it wouldn't demonstrate (not demolition) that the summary is "idiotic".

[Forsher]

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

Like pretending that I said that I wanted Clinton investigated when I was talking about investigating the Steel Dossier?

You still don't understand why synecdoche matters here, do you?

Tell me... who would be investigated in the investigation of the Steel Dossier?

Remember this bit:

You do realize that there are more Democrats than just Hillary Clinton. Please tell me that you at least understand that much, Forsher.

Remember where you also quoted this?

Synecdoche is a figure of speech in which a part is made to represent the whole.

These things have no relationship to each other? Just like how this:

you think I think the Steele Dossier's existence should involve an investigation into the Democrats for collusion.l Now, why might I have that impression?

and this

You do realize that there are more Democrats than just Hillary Clinton. Please tell me that you at least understand that much, Forsher.

Are also related.

Christ... it begins to look like a reasonable representation of Shof's desires is to say, "Shof thinks Clinton should be investigated due to the Steele Dossier" right? I mean... maybe Shof's point is that Clinton should be specifically excluded from any investigation into the Steele Dossier:

when I say that if I wanted to investigate Clinton, I'd go for the Clinton Foundation, not the Steele Dossier, that's a fact.

These quotes of course being basically the foundation of Shof's answer to the question:

Hmm... you don't explain why you want it investigated... except insofar as you want a split investigation where one arm is looking at Trump's alleged collusion, implying the other is also about Collusion.

So... once again, who would be investigated in an enquiry into the Steele Dossier and why would the Democrats aka Clinton be excluded? In fact, given that there are widely known uncertainties about the relationship of the Clinton Campaign aka Clinton to the Steele Dossier (for example... I pointed these out with commentary before you ignored this work and tried to use some bold font to pretend these questions don't exist) why could anyone reasonably expect the Democrats aka Clinton to not be investigated? Why not them? Your bold text?

"Do you like cats?" is not a question answered by "I don't like dogs" Shof.

We know you that if you wanted to investigate Clinton, you'd do it through the Clinton Foundation... we just don't care because knowing this doesn't answer any questions anyone is actually asking.

Oh, and that, Shof isn't the royal we. That's me using "we" to claim representation of a wider point of view. It's a rhetorical device.

[Forsher]

So... in the space of two posts Shof goes from engaging with a concrete question to somehow believing it's an abstract one.

I didn't say it's abstract, I said that it's moronically broad, unless we're using the standard definition, in which case the inquiry would be pointless.

Yes, and if you say "faucet" and I say "tap" are we talking about different things?

Unlikely.

If you said Fawcett and I said Tap then probably, though.

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.

I characterized it's broadness to another broad question.

Yes, that is what "being akin to" means.

note that hits that come up when you search "abstract questions about life" include:

What is the meaning of life? (and why do people keep asking) | Scott ...

and

14 Questions for Finding Your Purpose in Life - Tech.Co

I guess it's another example of "Shof hates being paraphrased" and/or "Shof represents any use of different terminology as definitive proof of discussing different phenomena/objects".

A rose by any other name does not smell as sweet to Shof. Why? Because it's not a rose at all to Shof in that case.

[Forsher]

You're asking the equivalent of "what's the meaning of life?" in thread about politics.

Wait... hang on a minute... are you seriously saying this isn't a political question?

If your problem is that you believe abstract principles... such as logical formulations or philosophical beliefs... have no place in politics threads then no wonder we've had trouble.

I mean, such a person when confronted with this argument is always going to struggle to grasp the conversation:

The meaning of A can be affected by its consequences (X), but the meaning of A can also be discerned regardless of its consequences (X).

For example... stealing cars is usually seen as a bad thing. This could be because the act of stealing is bad. This could be because stealing a car has bad consequences for the car's owner/s or society in general. These are different arguments.

For example... speeding is often seen as not a bad thing because people claim it has no consequences. Another justification could be that everyone does it therefore it's not a problem. Or it's bad because speeding kills. Or it's bad because breaking rules is inherently bad. Or it's bad because speeding is inefficient. All these various examples are different. Some are consequentialist. Some aren't. Some technically agree.

For example... and this is exactly where it all went wrong... if a means of changing an election would be seen as bad if it succeeds, then trying to change an election through such means is bad even if it doesn't succeed. This was the precise argument I put to Shofercia. The question we still don't know an answer to is this... does Shof agree with me, or does he think anything goes so long as the attempt does not succeed?

[Vassenor]

Bill Barr's fake Mueller report: Is this WMDs in Iraq all over again?

So yeah, there's quite a few disturbing parallels here in how the GOP is playing things.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Bill Barr's fake Mueller report: Is this WMDs in Iraq all over again?

So yeah, there's quite a few disturbing parallels here in how the GOP is playing things.

Why hasn't Mueller said anything if the AG's report is total BS?

[Gravlen]

Bill Barr's fake Mueller report: Is this WMDs in Iraq all over again?

So yeah, there's quite a few disturbing parallels here in how the GOP is playing things.

Why hasn't Mueller said anything if the AG's report is total BS?

I don't think the summary is total BS. There are, in my mind, questions of spin and interpretation however.

That said, I wouldn't expect Mueller to say anything even if he strongly disagrees with the AG's understanding of his report. Mueller is extremely tight-lipped (his office did not leak during this investigation) and he has a stong sense of duty and loyalty to the hierarchy. He's old school. If he'll say anything, it'll be if/when he testifies before Congress about his report.

[Cannot think of a name]

Honestly unless it's actually released it will always be Schrodinger's Report and whether or not that cat is dead inside is going to depend on the viewer. Which, as alluded to in the article Vass linked, might be exactly what the Republicans are going for.

[Fahran]

Honestly unless it's actually released it will always be Schrodinger's Report and whether or not that cat is dead inside is going to depend on the viewer. Which, as alluded to in the article Vass linked, might be exactly what the Republicans are going for.

It might be advantageous for Republicans to keep Democrats riled up over this before releasing everything close to election time so that it's fresh in the memories of voters, especially if there's nothing actually here. That said, the more likely outcome is that the report gets released in the next six months - presuming that Barr didn't politically martyr himself for Trump, who has political opponents and possibly implacable enemies within the Republican Party as well as within the Democratic Party.

Bill Barr's fake Mueller report: Is this WMDs in Iraq all over again?

So yeah, there's quite a few disturbing parallels here in how the GOP is playing things.

This isn't even an new analogy. Some journalists and commentators have already compared the Democratic obsession with Russian collusion to WMD's in Iraq. So I'm going to have to dock points for plagiarism and lack of originality on the attempted iffy smear. In any case, perhaps we should wait until Mueller's report is released before assuming that Barr's a liar. It's no less likely that the media and Democrats are engaging in more spin than he is.

[Gravlen]

Honestly unless it's actually released it will always be Schrodinger's Report and whether or not that cat is dead inside is going to depend on the viewer. Which, as alluded to in the article Vass linked, might be exactly what the Republicans are going for.

It might be advantageous for Republicans to keep Democrats riled up over this before releasing everything close to election time so that it's fresh in the memories of voters, especially if there's nothing actually here. That said, the more likely outcome is that the report gets released in the next six months - presuming that Barr didn't politically martyr himself for Trump, who has political opponents and possibly implacable enemies within the Republican Party as well as within the Democratic Party.

I find this viewpoint interesting in that regard:

nrakich (Nathaniel Rakich, elections analyst): I don’t think it will affect 2020. None of the Democratic candidates was really hammering the Trump-Russia thing. And it doesn’t seem to be a major focus with voters either. In a recent CNN poll, respondents were asked to name what issue will be the most important to them in deciding whom to support in 2020, but not a single respondent mentioned the Russia investigation.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/will-the-results-of-the-mueller-investigation-matter-in-2020/?ex_cid=trump-approval

[Fahran]

I find this viewpoint interesting in that regard:

nrakich (Nathaniel Rakich, elections analyst): I don’t think it will affect 2020. None of the Democratic candidates was really hammering the Trump-Russia thing. And it doesn’t seem to be a major focus with voters either. In a recent CNN poll, respondents were asked to name what issue will be the most important to them in deciding whom to support in 2020, but not a single respondent mentioned the Russia investigation.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/will-the-results-of-the-mueller-investigation-matter-in-2020/?ex_cid=trump-approval

I suspect that might be indicative of the degree of polarization present in the American political system at the moment. Trump's supporters were all but certain he was innocent of any actual wrong-doing, whereas his opponents remain certain that, even if we have no evidence of collusion, Trump is still a bad hombre. I don't believe that people's minds will necessarily change as a result of this, though CNN's guest analyst did concede that this might lead to a slight bump to Trump's support - by perhaps one or two percent. It's not implausible, however, that this could energize the Republican base and help to galvanize them behind Trump if they dislike the alternatives. The most important issues were the border and healthcare as I recall. That could spell some trouble for Trump given that both the media and public opinion break against him on both issues to a significant degree. He has his advantages as well though. And he doesn't have to win outright if the Democrats lose.

[Confederate States of German America]

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.

This literally proved my point; you played yourself.

[Cannot think of a name]

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.

This literally proved my point; you played yourself.

Lets be honest, you're bowling with the guards up. Any response would have played into your narrative including none. You set yourself up for an 'all wins' scenario where you get to take a victory lap regardless of what happens. I mean, the kids who manage to roll the ball down the lane with the guards up seem the happiest, if that's your jam...

[Confederate States of German America]

This literally proved my point; you played yourself.

Lets be honest, you're bowling with the guards up. Any response would have played into your narrative including none. You set yourself up for an 'all wins' scenario where you get to take a victory lap regardless of what happens. I mean, the kids who manage to roll the ball down the lane with the guards up seem the happiest, if that's your jam...

The gift that keeps on giving.

[Fahran]

Lets be honest, you're bowling with the guards up. Any response would have played into your narrative including none.

Refusing to respond would have probably been the best counter to the argument frankly. A lot of people on the political left are somewhat annoyed that Mueller's report didn't nail Trump on the allegations of conspiracy and collusion, including many posters presently using this thread. It's an understandable response in much the same way as Republican indignation in the face of Whitewater not taking down the Clinton machine. Nobody likes it when their side takes an L or when something they perceive as an injustice isn't punished.

You set yourself up for an 'all wins' scenario where you get to take a victory lap regardless of what happens. I mean, the kids who manage to roll the ball down the lane with the guards up seem the happiest, if that's your jam...

Taunting one another isn't really relevant to the subject at hand.

The gift that keeps on giving.

Can we not? We ought to be gracious in perceived victories. Besides, this isn't really a deep exploration of the issue at hand.

[Tobleste]

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.

Regarding crimes, tax evasion seems likely, conflict of interest seems almost guaranteed (though afaik that's not criminal) and I'd be amazed if most of the sexual assault claims against him aren't true. Regarding immorality, the internet isn't big enough. For one, the fact that half his campaign was corrupt and his own family was willing to collude makes him a horrible choice to pick federal judges.
None of that would lead to anything criminal or lead to impeachment so I don't think he will be impeached though. It was never a possibility. Trump could confess to everything I just said and there still wouldn't be enough Republicans on board for impeachment to be possible.

The economy was strong before trump. FWIW, when it inevitably declines, it wouldn't be trumps fault either. The economy in the US goes up and down for far more reasons than the POTUS. I see no reason why he gets credit.

The deficit is increasing and the entire government is currently nihilistic, though I agree about the foreign wars. Clinton was overly aggressive but Trumps approach to Iran and North Korea is too.

I would seriously question the idea that anyone would consider voting for trump due to concerns about culture wars and vitriol. It's the equivalent of backing Korean unification under the rule of Kim Jong Un out of a belief in human rights.

[Tobleste]

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.

Unfortunately trump supporters won't accept anything negative about him unless it's proven beyond any doubt (reasonable or unreasonable). Even the poster you're responding to can't tell the difference between 'insufficient for criminally charging the POTUS' and 'non existent'. Their priority is to defend trump. Reality is a distant second at best. Morality is possibly fourth.

[Anagonia]

Unfortunately trump supporters won't accept anything negative about him unless it's proven beyond any doubt (reasonable or unreasonable). Even the poster you're responding to can't tell the difference between 'insufficient for criminally charging the POTUS' and 'non existent'. Their priority is to defend trump. Reality is a distant second at best. Morality is possibly fourth.

This may be based on reality, but the same applies to the fabricated reality surrounding the investigation. I think your reply expresses this best. I've been keeping an eye on r/TheMueller and a constant theme seems to be, "I don't need some investigation to tell me he's a bad man". In the end people seem to forget the difference between an opinion and the reality of the situation. Bill Maher, I believed, expressed this detachment best when he elaborated that despite all possible evidence, his opinion was right and reality was as he said it was despite evidence - or lack thereof - to the contrary.

I must say its been glorious watching the breakdowns of the media. Specifically those who start crying when the realization hits them that the entire two years they were used, being told "ORANGE MAN BAD" and "IMPEACHMENT IMMINENT". It can be stated that they were used for political motivations that were contrary to the role of media, all of them, and they were baited with every crumb.

I do not dispute Trump has done some very questionable and morally challenging things (his treatment of women for example), but none of it should have ever reached the level of a debacle as this horrible sham.

Now pardon me while I resume watching the.....glorious reactions and breakdowns.

EDIT

I'll also just leave this here...

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/43 ... on-emerges

[Yusseria]

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.

Unfortunately trump supporters won't accept anything negative about him unless it's proven beyond any doubt (reasonable or unreasonable). Even the poster you're responding to can't tell the difference between 'insufficient for criminally charging the POTUS' and 'non existent'. Their priority is to defend trump. Reality is a distant second at best. Morality is possibly fourth.

Here we have typical behavior from someone who is far too afraid to speak to me directly.

[Tobleste]

Unfortunately trump supporters won't accept anything negative about him unless it's proven beyond any doubt (reasonable or unreasonable). Even the poster you're responding to can't tell the difference between 'insufficient for criminally charging the POTUS' and 'non existent'. Their priority is to defend trump. Reality is a distant second at best. Morality is possibly fourth.

Here we have typical behavior from someone who is far too afraid to speak to me directly.

Actually I just put you on ignore and opened this because I got curious.

Out of interest, what would i be afraid of?