The Mueller Probe is Complete - Longer OP Edition

[Fahran]

I gotta say, though, the reveal that the Mueller report is 700 pages really made me go from "Barr mischaracterizing or lying about the report is technically plausible but sounds like a conspiracy theory" to "holy shit it's definitely very possible - or even likely - that Barr heavily mischaracterized, or even lied, about the report."

It's still idle speculation that can be neither corroborated nor dismissed until the Mueller Report is released. And, importantly, the presence of some insufficient quantity of evidence to impeach is still a monkey wrench thrown in the gears of any serious inquiry. If the intention is merely to employ the Mueller Report to propagandize, then the situation doesn't really change regardless. There's no way Trump wins here so long as the report is nuanced. Any evidence of guilt, however minute or insufficient, will be seized upon as an indication that he's treasonous, unethical, criminal, etc.

[Gormwood]

Oh please. Last time I checked Lindsay Graham is very much a real person and not a strawman.

He didn't say he would personally.

Of course not, just direct subordinates after subordinates to do it for him, possibly using the same vague mafioso codespeak Trump is notorious for.

[Vassenor]

Oh please. Last time I checked Lindsay Graham is very much a real person and not a strawman.

He didn't say he would personally.

Oh hey, the "he didn't use the exact words" excuse.

So why should the White House be allowed to edit this report rather than a neutral third party?

[Gormwood]

I gotta say, though, the reveal that the Mueller report is 700 pages really made me go from "Barr mischaracterizing or lying about the report is technically plausible but sounds like a conspiracy theory" to "holy shit it's definitely very possible - or even likely - that Barr heavily mischaracterized, or even lied, about the report."

It's still idle speculation that can be neither corroborated nor dismissed until the Mueller Report is released. And, importantly, the presence of some insufficient quantity of evidence to impeach is still a monkey wrench thrown in the gears of any serious inquiry. If the intention is merely to employ the Mueller Report to propagandize, then the situation doesn't really change regardless. There's no way Trump wins here so long as the report is nuanced. Any evidence of guilt, however minute or insufficient, will be seized upon as an indication that he's treasonous, unethical, criminal, etc.

Collusion with a foreign power is less valid reason to impeach than a lie about sexual relations? Of course if the Democrats are wise like Pelosi they'd hold off on impeachment until either irrefutable proof of a crime comes up and/or the Democrats control the Senate also.

[Gormwood]

He didn't say he would personally.

Oh hey, the "he didn't use the exact words" excuse.

So why should the White House be allowed to edit this report rather than a neutral third party?

Imagine if the Whitewater probe had hit paydirt and the Clinton White House invoked executive privilige to read and redact the documents first.

[Telconi]

He didn't say he would personally.

Oh hey, the "he didn't use the exact words" excuse.

So why should the White House be allowed to edit this report rather than a neutral third party?

What neutral third party?

Oh hey, the "he didn't use the exact words" excuse.

So why should the White House be allowed to edit this report rather than a neutral third party?

Imagine if the Whitewater probe had hit paydirt and the Clinton White House invoked executive privilige to read and redact the documents first.

That would be different, on account of the whole "hitting paydirt" part...

[Fahran]

Collusion with a foreign power is less valid reason to impeach

Conspiracy is the crime. And the evidence for it is too slight to even bring criminal charges according to Mueller.

than a lie about sexual relations?

Well, perjury is a crime, so... if it can be proven, impeach away. Also, Clinton was accused of sexual assault by several women before this and the Lewinsky issue was tangentially brought up while the Whitewater investigation was still unfolding.

Of course if the Democrats are wise like Pelosi they'd hold off on impeachment until either irrefutable proof of a crime comes up and/or the Democrats control the Senate also.

I think both are prerequisites to any sort of impeachment proceeding, the former especially if you'd like to preserve the legitimacy of government and not give right-wing nutcases a reason to believe that you're pulling off an effective coup of someone who is innocent of criminal wrong-doing.

[Shofercia]

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?

This just in: when I'm talking about a post that makes a comparison, I'm not talking about a post that doesn't make the comparison, and yet Forsher is still confused.

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



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:



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.

A beautiful summary of your posting style, Forsher.

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.

In a completely idiotic and insane way that ignores the main premise of the actual 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.

You mean how you chose to make a huge deal over a single comment, and then whined about how you were being treated because of it?

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"

That's actually not the part about gloating. That's an issue that I'm raising, pointing out that instead of maturely conducting an investigation, it was turned into a witch hunt, something you have no problem with, but when it comes to semantics, Forsher must debate!

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.

I wasn't talking about gloating in the quote that you just quoted. I was talking about how, instead of conducting a calm investigation, it was turned into a witch hunt. How're those CNN ratings doing? See Forsher, that question - that's gloating. Pointing out that a calm investigation shouldn't be a witch hunt - isn't gloating.

But, fine, Shof really hates being paraphrased.

Only when it's done in an idiotic manner.

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.

A NO U responses to a blatantly obvious fact. I haven't heard of a NO U response to a 2+2=4 quote - you're the first one on NSG to accomplish that feat. Be proud of it Forsher!

The main problem is probably that I use gloating to describe Democrats and Shof uses it to describe Republicans

The main problem is that the core of the post was talking about a witch hunt being instigated instead of a calm investigation, i.e. CNN's nonstop coverage of how Trump was like totez 100% traitor, and after the main part was stated, a corollary to it was added, one that talked about gloating. You took the corollary, and pretended that was the main point.

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.

So quoting a corollary, while pretending that it's the main point, is not quote mining, because Forsher said so, even though his very own definition disagrees. Laughter ensues.

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

Considering that you've failed to grasp the difference between a main point, and a corollary, numerous times, you're simply not qualified to judge the meaning of my post, but let's look at yet another feeble attempt of Forsher's to place words into my mouth so that he can set up a strawman.

• investigating the possibility of colluding with election meddling (Aclion's term) is fine

As long as it's done in a calm manner, like Mueller did, not a witch hunt manner, like CNN's reporting implied. That's the part that you've been missing all along.

raving about punishing the alleged colluders before knowing if the election meddling actually happened is stupid

Before knowing if they actually colluded. If you define an op-ed as election meddling, then there was election meddling.

a group of (people reasonably labelled) Democrats did rave about those punishments prior to knowing if the collusion actually happened

Some Democrats, not all Democrats.

there wasn't actually any collusion

therefore, there has been some gloating by (people reasonably labelled) Republicans

Once again, you ignored the main point in your list, and attempted to present the corollary as the main point.

What did this get paraphrased into?

Something incredibly stupid:

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.

No you don't. The main point was that you should perform a calm investigation, not a witch hunt. Gloating was the corollary, which you attempted to present as the main point, got caught, and utterly humiliated.

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

No, you can't, because that's not what the post actually said. You were wrong Forsher, you presented the corollary as the main point, so it doesn't matter how much mental gymnastics you engage in, you'll still end up looking rather dumb until you apologize.

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

Corollary once again presented as main point by Forsher. Like CNN, he thinks that if he repeats it enough, it'll become the truth and the light. It's funny to watch.

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...

So it's not relevant, but you just dedicated quite a bit of words to it? Forsher - stop embarrassing yourself.

In hindsight it seems obvious that Shof was always going to completely ignore that the conversation determines what is relevant...

Says Forsher, the poster who is still attempting to pretend that the corollary is the main point.

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.

So you just admitted that you completely misunderstood what I was saying, which explains all of your responses to me. Thanks for that admission Forsher. Either that, or your objective is to look like an idiot, by pretending that the corollary is the main point, but somehow I doubt that's the case.

[San Montalbano]

It's still idle speculation that can be neither corroborated nor dismissed until the Mueller Report is released. And, importantly, the presence of some insufficient quantity of evidence to impeach is still a monkey wrench thrown in the gears of any serious inquiry. If the intention is merely to employ the Mueller Report to propagandize, then the situation doesn't really change regardless. There's no way Trump wins here so long as the report is nuanced. Any evidence of guilt, however minute or insufficient, will be seized upon as an indication that he's treasonous, unethical, criminal, etc.

Collusion with a foreign power is less valid reason to impeach than a lie about sexual relations? Of course if the Democrats are wise like Pelosi they'd hold off on impeachment until either irrefutable proof of a crime comes up and/or the Democrats control the Senate also.

ah so de facto coup

[Shofercia]

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.

Slight difference there Vass - there were no WMDs in Iraq, so the equivalent of the Mueller Report would be additional indictments. We know that's not the case.

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.

Don't you love how Gravlen equates "his office actually followed the law and didn't leak the report" to Mueller being tight-lipped. Except, uh, Gravlen, when someone did get something completely wrong about the Mueller Report, like the Steele Dossier loving Buzzfeed, Mueller went ahead and said that was fucking bullshit. Sauce: https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/ ... rt-1116046

CNN Poll: Majority says Trump not exonerated of collusion after Barr's summary

Complete dataset is linked in the article should anyone wish to peruse it in detail.

>> CNN

Although Mueller could not establish Trump or his campaign "conspired or coordinated with" the Russian government, according to Barr's letter...

The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: "[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." ...as noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple. offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign...

The Special Counsel issued more than 2,800 subpoenas, executed nearly 500 search warrants, obtained more than 230 orders for communication records, issued almost 50 orders authorizing use of pen registers, made 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence, and interviewed approximately 500 witnesses.

I wonder, what would happen if Trump said that Dihydrogen-Monoxide is vital for survival, would CNN stop drinking water?

[Vassenor]

Collusion with a foreign power is less valid reason to impeach than a lie about sexual relations? Of course if the Democrats are wise like Pelosi they'd hold off on impeachment until either irrefutable proof of a crime comes up and/or the Democrats control the Senate also.

ah so de facto coup

I do not follow your logic.

[Gormwood]

Collusion with a foreign power is less valid reason to impeach than a lie about sexual relations? Of course if the Democrats are wise like Pelosi they'd hold off on impeachment until either irrefutable proof of a crime comes up and/or the Democrats control the Senate also.

ah so de facto coup

Call it what you want, but I have a deep distrust of the Senate Republicans' willingness to convict Trump even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

[San Montalbano]

ah so de facto coup

I do not follow your logic.

impeaching someone simply because you can use force of numbers, not because of any real wrongdoing.

[San Montalbano]

ah so de facto coup

Call it what you want, but I have a deep distrust of the Senate Republicans' willingness to convict Trump even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

that's Ironic considering how the Democratic Senators acted during Kavanaugh...

[Vassenor]

I do not follow your logic.

impeaching someone simply because you can use force of numbers, not because of any real wrongdoing.

You mean like the GOP did to Clinton?

[San Montalbano]

impeaching someone simply because you can use force of numbers, not because of any real wrongdoing.

You mean like the GOP did to Clinton?

Clinton didn't do anything?

[Vassenor]

You mean like the GOP did to Clinton?

Clinton didn't do anything?

Evidently, given that his impeachment came to naught.

[Gormwood]

Call it what you want, but I have a deep distrust of the Senate Republicans' willingness to convict Trump even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

that's Ironic considering how the Democratic Senators acted during Kavanaugh...

Was Kavanaugh impeached, hmm?

[Gormwood]

Clinton didn't do anything?

Evidently, given that his impeachment came to naught.

And for the other Clinton nothing damning turned up despite the onslaught of Benghazi hearings.

[Vassenor]

Evidently, given that his impeachment came to naught.

And for the other Clinton nothing damning turned up despite the onslaught of Benghazi hearings.

Or the investigations into HER EMAILS.

[San Montalbano]

And for the other Clinton nothing damning turned up despite the onslaught of Benghazi hearings.

Or the investigations into HER EMAILS.

I'm still curious as to why servers were literally beaten with hammers but that's not on topic.

[Telconi]

Clinton didn't do anything?

Evidently, given that his impeachment came to naught.

And yet... And yet, Trump's investigation coming to naught means he totally did it anyway guiz...

[Shofercia]

So why does Trump get to make said redaction personally rather than a neutral party?

...who said he would personally do it?

Vass did.

The irony of it ending up on Wikileaks would be something...

Doubtful. Wikileaks has a history of catching-and-killing documents that make Russia look bad if I recall properly so they would likely sit on the Mueller Report, maybe even give Trump a heads up on it.

Can you provide an example?

...who said he would personally do it? It would most likely be the Justice Department.

Excellent work again at strawmanning. Well done.

Oh please. Last time I checked Lindsay Graham is very much a real person and not a strawman.

Were you equally fast & furious with those posts when Obama used executive privilege to protect Eric Holder?

He didn't say he would personally.

Oh hey, the "he didn't use the exact words" excuse.

So why should the White House be allowed to edit this report rather than a neutral third party?

So - are you going to trust everything Senator Graham says from now on?

Collusion with a foreign power is less valid reason to impeach than a lie about sexual relations? Of course if the Democrats are wise like Pelosi they'd hold off on impeachment until either irrefutable proof of a crime comes up and/or the Democrats control the Senate also.

ah so de facto coup

Gormwood doesn't quite grasp American Politics if he thinks that the Senate will impeach President Trump without concrete proof, none of which was found by Mueller. It takes only 34 Senators to block impeachment Gormwood, not 49.

[Shofercia]

Call it what you want, but I have a deep distrust of the Senate Republicans' willingness to convict Trump even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

that's Ironic considering how the Democratic Senators acted during Kavanaugh...

Very ironic.

Or the investigations into HER EMAILS.

I'm still curious as to why servers were literally beaten with hammers but that's not on topic.

When you destroy evidence - be obvious!

Evidently, given that his impeachment came to naught.

And yet... And yet, Trump's investigation coming to naught means he totally did it anyway guiz...

[Gormwood]

Doubtful. Wikileaks has a history of catching-and-killing documents that make Russia look bad if I recall properly so they would likely sit on the Mueller Report, maybe even give Trump a heads up on it.

Can you provide an example?

I got it wrong I admit.

Huge Trove of Leaked Russian Documents Is Published by Transparency Advocates

They didn't catch-and-kill it, but they were given the documents along with similar groups but they were the only one to not publish them.

The core files from the new collection, called “The Dark Side of the Kremlin,” included “hundreds of thousands of messages and files from Russian politicians, journalists, oligarchs, religious figures, and nationalists/terrorists in Ukraine,” said the group that posted it, Distributed Denial of Secrets, or DDoSecrets. The name is a play on the term for a common cyberattack known as a distributed denial of service.

The documents include a voluminous archive of material hacked from Russia’s Ministry of Internal Affairs that WikiLeaks had declined to publish in 2016, telling Foreign Policy magazine the next year that it “rejects all submissions that it cannot verify” or that it finds “insignificant.”

In fact Wikileaks was given the document dump in advance of the other groups but chose to sit on them.

Ms. Best, 32, who has published at the investigative site MuckRock and elsewhere, noted that the Distributed Denial of Secrets site already hosts thousands of leaked documents from dozens of countries, the largest number from the United States.

The new site operates roughly on the model pioneered by WikiLeaks — inviting hackers and whistle-blowers to send confidential documents for posting. But Ms. Best has been quite critical of that site and its founder, Julian Assange, who played a central role in distributing the Democrats’ emails that Russians hacked in 2016. Distributed Denial of Secrets has posted a large archive of internal documents from WikiLeaks itself.

“Personally, I am disappointed by what I see as dishonest and egotistic behavior from Julian Assange and WikiLeaks,” Ms. Best said. But she added that she had made the Russian document collection available to WikiLeaks ahead of its public release on Friday, and had posted material favorable to Mr. Assange leaked from the Ecuadorean Embassy in London, where he has lived for more than six years to avoid arrest.

And it doesn't help that Wikileaks- and founder Julian Assange specifically- has an uncomfortably close relationship with Russia.

The WikiLeaks-Russia Connection

In January 2011, the Kremlin issued Mr. Assange a visa, and one Russian official suggested that he deserved the Nobel Peace Prize. Then, in April 2012, with WikiLeaks’ funding drying up — under American pressure, Visa and MasterCard had stopped accepting donations — Russia Today began broadcasting a show called “The World Tomorrow” with Mr. Assange as the host.

How much he or WikiLeaks was paid for the 12 episodes remains unclear. In a written statement, Sunshine Press, which works as his spokesman, said Russia Today “was among a dozen broadcasters that purchased a broadcasting license for his show.”

ah so de facto coup

Gormwood doesn't quite grasp American Politics if he thinks that the Senate will impeach President Trump without concrete proof, none of which was found by Mueller. It takes only 34 Senators to block impeachment Gormwood, not 49.

Ahem.

ah so de facto coup

Call it what you want, but I have a deep distrust of the Senate Republicans' willingness to convict Trump even in the face of overwhelming evidence.