Cont: Breaking: Mueller Grand Jury charges filed, arrests as soon as Monday pt 2

[Emily's Cat]

Let's look at that article, shall we?

These are the parts that really concern me:

August of 2016, when I became political...

...those of us who became political in that moment...

Nothing quite like a free admission that someone leveraged their position to act in a partisan fashion, when the agency they work with is intended to be distinctly non-political. Nope, that shouldn't cause anyone any concern at all as a precedent...

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'd be willing to bet that searchable is far preferable to "categorized", because categorization by the opposing party wouldn't be relied on regardless.

I'm sure there's a lot that I know nothing of... I'm kind of seeing it like this: Let's say there's a robbery case, and the investigators collected every single item in the room where the robbery was to have occurred. The prosecutors then say "We've got proof that Bob did the crime!". Bob's defense attorneys say "Discovery! Give us the evidence that you're using as proof". And the prosecutors send over 3 large boxes that contain every single item that they collected from the scene, but they do NOT identify the items that they are considering to be evidence, and the items aren't sorted into meaningful groups... so there's no box of paperwork, no box of wall decor, no box of hair samples and fingerprints... it's just boxes full of everything. Sure, those boxes are "searchable", and they're "categorized" in the sense that every item has an evidence tag that can be checked off on the inventory, and identifies where in the office it was found. But it's not "categorized" in any meaningful sense of the word, and it's pretty much a dump of crap intended to make it nearly impossible for the defense to properly counter the prosecution's claims.

But of course, I could be wrong and this could be a completely inapt analogy

 

[acbytesla]

What exactly the president believes is difficult to know. He does lie consciously without remorse or apology. Take for instance the lies about the Trump Tower meeting with the Russians. But he lies with such sincerity that it difficult to figure out what his view of reality is.

I wouldn't say Trump lies with sincerity. I'd say he lies without a care in the world whether what he says is true or not. I think he says whatever he feels will sound good. It could be true, he simply doesn't know one way or the other, but that is secondary to if it supports his agenda. And then there are times when he knows what he says is false.

As for his view of reality. I think it simply hinges on whether he gets stroked.

 

[Upchurch]

Although hopefully you now recognize now that the FBI could do a completely adequate investigation with what the Democrats provided, and that turning over physical hardware would be both unnecessary and probably would cause unnecessary costs to the Democrats.

Just a quick reminder, the bit about the FBI not having physical access to the actual hardware came from my source, which Zig rebuffed as not even what he was talking about when he made his claim. He’s drawing the “access to the physical hardware” line to distract from supporting, or even clarifying his own claim, much like did when he complained that he hadn’t mentioned John Podesta.

 

[Segnosaur]

I'd be willing to bet that searchable is far preferable to "categorized", because categorization by the opposing party wouldn't be relied on regardless.

"Hey, how come all these documents are sorted into folders called 'cute cat pics' and 'pr0n'?"

 

[Minoosh]

I'm betting that the president isn't generally well-versed in psy-ops and misinformation techniques.

That comes across as kind of funny.

 

[quadraginta]

I wouldn't say Trump lies with sincerity. I'd say he lies without a care in the world whether what he says is true or not. I think he says whatever he feels will sound good. It could be true, he simply doesn't know one way or the other, but that is secondary to if it supports his agenda. And then there are times when he knows what he says is false.

As for his view of reality. I think it simply hinges on whether he gets stroked.

Me either.

"Regularity". He lies with regularity.

Davefoc probably just had some sort of spellcheck mishap.

It could happen to anyone.

 

[Cain]

I wouldn't say Trump lies with sincerity. I'd say he lies without a care in the world whether what he says is true or not. I think he says whatever he feels will sound good. It could be true, he simply doesn't know one way or the other, but that is secondary to if it supports his agenda. And then there are times when he knows what he says is false.

In other words, Trump's a BSer.

 

[acbytesla]

In other words, Trump's a BSer.

That's what they say about him. I hate that term because it sounds almost benign, even charming. It's one thing to weave a tall tale. It's another to simply spout off something important that is as likely to be false as it might be true.

Trump is not a BSer. He's a liar. He deliberately tells falsehoods and he is totally reckless with the facts. It is not charming, it is disgusting. Trump is dishonest to the core.

 

[quadraginta]

That's what they say about him. I hate that term because it sounds almost benign, even charming. It's one thing to weave a tall tale. It's another to simply spout off something important that is as more likely to be false as it might than to be true.

Be fair, now. Let's give credit where credit is due.

Trump is not a BSer. He's a liar. He deliberately tells falsehoods and he is totally reckless with the facts. It is not charming, it is disgusting. Trump is dishonest to the core.

I suspect this explains the fervor of his supporters. It's the sort of thing they appreciate in a politician.

 

[LSSBB]

I wouldn't say Trump lies with sincerity. I'd say he lies without a care in the world whether what he says is true or not. I think he says whatever he feels will sound good. It could be true, he simply doesn't know one way or the other, but that is secondary to if it supports his agenda. And then there are times when he knows what he says is false.

As for his view of reality. I think it simply hinges on whether he gets stroked.

Having personally known a narcissist, I think this comes close to the mark. It seems that their self-awareness is so negligible that even being aware of the lie for the moment has little impact, because it gets completely overwhelmed by their drive to protect their ego and sense of importance at all costs.

 

[LSSBB]

I'm having some dumb. I don't know what rhymes with "hushya".

I'd tell you, but you might think of it on your own... I don't want to russhya.

 

[a_unique_person]

Blue tuna.

Skeptic Ginger 2 : Zig 0

 

[Ziggurat]

Just a quick reminder, the bit about the FBI not having physical access to the actual hardware came from my source, which Zig rebuffed as not even what he was talking about when he made his claim.

No. The lack of access to the server, which your source confirms and Mueller said was not standard practice, was indeed part of what I meant. But your source was primarily about Trump's statement regarding Podesta, which has nothing to do with anything I said.

He’s drawing the “access to the physical hardware” line to distract from supporting, or even clarifying his own claim, much like did when he complained that he hadn’t mentioned John Podesta.

Well, yes. I didn't mention Podesta. I'm not basing anything I said on anything to do with Podesta. You inserted him in an attempt to disprove me, which made no sense whatsoever. So damn strait I objected.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Skeptic Ginger 2 : Zig 0

 

[Cain]

That's what they say about him. I hate that term because it sounds almost benign, even charming. It's one thing to weave a tall tale. It's another to simply spout off something important that is as likely to be false as it might be true.

Trump is not a BSer. He's a liar. He deliberately tells falsehoods and he is totally reckless with the facts. It is not charming, it is disgusting. Trump is dishonest to the core.

Nah. Being a ********ter might not sound worse, but that's no reason to use a less precise word. Maybe we should just call Trump a child-molester because he ***** everything that's innocent.

As Harry Frankfurt argued in his monograph On ********, a ********ter is arguably worse than a liar. At least a liar has a certain amount of respect for the truth; a ********ter is indifferent to it.

And Trump is a narcissist at his core. He's had a life-long love affair with himself.

 

[Upchurch]

No. The lack of access to the server, which your source confirms and Mueller said was not standard practice, was indeed part of what I meant.

Non-sequitor. That, in no way, supports your claim that “The FBI never seriously investigated the DNC hacking, because the DNC prevented them from doing so.”

But your source was primarily about Trump's statement regarding Podesta, which has nothing to do with anything I said.

Then provide your own sources to support your claims.

Well, yes. I didn't mention Podesta. I'm not basing anything I said on anything to do with Podesta. You inserted him in an attempt to disprove me, which made no sense whatsoever. So damn strait I objected.

You are missing the point. You’re making a deal about not mentioning Podesta, not because I ever claimed your argument was based on it. By constructing a straw man that I did make that claim, you are distracting from the fact that my source disproves your claim.

You’re hardware argument is one from ignorance and cherry-picking that the FBI was involved and worked with the DNC. Unless you have a source that actually provides support for what you are trying to claim, you’re just being taken in by Dear Leader’s tweets.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

These are the parts that really concern me:

You're 'concerned' that a private citizen felt the need to become 'political'?

Morell: So, there were really two moments here, right, for me. One was when I first left government, I did a 60 Minutes interview about my life inside CIA, and it’s something the agency thought that was a good thing to do... And I, soon after that, joined CBS News as an on-air commentator on national security issues, and it resonated with me because I saw it in very similar terms to what I used to do for presidents...

And so, I saw my role on CBS, then, as helping the American people understand these incredibly complex challenges that we face. So, that was the first kind of public stepping out.

The second was in August of 2016... and that was a very difficult decision for me, because I had never been political before. I worked at this nonpolitical agency, bright red line between intelligence and policy, and intelligence and politics. So, I had never played that role before.

How long must a person be a private citizen before they are allowed to be 'political'? 3 years, 10 years, a lifetime?

Well I too am concerned. Concerned that someone seems to think former government workers must forever keep their mouths shut about anything political. Concerned that this principle seems to be applied very selectively. Concerned about the potential motives for this selective 'concern'.

But I shouldn't really be concerned. The opinions of a thinly veiled partizan hack shouldn't concern me at all...

 

[BadBoy]

I haven't worked with a lot of social media data. I've worked with some web and mobile log data, as well as call transcript and email data. Perhaps social media data is just natively better structured than the stuff I've worked with. Searchable, sure - any text-based items are searchable. But NLP isn't always super easy to pull meaning out of all by itself, there's a huge amount of work that goes in the front end to train it, and it needs a fairly substantial amount of validation.

End of the day, "searchable" isn't the same as "categorized". I'm sure there's an element of context here that we're not connecting on. To me, "searchable" can apply to unstructured data quite well... but "categorized" only applies to structured data - it implies the creation of well-organized and defined metadata.

No, flash/thumb drives don't do that in general of course.

But that doesn't mean some work had not already been done by the FBI categorizing the data before it was copied onto some storage device for handing over.

I think this point is mute because there is not enough information provided as to what format the data was in and whether it had already been categorized in some way by the FBI.

Saying it was categorized may just mean that there was some record of which computer/server/hard drive the data came from, and at what time it was copied.

But it could also mean a whole lot more. Who knows. Point is there is no evidence it is just a huge impenetrable dumb of binary files, and if any categorizing had been done there's no reason to suppose that wasn't copied along with the data too. If it is just hundreds/thousands of emails and text documents in Russian - well - it is what it is.

I don't see the big deal here.

 

[Ziggurat]

I think this point is mute

Moot.

Or moo.