Mueller Investigation pt5

[Belz...]

Why does this canard still fly?

Might as well say that Ronald Reagan publicly declared nuclear war on the Soviet Union.

He said what he said publicly. It's not a canard. It's a matter of public record, and a fact.

Yes. And anyone else who is should be disappointed by Obama's failures in that regard.

And Trump?

 

[wareyin]

If you don't have something on topic to contribute, that isn't about me instead of the actual topic, please don't quote my posts to get your jibes in. It's uncivil towards me personally, and for what? I haven't insulted you, have I?

Are you unaware that Trump spells it "smocking"? I thought that was common knowledge.

 

[Belz...]

If you don't want to be accused of saying both sides are the same, stop saying both sides are the same.

Both sides are not "the same" in the sense that they do the exact same thing. They are "the same" in the sense that they often both do similar things.

 

[theprestige]

Are you unaware that Trump spells it "smocking"? I thought that was common knowledge.

Seriously. Why the dickish posts? What have I done to you?

 

[Ziggurat]

These two breaches are still not the same thing. I don't know what Obama should have done in that circumstance. Did you want some form of sanctions?

Or direct retaliation against Chinese government computers.

The Chinese did not release any of the information publicly, at least not to according to your link.

Of course not. That information is most valuable for intelligence and counter-intelligence purposes against the US, including potentially blackmail. It's not the sort of stuff that you make public in order to use, but it matters, a LOT.

whereas Russia actively changed an election.

Unsupported assertion.

What did the Chinese end up doing with the information?

Because of its nature, we might never know.

See, I didn't blame Putin, Russia, or anyone else for the DNC hacking either. It's their own fault, they're a private organization.

That's... odd. Do you not blame thieves for stealing because someone forgot to lock their door?

Whoever hacked the DNC committed a crime, and the government has a legitimate interest in punishing crimes, including crimes against private individuals and organizations. I'm not overly concerned about that hack because the information they got was merely embarrassing, and its public release means it can't be used for blackmail. And to the extent that it might have affected the election outcome (far from certain), it did so by informing voters with additional facts, not through deception. So that mitigates its severity, though I'm still not OK with it.

 

[Belz...]

Can someone explain to me why the conversation has to come to a screeching halt every time someone uses the word "collusion" as a quick summary of what we're talking about?

Oh, let me help: it's because some people are using the literal word "collusion" to ignore the underlying problem, which is the real possibility of conspiracy.

 

[Ziggurat]

Taking the meeting is evidence of conspiracy of the people that took the meeting.

Conspiracy to do what?

Legally speaking, you cannot conspire to engage in lawful activity. So what was the crime they were conspiring to commit?

 

[wareyin]

Seriously. Why the dickish posts? What have I done to you?

I'm not clear why using Trump's bad spelling to make a joke is being dickish towards you. Can you explain why you feel that making fun of him is a personal attack on you?

 

[theprestige]

Oh, let me help: it's because some people are using the literal word "collusion" to ignore the underlying problem, which is the real possibility of conspiracy.

Can you give examples of this? I've been using the two terms interchangeably all along, to mean the same basic unethical and criminal activity.

 

[plague311]

Surely, then, you shouldn't complain about Russian disinformation on Facebook, right? Just like the hack of the DNC, they did it to (or through) a private organization in order to influence the election.

To the best of my recollection, I haven't. Have I?

 

[theprestige]

I'm not clear why using Trump's bad spelling to make a joke is being dickish towrards you. Can you explain why you feel that making fun of him is a personal attack on you?

Your post attempted to make fun of me, via Trump.

Instead of trying to make everything into a Trump joke, try saying something substantive. If you simply can't resist the jokes, all I ask is that you leave me out of it. Thanks in advance.

 

[Belz...]

Can you give examples of this? I've been using the two terms interchangeably all along, to mean the same basic unethical and criminal activity.

Right, and they are not equivalent at all. So there's your example.

 

[wareyin]

Your post attempted to make fun of me, via Trump.

Instead of trying to make everything into a Trump joke, try saying something substantive. If you simply can't resist the jokes, all I ask is that you leave me out of it. Thanks in advance.

Hey, good thing you responded to a substantive post of mine right before you complained about "making everything into a Trump joke", otherwise you might have a leg to stand on. I'm sorry that your feelings were hurt when I made fun of Trump.

 

[plague311]

Or direct retaliation against Chinese government computers.

Any evidence there wasn't any? Do you really think that's something they'd announce? I generally don't hear the military giving away their plans on what they intend to do.

Of course not. That information is most valuable for intelligence and counter-intelligence purposes against the US, including potentially blackmail. It's not the sort of stuff that you make public in order to use, but it matters, a LOT.

Ok, but the you'd expect to know if there was a US retaliation?

Unsupported assertion.

LoL, 'k

Because of its nature, we might never know.

Convenient, that.

That's... odd. Do you not blame thieves for stealing because someone forgot to lock their door?

The **** does that have to do with the price of tea? They aren't the same thing, but if I left my door wide open I wouldn't be shocked if people stole my ****. If that's what you're asking.

The business's job, by very definition, is protecting their clients. Just like it's on me to protect my house. Did that answer your question?

Whoever hacked the DNC committed a crime, and the government has a legitimate interest in punishing crimes, including crimes against private individuals and organizations. I'm not overly concerned about that hack because the information they got was merely embarrassing, and its public release means it can't be used for blackmail. And to the extent that it might have affected the election outcome (far from certain), it did so by informing voters with additional facts, not through deception. So that mitigates its severity, though I'm still not OK with it.

Neat.

 

[theprestige]

Right, and they are not equivalent at all. So there's your example.

That's a terrible example. I've been using them as equivalents, to refer to the same underlying problem. It's literally an example of the opposite of what you're talking about.

Do you have any examples of people actually using "collusion" to ignore the underlying problem?

 

[phiwum]

You don't remember the breathless claims about how Mueller was going to nail Trump? That the walls were closing in on him? That he wouldn't finish his term in office, that he would be forced to resign over these scandals?

Yeah, it was overblown by the media.

No, it wasn't overblown in the media I consume (ugh, terrible word). Perhaps elsewhere.

I'll agree that MTP Daily was a bit over the top at times, but it is not really a news show so much as a talking heads show.

Oh, to be fair, I will admit that the Post has been a bit breathless at times. They could tone it down. I'll grant that.

What's wrong with accepting information from a foreign source? Hillary's campaign did. So did the FBI.

If you're referring to the Steele Dossier, you're talking about paying a foreign firm to do some work, not gladly accepting help from a foreign government.

As for the FBI, I wasn't aware that they are subject to campaign finance laws.

You can still have overblown coverage of a newsworthy story.

Sure.

 

[Cabbage]

Of course it answers the question. Behold!

Q. Why did Trump lie about those things?

A. Because he's a stupid liar, as has been demonstrated over nine thousand times.

The problem with that is Trump is far from the only one lying about Russian contacts.

 

[Ziggurat]

No, it wasn't overblown in the media I consume (ugh, terrible word). Perhaps elsewhere.

I make no claims about the media you personally consume, merely that there was lots of overblown coverage.

If you're referring to the Steele Dossier, you're talking about paying a foreign firm to do some work, not gladly accepting help from a foreign government.

As for the FBI, I wasn't aware that they are subject to campaign finance laws.

Is that the alleged problem here? Merely a campaign finance law violation?

Because 1) that's going to be hard to get people really upset about, and 2) free speech makes the legal theory that merely talking is criminal an extremely suspect position.

 

[Ziggurat]

Any evidence there wasn't any? Do you really think that's something they'd announce? I generally don't hear the military giving away their plans on what they intend to do.

I frequently hear the military discuss what they already did after the fact.

The business's job, by very definition, is protecting their clients. Just like it's on me to protect my house. Did that answer your question?

No, actually, it doesn't. Blaming one party doesn't require that you blame or abstain from blaming another party. So I'm left uncertain as to whether or not you'd blame the thief in addition to the homeowner, let alone what you think the government's proper role would be in handling that theft.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

emptywheel article on Barr's letter

And another one

Not to mention the clever move to keep Rosenstein (letter writer firing Comey) on board. Conflict of interest anyone?

It will also be interesting, given Trump had his secret meeting with Putin, to see if Putin sends Snowden back as a 2020 Oct surprise. Just a thought.