Mueller Investigation pt5

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Big Dog said:
They are anonymously reporting the second hand opinions of anonymous people what some of Mueller's staff have told them
Click to expand...

FTFY

Presumably, Mueller's staff don't yet want to talk directly to the press because the consequences for them if they were caught would be dire.

Someone on that team will have a copy of the entire report on a pen drive. Sooner or later, it will be leaked; perhaps to the web, and to enough places that it won't be able to be contained.
 
Childlike Empress said:
Tinfoil pussyhat-wearing Russiagaters demand the Mueller report yesterday on Time Square and have written a little song for the occasion:


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/99074d54b459448e8.gif[/qimg]
Click to expand...

I like it better than the song and dance trumpers are doing -- it's pretty obnoxious.
 
theprestige said:
WTF is even a "close associate"?
Click to expand...

A Justice Dept colleague who has worked with them for many years?

theprestige said:
What is even "members of Mueller's team"?
Click to expand...

Seriously? I mean, you really don't know? Ok. read on and learn something..

Zainab Ahmad
Greg Andres
Lawrence Atkinson
Michael Dreeben
Andrew Goldstein
Adam Jed
Scott Meisler
Elizabeth Prelogar
James L. Quarles III
Jeannie Rhee
Brandon Van Grack
Andrew Weissmann
Aaron Zebley
Aaron Zelinsky

Here is a rundown of which investigators were investigating who and for what.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/30/us/mueller-investigation-team-prosecutors.html

theprestige said:
Are we talking about a senior prosecutor with real authority on the subject?
Click to expand...

Probably, considering that the content of some of these leaks seems to be very, very specific.

theprestige said:
Or is this a frustrated paralegal with an opinion and boyfriend who went to the media with anonymous pillow talk?
Click to expand...

Your characterizations make about as much sense (and are about as likely to be as credible) as Barr's summary.

NYT and WAPO say these are known sources who they consider to be reliable. Unlike Faux News who will report any old lies right off the bat and purport them to be truth, I have not known either of these media outlets to go off half cocked - they aren't BuzzFeed or Trump's Twitter Feed.
 
theprestige said:
Okay, fair enough. Trump was being serious when he suggested the US media would reward Russia for publishing Hillary's emails (assuming they had them to begin with).

Now what?
Click to expand...

Not just suggesting the reward would happen, but "I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. . . ."
 
Knowing how good the marketer/propagandists are in the GOP, Barr has already done his job. Put out the Mueller report completely emasculating it. Give it time for 'Trump exonerated' to become the talking point.

Then when the Democratic interpretation comes out, even when backed up by quotes from the report, there will be no impact among Trump supporters and maybe independents.
 
theprestige said:
My questions are directed at you, about your own process for distinguishing "ring of truth" from confirmation bias, and they don't actually depend on whether the Mueller report is ever released. We could have real answers right now, if you were willing to supply them. You're not willing to supply real answers now, and I don't see why that would change if the Mueller report is released.
Click to expand...
I said it was intuitive and acknowledged I was fallible. The answer hasn't changed: Informed by a lifetime of experiences, my subjective intuition is that the news story has the ring of truth.

I said that more definitive answers would be available when (if?) Barr releases the Mueller report.

The thing that stands out to me is the claim that the information was organized to permit summaries that did not reveal state secrets or violate attorney-client privilege. It's a rational way to organize 400 pages of information designed for maximum clarity. The idea that clarity is important to Mueller is not a huge leap for me, but maybe you're different.

The "ring of truth" statement goes to the credibility of anonymous sources who talked about how the report was organized. Barr could clear this up right away, of course, if the report is released to the public with minimal redactions, or is released to Congress in a manner consistent with getting to the bottom of things, vs. covering Trump's bottom with minimal disclosures.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
Knowing how good the marketer/propagandists are in the GOP, Barr has already done his job. Put out the Mueller report completely emasculating it. Give it time for 'Trump exonerated' to become the talking point.

Then when the Democratic interpretation comes out, even when backed up by quotes from the report, there will be no impact among Trump supporters and maybe independents.
Click to expand...
I don't think that's going to work.
 
smartcooky said:
Presumably, Mueller's staff don't yet want to talk directly to the press because the consequences for them if they were caught would be dire.
Click to expand...
I doubt if Mueller cares how much influence he has from here. He did his duty. He did his best to get to the bottom of things and delivered his report to the AG. I think that matters to him more than anything else.

Trump has no clue how to react to integrity, but then, how would he?
 
theprestige said:
The estimated number of emails that Hillary failed to turn over to investigators had been widely reported. What's your point?
Click to expand...
Maybe that encouraging Russia to do this was a tad ... unseemly?

Just guessing.
 
theprestige said:
I'm okay with "a tad unseemly." At least we've talked you back from the ledge of "Trump publicly commissioned Russia to hack the DNC."
Click to expand...
What ledge? He did publicly urge Russia to hack U.S. servers. He said he wasn't joking. Is that in dispute?
 
Silly Green Monkey said:
I'd go as far as 'unpresidently', myself.
Click to expand...

I watched a short news clip the other day of President Obama speaking at the White House. I have become so used to hearing Trump being rude, disparaging and ignorant, I had almost forgotten what it was like to hear a US President speak to people with respect, understanding and deference.
 
smartcooky said:
I watched a short news clip the other day of President Obama speaking at the White House. I have become so used to hearing Trump being rude, disparaging and ignorant, I had almost forgotten what it was like to hear a US President speak to people with respect, understanding and deference.
Click to expand...

You have to understand that, for Trump, respect is a one way street. It's a trait common in bullies.
 
smartcooky said:
I watched a short news clip the other day of President Obama speaking at the White House. I have become so used to hearing Trump being rude, disparaging and ignorant, I had almost forgotten what it was like to hear a US President speak to people with respect, understanding and deference.
Click to expand...

Heck, just hearing an ex-President speak in complete sentences is a welcome change.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom