Mueller Investigation pt 6

[Cabbage]

Call it whatever you want. They do something, and that something can be examined. Doesn't matter what word you want to use.

Given that words have definitions it absolutely does matter what word you use.

 

[eerok]

The only way I manage to stay involved with this thread as I wait for real content to re-emerge

I used to check this thread to see what's going on with the Mueller investigation, but those days have passed.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Given that words have definitions it absolutely does matter what word you use.

Doesn't matter to me. Choose whichever word you want.

 

[Cabbage]

Doesn't matter to me. Choose whichever word you want.

A word whose definition fits would be nice (unlike "gatekeeper").

 

[BobTheCoward]

A word whose definition fits would be nice (unlike "gatekeeper").

I would gladly use your preference. I'm not married to the specific concept we use to refer to whatever it is the media does

 

[Cabbage]

I would gladly use your preference. I'm not married to the specific concept we use to refer to whatever it is the media does

I don't have a preference as long as the definition fits. "Summarizer" should suffice.

 

[smartcooky]

And all of this is complicated by the issue that the person making claims (Mueller) did not make his evidence available. It is problematic to accept claims based on evidence you are not allowed to see.

This is wrong.

It was Trump's general all round stooge and lackey, Bill Barr who made the evidence unavaible.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Yep.

People interested in judging the evidence for themselves should support the Democrats' efforts to obtain the information from the DoJ.

 

[BobTheCoward]

This is wrong.

It was Trump's general all round stooge and lackey, Bill Barr who made the evidence unavaible.

I missed where Mueller expressed a willingness to publish all the deposition material and CIA intelligence collected.

An unredacted report is not the complete evidence.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I don't have a preference as long as the definition fits. "Summarizer" should suffice.

Perfect. I would hate to judge the quality of the various performances as summarizes without a thorough, objective, measurable process for doing so.

 

[tanabear]

If you read the Mueller report with an open mind, you MUST come to the conclusion that...

a. The Trump campaign had a lot of help from the Russian Government, and actively encouraged that help.

b. Trump committed numerous acts of obstruction of justice.

This is how it works:

Scenario 1: A Republican presidential campaign gets dirt on their political opponent from foreign sources, so investigate the Republican candidate and his campaign for colluding with a foreign power to sway an election.

Scenario 2: A Democratic presidential campaign gets dirt on their political opponent from foreign sources, so investigate the Republican candidate and his campaign for whatever the alleged crimes are.

This is a heads I win, tails you lose game. No matter which scenario occurs you always investigate the Republican and never the Democrat. This is also known as liberal privilege.

p.s. The Mueller report is the prosecution side and was written by partisan Democratic hacks. It is as authoritative as Rachel Madcow disease.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

I missed where Mueller expressed a willingness to publish all the deposition material and CIA intelligence collected.

That's not all the evidence.

It is problematic to accept claims based on evidence you are not allowed to see.

Perhaps it is, or perhaps it isn't. Until I see the evidence - all of it - I'm skeptical of your claim.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

This is how it works:

Scenario 1: A Republican presidential campaign gets dirt on their political opponent from foreign sources, so investigate the Republican candidate and his campaign for colluding with a foreign power to sway an election.

Scenario 2: A Democratic presidential campaign gets dirt on their political opponent from foreign sources, so investigate the Republican candidate and his campaign for whatever the alleged crimes are.

This is a heads I win, tails you lose game. No matter which scenario occurs you always investigate the Republican and never the Democrat. This is also known as liberal privilege.

p.s. The Mueller report is the prosecution side and was written by partisan Democratic hacks. It is as authoritative as Rachel Madcow disease.

Scenario 3: Make up lots of scenarios.

Because...scenarios.

 

[BobTheCoward]

That's not all the evidence.

Perhaps it is, or perhaps it isn't. Until I see the evidence - all of it - I'm skeptical of your claim.

I didn't say that constitutes all the evidence. But it is some evidence that is not freely available.

 

[Elagabalus]

This is how it works:

Scenario 1: A Republican presidential campaign gets dirt on their political opponent from foreign sources, so investigate the Republican candidate and his campaign for colluding with a foreign power to sway an election.

Scenario 2: A Democratic presidential campaign gets dirt on their political opponent from foreign sources, so investigate the Republican candidate and his campaign for whatever the alleged crimes are.

This is a heads I win, tails you lose game. No matter which scenario occurs you always investigate the Republican and never the Democrat. This is also known as liberal privilege.

p.s. The Mueller report is the prosecution side and was written by partisan Democratic hacks. It is as authoritative as Rachel Madcow disease.

Tell that to Shillary.

 

[Paul2]

This is how it works:

Scenario 1: A Republican presidential campaign gets dirt on their political opponent from foreign sources, so investigate the Republican candidate and his campaign for colluding with a foreign power to sway an election.

Scenario 2: A Democratic presidential campaign gets dirt on their political opponent from foreign sources, so investigate the Republican candidate and his campaign for whatever the alleged crimes are.

Equivocation on “foreign sources,” conflating foreign governmental involvement with mere foreign nationals.

 

[smartcooky]

This is how it works:

Scenario 1: A Republican presidential campaign gets dirt on their political opponent from foreign sources, so investigate the Republican candidate and his campaign for colluding with a foreign power to sway an election.

Scenario 2: A Democratic presidential campaign gets dirt on their political opponent from foreign sources, so investigate the Republican candidate and his campaign for whatever the alleged crimes are.

You clearly have not been paying attention

Your Scenario 1 would be all good if your facts were correct and accurate. Let me rephrase your scenario 1 with facts that accurately reflect reality.

Scenario 1: A Republican presidential campaign gets dirt on their political opponent from a hostile foreign sources Government, and continues to co-operate with that hostile foreign Government to the tune of over 120 individual, documented and verifiable contacts by over 20 members of the campaign, so investigate the Republican candidate and his campaign for colluding with a foreign power to sway an election.​

Your scenario 2 fails completely because you are missing keys facts, or have made up untruths and purported them to be facts. Let me rephrase your scenario 2 with facts that accurately reflect reality.

Scenario 2: A Democratic presidential campaign gets dirt intelligence on their political opponent from a private, non-Government foreign source, a citizen of a friendly, allied country. Further, the intelligence provided was very troubling and showed a high possibility that the Republican presidential campaign was in fact colluding with a hostile, foreign Government to sway the election, so investigate the Republican candidate and his campaign for whatever the alleged crimes are for colluding with a foreign power to sway an election. ​

p.s. The Mueller report is the prosecution side and was written by partisan Democratic hacks.

Robert Mueller III, a lifelong Republican, a man who is scrupulously unbiased, who headed the FBI for 12 years after a bipartisan 98-0 Senate confirmation, who served under both Republican and Democratic Presidents, will be shocked to find out that he is a "partisan Democratic hack"

I have come to the conclusion (and I am sure many others here will have reached a similar conclusion) that you have absolutely no ******* idea what you are talking about.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

just to add:
in Scenario 2, the campaign paid for the intelligence.

 

[BobTheCoward]

just to add:
in Scenario 2, the campaign paid for the intelligence.

But they didn't pay the people who had the intelligence? Did Steele compensate at market rates the thing the campaign received of value from the people he talked to? How does that work?

 

[Stacyhs]

>snip<

I have come to the conclusion (and I am sure many others here will have reached a similar conclusion) that you have absolutely no ******* idea what you are talking about.

Au contraire. I think he knows exactly what he's doing. Da?