Mueller Investigation pt 6

Status
Not open for further replies.
BobTheCoward said:
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?
Click to expand...

since Steele is not running for office in the US and isn't even a US citizen, that is entirely irrelevant.


Note: assuming
1)
Steele gets indisputable compromising evidence on Trump that will assure a HRC victory. He pays $100,000s for the intel, but because he wants HRC to win, he charges her campaign just $20.

That would be illegal, since Steele, a non-US citizen, gave HRC something of value without fair compenstaion.

or 2)
Steel gets intel for free from Russia, because the Kremlin wants that intel in the US campaign for their own reasons. He charges HRC $100,000 for basically zero work.
That would be fine, since the campaign paid for the intel, even if said intel might be highly suspect.
 
Last edited:
Cabbage said:
In order to achieve this, I would recommend you actually read the report.
Click to expand...

We keep saying that, and Bob and others keep saying they the cannot tell what the truth is, and the media are acting as gatekeepers yada yada yada yada. Its is important to realise that the Mueller Report is not Mueller's opinion or the the opinions of any or some or all of the members of his Special Counsel.

The Mueller report is an evidence-based recounting of facts put together in an organised way that presents the salient points of the investigation, and makes the results easier to understand than they otherwise would be. Those facts are documented, verified, authenticated and in many cases, have been testified to before a Federal Grand Jury. People who testified to Mueller did so under oath. Those who lied, like Manafort, were rooted out and paid the price. Even if members of the Special Counsel were predominantly Democrats, or predominantly Republicans, or predominantly neutral or apolitical.... it doesn't matter; the facts don't care; they don't care about the political leanings of the witnesses, the interrogators or the targets of the investigation. The facts are the facts, they are stubborn, they remain unchanged and they won't go away.

It is precisely because the Muller report is evidence based fact, that Trump and his stooge at the head of the DoJ are doing everything they can to prevent the public from seeing the underlying evidence that Mueller used to reach his conclusions.

I repeat, anyone really wants to know what is in the Mueller Report should read it!
 
BobTheCoward said:
What is the point of doing one component when it isn't completed with only one component?
Click to expand...

You have to review ALL available components yourself. You cannot rely on or believe anyone else's biased, unreliable, and incomplete opinion of the components. This is not something that any other person can do for you. You HAVE to do all the work yourself.

When you have done this there may still be specific components that you do not fully comprehend. That is the point where it may be worthwhile coming here and asking for clarity. Until then it has become quite clear in this thread that nobody here is going to provide the info you are looking for. You have two options - look for other resources, or give up looking.
 
smartcooky said:
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".
Click to expand...

One of the most subtly pernicious moves that the dishonest make is to claim that someone is biased because they have made a judgment for one side and against another.
 
BobTheCoward said:
What is the point of doing one component when it isn't completed with only one component?
Click to expand...

What is the point of doing one component (breathing) when it (staying alive) isn't completed with only one component?

Ya gotta look at the wider picture. Sometimes many components are involved and in evidence if one is not hyper-focused on the one thing.
 
I started to make a list of quantifiable factors in a given media report that could be analyzed to come up with a reliability score. By itself, it's not a bad idea. But the problem is, how much weight to give the various factors is itself a judgment call. An solid piece of analysis, fair and factual, isn't invalidated by a glaring typo in the headline. Someone with an axe to grind isn't necessarily wrong. A superficial tone of fairness can obscure fundamental dishonesty.

Andrew Napolitano's take-down on the obstruction issue carried more weight with me than something similar from Rachel Maddow would have.

Consider the past reliability of the source, use of click-bait techniques, the general degree of professionalism, reliance on innuendo, loaded word choices, phrases that allow opinions to creep into factual reports, a sudden segue to an unnamed source to get the juiciest quote (see: click-bait), BODY OF WORK, excessive use of capitalization etc.

Mueller has no obvious reason to string me along, but CNN does ... never pass up a Trump headline, even if that means there's nothing else on your home page.

ETA: Yet this doesn't mean I'm drawing an equivalence between CNN and Fox.
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
What is the point of doing one component when it isn't completed with only one component?
Click to expand...

Because it is the specific component you lack. You already have everything else, as indicated by your posts: You have seen the map, now finally take a look at the territory.

Now, see how easy that was?
 
Minoosh said:
I started to make a list of quantifiable factors in a given media report that could be analyzed to come up with a reliability score. By itself, it's not a bad idea. But the problem is, how much weight to give the various factors is itself a judgment call. An solid piece of analysis, fair and factual, isn't invalidated by a glaring typo in the headline. Someone with an axe to grind isn't necessarily wrong. A superficial tone of fairness can obscure fundamental dishonesty.

Andrew Napolitano's take-down on the obstruction issue carried more weight with me than something similar from Rachel Maddow would have.

Consider the past reliability of the source, use of click-bait techniques, the general degree of professionalism, reliance on innuendo, loaded word choices, phrases that allow opinions to creep into factual reports, a sudden segue to an unnamed source to get the juiciest quote (see: click-bait), BODY OF WORK, excessive use of capitalization etc.

Mueller has no obvious reason to string me along, but CNN does ... never pass up a Trump headline, even if that means there's nothing else on your home page.

ETA: Yet this doesn't mean I'm drawing an equivalence between CNN and Fox.
Click to expand...

Interesting
 
Minoosh said:
....
Mueller has no obvious reason to string me along, but CNN does ... never pass up a Trump headline, even if that means there's nothing else on your home page.
Click to expand...

What are you on about? The CNN home page is downright cluttered.
https://www.cnn.com/

And you don't seem to grasp that anything and everything the President does is news, especially when he is breaking treaties, demeaning our allies and bending over for our enemies, threatening wars, and lying continuously about matters of provable fact.
 
Bob001 said:
What are you on about? The CNN home page is downright cluttered.
https://www.cnn.com/

And you don't seem to grasp that anything and everything the President does is news, especially when he is breaking treaties, demeaning our allies and bending over for our enemies, threatening wars, and lying continuously about matters of provable fact.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying don't report it. But there have been times when the home page is almost all Trump. That changes when it's a slow Trump news day and probably also has changed as people start to lose interest in Trump.

I don't blame CNN for wanting to get as many clicks as possible from people thinking, "OK, what's he done now?" It keeps readers on the website longer, which his good for ad revenue. CNN is certainly not the enemy of the people, but it is a business, and it's pursuing a business strategy.

For a while everything he said at rallies was news too - "ooh, what's he going to say next"? So the rallies were run in their entirety. All of that free publicity probably helped Trump. Similarly, a given tweet that becomes the outrage of the day is possibly also a distraction manufactured by Team Trump to keep people from focusing on something more serious that the administration is doing. At such times media outlets play right into Trump's hands.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Ziggurat
“I don't think the report establishes corrupt intent.”



I think there are cases where corrupt intent could be successfully argued.

For instance, firing Comey because of the “Rusher thing”, then telling Russian diplomats...

“I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job. I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”

Sounds like it establishes corrupt intent to me. Whether it rises to a successful prosecution for obstruction of justice is another matter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom