Mueller Investigation pt5

Status
Not open for further replies.
uke2se said:
Can anyone explain why US media aren't questioning Barr's summary of the report? If I'm wrong and they are, could anyone link? I only find such questioning on left-leaning online magazines...
Click to expand...

As journalists explain -- and in the present climate it's important for people to understand this -- they report news. They try to avoid making it. Rachel Maddow is questioning Barr's summary but she's analysis/opinion not straight-up reporting. Some smaller cable outlets may be reporting there are questions but the major news media usually tries to play it pretty much down the middle. If the Democrats question the Barr summary I'm sure that would be reported.

One thing to remember is, the mainstream media is under attack like never before. American presidents have a history of resentment against media but never to the level the current one has brought it to. Not even close.

Trump tweeted: "The Mainstream Media is under fire and being scorned all over the World as being corrupt and FAKE.” That's odd. I thought it was actually Donald Trump who is scorned all over the World as being corrupt and fake. ;)
 
newyorkguy said:
As journalists explain -- and in the present climate it's important for people to understand this -- they report news. They try to avoid making it. Rachel Maddow is questioning Barr's summary but she's analysis/opinion not straight-up reporting. Some smaller cable outlets may be reporting there are questions but the major news media usually tries to play it pretty much down the middle. If the Democrats question the Barr summary I'm sure that would be reported.

One thing to remember is, the mainstream media is under attack like never before. American presidents have a history of resentment against media but never to the level the current one has brought it to. Not even close.

Trump tweeted: "The Mainstream Media is under fire and being scorned all over the World as being corrupt and FAKE.” That's odd. I thought it was actually Donald Trump who is scorned all over the World as being corrupt and fake. ;)
Click to expand...

It's an obvious question to ask someone tho. "Why hasn't the report been released when it was promised that it would be? Why is "does not exhonerate the President" interpreted as "complete exhoneration"?"
 
The news reports are that the Mueller Report will be released. Below is a quote from NBC News
Attorney General William Barr will make a version of special counsel Robert Mueller's report publicly available in weeks, not months, a Justice Department official and the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said Tuesday. Both the Justice Department official and Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. said there were no plans to give a copy of the report to the White House before it is made public. Link
Click to expand...

In other words, they are reporting what has been announced as to release of the report. If Democrats or grassroot groups complain it should be released more quickly, that would undoubtedly be reported. Criticizing or supporting the decision to not release the report immediately that's not news reporting, that's for the pundits: Chris Mathews, Rachel Maddow, Sean Hannity.
 
Ziggurat said:
I've mentioned this quote before recently, but the response to the Mueller report's release has really refreshed its relevance:



How many people here, upon hearing that Mueller found no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, were disappointed rather than relieved? If you felt the former and not the latter, well, the impulse is quite human and understandable. But it is also wrong.
Click to expand...

Mmm. Disappointed that the nightmare that is the Trump Presidency isn't over? It would be a good thing if Trump actually wasn't intentionally breaking the law in service to his desire to get Trump Tower Moscow happening finally, but... here's the thing again. We have Barr's summary. Not Mueller's report. Given Barr's history and obvious reason for being chosen, sorry, but his word isn't acceptable. Even more so when there's distinct... oddities in his summary, by the look of it, like that the no conspiracy or coordination line is only part of a statement, given the [T]. It would be no surprise whatsoever if he was quoting something distinctly out of context, like so many other Republicans in high places have done. It doesn't have to be a lie, after all, if it's a truth that's just greatly overshadowed by everything else. As it is, though, I'm more interested in seeing the reasoning and evidence used to reach the conclusions in question, though, as well as what they are more fully before passing judgement about that.

To borrow a summation of things that have already been revealed from the indictments made, either way...

Let’s just review what we know from the public record and indictments to date:

1 A private businessman decides to run for President, but does not stop running his business.
2 During the campaign, he also restarts negotiations for a new project with a foreign government, a project he’s pursued for 30 years.
3 The project includes a benefit — really a bribe — for the leader of that government.
4 The candidate not only hides these negotiations, but also flatly lies to the public about them, giving that foreign government compromising information on him.
5 The same foreign government, as it turns out, is also conducting an information war against this country, in hopes of stirring up controversy and division, which includes the theft of private property. Eventually the information war settles on a goal of electing this same candidate.
6 The same foreign government wants economic sanctions to be relaxed or reduced, and has dozens of contacts with various campaign officials and members of the businessman’s company, urging this result.
7 During the campaign the businessman expresses support for the foreign government, revels in the stolen material they’ve released, changes the party platform to be nicer to that government and literally asks that government to target their criminal behavior on his rival.
8 Authorities identify the information war going on and brief the candidate and his staff. At no point does anyone on that campaign alert the authorities to either the project negotiations or the multiple contacts with the foreign government, including offers of “dirt,” made to the campaign.
9 During the subsequent investigation of the attack, the same campaign aides and business colleagues lie, obfuscate and hide their contacts with the foreign government.
10 The candidate, now the country’s leader, consistently overrules his own experts to support this same foreign government’s aims.
Click to expand...

This is already plenty bad and doesn't line up especially well with Barr's spin. Had any President other than Trump done this, that much alone would be likely be plenty for Congress to impeach. Successfully.

Ziggurat said:
That was a joke. And obviously so.
Click to expand...

Except for the part where he confirmed that it wasn't really a joke in a interview shortly after?
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
How many people here, upon hearing that Mueller found no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, were disappointed rather than relieved?
Click to expand...

My thought on hearing that Mueller found no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia is "why is the person who is saying that misrepresenting what the Barr letter actually said?"
 
uke2se said:
It's an obvious question to ask someone tho. "Why hasn't the report been released when it was promised that it would be? Why is "does not exhonerate the President" interpreted as "complete exhoneration"?"
Click to expand...

I think it’s a conscious tactic inspired by Roy Cohn*: Just say stuff. Truth doesn’t matter, only perception.

We saw Manafort’s lawyers do the same on the courthouse steps, when they said the judge had ruled “no collusion”, when in fact she had just made very clear that “collusion” was not among the charges before her.

It seems in another time and place such bold-faced lies would carry consequences. Such no longer seems to be the case.


*And before that, by a certain Nazi Reich, who shall remain unnamed here. :boxedin:
 
cmikes said:
The current conspiracy theory is that Mueller and his hand picked "I'm with Her" team are all secretly Trumpists and covering up for the President. After all, Democrats "know" in their hearts that Trump must be guilty, because otherwise they wouldn't be infallible, and that's just silly.
Click to expand...

Goodness. That would be silly. Who is saying that?

It's about as silly as talking about Mueller's "I'm With Her" team. Your complaint is that the good conspiracy theory has been replaced with a bad one, and this would be a shame, if in fact anyone had claimed Mueller's teams are closet Trumpists.

So, who is?
 
Lambchops said:
Here's a crazy idea: Maybe russian bots and trolls did not get Trump elected.

Maybe it happened because Queen Hillary was just a ****** candidate.
Click to expand...
Its remarkable how quickly history is re-written to fit various pro-Trump narratives.

Russian bots and trolls undoubtedly had some impact. But that impact is miniscule in comparison to the Russia+wikileaks drip drip October surprise. While it will never be provable one way or the other, I have little doubt this determined the outcome.
 
theprestige said:
Among other things, I don't give a ****. If you don't have a explanation to offer, then who cares what you're curious about?
Click to expand...

Yes, everyone please stop questioning theprestige’s made-up numbers and provide the explanation he’s demanding for a scenario he pulled out of his ass.
 
Ziggurat said:
How many people here, upon hearing that Mueller found no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, were disappointed rather than relieved? If you felt the former and not the latter, well, the impulse is quite human and understandable. But it is also wrong.
Click to expand...
Me me <raises hand>.

Mind you, I was similarly disappointed when they let Smollet and OJ skate free. Although unlike these cases where the outcome surprised me, here I didn't expect "collusion" to be proven because a paper trail is so unlikely.

Also... I'm not so sure that Mueller found "no evidence" of collusion.
 
Stacko said:
This really points to there being some damaging stuff in there even if it didn't rise to the level of criminal conspiracy.
Click to expand...

I'm curious to see how Trump's defenders spin the White House redactions.

Surely any classified information, ongoing investigations or other information dangerous or illegal to share will be redacted by the AG's office or already marked for redaction by Mueller's office. I can't see any reason for the white house to get a swipe at it aside from hiding true information that may be damaging to the President from the public.

And since these same Trump supporters frame Wikileaks releases of stolen emails as being heroic and the public deserving to know, I imagine the mental cartwheels will need to be especially impressive.
 
Last edited:
Bogative said:
How dare a Republican use a Nazi comparison against his political opposition, that should be strictly reserved for Democrats and the media.


(The "yeah, but, Trump really is like Hitler" response is going to be lit)
Click to expand...

I think you may have misunderstood the criticism.

Brooks isnt being criticised for comparing his adversaries to Nazis. He's being criticized for using a Nazi quote to make an argument that the Nazis did... against the Jews.

Most charitable interpretation would be that he didn't understand the meaning and context of the quote and had intended to use the quote to make a comparison to Nazis. But that would not speak highly for his intelligence or level of care. He's either a Nazi, or a blithering idiot. Or heck I suppose he might be both.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
I've not really got time to go through the last 5 pages, and so don't know if this has already been posted, but it's huge - Barr will send the Mueller report to the White House before releasing it to the public, to allow them to make redactions
Click to expand...


Wait, wuuut??? Is Business Insider trying to tell me that AG Barr still has the report? That can't be, I read on this very discussion board that the only reason we haven't seen it is because leader McConnell blocked Chuck Schumer's demand that it be released.

#fakenews
 
Bogative said:
Wait, wuuut??? Is Business Insider trying to tell me that AG Barr still has the report? That can't be, I read on this very discussion board that the only reason we haven't seen it is because leader McConnell blocked Chuck Schumer's demand that it be released.
Click to expand...

How are those mutually exclusive?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom