Mueller Investigation pt5

Status
Not open for further replies.
Venom said:
When Trump was sworn in Maddow and friends kept pushing the idea that Trump might pull U.S. troops out of Europe [on Putin's behalf]. They didn't.

After the April 2017 U.S. airstrikes in Syria I recall MSNBC hosts concocting a conspiracy theory about Putin "possibly" setting this all up for his buddy Donald Trump.

This was pure speculation, and not very informed. They took bits of rich Americans having financial connections with Russian oligarchs, which isn't that unusual in the first place, the unverified allegations about Trump's Moscow escapades, a dash of Paul Manafort here and there....

It looked like classic passive-aggressive JAQing off to me. Maddow sounded like she had the answer in her back pocket the entire time.
Click to expand...

It's hard to address your interpretations here without the actual quotes.

With Trump's personality pathology one never knows what he's threatening to do from day to day: Answering quesitons at a press conference during the second day of the NATO summit in Brussels, US President Donald Trump said he “thinks” he can pull the US out altogether from the military alliance without US Congressional approval.
Last month the US media reported that the US government was in the process of assessing the cost of keeping troops in Germany ahead of a possible withdrawal, citing Pentagon sources.

But the policy of actually pulling out of the country has not actually reached the negotiating table in his week’s Brussels summit and is not expected to be discussed as a possibility – for now.
Click to expand...
So how was Maddow wrong?

I'm not sure what was supposedly set up and what exactly did MSNBC say about Putin and Syria. It looks to me like Trump conceded Syria to Assad and Putin.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
It's hard to address your interpretations here without the actual quotes.

With Trump's personality pathology one never knows what he's threatening to do from day to day: Answering quesitons at a press conference during the second day of the NATO summit in Brussels, US President Donald Trump said he “thinks” he can pull the US out altogether from the military alliance without US Congressional approval.So how was Maddow wrong?

I'm not sure what was supposedly set up and what exactly did MSNBC say about Putin and Syria. It looks to me like Trump conceded Syria to Assad and Putin.
Click to expand...

Give me a bit and I'll look for the actual quotes, if I can find them, but it's from what I recall fairly strongly from TV.

Trump did suggest that he could pull the U.S. out from NATO any time he wanted. The conspiracist speculation comes in when you think Trump is only doing that because Putin wanted him to. "We're not saying there's collusion, but look at this set of circumstances and tell me there isn't!"

They just can't chalk it up to ignorance in this one area, even though that's what we clown Trump for everywhere else.
 
Venom said:
When Trump was sworn in Maddow and friends kept pushing the idea that Trump might pull U.S. troops out of Europe [on Putin's behalf]. They didn't.

After the April 2017 U.S. airstrikes in Syria I recall MSNBC hosts concocting a conspiracy theory about Putin "possibly" setting this all up for his buddy Donald Trump.

This was pure speculation, and not very informed. They took bits of rich Americans having financial connections with Russian oligarchs, which isn't that unusual in the first place, the unverified allegations about Trump's Moscow escapades, a dash of Paul Manafort here and there....

It looked like classic passive-aggressive JAQing off to me. Maddow sounded like she had the answer in her back pocket the entire time.
Click to expand...
Weak as weak can be. I want to see her words, not your vague recollection. Appearances notwithstanding, this is a forum for skeptics, not a community rorschach exercise.
 
Minoosh said:
That sounds about right. I can even understand it, in a way.

I kinda think that someone so manifestly untrustworthy will eventually lose the trust of some of the folks he's counted on. But I couldn't begin to speculate when.
Click to expand...


Maybe on their deathbeds, but I wouldn't bet the seed corn on that, either.

Trump supporters, by their very nature, are not the kind to admit they made a mistake. One of the things they actually respect Trump for is his insistence on doubling down no matter how obvious and glaring his errors and lies are.

They follow his lead and keep doubling down themselves. I wouldn't expect that to change.
 
Belz... said:
As much as I hate to agree with Childlike, she is correct. It's misleading to add the "not sure" along with the negatives to give a false impression that more people think Trump's troubles aren't over yet.
Click to expand...

40% said Trump has not been cleared and 31% said they are not sure if he has been cleared. I really don't see the problem with taking both of those as "think Trump's troubles aren't over yet" unless you believe there are "not sures" who nonetheless think the troubles are over. I suppose that's arguable, but the specific headline in question said "don't think Trump is in the clear yet," which would seem to me to include those who are "not sure if he has been cleared" unless you'd like to clarify the distinction you're making.
 
Craig4 said:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/31/politics/mick-mulvaney-ethics-mueller-cnntv/index.html

The Mulvaney creature doesn't think it matters if the Russia meeting was ethical. If you ever needed more evidence that Trump supporters aren't patriots.
Click to expand...

He wants to treat an unavoidably political situation as a strictly legal one. That won't fly when the issue is the integrity of the president. Yep, it's political -- maybe Trump should have learned the rules before joining the game.
 
phiwum said:
Sure. I don't intend to check personally, since I don't care that much. I was just pointing out that her status as a commentator rather than reporter doesn't mean that she spouts only opinion without fact.

I don't recall that the article I read (HuffPost?) attacked her for simple facts but for speculation verging on conspiracy theories. Honestly, a commentator's fanciful speculations are fair game for criticism, too. Glenn Beck comes to mind.

Whether Maddow's speculations are too fanciful, I don't know.
Click to expand...

Me either. And I don’t find much utility in hypothetical criticisms for hypothetical actions.
 
varwoche said:
Weak as weak can be. I want to see her words, not your vague recollection. Appearances notwithstanding, this is a forum for skeptics, not a community rorschach exercise.
Click to expand...

A self-anointed champion of skepticism and critical thought forgetting the basic rules of both.

Oh sweet irony.
 
Venom said:
Give me a bit and I'll look for the actual quotes, if I can find them, but it's from what I recall fairly strongly from TV.

Trump did suggest that he could pull the U.S. out from NATO any time he wanted. The conspiracist speculation comes in when you think Trump is only doing that because Putin wanted him to. "We're not saying there's collusion, but look at this set of circumstances and tell me there isn't!"

They just can't chalk it up to ignorance in this one area, even though that's what we clown Trump for everywhere else.
Click to expand...
I don't doubt your recollection, I doubt we would all interpret Maddow's comments the same way.
 
johnny karate said:
Agreed.

The next step is to find something misleading or inaccurate that she presented as fact.
Click to expand...

Maddow is often reacting to and commenting on items that are literally coming across her desk during the show, or have just been made public.

Like any responsible commentator - and unlike our president - she is quite good at correcting errors when called for. It’s like the “Andrew was wrong” segment on Opening Arguments. There’s nothing wrong with making mistakes - we all do. It’s just seems that the Roy Cohn/Roger Stone/Donald Trump mantra of “never admit error or fault” has taken hold among both Trump and his minions. To them, Rachel or Andrew correcting themselves is a sign of weakness. SAD!


edited to add: I see quadraginta cover similar terrain with “Trump supporters, by their very nature, are not the kind to admit they made a mistake. One of the things they actually respect Trump for is his insistence on doubling down no matter how obvious and glaring his errors and lies are.

They follow his lead and keep doubling down themselves. I wouldn't expect that to change.”
 
Last edited:
WilliamSeger said:
40% said Trump has not been cleared and 31% said they are not sure if he has been cleared. I really don't see the problem with taking both of those as "think Trump's troubles aren't over yet" unless you believe there are "not sures" who nonetheless think the troubles are over.
Click to expand...

It's technically correct, but misleading, is my point. It's the kind of thing that news media keep doing to get clicks or ratings. The point is that 40% think he's not been cleared.
 
Belz... said:
It's technically correct, but misleading, is my point. It's the kind of thing that news media keep doing to get clicks or ratings. The point is that 40% think he's not been cleared.
Click to expand...

I still disagree; in the context of what trumpers are claiming especially, the point is that only 29% think he has been cleared.
 
Minoosh said:
That's not even what Barr said.
Click to expand...

your quote pretty much says they found no evidence against Trump on collusion. There are other statements in the letter that say much the same thing like:

The special counsel did not find that the Trump Campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or colluded with the Russian governments in its [hacking efforts].
Click to expand...
Contrast that with the part of the letter dealing with obstruction where Barr says for each of Trump's actions, the report sets out evidence on both sides but does not draw conclusions. So Barr admits there is evidence against Trump when Mueller says there is but he doesn't believe it passes the test of criminality.
 
phiwum said:
I don't watch Maddow, but most commentators mix facts and opinions, the former being essential in making the latter persuasive. If Maddow's statements of fact are misleading, then she deserves criticism.

But, as I said, I don't watch her. I tried just once. It was painfully slow and repetitive, chock full of teasers about what she would say rather than just saying it. Not the way I like to get my news or commentary. Others seem to enjoy her presentation.
Click to expand...
Not me. Unwatchable.
 
johnny karate said:
Me either. And I don’t find much utility in hypothetical criticisms for hypothetical actions.
Click to expand...

You misunderstand. I wasn't raising hypothetical criticisms. I was merely denying that the fact that she's a commentator makes her immune to claims that she spreads falsehoods.
 
jeremyp said:
your quote pretty much says they found no evidence against Trump on collusion. There are other statements in the letter that say much the same thing like:
Click to expand...
It's ludicrous to keep making this assertion when there is some evidence in the public sphere.

Until you guys acknowledge neither Muller nor Barr can claim no evidence, your opinion will continue to be discounted.

On this side of the aisle I see a consensus that Putin and Trump likely worked more parallel to each other than in some conspiracy.

One question not answered is does Putin have 'kompromat' on Trump, especially financial leverage?
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
It's technically correct, but misleading, is my point. It's the kind of thing that news media keep doing to get clicks or ratings. The point is that 40% think he's not been cleared.
Click to expand...

But he hasn't been cleared.
 
Re: Maddow, I listen to her podcast, which is just the audio track of the show. (Good for the gym or commuting.) Visuals aren’t necessary and I can concentrate on the content without distractions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom