Mueller Investigation pt5

Status
Not open for further replies.
Minoosh said:
I don't understand Graham. Is the Senate really happy to kill the report without even knowing what's in it? That seems pretty risky to me.
Click to expand...
Not really.

They probably realize it is damaging to Trump (and thus the Republicans in congress by association) based on just whats already known publicly.

So, if they have most congress critters vote to release it but have a couple of holdouts actually blocking the release, they get the best of both worlds... They can claim "we want transparency" but avoid whatever damage would result from it.

Sent from my LG-K121 using Tapatalk
 
Republicans like McConnel, Graham and Nunes, know exactly what's in the Mueller report, because they have been briefed continuously on it, especially the counterintelligence side of it.
 
Childlike Empress said:
It's the same story like with the Mueller report now. The Russians probably have it, somebody said earlier. You lot want your hands on it. If you asked here - not knowing if they really have it - the Russians to release it, it wouldn't mean you colluded with them.
Click to expand...

On the other hand, the poster wouldn't have the history of pre-existing relations and plans with members of the Russian govt that give more credence to Trump's request, so why are you even pretending the situations are at all similar? Consider also the limited audience this board has compared with a televised comment from a prominent person running for president and we realize your analogy is complete BS.
 
Tinfoil pussyhat-wearing Russiagaters demand the Mueller report yesterday on Time Square and have written a little song for the occasion:


99074d54b459448e8.gif
 
theprestige said:
WTF is even a "close associate"? What is even "members of Mueller's team"?

Are we talking about a senior prosecutor with real authority on the subject?

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

Do you think that the Times is talking to boyfriends of paralegals? Really?

Do you have the same skepticism towards every article involving anonymous sources, no matter the content?

I do, of course, reserve some skepticism regarding any stories involving anonymous sources, because we don't know how reliable the source is. It's easy to lie when you are anonymous. But I do regard the Times and many other news organizations as trustworthy. I don't spin fantasies that the sources are described in a grossly misleading manner.
 
Childlike Empress said:
The sub-subject was that Teh Donald isn't funny and his request to Russia to release Killary's eMails couldn't possibly have been in jest. Which is of course ridiculous and a completely desperate "argument" to make.
Click to expand...

He explicitly said later that he wanted Russia to release the emails. Whether it was said in the speech for a laugh line or not, he explicitly said that this is indeed what he wanted.

The whole "it's a joke" thing doesn't work when Trump himself said "I mean it".
 
phiwum said:
Do you think that the Times is talking to boyfriends of paralegals? Really?

Do you have the same skepticism towards every article involving anonymous sources, no matter the content?

I do, of course, reserve some skepticism regarding any stories involving anonymous sources, because we don't know how reliable the source is. It's easy to lie when you are anonymous. But I do regard the Times and many other news organizations as trustworthy. I don't spin fantasies that the sources are described in a grossly misleading manner.
Click to expand...

They are anonymously reporting the second hand opinions of anonymous people that allegedly worked on Mueller's staff.
 
phiwum said:
He explicitly said later that he wanted Russia to release the emails. Whether it was said in the speech for a laugh line or not, he explicitly said that this is indeed what he wanted.

The whole "it's a joke" thing doesn't work when Trump himself said "I mean it".
Click to expand...

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?
 
Minoosh said:
Legitimate questions and we'll have real answers as soon as Barr releases the Mueller report.
Click to expand...

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.
 
phiwum said:
Do you think that the Times is talking to boyfriends of paralegals? Really?...
Click to expand...

In an earlier effort to impugn the news media -- and they're obviously not all the same -- a link was provided to a piece by Mike Taibbi in Rolling Stone lambasting the media for their reporting on Trump-Russia. Even in a piece attacking the media, Taibbi mentioned that various media outlets (including the Times) had the Steele dossier long before it became public, but declined to publish or broadcast it because "they couldn't verify it." The media does have standards. As in this case, any editor worth his salary is going to verify that the sources for the story had the kind of access they claim to have had. If that can't be verified the story is not going to run.

In the movie, "All the President's Men," the Washington Post senior editor at first refuses to publish Bernstein and Woodward's Watergate stories because he believes their sources are questionable. He insists they tell him who their main source is --assistant FBI director Mark Felt -- and then Bradlee finally agrees to publish. Those scenes are based on actual events.

The Nixon administration's immediate response was to deny everything. They accused the media of publishing wildly inaccurate stories, having a liberal bias and using bad sources. The story never changes. And there's always idiots around who are more than willing to lap up any official version that is put forth. You can't reason with willful ignorance. It's just not possible. :(
 
theprestige said:
WTF is even a "close associate"? What is even "members of Mueller's team"?

Are we talking about a senior prosecutor with real authority on the subject?

Or is this a frustrated paralegal with an opinion and boyfriend who went to the media with anonymous pillow talk?
Click to expand...
Echoing Phiwum here, while the press does screw up now and then, I'll bet you're unable to point to one lonely instance in the past three years (the era of Trump) where we've learned the NYT relied on "Kevin Bacon" as opposed to a legit insider.

You're pulling nonsense from dark crevices. Go ahead, prove me wrong. Just one citation please.
 
varwoche said:
Echoing Phiwum here, while the press does screw up now and then, I'll bet you're unable to point to one lonely instance in the past three years (the era of Trump) where we've learned the NYT relied on "Kevin Bacon" as opposed to a legit insider.

You're pulling nonsense from dark crevices. Go ahead, prove me wrong. Just one citation please.
Click to expand...


This must be continually pounded upon the noggins of the fringe reset crowd who interminably 'forget' anything uncomfortable for them that is older than a day.
 
The Big Dog said:
They are anonymously reporting the second hand opinions of anonymous people that allegedly worked on Mueller's staff.
Click to expand...

Of course, Barr's "summary" is also an opinion. Congress should see the real unredacted report.
 
Last edited:
Trump Tweets

“Trolling the Mueller Report. Democrats Lost On Collusion. Now They’re Inventing A Coverup.”
@WSJopinion
James Freeman @LouDobbs
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom