Robert Mueller investigation

[nots]

What an idiotic post.

Thanks for sharing....I will give your post all the consideration it deserves.

[Sour Masher]

That's a strange and incredibly ungracious way to read my posts.

A horse is a horse, of course, so consider the source.

FWIW, I find you one of the most even-headed and polite fellows on these boards, and I appreciate your participation. Given how many on these boards, myself very much included, have blind fury toward Trump that would have made an easier target for his latest critique of what he deems unfair Trump attacks, I find his lashing out at you of all people just as surprising as I imagine you did. All you have ever expressed is reasonable and legitimate desire to learn the facts of this case.

Despite my own unabashed bias against Trump, I feel I should have at least some credibility on this particular issue in the eyes of the "see, I told you TDS fools there was nothing here" crowd, because given the lack of information we've had so far, I've chosen to focus on other more tangible issues related to Trump over the last couple of years. I didn't focus on this until now, but I do find it absurd that some seem so eager to accept a brief, incomplete, vague second-hand summary as irrefutable proof that all who still may have concerns that Trump may have committed immoral if not illegal acts on this issue despite that summary must be delusional beings so blinded by their biases and agenda they cannot accept simple truths. They must be conflating legitimately concerned citizens such as yourself with left-wing pundits whose livelihood is dependent on selling a pre-scripted narrative. That conflation, to borrow your phrase, is incredibly ungracious.

[nots]

A horse is a horse, of course, so consider the source.

FWIW, I find you one of the most even-headed and polite fellows on these boards, and I appreciate your participation. Given how many on these boards, myself very much included, have blind fury toward Trump that would have made an easier target for his latest critique of what he deems unfair Trump attacks, I find his lashing out at you of all people just as surprising as I imagine you did. All you have ever expressed is reasonable and legitimate desire to learn the facts of this case.

Despite my own unabashed bias against Trump, I feel I should have at least some credibility on this particular issue in the eyes of the "see, I told you TDS fools there was nothing here" crowd, because given the lack of information we've had so far, I've chosen to focus on other more tangible issues related to Trump over the last couple of years. I didn't focus on this until now, but I do find it absurd that some seem so eager to accept a brief, incomplete, vague second-hand summary as irrefutable proof that all who still may have concerns that Trump may have committed immoral if not illegal acts on this issue despite that summary must be delusional beings so blinded by their biases and agenda they cannot accept simple truths. They must be conflating legitimately concerned citizens such as yourself with left-wing pundits whose livelihood is dependent on selling a pre-scripted narrative. That conflation, to borrow your phrase, is incredibly ungracious.

Nope, not it at all. I have said very little about the investigation as it has unfolded. I don’t think I have more than a-couple of posts relating to this topic and I believe those dealt with the Buzz Feed story. I listened as Schiff, Brennan, Blumenthal, Nadler, Walters, etc said there was smoking evidence to be revealed—that they knew there was clear evidence and it would be revealed in the report. I read article after article on his guilt and his treasonous activities all of which would come to light once Mueller was done (even watched a little cable news on the topic, which is something I rarely do). Watched the media fawn over Michael Cohen. And based on the early indictments, I expected probably Kushner and/or Junior would be indicted to be truthful. It did indeed look like something was there. Just needed to hear the report. Well, now we have the summarization of that report. It didn’t contain any of that. It stated no collusion. Now we want to kick it around some more, maybe find a little obstruction. Or we can post articles about how it might not be the legal definition of collusion, but it was de facto collusion. Maybe debate obstruction’s definition. Battle over the release of the full 400 pages—I am sure in a report that long, there will be sentences, pages or paragraphs that will give rise to more theories and maybe some (more) Congressional investigations. Fresh material for Maddow and the late night comics. I see now the latest articles from the left are ‘15 things Mueller should have asked but didnt’ and ‘Why wasn’t Trump Interviewed in person’. It is an endless loop that is neither going to prove or disprove anything more than: 1)there was no indictable collusion and 2)Trump is a shady guy.
At some point we need to accept the fact that Donald Trump isn’t going to be charged with anything relative to Russian election meddling. To continue down this path is counterproductive whether it’s dressed as biased TDS or camouflaged as ‘let’s take a deeper look at this’.

[Mithrandir]

Will the public ever get to see the entire report?

[onejayhawk]

Will the public ever get to see the entire report?

Define entire.

There are parts of the report that have national security implications. There are parts of the report that cannot be disclosed because of pending legal processes. Since much of the investigation dealt with foreign persons, entities and governments, things must be excluded for diplomatic reasons. This report will be particularly bad that way. The vetting process will take a couple of weeks. What is classified can be disclosed to classified persons, eg qualified members of Congress. Then the pblic will be allowed to see the entire redacted version.

If this makes you think of Hillary's unsecured email server, it should. This level of care was required there as well.

J

[Mithrandir]

The ol National security bullshit!! Hahahaha..

[Mithrandir]

Define entire.

There are parts of the report that have national security implications. There are parts of the report that cannot be disclosed because of pending legal processes. Since much of the investigation dealt with foreign persons, entities and governments, things must be excluded for diplomatic reasons. This report will be particularly bad that way. The vetting process will take a couple of weeks. What is classified can be disclosed to classified persons, eg qualified members of Congress. Then the pblic will be allowed to see the entire redacted version.

If this makes you think of Hillary's unsecured email server, it should. This level of care was required there as well.

J

Hillary who?

[onejayhawk]

Hillary who?

To quote Monica Lewinsky, "If. Fucking. Only."

J

[Judge Jude]

https://slate.com/culture/2019/03/ra...rump-barr.html

that one is entertaining:

"I’ll admit that I haven’t watched Maddow regularly for the past few years. Turning on her show this week was like discovering a Facebook friend is on the verge of a nervous breakdown. She looks the same as she did, she even sounds the same, but 15 minutes into a conspiratorial rant with no sense of proportion or, honestly, responsibility, you realize that something has gone wildly wrong: She wants to believe the instantly impeachable truth is out there more than she wants the truth, as gnarly and corrupt as it is.

"It’s easy to understand why this might appeal to the 4 million or so Trump-sick viewers who regularly watch Maddow’s program, but her audience is being served an alt-reality just as surely as Hannity’s is. If her audience of susceptible ostriches and amateur detectives, people who bury themselves in conspiratorial details hoping to unearth the one clue that will beam us out of this reality, is not as malignant as Fox’s audience of the hateful, aggrieved, and ignorant, in this one regard at least, what’s happening between MSNBC and Fox is not a contest: More than one cable news host can disserve their audience at a time."

[Sour Masher]

https://slate.com/culture/2019/03/ra...rump-barr.html

that one is entertaining:

"I’ll admit that I haven’t watched Maddow regularly for the past few years. Turning on her show this week was like discovering a Facebook friend is on the verge of a nervous breakdown. She looks the same as she did, she even sounds the same, but 15 minutes into a conspiratorial rant with no sense of proportion or, honestly, responsibility, you realize that something has gone wildly wrong: She wants to believe the instantly impeachable truth is out there more than she wants the truth, as gnarly and corrupt as it is.

"It’s easy to understand why this might appeal to the 4 million or so Trump-sick viewers who regularly watch Maddow’s program, but her audience is being served an alt-reality just as surely as Hannity’s is. If her audience of susceptible ostriches and amateur detectives, people who bury themselves in conspiratorial details hoping to unearth the one clue that will beam us out of this reality, is not as malignant as Fox’s audience of the hateful, aggrieved, and ignorant, in this one regard at least, what’s happening between MSNBC and Fox is not a contest: More than one cable news host can disserve their audience at a time."

I, like the author, haven't watched her show much in a long time, but my wife does, and based on it being on while I'm in the room at times, this seems like a fair assessment to me. It has perplexed and annoyed me for years how much time has been given to Russia when we have known so little, and we know so much about other things deserving of outrage and analysis. And Maddow has the mind to attend to such work, which is also frustrating.

[Judge Jude]

Maddow was the 'voice of reason' in the old Air America radio days, while at least one colleague would push the "GW Bush ordered the 9-11 attacks" tripe.

She is a Rhodes scholar - and the ultimate example of how no matter how smart you are, you may not be as smart as you THINK you are. She's trapped in a conspiracy bubble from which she will never escape.

But fear not - there really will be some unsavory new info, I assume, in the Mueller report that provides enough sustenance for all who need it. Believing that Trump is corrupt to the core is not crazy talk, after all.

[onejayhawk]

Trump says that he is watched, and audited, too closely to be corrupt. Like many of his pronouncements, this cannot be discarded as lying. Remember, for example, when he said that his phone was tapped and it turned out the FBI was spying on him. Maddow provides a another illustration of his point.

J

[TranaGreg]

Maddow was the 'voice of reason' in the old Air America radio days, while at least one colleague would push the "GW Bush ordered the 9-11 attacks" tripe.

She is a Rhodes scholar - and the ultimate example of how no matter how smart you are, you may not be as smart as you THINK you are. She's trapped in a conspiracy bubble from which she will never escape.
...

just curious, do you guys think that these on-air personalities are presenting real honest portrayals of themselves, or that they are essentially actors presenting a carefully crafted version of what some back-room producers feel will provide the best earnings for the corporation? I lean to the latter, but maybe I'm too cynical (Maddow is making $7M per year before endorsements - I wonder how that compares to other Rhodes scholars)

edit: maybe this is an idea for another thread - sorry for the hijack

[Judge Jude]

no, it's a fair question.

I think it's a bit in between. I don't think Maddow is a con artist, hence my comment of "She's trapped in a conspiracy bubble from which she will never escape."

there's a famous anecdote about a Manhattan film critic who was shocked that Nixon beat McGovern in 1972 - let alone in a landslide. after all, she said, she didn't even KNOW anyone who voted for Nixon.

I also heard Hannity in his early days, on NYC radio. he was kind of a generic personality with a young family, sort of amusing.

I'd say the same for him. You start heading in one direction, and gain traction. The further you head in that direction, the more money you make and the more enveloped you are in a bubble. and you love that bubble. and people who disagree with you? they tend to pull back, and the stars do the same. rinse and repeat.

I don't see either as shameless as, say, Skip Bayless. he seems to have zero scruples. I can picture his producers doing focus groups and recommending which side of an argument to take - and him being eager for the advice to gain more attention and money.

[DMT]

Alex Jones claims he's acting, but then when he appears in public videos on Twitter (e.g., getting laughed out of a fried chicken joint), it seems he really isn't.