The Mueller Report

[Brwned]

It's a conversation you can't reasonably expect to hold at this point one way or the other.

Out of curiosity, what would "reflecting on that" look like? What *should* people be doing?

Why can't you hold that conversation? You don't believe it to be a fact that Muller decided not to charge Trump? Or you don't believe he made that decision independently?

You have to remember that Muller is a Republican that oversaw the rounding up of Muslims in New York and was part of the WoMD debacle. As much as people wanted him to be impartial he isn't.

I don't see why him being Republican is at all relevant. He's a career official so he's part of the swamp Trump described, and many Americans distrust. That was always the context the investigation took place in, and it was always going to be that kind of person in charge of the investigation. That's how the system works.

People knew this and speculated in the way they did anyway. And instead of figuring out where it went wrong they're just moving onto the next thing. That makes no sense.

 

[Red Dreams]

All we do know is Congress has not seen the report.
They also want Mueller to testify before congress.

We will know then what he could and could not do. What his parameters were.

 

[Fully Fledged]

Being part of the WoMD

Why can't you hold that conversation? You don't believe it to be a fact that Muller decided not to charge Trump? Or you don't believe he made that decision independently?



I don't see why him being Republican is at all relevant. He's a career official so he's part of the swamp Trump described, and many Americans distrust. That was always the context the investigation took place in, and it was always going to be that kind of person in charge of the investigation. That's how the system works.

People knew this and speculated in the way they did anyway. And instead of figuring out where it went wrong they're just moving onto the next thing. That makes no sense.

The whole GOP are selling their soul to support Trump why should he be any different? If he wasn't involved in the WoMD debacle then I might have believed that he would be the only Republican that had enough ethics to go against party politics and destroy Trump.

The thing is that anybody that was involved in the WoMD has no ethics.

 

[shabadu84]

Why can't you hold that conversation? You don't believe it to be a fact that Muller decided not to charge Trump? Or you don't believe he made that decision independently?

Because I don't believe that the fact that Mueller decided not to charge Trump is a conversation unto itself. We went over this already, it's an important piece but how much more/less important is it than the rest? Can't say until you know the whole picture.

It's why Trump & Co have gone beyond Barr's letter to proclaim "total exoneration." It's likely a lie but they know the importance of getting ahead of the other facts from the investigation that will actually determine exactly just how exonerated he is.

 

[Brwned]

Being part of the WoMD

The whole GOP are selling their soul to support Trump why should he be any different? If he wasn't involved in the WoMD debacle then I might have believed that he would be the only Republican that had enough ethics to go against party politics and destroy Trump.

The thing is that anybody that was involved in the WoMD has no ethics.

The GOP are doing it for political gain. Muller doesn't have anything to gain politically.

Yes I agree the WMD debacle reflects very badly on America. The idea that it is a partisan issue is a strange one for me. The democratic presidential nominee was unpopular at least in part because of her own involvement in that situation.

Because I don't believe that the fact that Mueller decided not to charge Trump is a conversation unto itself. We went over this already, it's an important piece but how much more/less important is it than the rest? Can't say until you know the whole picture.

It's why Trump & Co have gone beyond Barr's letter to proclaim "total exoneration." It's likely a lie but they know the importance of getting ahead of the other facts from the investigation that will actually determine exactly how much just how exonerated he was.

Yes, exactly my point. You want to pretend like one of the central narratives of the speculation was never really that important. Sure, people might've speculated about it a lot then. But this is now. Things change. Your unwillingness to question why that's your response is one of the reasons why that speculation took place in the first place. That's an incredible thing to see, from my perspective.

 

[Red Dreams]

You judge people by what they do.

So far all we have seen from Trump is calling everything with regards to the investigation a witch hunt.

 

[Rado_N]

Yes Trump was very open about thinking Sessions was an embarrassment for not protecting the president from the investigation. Yes Barr was moved up the list of replacements because he was viewed as being a particularly useful protector for the president on this particular issue.

None of that influenced Muller's decision to charge the president with either crime. That is the essential thing that you keep talking around rather than talking about.

Did Trump commit a crime? Muller ultimately decided...probably not. Did lots of people think Trump committed a crime, on these two core issues? Yes, there's a shitload of evidence of it. Is it reasonable to conclude that these people were wrong? Yes. Yet instead of reflecting on that they're acting like it never happened, moving onto to next Trump conspiracy. That's nuts.

Why are you so willing to accept the Barr letter as an unquestionably accurate summary of Mueller's position?

Has it not been reported that Mueller's team essentially came to the conclusion that they didn't have the authority to actually indict a sitting President and so laid out all the evidence for Congress to make the decision as to whether he should be charged? Hence the very specific line that the report does not exonerate him regarding obstruction of justice.

The fact that the Mueller team seemingly went to great lengths to prepare their own set of summaries for public release that Barr is unwilling to put out is enough to strongly suggest there's plenty of incriminating evidence in there.

Your conclusion that Mueller has decided that Trump probably didn't commit any crimes is based on the word of a highly questionable man who has openly stated that a sitting President cannot be indicted and was seemingly appointed with the specific job of putting the shutters on this whole report.

I'm finding your angle on this matter rather odd to be honest.

 

[Red Dreams]

good post.

 

[afrocentricity]

I'm finding your angle on this matter rather odd to be honest.

Odd, but interesting... I'm waiting to see where it leads.

 

[Fully Fledged]

The GOP are doing it for political gain. Muller doesn't have anything to gain politically.

Yes I agree the WMD debacle reflects very badly on America. The idea that it is a partisan issue is a strange one for me. The democratic presidential nominee was unpopular at least in part because of her own involvement in that situation.



Yes, exactly my point. You want to pretend like one of the central narratives of the speculation was never really that important. Sure, people might've speculated about it a lot then. But this is now. Things change. Your unwillingness to question why that's your response is one of the reasons why that speculation took place in the first place. That's an incredible thing to see, from my perspective.

I'm not saying that it is a partisan issue. I'm a labour voter in the UK who will not forgive Blair and his governments part in the WMD debacle. What I'm saying that is that I don't believe that someone who was central to this debacle is trustworthy.

 

[shabadu84]

Yes, exactly my point. You want to pretend like one of the central narratives of the speculation was never really that important. Sure, people might've speculated about it a lot then. But this is now. Things change. Your unwillingness to question why that's your response is one of the reasons why that speculation took place in the first place. That's an incredible thing to see, from my perspective.

What? Who exactly are these people? I feel like you (and others) have created this mental caricature of Russia-obsessed, Trump haters disconnected from reality and are arguing against that.

 

[Brwned]

Why are you so willing to accept the Barr letter as an unquestionably accurate summary of Mueller's position?

Has it not been reported that Mueller's team essentially came to the conclusion that they didn't have the authority to actually indict a sitting President and so laid out all the evidence for Congress to make the decision as to whether he should be charged? Hence the very specific line that the report does not exonerate him regarding obstruction of justice.

The fact that the Mueller team seemingly went to great lengths to prepare their own set of summaries for public release that Barr is unwilling to put out is enough to strongly suggest there's plenty of incriminating evidence in there.

Your conclusion that Mueller has decided that Trump probably didn't commit any crimes is based on the word of a highly questionable man who has openly stated that a sitting President cannot be indicted and was seemingly appointed with the specific job of putting the shutters on this whole report.

I'm finding your angle on this matter rather odd to be honest.

I don't think it's an accurate summary of his position, or his report. I believe it to be an accurate summary of his "principal conclusions", i.e. whether to charge folks or not, because to believe anything else is verging on a conspiracy theory.

If Muller had found enough criminal evidence to charge someone in Trump's team, he would have. We know that because he has had no problem charging many other people, and because the AG has already said conclusively that there were no instances where the special counsel was not allowed to pursue something by he AG and Deputy AG. If he had charged any of them, the AG or deputy AG cannot lie about that fact.

We know from Barr's memo there is incriminating evidence there. You don't even need to read between the lines to see that - he quotes Mueller in that document, communicating to the public that he uncovered incriminating evidence on obstruction of justice in that investigation. He just didn't find enough to meet the threshold to warrant indictment. The fact he didn't share the evidence for that was obviously of benefit to the president, and the attempt to suppress the underlying evidence is designed to benefit the president too.

I have no doubt that there are many sentences in there that look terrible for the president, and it seems entirely plausible the half-sentence Barr cut out would've been one of those. That doesn't change the fact that the Mueller report made these conclusive (half-)statements:

[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

[T]he evidence does not establish that the president was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference.

It refutes one of the central pieces of speculation over those two years, but people are saying "hold on a sec, let's wait to see what the Mueller report actually says". That is flat-out denial, on this specific issue. Then it moves onto "well, let's just see the incriminating evidence, it was never really about whether he committed a crime, what's important is if there was some incriminating evidence, it was always a question for Congress anyway". Deflection. If you were to match up these suggestions, with the things people were saying for months and months and months about the investigation, it would seem laughable to anyone that wasn't part of that speculation.

My conclusion that Mueller concluded that Trump probably didn't commit a crime is based on those two things. Direct, conclusive quotes on whether he committed a crime, and his decision not to recommend any further indictments for the president or anyone close to him on the core focus of his investigation. Regarding having the authority to indict a sitting president, I believe that this quote is true:

Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president.

I believe that to be true because it would be an exceptionally stupid lie. Not only would Barr have to lie about it under oath, but the person he claims the joint-decision was made with - the deputy AG - and the people he consulted with - in the office of legal counsel - are likely to as well. They know that the democrats are going to hold hearings about it. They know Mueller is likely to participate in them.

It is entirely expected that Barr would massage the facts to protect the president. It is inconceivable to me that he would outright lie, that he would claim Mueller made these essential decisions when he in fact did not, because there is no plausible reason that Mueller would go along with that lie, to the point of committing perjury, and it would be of no benefit to the AG or the president to expose himself to that risk.

What about that do you believe to be misguided?

I'm not saying that it is a partisan issue. I'm a labour voter in the UK who will not forgive Blair and his governments part in the WMD debacle. What I'm saying that is that I don't believe that someone who was central to this debacle is trustworthy.

Agreed. And yet people here trusted him, until he didn't deliver what they wanted. Then it begins to look suspicious.

What? Who exactly are these people? I feel like you (and others) have created this mental caricature of Russia-obsessed, Trump haters disconnected from reality and are arguing against that.

Read the thread man. It's full of stuff.

 

[shabadu84]

Read the thread man. It's full of stuff.

I have the 10th most posts in the Trump/Russia thread. I absolutely have been paying attention and have some feel of how the Caf understands the investigation. I don't think it's been perfect but it has some depth and it's changed as the investigation itself has changed. So you should read that thread and tell the rest of us what we've forgotten along the way? I mean beyond generic platitudes and specious conclusions.

 

[Silva]

https://www.motherjones.com/politic...KvMPnYzVz642FKk-MMN6G84TKuwqC8ljvddgt_q21-Suo

it's okay guys maybe the doj will appoint henry kissinger to investigate Chinese interference and we'll finally get him

 

[Silva]

Muller doesn't have anything to gain politically.

he was just following a long and proud fbi tradition of doing anything to kill nonwhite people who don't suck uncle sams dick

 

[Brwned]

I have the 10th most posts in the Trump/Russia thread. I absolutely have been paying attention and have some feel of how the Caf understands the investigation. I don't think it's been perfect but it has some depth and it's changed as the investigation itself has changed. So you should read that thread and tell the rest of us what we've forgotten along the way? I mean beyond generic platitudes and specious conclusions.

I'm not sure what you're saying. You can't seriously be suggesting there aren't hundreds of posts speculating about crimes committed by Trump and his inner circle. Read the @Red Dreams posts I've already quoted in this thread, for starters.

 

[Rado_N]

I don't think it's an accurate summary of his position, or his report. I believe it to be an accurate summary of his "principal conclusions", i.e. whether to charge folks or not, because to believe anything else is verging on a conspiracy theory.

If Muller had found enough criminal evidence to charge someone in Trump's team, he would have. We know that because he has had no problem charging many other people, and because the AG has already said conclusively that there were no instances where the special counsel was not allowed to pursue something by he AG and Deputy AG. If he had charged any of them, the AG or deputy AG cannot lie about that fact.

We know from Barr's memo there is incriminating evidence there. You don't even need to read between the lines to see that - he quotes Mueller in that document, communicating to the public that he uncovered incriminating evidence on obstruction of justice in that investigation. He just didn't find enough to meet the threshold to warrant indictment. The fact he didn't share the evidence for that was obviously of benefit to the president, and the attempt to suppress the underlying evidence is designed to benefit the president too.

I have no doubt that there are many sentences in there that look terrible for the president, and it seems entirely plausible the half-sentence Barr cut out would've been one of those. That doesn't change the fact that the Mueller report made these conclusive (half-)statements:





It refutes one of the central pieces of speculation over those two years, but people are saying "hold on a sec, let's wait to see what the Mueller report actually says". That is flat-out denial, on this specific issue. Then it moves onto "well, let's just see the incriminating evidence, it was never really about whether he committed a crime, what's important is if there was some incriminating evidence, it was always a question for Congress anyway". Deflection. If you were to match up these suggestions, with the things people were saying for months and months and months about the investigation, it would seem laughable to anyone that wasn't part of that speculation.

My conclusion that Mueller concluded that Trump probably didn't commit a crime is based on those two things. Direct, conclusive quotes on whether he committed a crime, and his decision not to recommend any further indictments for the president or anyone close to him on the core focus of his investigation. Regarding having the authority to indict a sitting president, I believe that this quote is true:



I believe that to be true because it would be an exceptionally stupid lie. Not only would Barr have to lie about it under oath, but the person he claims the joint-decision was made with - the deputy AG - and the people he consulted with - in the office of legal counsel - are likely to as well. They know that the democrats are going to hold hearings about it. They know Mueller is likely to participate in them.

It is entirely expected that Barr would massage the facts to protect the president. It is inconceivable to me that he would outright lie, that he would claim Mueller made these essential decisions when he in fact did not, because there is no plausible reason that Mueller would go along with that lie, to the point of committing perjury, and it would be of no benefit to the AG or the president to expose himself to that risk.

What about that do you believe to be misguided?

We've already heard that Mueller's team feel they have been misrepresented and that the Barr summery, unsurprisingly, twists things.

I'm not drawing proper conclusions on the issue of obstruction until far more has come to light but you're jumping up and down telling everyone they were wrong and they live in an echo chamber etc etc.

All I'm saying is you're basing your position on things coming from an exceptionally biased source who has a lot to gain from misrepresentation and leaving things out.

You've posted quotes there relating to conspiring with Russia which it seems has been ruled out, ok, but we know about many other crimes committed by him and his family and have been given extremely good reason to suspect there are others. None of that is being acknowledged or talked about.

The Barr summary has essentially boiled everything down to "no collision" (Trump's own catchphrase) and ignored what the investigation spiralled into.

Trump and his acolytes both in the GOP and the media are running with it being a 100% win for him, repeatedly calling it "total vindication" when even the Barr letter says it absolutely is not.

Reports from investigations like this should be (and usually are, I believe) made public for us to digest everything and for Congress to decide what action they should take. In this case it's being whitewashed and suppressed which is enough for us to know there's a lot more to find out.

He didn't knowingly and directly conspire with Russia? Ok, good, now let's see everything else Mueller looked into and where that led.

 

[Brwned]

We've already heard that Mueller's team feel they have been misrepresented and that the Barr summery, unsurprisingly, twists things.

I'm not drawing proper conclusions on the issue of obstruction until far more has come to light but you're jumping up and down telling everyone they were wrong and they live in an echo chamber etc etc.

All I'm saying is you're basing your position on things coming from an exceptionally biased source who has a lot to gain from misrepresentation and leaving things out.

You've posted quotes there relating to conspiring with Russia which it seems has been ruled out, ok, but we know about many other crimes committed by him and his family and have been given extremely good reason to suspect there are others. None of that is being acknowledged or talked about.

The Barr summary has essentially boiled everything down to "no collision" (Trump's own catchphrase) and ignored what the investigation spiralled into.

Trump and his acolytes both in the GOP and the media are running with it being a 100% win for him, repeatedly calling it "total vindication" when even the Barr letter says it absolutely is not.

Reports from investigations like this should be (and usually are, I believe) made public for us to digest everything and for Congress to decide what action they should take. In this case it's being whitewashed and suppressed which is enough for us to know there's a lot more to find out.

He didn't knowingly and directly conspire with Russia? Ok, good, now let's see everything else Mueller looked into and where that led.

That last sentence is what baffles me. We've spent 2 years talking about it, speculating about the various ways he and his family could face criminal charges for it, following every new news story with a passion, and when the result doesn't go our way, the best we can muster is "Ok, good, now let's move on". Why not before moving onto the next thing, people reflect back on why they were - conclusively - wrong, and in some cases wrong to such a degree that it departed reality and moved into fantasy. Why is the only response to just forget it ever happened?

As for the rest, yes I agree, that is unsurprising. Misrepresentation and omission of detail is entirely expected. Believing it goes beyond that, to the point where you can't believe his assessment of the critical conclusions, is quite a way beyond that. It's a continuation of the issues that caused people to speculate in this way:

I suspect Mueller will offer to waive the charges for his son and Kushner....in exchange for Trump giving everything on his dealings with the Russians.....and then resigning.

What caused someone to believe that was a likely outcome? What can be done to prevent those errors in judgment from happening again, so when this story is followed, the understanding of it stays grounded in reality? We know already that his was, conclusively, wrong. And we know it was about criminal charges, to do with Russian collusion. It wasn't about one off Muller's spin-off investigations, and it wasn't about incriminating underlying evidence or the political outcomes. It was specifically about the thing in Barr's memo. Yet here we are pretending like criminal charges were never that important in the first place, it was barely discussed. Why is that?

People have been talking about crimes committed by Trump and his family from before he'd ever ran for nomination, and have been talked about constantly in his time in office. The idea that people aren't talking about the other stuff enough is ludicrous. It was being talked about on this very forum, just yesterday. However the criminal outcomes of a years long investigation into Russian collusion is a very important thing to talk about. The fact that Barr's memo focuses on the focus of the investigation is an entirely expected outcome, and yet it's talked about here in a conspiratorial tone. It justifies being the main focus of the conversation for just a little period of time. Yet people on here don't want to talk about it, they want to talk about everything but the criminal outcomes. Don't you see how that looks?

Yes Republicans are using this phase of the investigation to make exaggerated claims about the Muller report, while Democrats are trying to downplay essential elements of it. Just like the reverse was true months ago. At that point Republicans were ridiculed too. Downplaying key elements of the investigation? Traitors, enabling a Russian stooge! Now the shoe's on the other foot, no-one wants to talk about that. So yes there is partisan politics on both sides. And on this forum, many people have went along happily with the partisan politics of the Democrats, even if that means being obviously hypocritical now that the story has changed quite significantly.

It is important that the report is released, that Barr, Rosenstein, Muller and others are called to testify about it, and that the other investigations are carried out in full. However the fact that Trump and his inner circle were not charged for either of the two core elements of this investigation is important too. The unwillingness to talk about the implications of that in any depth are very telling.

 

[Rado_N]

That last sentence is what baffles me. We've spent 2 years talking about it, speculating about the various ways he and his family could face criminal charges for it, following every new news story with a passion, and when the result doesn't go our way, the best we can muster is "Ok, good, now let's move on". Why not before moving onto the next thing, people reflect back on why they were - conclusively - wrong, and in some cases wrong to such a degree that it departed reality and moved into fantasy. Why is the only response to just forget it ever happened?

As for the rest, yes I agree, that is unsurprising. Misrepresentation and omission of detail is entirely expected. Believing it goes beyond that, to the point where you can't believe his assessment of the critical conclusions, is quite a way beyond that. It's a continuation of the issues that caused people to speculate in this way:

I'm not advocating moving on and forgetting about it, I'm just not challenging the conclusion that he didn't knowingly conspire with a foreign government to rig an election.

My personal suspicion is that he was used by the Russians, perhaps unknowingly or naively - we don't know and won't know unless we are able to view the full report and even then it might not have been able to determine everything.

There's plenty of smoke around his relationship with Russia, but we're going to have to wait to find out the full explanation for that.

You don't have to delete all that from your brain to also want answers to the thousand other legal questions over Trump and his family and administration.

As I said in my previous post, I'm waiting for a full picture before drawing too many conclusions, whereas you seem willing if not eager to focus solely on the Russian conclusion and tell everyone how wrong they were when we don't even know yet how wrong it was to believe he was in bed with the Russians because we've not seen the full story.

 

[Rado_N]

FFS I thought the second half of that essay was a reply to someone else.

 

[Brwned]

I'm not advocating moving on and forgetting about it, I'm just not challenging the conclusion that he didn't knowingly conspire with a foreign government to rig an election.

My personal suspicion is that he was used by the Russians, perhaps unknowingly or naively - we don't know and won't know unless we are able to view the full report and even then it might not have been able to determine everything.

There's plenty of smoke around his relationship with Russia, but we're going to have to wait to find out the full explanation for that.

You don't have to delete all that from your brain to also want answers to the thousand other legal questions over Trump and his family and administration.

As I said in my previous post, I'm waiting for a full picture before drawing too many conclusions, whereas you seem willing if not eager to focus solely on the Russian conclusion and tell everyone how wrong they were when we don't even know yet how wrong it was to believe he was in bed with the Russians because we've not seen the full story.

I'm saying two things. Let's wait for the things we don't know to come out in the Muller report, and in the meantime, let's talk about the things we do know. People would rather talk about what might happen next, instead of talking about what already has happened.

As you say, we know people were wrong. It'll be good to find out how wrong they were, but we already know now, they were wrong about this. That doesn't mean they were wrong about everything. It doesn't call into question everything that was said. It does call into question quite a lot, though. And yet here we are, with people not questioning it, or refusing to answer questions about it because they've moved onto the next phase of speculation.

The critical conclusions have been drawn. The fact that people haven't talked about it now, when there's so little else to talk about, is a clear indication that when all the evidence comes out, people will just shift their focus to the things they like to read. They'll talk about the incriminating evidence and dismiss the criminal conclusions as not that important. They'll talk about the financial crimes that this investigation led into, not what the investigation was focused on in the first place. That's why people are waiting for the full report. Let's talk about the things we want to talk about, and downplay the things we don't. And let's mock the "other side" for doing precisely that, while convincing ourselves we're better than that. That is clearly a part of why people were wrong in the first place.

 

[Rado_N]

What caused someone to believe that was a likely outcome? What can be done to prevent those errors in judgment from happening again, so when this story is followed, the understanding of it stays grounded in reality? We know already that his was, conclusively, wrong. And we know it was about criminal charges, to do with Russian collusion. It wasn't about one off Muller's spin-off investigations, and it wasn't about incriminating underlying evidence or the political outcomes. It was specifically about the thing in Barr's memo. Yet here we are pretending like criminal charges were never that important in the first place, it was barely discussed. Why is that?

People have been talking about crimes committed by Trump and his family from before he'd ever ran for nomination, and have been talked about constantly in his time in office. The idea that people aren't talking about the other stuff enough is ludicrous. It was being talked about on this very forum, just yesterday. However the criminal outcomes of a years long investigation into Russian collusion is a very important thing to talk about. The fact that Barr's memo focuses on the focus of the investigation is an entirely expected outcome, and yet it's talked about here in a conspiratorial tone. It justifies being the main focus of the conversation for just a little period of time. Yet people on here don't want to talk about it, they want to talk about everything but the criminal outcomes. Don't you see how that looks?

Yes Republicans are using this phase of the investigation to make exaggerated claims about the Muller report, while Democrats are trying to downplay essential elements of it. Just like the reverse was true months ago. At that point Republicans were ridiculed too. Downplaying key elements of the investigation? Traitors, enabling a Russian stooge! Now the shoe's on the other foot, no-one wants to talk about that. So yes there is partisan politics on both sides. And on this forum, many people have went along happily with the partisan politics of the Democrats, even if that means being obviously hypocritical now that the story has changed quite significantly.

It is important that the report is released, that Barr, Rosenstein, Muller and others are called to testify about it, and that the other investigations are carried out in full. However the fact that Trump and his inner circle were not charged for either of the two core elements of this investigation is important too. The unwillingness to talk about the implications of that in any depth are very telling.

Who's pretending criminal charges weren't important?

There were no "spin off investigations", Mueller's mandate was to investigate the issue of suspected Russian interference and any other matters uncovered as a result of his investigation .

You seem to be suggesting that all anyone on here had been talking about is Russia and nothing else. The investigation thread and the general Presidency thread are rammed full of talk about his general criminality.

It's no surprise that people want answers to more than one question.

The Republicans are doing a good job of managing the fallout. They've suppressed the full report and given us a one-eyed spin on things while ignoring the vast majority of the investigation. If and when the rest comes out it'll have less impact now.

 

[Rado_N]

I'm saying two things. Let's wait for the things we don't know to come out in the Muller report, and in the meantime, let's talk about the things we do know. People would rather talk about what might happen next, instead of talking about what already has happened.

As you say, we know people were wrong. It'll be good to find out how wrong they were, but we already know now, they were wrong about this. That doesn't mean they were wrong about everything. It doesn't call into question everything that was said. It does call into question quite a lot, though. And yet here we are, with people not questioning it, or refusing to answer questions about it because they've moved onto the next phase of speculation.

The critical conclusions have been drawn. The fact that people haven't talked about it now, when there's so little else to talk about, is a clear indication that when all the evidence comes out, people will just shift their focus to the things they like to read. They'll talk about the incriminating evidence and dismiss the criminal conclusions as not that important. They'll talk about the financial crimes that this investigation led into, not what the investigation was focused on in the first place. That's why people are waiting for the full report. Let's talk about the things we want to talk about, and downplay the things we don't. And let's mock the "other side" for doing precisely that, while convincing ourselves we're better than that. That is clearly a part of why people were wrong in the first place.

The problem with that is that there isn't much to talk about yet, because we've only been given a four page letter from Trump's hand picked AG who took about 5 minutes to satisfy himself there was no obstruction charge to consider.

People are biased, we know this, politics has become as divided as sports and people largely run with their side without thinking too hard which is a big problem but it's not the thing I'm most interested in within the scope of this thread/issue.

 

[Brwned]

Who's pretending criminal charges weren't important?

There were no "spin off investigations", Mueller's mandate was to investigate the issue of suspected Russian interference and any other matters uncovered as a result of his investigation .

You seem to be suggesting that all anyone on here had been talking about is Russia and nothing else. The investigation thread and the general Presidency thread are rammed full of talk about his general criminality.

It's no surprise that people want answers to more than one question.

The Republicans are doing a good job of managing the fallout. They've suppressed the full report and given us a one-eyed spin on things while ignoring the vast majority of the investigation. If and when the rest comes out it'll have less impact now.

You're just bringing up strawman arguments here. No, I do not think people were talking about Russia and nothing else. I think criminal charges related to Russia were a central theme of the discussion, among other things. Yet in this thread, since the final decision on criminal charges related to Russia have been declared, it has stopped being a central theme. It's been deemed not that important. Who has said it's not that important? I'm not going to quote them, but the posts are in this thread if you really want to know. Furthermore, the fact people have spent more time talking about what isn't included, would imply they think what isn't included is more important than what is. That only became the case after people realised the criminal charges wouldn't go the way they expected. It was a very sudden shift. You don't question why that is?

Similarly, no, I am not saying people should not want more answers, to more questions. I'm saying they desperately wanted the answers to these specific questions, when they thought it would work in their favour. Now that those answers have been provided, they're not that interested. They're more interested in the other questions now. So this whole line of argument that talked about how important these questions were as just a fabrication. They were only important if they delivered the answers they wanted. Now they're not. Why is that?

There were spin off investigations. Muller handed over investigations to other entities. I'm not denying that his investigation was more extensive than those two things, nor am I suggesting that the report will only talk about those two things. We're just talking about different things. What I'm saying is that people are more interested in talking about those investigations, because it might lead to criminal charges, now that this investigation hasn't.

The problem with that is that there isn't much to talk about yet, because we've only been given a four page letter from Trump's hand picked AG who took about 5 minutes to satisfy himself there was no obstruction charge to consider.

People are biased, we know this, politics has become as divided as sports and people largely run with their side without thinking too hard which is a big problem but it's not the thing I'm most interested in within the scope of this thread/issue.

Yes, that's part of the problem I'm talking about. People are only interested in talking about the things that suit them. These important questions go unanswered because people don't want to think about them, they don't want to challenge their own assumptions that led to these errors in judgment or ask what the implications are. The problem with that is people will make the same mistakes, which directly fuelled some of the political divisions, which indirectly led to many of the issues that these folks now think are paramount. Why would people want to make the same mistakes, when the implications are not small?

 

[afrocentricity]

I'm saying two things. Let's wait for the things we don't know to come out in the Muller report, and in the meantime, let's talk about the things we do know. People would rather talk about what might happen next, instead of talking about what already has happened.

As you say, we know people were wrong. It'll be good to find out how wrong they were, but we already know now, they were wrong about this. That doesn't mean they were wrong about everything. It doesn't call into question everything that was said. It does call into question quite a lot, though. And yet here we are, with people not questioning it, or refusing to answer questions about it because they've moved onto the next phase of speculation.

The critical conclusions have been drawn. The fact that people haven't talked about it now, when there's so little else to talk about, is a clear indication that when all the evidence comes out, people will just shift their focus to the things they like to read. They'll talk about the incriminating evidence and dismiss the criminal conclusions as not that important. They'll talk about the financial crimes that this investigation led into, not what the investigation was focused on in the first place. That's why people are waiting for the full report. Let's talk about the things we want to talk about, and downplay the things we don't. And let's mock the "other side" for doing precisely that, while convincing ourselves we're better than that. That is clearly a part of why people were wrong in the first place.

What is there to talk about? Like you said, Barr says there's nothing there. So of course people are going to move into the next thing... What is it you want them to do and what do you aim to achieve?

 

[Brwned]

What is there to talk about? Like you said, Barr says there's nothing there. So of course people are going to move into the next thing... What is it you want them to do and what do you aim to achieve?

I would have expected people to talk about the outcomes they expected - like Red Dreams' above - vs. the reality, and try and figure out how those two things could be so far apart. There must've been a misinterpretation of the evidence. What evidence was it? What caused the misinterpretation? What can we learn from that misinterpretation that can help us make better assessments about the evidence going forward, on these subsequent investigations, that would prevent us from falling into a fantastical bubble? Or, alternatively, do we actually just want to live in that bubble, do we not really care about the reality of it, and if so, why?

There's all sorts of things to talk about. There were shitloads of hypotheses put forward over the last 18 months that captivated the interests of people back then. Lots to unpick, now that there's new evidence. Whenever new evidence came in before, people talked about it incessantly, even when the evidence is minor. Now the evidence is major, it provides a completely new perspective on the whole thing, people can update their theories in the way they did week after week in that thread. For that to stop all of a sudden is a very odd thing to see, looking at it from the outside.

 

[Rado_N]

You're just bringing up strawman arguments here. No, I do not think people were talking about Russia and nothing else. I think criminal charges related to Russia were a central theme of the discussion, among other things. Yet in this thread, since the final decision on criminal charges related to Russia have been declared, it has stopped being a central theme. It's been deemed not that important. Who has said it's not that important? I'm not going to quote them, but the posts are in this thread if you really want to know. Furthermore, the fact people have spent more time talking about what isn't included, would imply they think what isn't included is more important than what is. That only became the case after people realised the criminal charges wouldn't go the way they expected. It was a very sudden shift. You don't question why that is?

Similarly, no, I am not saying people should not want more answers, to more questions. I'm saying they desperately wanted the answers to these specific questions, when they thought it would work in their favour. Now that those answers have been provided, they're not that interested. They're more interested in the other questions now. So this whole line of argument that talked about how important these questions were as just a fabrication. They were only important if they delivered the answers they wanted. Now they're not. Why is that?

There were spin off investigations. Muller handed over investigations to other entities. I'm not denying that his investigation was more extensive than those two things, nor am I suggesting that the report will only talk about those two things. We're just talking about different things. What I'm saying is that people are more interested in talking about those investigations, because it might lead to criminal charges, now that this investigation hasn't.



Yes, that's part of the problem I'm talking about. People are only interested in talking about the things that suit them. These important questions go unanswered because people don't want to think about them, they don't want to challenge their own assumptions that led to these errors in judgment or ask what the implications are. The problem with that is people will make the same mistakes, which directly fuelled some of the political divisions, which indirectly led to many of the issues that these folks now think are paramount. Why would people want to make the same mistakes, when the implications are not small?

Mate you're kind of all over the place here.

I said the issue or peoples biases and following political parties like sports teams is a big issue but not the thing I'm most interested in within the scope of this thread/issue and you've ignored the bold bit (even bolding everything except that very specific caveat) and made out like I'm buying my head in the sand. At the same time as accusing me of strawman arguements for pointing out that you're dismissing the relevance of the non-Russia-specific elements of what has been discussed for two years.

We're ultimately going around in circles, you think everyone else is being a wooden-eyed hypocrite because they're not rising to the level of self-critique based on the snippet of information we have so far and I think it's important to wait until we know more than a purposefully appointed silencer wants us to know.

Your condescending tone would be far better placed if we actually knew the answers to all the questions that have been asked but at the moment you seem more concerned with telling everyone else they're wrong than actually finding out what has been going on.

You're a clever bloke mate and I'm not trying to be a dick, I just think you're skipping to what you think is the final chapter and missing the bulk of the actual story, even if you may ultimately have a point in some of what you're saying.

 

[Brwned]

Mate you're kind of all over the place here.

I said the issue or peoples biases and following political parties like sports teams is a big issue but not the thing I'm most interested in within the scope of this thread/issue and you've ignored the bold bit (even bolding everything except that very specific caveat) and made out like I'm buying my head in the sand. At the same time as accusing me of strawman arguements for pointing out that you're dismissing the relevance of the non-Russia-specific elements of what has been discussed for two years.

We're ultimately going around in circles, you think everyone else is being a wooden-eyed hypocrite because they're not rising to the level of self-critique based on the snippet of information we have so far and I think it's important to wait until we know more than a purposefully appointed silencer wants us to know.

Your condescending tone would be far better placed if we actually knew the answers to all the questions that have been asked but at the moment you seem more concerned with telling everyone else they're wrong than actually finding out what has been going on.

You're a clever bloke mate and I'm not trying to be a dick, I just think you're skipping to what you think is the final chapter and missing the bulk of the actual story, even if you may ultimately have a point in some of what you're saying.

If you thought it was an important thing to talk about and you were interested in talking about it outside of the context of this thread, presumably it would be being talked about elsewhere. The same applies to everyone else. It doesn't seem to be something people want to talk about. This particular subject has been one of the best and most tangible illustrations of that particular issue, and it has been brought up in this thread multiple times, and yet people don't want to talk about it. So from my perspective it is reasonable to believe that people don't want to talk about it at all, irrespective of where the discussion takes place, based on the reasons I've outlined.

The non-Russia specific elements of what has been discussed for two years are very important. That's why it's a strawman. What you're claiming my position is, and what it actually is, are two different things. I'm saying people are minimising the importance of the Russian element now, because it suits their interests, and as a result they're placing more focus on the non-Russian elements than before. Not that it wasn't important before.

You and I have both said that people were wrong. I'm not saying people should look at that thing they were wrong about, and assume it means they were wrong about things we don't have evidence on yet. I'm saying that this "snippet" - a central theme in a conversation that lasted 2 years - is something worth reflecting on, on its own. The fact that it isn't, suggests to me that when the whole story comes out, people will respond in exactly the same way.

Do you believe that when the whole story comes out, people will then look back on this critical thing they got wrong, and talk about why it went wrong? Or will they just talk about the things they weren't wrong about, and forget about that other stuff?

Based on our limited understanding now, I'm surprised people have responded in the way they have. I think it's entirely possible to reflect now on the essential information that has been provided, and still take a keen interest in what comes next. You and multiple others today have said there's not that much to talk about on this subject, so it seems entirely normal that in that time, there would be a moment for reflection. More than anything else, I'm surprised that other people aren't confused why that hasn't happened.

 

[afrocentricity]

I would have expected people to talk about the outcomes they expected - like Red Dreams' above - vs. the reality, and try and figure out how those two things could be so far apart. There must've been a misinterpretation of the evidence. What evidence was it? What caused the misinterpretation? What can we learn from that misinterpretation that can help us make better assessments about the evidence going forward, on these subsequent investigations, that would prevent us from falling into a fantastical bubble? Or, alternatively, do we actually just want to live in that bubble, do we not really care about the reality of it, and if so, why?

There's all sorts of things to talk about. There were shitloads of hypotheses put forward over the last 18 months that captivated the interests of people back then. Lots to unpick, now that there's new evidence. Whenever new evidence came in before, people talked about it incessantly, even when the evidence is minor. Now the evidence is major, it provides a completely new perspective on the whole thing, people can update their theories in the way they did week after week in that thread. For that to stop all of a sudden is a very odd thing to see, looking at it from the outside.

No offense but that sounds boring as feck... Like homework. Some of us are here for entertainment and stimulation....

But for those that do want to self flagellate over this, knock yourselves out

 

[Brwned]

No offense but that sounds boring as feck... Like homework. Some of us are here for entertainment and stimulation....

But for those that do want to self flagellate over this, knock yourselves out

Yes you're very open about that fact, it's all just a bit of fun for you. Most people aren't. You asked me what people could talk about, not what you should talk about.

Other people have suggested that the criminal investigation is super important, it's a defining point in American democracy, and it's something that must be taken seriously by not just Americans but the world, we're practically obliged to follow the story because of its implications. The idea that people were following it just because it's entertaining, that they were following it under false pretences, was deemed insulting for some. For those people, talking about the kind of stuff I outlined would be entirely in keeping with their claimed interests. The fact they aren't is very curious, from my perspective. Let's see if they are after the report comes out.

 

[afrocentricity]

Let's see if they are after the report comes out.

I'm sure they will be, as will you.

There's space inbetween "I'm so invested" and "just a bit of fun" though.... Why do you keep insisting on putting people into pigeonholes and then arguing with them on that basis?

 

[Rado_N]

If you thought it was an important thing to talk about and you were interested in talking about it outside of the context of this thread, presumably it would be being talked about elsewhere. The same applies to everyone else. It doesn't seem to be something people want to talk about. This particular subject has been one of the best and most tangible illustrations of that particular issue, and it has been brought up in this thread multiple times, and yet people don't want to talk about it. So from my perspective it is reasonable to believe that people don't want to talk about it at all, irrespective of where the discussion takes place, based on the reasons I've outlined.

The non-Russia specific elements of what has been discussed for two years are very important. That's why it's a strawman. What you're claiming my position is, and what it actually is, are two different things. I'm saying people are minimising the importance of the Russian element now, because it suits their interests, and as a result they're placing more focus on the non-Russian elements than before. Not that it wasn't important before.

You and I have both said that people were wrong. I'm not saying people should look at that thing they were wrong about, and assume it means they were wrong about things we don't have evidence on yet. I'm saying that this "snippet" - a central theme in a conversation that lasted 2 years - is something worth reflecting on, on its own. The fact that it isn't, suggests to me that when the whole story comes out, people will respond in exactly the same way.

Do you believe that when the whole story comes out, people will then look back on this critical thing they got wrong, and talk about why it went wrong? Or will they just talk about the things they weren't wrong about, and forget about that other stuff?

Based on our limited understanding now, I'm surprised people have responded in the way they have. I think it's entirely possible to reflect now on the essential information that has been provided, and still take a keen interest in what comes next. You and multiple others today have said there's not that much to talk about on this subject, so it seems entirely normal that in that time, there would be a moment for reflection. More than anything else, I'm surprised that other people aren't confused why that hasn't happened.

But we don't have the justification for the conclusions yet. How can we possibly reflect on what was apparently misinterpreted when we don't yet have explanations for those things?

The amount of smoke over the Trump/Russia connection is overwhelming, so if the fire is somewhere other than under Trump's fat ass then we need to understand where the fire actually is to be able to properly understand what's gone on.

I don't know how people will respond when all the facts are available, but you're willing to judge people for actions they haven't yet taken based on information we don't yet have and I'm not there yet. Like I said you're skipping the second act.

 

[Beachryan]

As the 'revelations' last week came out from the Mueller team - that they were pissed off - I think the likelihood is that it went down something like this:

1. Mueller team give report to DoJ with the 'neither exonerate nor indict' piece, and also include handy summaries to each chapter which are (in their opinion) fine to release to the public day 0. They feel like they've done their job, now it's up to the public and congress.
2. Barr - hired because he basically said he'd do exactly what he's doing by Trump - writes a clever legalise summary where nothing he says is legally wrong, but is so deliberately partisan it should have a White House sticker in the corner. He releases this on a Friday, late, which means the whole weekend cycle this is the only source.
3. The Mueller team spend a week being a bit baffled, but holding it together because Barr says he'll give the whole thing to Congress on April 2nd.
4. Barr changes his mind, now moves into fuzzy territory about what will be released and when.
5. As soon as that happens, up steps more than 1 source from the Mueller team to begin the leak train.

I think (hope) that history will paint William Barr as an absolute f*ck up in all of this, a partisan hack to be up in the American annuls next to Dick Cheney on the 'what a c*nt' scale of things. Because, for me, he is obstructing justice himself, using an undoubtedly clever legal brain and set of circumstances to violate the constitution. The whole f*cking point of Congress is to be a branch that can oversee the President for the people, and the whole f*cking point of a Special Counsel is to ensure that the public have faith the process is not political. Lo and behold, two political appointees are the only ones providing oversight, and one of the got the job by saying he'd do exactly what he did, pardon the person under investigation.

 

[Brwned]

But we don't have the justification for the conclusions yet. How can we possibly reflect on what was apparently misinterpreted when we don't yet have explanations for those things?

The amount of smoke over the Trump/Russia connection is overwhelming, so if the fire is somewhere other than under Trump's fat ass then we need to understand where the fire actually is to be able to properly understand what's gone on.

I don't know how people will respond when all the facts are available, but you're willing to judge people for actions they haven't yet taken based on information we don't yet have and I'm not there yet. Like I said you're skipping the second act.

Here's the bit where we differ fundamentally. I think the reaction over the past two weeks has largely been one of denial, deflection and conspiracy. Those are strong responses, indicative of people becoming more entrenched, rather than taking a step back. If the general reaction was "well, it looks like we were wrong, but let's hold off on saying anything else until we find out more", I'd think it was likely people would reflect on things when the evidence all came out.

People are not even openly contemplating they got it wrong though. They're discrediting the evidence that indicates they were wrong, and changing focus to the things they might not have been wrong about. Which leads to posts like @Pexbo's, where an entirely expected outcome is not only seen as a "win", but as something that proves all those haters wrong. And it is supported by others, not just one guy. It would take a full 180 for the atmosphere to be one of reflection, IMO. But I might be entirely wrong on that, and if so I'll have no issues admitting as much. I don't think you can hold it against me for speculating on future outcomes though, given the context. And I think alternative perspectives should be welcomed, because there were too few before, IMO.

 

[Red Dreams]

It is important that the report is released, that Barr, Rosenstein, Muller and others are called to testify about it, and that the other investigations are carried out in full.

Thats it.

We don't know anything until then.

 

[Red Dreams]

I'm not advocating moving on and forgetting about it, I'm just not challenging the conclusion that he didn't knowingly conspire with a foreign government to rig an election.

My personal suspicion is that he was used by the Russians, perhaps unknowingly or naively - we don't know and won't know unless we are able to view the full report and even then it might not have been able to determine everything.

There's plenty of smoke around his relationship with Russia, but we're going to have to wait to find out the full explanation for that.

You don't have to delete all that from your brain to also want answers to the thousand other legal questions over Trump and his family and administration.

As I said in my previous post, I'm waiting for a full picture before drawing too many conclusions, whereas you seem willing if not eager to focus solely on the Russian conclusion and tell everyone how wrong they were when we don't even know yet how wrong it was to believe he was in bed with the Russians because we've not seen the full story.

agree pretty much.

Trump being a Russian asset is not because of ideology.

He is not loyal to them nor even to the United States obviously.
The only thing he is loyal to is money. everything he does is how to stay in power and enrich himself. Putin has him over a barrel.
Helsinki.
His secret meetings with Putin.
McCabe's briefings of the leaders in Congress about the FBI suspicions are unheard of before Trump.

The full Mueller Report will only be the beginning of further investigations.

For me his financial crimes are secondary to that of high Treason.

 

[Wumminator]

@Brwned you have a tendency to call yourself a centrist, paint yourself as above all the people on one side and act as if you’re more civilised because of it.

However one side is clearly in the wrong. One side has clearly got massive issues and is xenophobic and willing to misbelieve facts on a massive scale.

The Mueller investigation has had a massive impact on America and seen many of Trump’s top allies taken down. Now the report wasn’t as bad as some hoped or speculated, but to act as if this somehow vindicates the shit Trump is doing is mental.

The “enlightened centrist who thinks he’s more intelligent” than everyone is basically a meme at this point. Trump is a massive dickhesd and deserves to be impeached twenty times over.

 

[Brwned]

@Brwned you have a tendency to call yourself a centrist, paint yourself as above all the people on one side and act as if you’re more civilised because of it.

However one side is clearly in the wrong. One side has clearly got massive issues and is xenophobic and willing to misbelieve facts on a massive scale.

The Mueller investigation has had a massive impact on America and seen many of Trump’s top allies taken down. Now the report wasn’t as bad as some hoped or speculated, but to act as if this somehow vindicates the shit Trump is doing is mental.

The “enlightened centrist who thinks he’s more intelligent” than everyone is basically a meme at this point. Trump is a massive dickhesd and deserves to be impeached twenty times over.

I don't think this vindicates Trump. This is what I keep saying and people keep refusing to listen to. Just because I am not on your side does not mean I am on their side. The thing that made you believe that I think it vindicates Trump, or that I'm a Trump ally, or any of these other things is your own assumptions. If I am not on your side then I must believe this report is a good thing for Trump. I'm sorry but you are wrong. I think this report is bad for Trump and pointed out why in this thread a number of times. I just think this report is bad for Democrats and the press too. They are not mutually exclusive.

Both sides have a tendency to misbelieve facts on a significant scale. You're only paying attention to one side's problems. That's a fundamentally human problem.

 

[Wumminator]

I don't think this vindicates Trump. This is what I keep saying and people keep refusing to listen to. Just because I am not on your side does not mean I am on their side. The thing that made you believe that I think it vindicates Trump, or that I'm a Trump ally, or any of these other things is your own assumptions. If I am not on your side then I must believe this report is a good thing for Trump. I'm sorry but you are wrong. I think this report is bad for Trump and pointed out why in this thread a number of times. I just think this report is bad for Democrats and the press too. They are not mutually exclusive.

I think if you’re not on “my side” at this point you’re on the wrong side. That’s my point. Anyone who can look at both sides of American politics and say “well both sides” at this point is mental.

 

[Red Dreams]

There is only one side that is right.
Those who are seeking justice.Only the Republicans are on the wrong side. They are trying to prevent it.