Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

No Collusion!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 00000000000000aae.jpg

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
      Not such a bad track record, actually, despite the typical 'Rogue' spin. The MSM record (outside of the Fox/Breitbart Trumpian clique) correctly argues that Mueller's Report is far more damning than Trump and co have acknowledged. This is obvious to anyone whose read it.

      “The document details a vast web of connections between the Trump campaign and Russia: Trump associates met with Russians more than 100 times. There are numerous instances in which Mueller’s team caught Trump aides or allies lying to the public about aspects of the investigation.

      Mueller also detailed multiple instances of Trump pressuring those around him in regard to the investigation. “The President’s efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful,” according to the report, “but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests.”

      http://time.com/5573563/white-house-...eport-victory/
      00000000000000ab000-00b.jpg

      I'm always still in trouble again

      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

      Comment


      • Originally posted by seer View Post
        This may get interesting:

        Joe Biden's 2020 Ukrainian nightmare: A closed probe is revived

        https://thehill.com/opinion/white-ho...obe-is-revived
        Joe's not going to have such an easy time, and he is SO out of step with the "new" Democratic Party. He's a freakin' CONSERVATIVE!
        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post

          But sure, they're in the minority. But things like this usually start with a trickle although in an era where the MSM being concerned with being regarded as dependable and nonpartisan is all but extinct it may take longer than it would have not so very long ago.
          Yes, they are in the minority. They are the exceptions that test the rule and no amount of verbose sophistry can alter that. As for the "trickle" it was a deluge in the mid term elections and likely to be even more so in 2020.
          “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
            It wasn't Mueller's job to "exonerate" anybody. His job was to look for evidence of collusion (remember? That's what this was all about?) and he found none.

            Where did you find this new talking point about "conspiracy"? I seem to have missed that one. The rest of your herd is moving on to impeachment/not impeachment.
            Mueller did not pursue lines of inquiry that would lead him inexorably to indictments, because he always understood Department of Justice rules to preclude a sitting President from being indicted. What his Report DID show, however, is that Trump obstructed justice and that there was at least enough found by Mueller and his team to implicitly hand prosecutorial duties over to Congress.

            Now we shall see just how much of that Trump can obstruct, by refusing to hand over documents etc.
            “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
              Mueller did not pursue lines of inquiry that would lead him inexorably to indictments, because he always understood Department of Justice rules to preclude a sitting President from being indicted. What his Report DID show, however, is that Trump obstructed justice and that there was at least enough found by Mueller and his team to implicitly hand prosecutorial duties over to Congress.

              Now we shall see just how much of that Trump can obstruct, by refusing to hand over documents etc.
              I have to admit, Tass, you're one of the less illiterate crazies we have on Tweb.
              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                I have to admit, Tass, you're one of the less illiterate crazies we have on Tweb.
                I agree ( excepting “crazies”). Now that Starlight is no longer among us, dear Tassman has to shine twice as brightly. He does so admirably.

                I listen to a growing list of brilliant podcasts. Maybe this weekend, I will do a review of a few titles.
                “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
                “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
                “not all there” - you know who you are

                Comment


                • Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
                  I agree ( excepting “crazies”). Now that Starlight is no longer among us, dear Tassman has to shine twice as brightly. He does so admirably.

                  I listen to a growing list of brilliant podcasts. Maybe this weekend, I will do a review of a few titles.
                  You're up there at the top of the list, ff. (of both )
                  The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                  Comment


                  • James Clapper Knew There Was No Evidence of Trump-Russia Collusion In 2016

                    Clapper is such a...

                    CHUCK TODD: Well, that’s an important revelation at this point. Let me ask you this. Does intelligence exist that can definitively answer the following question, whether there were improper contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian officials?

                    JAMES CLAPPER: We did not include any evidence in our report, and I say, ‘our,’ that’s N.S.A., F.B.I. and C.I.A., with my office, the Director of National Intelligence, that had anything, that had any reflection of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians. There was no evidence of that included in our report.

                    CHUCK TODD: I understand that. But does it exist?

                    JAMES CLAPPER: Not to my knowledge.

                    CHUCK TODD: If it existed, it would have been in this report?

                    JAMES CLAPPER: This could have unfolded or become available in the time since I left the government.

                    CHUCK TODD: At some–

                    JAMES CLAPPER: But at the time, we had no evidence of such collusion.
                    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                      James Clapper Knew There Was No Evidence of Trump-Russia Collusion In 2016

                      Clapper is such a...

                      CHUCK TODD: Well, that’s an important revelation at this point. Let me ask you this. Does intelligence exist that can definitively answer the following question, whether there were improper contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian officials?

                      JAMES CLAPPER: We did not include any evidence in our report, and I say, ‘our,’ that’s N.S.A., F.B.I. and C.I.A., with my office, the Director of National Intelligence, that had anything, that had any reflection of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians. There was no evidence of that included in our report.

                      CHUCK TODD: I understand that. But does it exist?

                      JAMES CLAPPER: Not to my knowledge.

                      CHUCK TODD: If it existed, it would have been in this report?

                      JAMES CLAPPER: This could have unfolded or become available in the time since I left the government.

                      CHUCK TODD: At some–

                      JAMES CLAPPER: But at the time, we had no evidence of such collusion.
                      Todd is still convinced that Trump colluded with the Russians, or at the very least wanted to collude with them. After the release of the Mueller report he grumbled, "They wanted to conspire, they just never found the right opportunity to do so" and compared the Trump Administration to the Keystone cops.

                      The funniest one to watch was disgraced former NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams (now banished to the MSNBC ghetto) who started off in full arrogant bluster which quickly reverted to an angry snarl when he talked to Trump's attorney

                      Brian Williams: “My first question, I’m afraid, is going to verge on plain English. Where did the attorney general get off with that characterization this morning, including four mentions that there was no collusion? What document was he reading, compared to the one we’re left with?”


                      Jay Sekulow responded, “Well, page two of the document says..." and read directly from the report totally schooling the pompous ass.

                      I'm always still in trouble again

                      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                        As I said, a few are starting to jump ship. Most have invested the entirety of what's left of their reputations in the Trump-colluded-with-the-Russians-and-stole-the-election myth and cannot afford to disengage from it.

                        And there are a few others aside from the aforementioned NBC's Justice Department correspondent Pete Williams, NBC Nightly News anchor Lester Holt, NBC Capitol Hill correspondent Kasie Hunt and CNN political analyst Chris Cillizza. For instance, Ken Dilanian, NBC News national security reporter, admitted on MSNBC's Kasie DC that the Mueller report was a "complete vindication" of Trump and on Twitter wrote:

                        [ATTACH=CONFIG]36612[/ATTACH]

                        Also on MSNBC, right after the news broke, NBC national security and justice correspondent Julia Ainsley was reading the details, explaining that "Robert Mueller weighed in and said, 'that was not tacit. There was no coordination or conspiracy.'" causing host Katy Tur to interject, "So, this vindicates the President on collusion." Ainsley replied, "It does. So, it would vindicate him on collusion."

                        Over on CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin announced that the report was a "total vindication" for Trump and the network's chief political analyst Gloria Bolger also said he was vindicated but in a very round about way

                        But if suddenly the president has to say those angry Democrats who were working with Bob Mueller were actually just part of a Justice Department doing its job after he has criticized the Justice Department, then he’s now vindicated.


                        This was in reaction to CNN's Justice Department correspondent Evan Perez's statement that "[Trump's] been vindicated."

                        And Jonathan Chait, former editor of New Republic and The American Prospect who now writes for New York magazine and the Los Angeles Times noted that the report "didn't exonerate Trump -- it vindicated him."

                        And that's just from those on the left. Numerous conservative journalists who openly opposed Trump or at the least were wary and skeptical are saying the same sort of things.

                        But sure, they're in the minority. But things like this usually start with a trickle although in an era where the MSM being concerned with being regarded as dependable and nonpartisan is all but extinct it may take longer than it would have not so very long ago.
                        The trickle of defections continues. From Matt Taibbi over at Rolling Stone:

                        Source: The Press Will Learn Nothing From the Russiagate Fiasco


                        The inability to face the enormity of the last few years of errors will cost the news media its credibility, even with blue-state audience

                        On February 15, 2016, the National Review took unprecedented action. In an all-out plea to Republican voters to stop Donald Trump before it was too late, the magazine enlisted 22 of the right’s most prominent voices to band together and throw support elsewhere, to save the party.

                        The “Conservatives Against Trump” issue didn’t move the needle. Despite a lineup of pleas against Trump that included Glenn Beck, Cal Thomas, Mona Charen, Michael Medved and Dana Loesch, Trump surged in the polls that month, expanding his lead over primary opponents at a critical juncture of the race. Trump voters considered these and other pundits part of the Republican establishment and therefore not to be trusted.

                        Conservative media throughout 2015-2016 learned a painful lesson. If your approach is based on telling people what they want to hear, audiences might like it at first. They might gobble it up for decades. But you’ll have quietly lost their respect during that time, and in a key moment, they’ll tune you out.

                        For this reason, it’s shocking to see national media voices after the release of Robert Mueller’s report patting each other on the back, congratulating themselves for a three-year faceplant they must know will haunt the whole business for a long time.

                        “Fake news? Mueller isn’t buying it,” writes David Bauder of the Associated Press. He noted that with a “few exceptions,” Mueller’s investigation “repeatedly supports news reporting that was done on the Russia probe over the last two years.”

                        Bauder added the report showed “several instances where the president and his team sought to mislead the public.” He congratulated the New York Times and Washington Post for correctly reporting that White House counsel Don McGahn had been ordered to find a way to fire Mueller.

                        Trump, Bauder noted, had called this “fake news, folks, fake news.” It wasn’t. And neither were some other stories.

                        So, yay journalism! You were more truthful than Donald Trump, at times. This is like being proud of beating a fish at Boggle.

                        We’re not trying to be right more often than Trump — we’re trying to not be wrong, ever. It’s a standard, not a competition.

                        You know what was fake news? Most of the Russiagate story. There was no Trump-Russia conspiracy, that thing we just spent three years chasing. The Mueller Report is crystal clear on this.

                        He didn’t just “fail to establish” evidence of crime. His report is full of incredibly damning passages, like one about Russian officialdom’s efforts to reach the Trump campaign after the election: “They appeared not to have preexisting contacts and struggled to connect with senior officials around the President-Elect.”

                        Not only was there no “collusion,” the two camps didn’t even have each others’ phone numbers!

                        In March of 2017, in one of the first of what would become a mountain of mafia-hierarchy-style “Trump-Russia contacts” graphics in major newspapers, the Washington Post described an email Trump lawyer Michael Cohen sent to Kremlin press secretary Dmitry Peskov. They called it “the most direct interaction yet of a top Trump aide and a senior member of Putin’s government.”

                        The report shows the whole episode was a joke. In order to further the Trump Tower project-that-never-was, Cohen literally cold-emailed the Kremlin. More than that, he entered the email incorrectly, so the letter initially didn’t even arrive. When he finally fixed the mistake, Peskov didn’t answer back.

                        That was “the most direct interaction yet of a top Trump aide and a senior member of Putin’s government”!


                        As outlined in his initial mandate, Mueller explored “any links” between the Russian government and the campaign of Donald Trump. His conclusion spoke directly to the question of whether there was any kind of quid pro quo between the two sides:

                        “The investigation examined whether these contacts involved or resulted in coordination or a conspiracy with the Trump Campaign and Russia, including with respect to Russia providing assistance to the Campaign in exchange for any sort of favorable treatment in the future.”

                        In other words, all those fancy org charts were meaningless. Because there was no conspiracy, all those “walls are closing in” reports — and there were a ton of them — were wrong. We were told we’d hit “turning point” after “turning point” leading to the “the beginning of the end,” with Trump certain, soon, to either resign in shame, Nixon-style, or be impeached.

                        The “RNC platform” change story was a canard, according to Mueller. The exchanges Trump figures had with ambassador Sergei Kislyak were “brief, public, and non-substantive.” The conversations Jeff Sessions had with Kislyak at the convention didn’t “include any more than a passing mention of the presidential campaign.” Mueller added “investigators did not establish that [Carter] Page conspired with the Russian government.”

                        There was no blackmail, no secret bribe from Rosneft, no five-year cultivation plan, no evidence of any kind of any relationship that ever existed between the Trump campaign and Russian officials. Michael Cohen “never traveled to Prague.”

                        The whole Steele dossier appears to have been bunk, with even Bob Woodward now saying the “highly questionable” document “needs to be investigated.” The Times similarly is reporting, two-plus years late, that “people familiar” with Steele’s work began to have “misgivings about [the report’s] reliability arose not long after the document became public.”

                        Reporters are going to insist all they did was accurately report the developments of a real investigation. They didn’t imply vast criminality that wasn’t there, or hoodwink audiences into thinking a Watergate-style ending was just around the corner, or routinely blow meaningless episodes like the Sessions-Kislyak meeting out of proportion, or regularly smear people who not only weren’t part of a conspiracy but had no connection to anything (see here for an example).

                        They’ll also claim they didn’t spend years openly rooting for indictment and impeachment via wish-casted predictions disguised as reporting and commentary, or denouncing people who doubted the conspiracy as spies and Putin apologists, or clearing their broadcast panels and op-ed pages of skeptics while giving big stages to craven conspiracy-spinners like Malcolm Nance and Luke Harding.


                        That’s fine. In the short term, a significant portion of the country will probably agree coverage was appropriate, probably the same sizable plurality of poll respondents who say they disagree on some level with Mueller’s findings. A lot of people out there despise Trump, and at least right now will be inclined to sympathy for broadcasters and editorialists who gave full quarter to the most damning theories of conspiracy and criminality in the Russia case.

                        But as conservatives found out in 2016, news audiences over time lose trust in news organizations that tell them what they want to hear politically, but get the substance of things wrong.

                        The Mueller report makes clear reporters were sold wolf whistles over and over, led by reams of unnamed official sources who urged them to see meaning in meaningless things and assume connections that weren’t there.

                        Reporters should be furious about being fed these red herrings. They should be outraged at all those people who urged them to publish the Steele report, which might have led to career-imperiling mistakes in print. They should be mad as hell at CIA chief Gina Haspel and the other unnamed officials who told them disclosing the name of already long-ago exposed government informant Stefan Halper would “risk lives.”

                        More than anything, reporters should be furious at the many sources close to the various investigations who (it now seems clear) must have known pretty early there were serious holes in many areas of this story, and that a lot of these “dots” were dead ends, but didn’t warn their press counterparts. For instance, the papers should be mad those who supposedly had misgivings about the Steele report didn’t warn them earlier.

                        But they’re not mad, which makes it look like a case of intentional blindness, in which eyes and ears were shut among other things because the Trump-Russia conspiracy tale made a ton of money. Media companies earned boffo ratings while the Mueller probe still carried the drama of a potential spectacular ending, with blue-state audiences eating up all those “walls are closing in” hot takes.

                        This fiasco will surely end up being a net plus for Trump. The obstruction parts of the report make him look like a brainless goon and thug, but the absence of what Mueller repeatedly calls “underlying crime” make his ravings about an elitist mob out to get him look justified. This is not an easy thing to achieve, but we’re there, and the press is a big part of that picture.

                        News audiences were betrayed, and sooner or later, even the most virulently Trump-despising demographics will realize it and tune us out. The only way to reverse the damage is to own how big of a screw-up this was, but after the last three years, who would hold their breath waiting for that?




                        Source

                        © Copyright Original Source



                        [*Bolding added by rogue06*]

                        I'm always still in trouble again

                        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                        Comment


                        • Latest polling from Rasmussen says that the majority of voters see no grounds for impeachment.
                          Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                          But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                          Than a fool in the eyes of God


                          From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                            The trickle of defections continues. From Matt Taibbi over at Rolling Stone:
                            It's rather self-serving how the writer tries to defend the years of false reporting by suggesting that the liberal media were unwilling dupes being fed lies by Mueller and his team. This is similar to CNN insisting they're not investigators and just publish whatever they're told, as if they have no responsibility to verify the truth of what they're publishing.
                            Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                            But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                            Than a fool in the eyes of God


                            From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                              Latest polling from Rasmussen says that the majority of voters see no grounds for impeachment.
                              First off Rasmussen is a biased pollster, and second, what the majority of americans want is public hearings which is what Trump and you are afraid of. Impeachment would come after that although he may be ousted by the electorate by that time if his stalling/obstruction technique works to his corrupt advantage.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                                Latest polling from Rasmussen says that the majority of voters see no grounds for impeachment.
                                First off Rasmussen is a biased pollster, and second, what the majority of americans want is public hearings which is what Trump and you are afraid of. Impeachment would come after that although he may be ousted by the electorate by that time if his stalling/obstruction technique works to his corrupt advantage. Then he, like so many of his appointed cronies, you know, the swamp, will still have to face the many financial crimes he is accused of in State courts. That's your guy! Your team!

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                6 responses
                                48 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                234 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                24 responses
                                104 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                32 responses
                                178 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                310 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X