Mueller Investigation

Looks like they have not buried the report yet. It's OK, don't cry. At least Smollette is getting the death penalty like you predicted.

Too soon?

 

I saw that story, Mike, it's garbage news (to use the term news loosely). There's been no new facts or information disseminated to public since Barr letter.

Regain your skepticism, you must have had some at some point in your professional life. Don't be so willing to let others assign your opinions to you.

 

You sure are trying your damnedest, though.

 

Oh, so you assume that I buy into everything that reinforces my worldview? Psychological projection at it's finest. "Garbage News" eh? Funny how anything that doesn't reinforce your worldview gets dismissed like that.

 

That doesn't sound right at all, I'm way more skeptical than anyone I've seen express themselves here, on balance, with plenty of mistrust of GOP policies or disagreement with opinions expressed on Fox. I don't buy into either side's entire 'book.' As I've also said repeatedly, the Times is basically garbage half the time, with the other half containing a bit of truth, but bogged down amidst their agenda driven narrative. But then that's true of all sources, and there are certainly less "reliable" agencies than the NYT.

My point to you is to explicitly flag as useless any report that claims "some" people said -you say this is your field so you should know that as an expert. Shit, "journalism" just ain't that ("some"). Particularly on such grave matters.

Never mind that discredited leftie former-journalists are now being hired as "Professor" at journalism schools, so the definition of the word no longer bears any resemblance to the same word fifty years ago.

 

Ok, who dropped Lesbian Shoes?

 

Dismissing whatever you disagree with does not = skepticism.

 

What.

 

White House Says Mueller Report Must Be Kept Private Because It’s So Exonerating It Would Drive Public Mad

 

Here's a link to the released memo:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5796117-Memorandum-April-4-2019.html#document/p1

I'm still in awe that anyone can back that shyster in the White House.

 

Some of Mueller's team are suggesting to the press that the report shows that Russia either colluded with Trump/Trump's people (which Mueller couldn't prove beyond doubt) OR that Russia managed high-level manipulation of Trump's people with them being utterly clueless, which ultimately is not a good look for Mister Shrewd Sizer-Up Of People Master Dealmaker.

 

For example you. You barely express yourself, and then only express anti-right sentiment when you do, but it's generally muted. You're easy. WAB or Face are skeptical about a lot of things, sometimes in opposite directions, but neither is as skeptical as me on as broad a range of topics.

Dicky is extremely skeptical, but only in one direction (poor guy is triggered by even mention of e.g. Jordan Peterson, Heritage or Hoover Institutions, the word "Christian," or criticism of nuGhostbusters). The concept I expressed is a bit complex but easily comprehensible.

 

Fixed that for you.

 

Here's a hint: doubting that reality is real whenever it contradicts your political attitude is not skepticism. And it certainly doesn't make you more skeptical just because your political attitude contradicts reality more often than it does for other, more sane people.

 

If Donnie's "people" are as dumb as he is (*cough* Sarah Sanders ["God wanted Trump to be President"] Huckabee *cough*), it wouldn't even take "high-level manipulation." Just give 'em a lollipop and they'll go with you anywhere.

 

from the same dude who regularly uses the term "Russia hoax" as if the Russians did nothing whatsoever untoward in 2016.

 

^Don't be false.

I've been explicitly clear that my use of the term hoax refers to the collusion scam.

Let me be clear again on a new but related topic: you are a Russia birther because you persist in this delusion bereft of any rational explanation.

I've also mentioned more than once that anything on the topic of Russia interference pretty obviously (and without room for partisan politics) falls squarely and completely on failures of the last administration. So, particularly given my 'team', I welcomed investigation. Plus the paramount concern for preserving the integrity of US elections, which is important to all of us obviously.

In fact, I specifically told you that - in response to your direct question to me about this precise subject, after one of the two big Russia indictments. I told you I supported that part of the Mueller inquiry. I'll assume you just forgot, and not that you're lying with this nonsense you just posted.

My critique of the investigation of interference was that it didn't require the special prosecutor approach - a less conflict-of-interest driven inquiry designed to find facts (like the 911 Commission) would have been much more productive.

 

"I specifically told you several times that I don't believe in wildly untrue conspiracy theories. All the wild conspiracy theories I believe are true conspiracy theories, according to my beliefs!"

Reality check: There is no collusion hoax. Mueller exposed clear collusion. The previous admin was not involved. The Mueller investigation was extremely productive, and Trump's lack of support for uncovering the criminals that surround him indicts his motives.

 

Oh please, let's put this to the test.
@Diacanu: "Christian" "Jordan Peterson"

I daresay you're somewhat blinded by your biases; yes, you are skeptical of pretty much everything coming from the left, but you seem to take in quite a bit from those whom 'the left' of us take issue with with gleeful abandon.

As for your observation about me, it's whatever. I much prefer watching than jumping in, running my mouth with things I can't back up; my skeptism is going to be harder to see as a result. You're correct in that I'm more likely to express 'anti-right sentiment'; issues rubbing me the wrong way tend to come from that direction than not, but it's not always true. Take that as you will.

That said, you wear your biases on your sleeve, and that distorts your skeptism quite hard.

 

Ooohhhh!
*Fainting couch*

*Opens eyes*
Nah, nothing happened.

 

Leftist ideology is inherently more suspect because it assumes facts not in evidence (i.e. that individuals don't generally act in their own self interest).

Further, the Left's dogma is currently plagued by an additional fundamental flaw, inability to pay for promises.

Those topics about which I'm most skeptical re the Right are already more than well covered: restrict size of government, keep church out of government and lives, too much free trade can hurt national interests, too much immigration can hurt national interests, even if alarmists are grossly exaggerating possible effects of AGW we should still be at full speed with nuke power, etc.

 

Criteria Barr is using for redactions:

“First is grand jury information…The second is information that the the intelligence community believes would reveal intelligence sources and methods.

The third are information in the report that could interfere with ongoing prosecutions. You’ll recall that the special counsel did spin off a number of cases that are still being pursued. And we want to make sure that none of the information in the report would impinge upon either the ability of the prosecutors to prosecute the cases, or the fairness to the defendants.

And finally, we intend to redact information that implicated the privacy or reputational interest of peripheral players where there is a decision not to charge them."