Rolling Stones Matt Taibbi nails media to the wall

[AnalHamster]

Ahhh, insults. Cute and, unfortunately, expected. Most people who don't have the ability to admit they are wrong resort to this kind of tactic when confronted with uncircumcized truths.

There is a big difference between investigating a crime and seeing what shakes out; and investigating a person in hopes of finding a crime.

The investigation against Trump specifically is an example of the latter, and has now created a precedence that will almost certainly be used sometime in the future (probably by Trump against political opponents). No amount of ad hominem attacks changes this fact. Sorry.

I'm not trying to insult you, I genuinely just think you can't grasp this. If investigations could only begin into people already known to be guilty, there wouldn't be very many of them. The purpose of the investigation is to establish what evidence there is. Testing the evidence comes later. Suspicion actually is grounds for an investigation, though in this case there were clear and compelling reasons to investigate trump and the campaign both criminally and on counter intelligence.

[stymiegreen]

The investigation against Trump specifically is an example of the latter, and has now created a precedence that will almost certainly be used sometime in the future (probably by Trump against political opponents). No amount of ad hominem attacks changes this fact. Sorry.

In the future? Did you miss the precedence where they investigated Hillary for years and didn't find anything criminal either?

And now Graham was already out there this morning saying he wants to investigate why those same people are apparently conspiring against Trump. I think you need to revisit what the purpose of an investigation is.

[AnalHamster]

They actually have found something criminal against the trumpster, it's laid out in the Cohen indictment. He's unindicted in that case because he's potus. Probably a pretty solid case for obstruction too, which is why Barr will have to suppress the report.

[CaptQuint]

Rudy Giuliani, a personal lawyer and frequent mouthpiece for President Trump, spoke for many Republicans on Monday when he told interviewers on Hill.tv that special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s probe never should have happened.

Noting the conclusions reached by Mueller and Atty. Gen. William P. Barr, Giuliani said of the nearly two-year investigation, “It’s a very bad thing for the country that we had it, because it’s not true. It never should have happened in the first place.”

Giuliani went on to say, “The extraordinary thing about this is not that the Russians tried to interfere in our election,” because, you know, foreign governments do that all the time! "The extraordinary thing is they basically charged the president with treason."

Um, no. The extraordinary thing is hearing a former federal prosecutor say that if you don’t have proof of wrongdoing at the start, you don’t investigate.


The smoke being blown by both sides about the now concluded Mueller probe is overwhelming, but there are a few points that cannot be lost.

First and most important, Mueller found persuasive evidence of two types of Russian meddling in the election, and brought indictments against the Russian figures he believed were responsible. Giuliani’s comments elided Trump’s repeated attempts to cast doubt on whether Russia actually tried to help him win in 2016. Mueller’s findings should settle that once and for all.

Second, Mueller also has brought charges against multiple figures in or around the Trump campaign related to their dealings with Russians. He also found, according to Barr’s summary, that Russians tried to persuade people in the Trump campaign to accept their help. So there was ample reason to run those leads to ground.

Third, plenty of Democrats viewed the Mueller probe as a confirmation, not an investigation. They already knew that the Trump campaign had to have colluded, so it was just a matter of time before the special counsel would confirm it. What they got instead appears to have been (although we won’t know this until we see more from Mueller’s report) a genuine search for evidence of collusion that came up empty.

Fourth, Mueller gathered evidence that Trump interfered with the probe of Russian meddling and potential collusion. But Mueller was not persuaded that there was enough evidence to build a case against Trump, so he left it to Barr to decide. And Barr — who famously argued, in an unsolicited letter to the Justice Department before he was nominated to be attorney general, that “Mueller’s obstruction theory is fatally misconceived” — quickly decided that there was no case. That’s a legal decision legitimately open to second-guessing, which Democrats in Congress have already begun to do.

There’s no question that the collusion cloud hanging over Trump has now been lifted. And that’s a good thing for everyone, frankly; only a blind partisan would root for a sitting president to be accused by a special prosecutor of colluding with an antagonistic foreign government to win an election.

But Democrats didn’t put the cloud there alone — the suspicions were raised by the efforts of people in and close to the campaign and by Trump’s own comments. It took someone like Mueller to dispel them. Otherwise, they’d still be there.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/enterth ... story.html

[AnalHamster]

But Mueller was not persuaded that there was enough evidence to build a case against Trump, so he left it to Barr to decide.

That's not actually known, there are various reasons Mueller may have handed the decision off to the AG, such as the view that a president can't be indicted. Not enough evidence to build a case would lead to the straightforward conclusion that there isn't case to prosecute.

This will all remain mysterious until's Barr's attempt at suppression is thwarted. Hopefully the leaky whitehouse will lose a copy.

[CaptQuint]

But Mueller was not persuaded that there was enough evidence to build a case against Trump, so he left it to Barr to decide.

That's not actually known, there are various reasons Mueller may have handed the decision off to the AG, such as the view that a president can't be indicted. Not enough evidence to build a case would lead to the straightforward conclusion that there isn't case to prosecute.

This will all remain mysterious until's Barr's attempt at suppression is thwarted. Hopefully the leaky whitehouse will lose a copy.

If that's so then Mueller handed off the evidence of obstruction to the guy Trump hired to obstruct

[AnalHamster]

Well yes, undeniably. This is where congress steps in to review the evidence and the decision.

[Cassandros]

Ahhh, insults. Cute and, unfortunately, expected. Most people who don't have the ability to admit they are wrong resort to this kind of tactic when confronted with uncircumcized truths.

There is a big difference between investigating a crime and seeing what shakes out; and investigating a person in hopes of finding a crime.

The investigation against Trump specifically is an example of the latter, and has now created a precedence that will almost certainly be used sometime in the future (probably by Trump against political opponents). No amount of ad hominem attacks changes this fact. Sorry.

I'm not trying to insult you, I genuinely just think you can't grasp this. If investigations could only begin into people already known to be guilty, there wouldn't be very many of them. The purpose of the investigation is to establish what evidence there is. Testing the evidence comes later. Suspicion actually is grounds for an investigation, though in this case there were clear and compelling reasons to investigate trump and the campaign both criminally and on counter intelligence.

lol. I could dry laundry on that spin.

Suspicion that a crime is about to be committed is not the same as 'that dude sure seems guilty of something, lets see if he is.'

Again, I know you are smart enough to know the difference. The question is: Can you be honest about it?

The investigation against Trump specifically is an example of the latter, and has now created a precedence that will almost certainly be used sometime in the future (probably by Trump against political opponents). No amount of ad hominem attacks changes this fact. Sorry.

In the future? Did you miss the precedence where they investigated Hillary for years and didn't find anything criminal either?

And now Graham was already out there this morning saying he wants to investigate why those same people are apparently conspiring against Trump. I think you need to revisit what the purpose of an investigation is.

Hillary opted to use improper, under secured equipment even after being told it was a potential security risk. I.e.: She committed a crime, then there was an investigation... that discovered a whole shit ton of missing data. No data = not guilty baby! $$

Your party just gave an emotional midget an incredibly dangerous precedence.

And that is bad.

[AnalHamster]

lol. I could dry laundry on that spin.

Suspicion that a crime is about to be committed is not the same as 'that dude sure seems guilty of something, lets see if he is.'

Again, I know you are smart enough to know the difference. The question is: Can you be honest about it?

That is in fact exactly the same. This is why investigations are conducted. You are too dumb to grasp what an investigation is for. The Hillary thing is a prime example of your stupidity and hypocrisy. Of course she should have been investigated, but before the investigation there was no evidence she had done anything wrong. She used a private email, but without an investigation no one could know if she used it inappropriately so by your logic there should never have been an investigation.

And it's precedent,not precedence. Please try to grasp that at least if you're going to keep saying it.

[Cassandros]

But Mueller was not persuaded that there was enough evidence to build a case against Trump, so he left it to Barr to decide.

That's not actually known, there are various reasons Mueller may have handed the decision off to the AG, such as the view that a president can't be indicted. Not enough evidence to build a case would lead to the straightforward conclusion that there isn't case to prosecute.

This will all remain mysterious until's Barr's attempt at suppression is thwarted. Hopefully the leaky whitehouse will lose a copy.

If that's so then Mueller handed off the evidence of obstruction to the guy Trump hired to obstruct

This is how they keep the blue m&ms hooked on "hope", they spin stories like 'there is still a chance Congress will come in and save the day', when reality is, its over. If Mueller couldn't do it, its done.

Its all bread and circuses man. Anything dealing with Barr is simply a story to keep people focused on the wrong things.

Trump ain't going nowhere for a long ass time.

[Cassandros]

lol. I could dry laundry on that spin.

Suspicion that a crime is about to be committed is not the same as 'that dude sure seems guilty of something, lets see if he is.'

Again, I know you are smart enough to know the difference. The question is: Can you be honest about it?

That is in fact exactly the same. This is why investigations are conducted. You are too dumb to grasp what an investigation is for. The Hillary thing is a prime example of your stupidity and hypocrisy. Of course she should have been investigated, but before the investigation there was no evidence she had done anything wrong. She used a private email, but without an investigation no one could know if she used it inappropriately so by your logic there should never have been an investigation.

And it's precedent,not precedence. Please try to grasp that at least if you're going to keep saying it.

Guess that answers that...

Hillary continued to use her Blackberry when told not to. She committed a crime to which an investigation was conducted. During which, additional crimes were discovered... and deleted.

Unless it appears that a person is about to commit a crime, you cannot just investigate them. If the legit investigations started connecting Trump to known crimes, then all would be fine. But that is not what happened. He 'looked guilty' and was investigated as such- there was a deliberate effort to find a crime to pin on him.

Acting like these two events are equal is ridiculous... but expected. /sigh

[AnalHamster]

lol. I could dry laundry on that spin.

Suspicion that a crime is about to be committed is not the same as 'that dude sure seems guilty of something, lets see if he is.'

Again, I know you are smart enough to know the difference. The question is: Can you be honest about it?

That is in fact exactly the same. This is why investigations are conducted. You are too dumb to grasp what an investigation is for. The Hillary thing is a prime example of your stupidity and hypocrisy. Of course she should have been investigated, but before the investigation there was no evidence she had done anything wrong. She used a private email, but without an investigation no one could know if she used it inappropriately so by your logic there should never have been an investigation.

And it's precedent,not precedence. Please try to grasp that at least if you're going to keep saying it.

Guess that answers that...

Hillary continued to use her Blackberry when told not to. She committed a crime to which an investigation was conducted. During which, additional crimes were discovered... and deleted.

Unless it appears that a person is about to commit a crime, you cannot just investigate them. If the legit investigations started connecting Trump to known crimes, then all would be fine. But that is not what happened. He 'looked guilty' and was investigated as such- there was a deliberate effort to find a crime to pin on him.

Acting like these two events are equal is ridiculous... but expected. /sigh

No, she would have committed a crime if she had sent classified information with intent on her private server. But there was no way of knowing that without investigating what was sent and also interviewing her to try and ascertain intent. There was simply no reason to investigate in your world, since there's nothing illegal about having a personal email account. It was just a terrible precedence.

Trump's special counsel investigation was triggered by his blatantly obstructing justice and then openly admitting it on live television.

[Cassandros]

lol. I could dry laundry on that spin.

Suspicion that a crime is about to be committed is not the same as 'that dude sure seems guilty of something, lets see if he is.'

Again, I know you are smart enough to know the difference. The question is: Can you be honest about it?

That is in fact exactly the same. This is why investigations are conducted. You are too dumb to grasp what an investigation is for. The Hillary thing is a prime example of your stupidity and hypocrisy. Of course she should have been investigated, but before the investigation there was no evidence she had done anything wrong. She used a private email, but without an investigation no one could know if she used it inappropriately so by your logic there should never have been an investigation.

And it's precedent,not precedence. Please try to grasp that at least if you're going to keep saying it.

Guess that answers that...

Hillary continued to use her Blackberry when told not to. She committed a crime to which an investigation was conducted. During which, additional crimes were discovered... and deleted.

Unless it appears that a person is about to commit a crime, you cannot just investigate them. If the legit investigations started connecting Trump to known crimes, then all would be fine. But that is not what happened. He 'looked guilty' and was investigated as such- there was a deliberate effort to find a crime to pin on him.

Acting like these two events are equal is ridiculous... but expected. /sigh

No, she would have committed a crime if she had sent classified information with intent on her private server. But there was no way of knowing that without investigating what was sent and also interviewing her to try and ascertain intent. There was simply no reason to investigate in your world, since there's nothing illegal about having a personal email account. It was just a terrible precedence.

Trump's special counsel investigation was triggered by his blatantly obstructing justice and then openly admitting it on live television.

Her investigation started because rules were broken and there was evidence she committed a crime.

Trumps investigation started because he 'looked guilty' with hopes of finding a crime.

You are comparing an apple to an orange.
/rimshot.

[AnalHamster]

lol. I could dry laundry on that spin.

Suspicion that a crime is about to be committed is not the same as 'that dude sure seems guilty of something, lets see if he is.'

Again, I know you are smart enough to know the difference. The question is: Can you be honest about it?

That is in fact exactly the same. This is why investigations are conducted. You are too dumb to grasp what an investigation is for. The Hillary thing is a prime example of your stupidity and hypocrisy. Of course she should have been investigated, but before the investigation there was no evidence she had done anything wrong. She used a private email, but without an investigation no one could know if she used it inappropriately so by your logic there should never have been an investigation.

And it's precedent,not precedence. Please try to grasp that at least if you're going to keep saying it.

Guess that answers that...

Hillary continued to use her Blackberry when told not to. She committed a crime to which an investigation was conducted. During which, additional crimes were discovered... and deleted.

Unless it appears that a person is about to commit a crime, you cannot just investigate them. If the legit investigations started connecting Trump to known crimes, then all would be fine. But that is not what happened. He 'looked guilty' and was investigated as such- there was a deliberate effort to find a crime to pin on him.

Acting like these two events are equal is ridiculous... but expected. /sigh

No, she would have committed a crime if she had sent classified information with intent on her private server. But there was no way of knowing that without investigating what was sent and also interviewing her to try and ascertain intent. There was simply no reason to investigate in your world, since there's nothing illegal about having a personal email account. It was just a terrible precedence.

Trump's special counsel investigation was triggered by his blatantly obstructing justice and then openly admitting it on live television.

Her investigation started because rules were broken and there was evidence she committed a crime.

Trumps investigation started because he 'looked guilty' with hopes of finding a crime.

You are comparing an apple to an orange.
/rimshot.

You are delusional, you can't see your hypocrisy and you can't grasp what an investigation is.

And her investigation started on a suspicion that rules may have been broken, it was just a terrible precedence. Just a preceedingly precedental. It's really what led to this whole investigating people thing at all which is of course just wrong, they should be convicted first

[Charliesheen]

The dipshit perfessor clings to his Russian indictments like pink plastic pearls, believing they represent guilt on Trumps part. Investigators knew these guys would never stand trial. What a delightful cross exam it would be, getting them to discuss Dim efforts to smear Trump.

[Charliesheen]

This has been a consistent pattern throughout #Russiagate. Step one: salacious headline. Step two, days or weeks later: news emerges the story is shakier than first believed. Step three (in the best case) involves the story being walked back or retracted by the same publication.

That’s been rare. More often, when explosive #Russiagate headlines go sideways, the original outlets simply ignore the new development, leaving the “retraction” process to conservative outlets that don’t reach the original audiences.