THE REPORT, buttoned up (SCO Thread v. 33)

[waiguoren]

You wrote:

while the Trump campaign didn't actively conspire with the Russians, they were aware of, and expected to benefit from, the Russians intended course of action.

which Mueller did not demonstrate, since the the Russian government's "intended course of action" was to hack the DNC/DCCC servers and Mueller did not produce any evidence that Trump or his campaign were aware of that "course of action".

If you're making a more narrow statement about the intention to release the e-mails, it's wrong. The opposite is true: Mueller produced ample evidence that the campaign was not aware of the release schedule of the e-mails.

If you're making an even more narrow statement, just that the Trump campaign was sitting idly by waiting for the e-mail leaks that we were all waiting for in 2016 and expecting to benefit from them....that doesn't seem very damning at all.

 

[National Acrobat]

I'm not saying they should have done anything. It's just a very letter of the law exculpation.

My biggest issue and concern has always been the willingness of Americans to champion foreign government interference in our elections. I said as much during the campaign and after the campaign. I waited for the report to draw any further conclusions. I'm drawing such conclusions now.

The issue of collusion was relevant in the sense of if the Trump campaign helped plan and coordinate the interference because it would have benefitted them. The information I'm getting is more nuanced, from a legal perspective. People were thinking about an active role in undermining our election. Instead, it's more of a passive observation of the undermining of our election.

It just reinforces my original opinion: It's unfortunate the extent to which people will sell out the sovereignty of our elections for what they perceive as personal gain. That's not specific to the Trump campaign but to everyone who was indifferent to what was going on.

It bothered me then when collusion wasn't even the issue. It bothers me now. It just seems like a lack of moral character. You see someone doing something wrong, you say something. You do something. You don't try to share in it.

But that's my personal moral standards. I'm not looking to change anyone's perspective on right vs. wrong.

This seems to get into how a person feels about corruption and transparency. If there's corruption in the election process, what is the effect of receiving that information from a foreign entity? Does the value a transparency vary given the source of the information? This leads to a whole set of questions about selective transparency, is it better to have less information than more if the additional information is biased?

I think there's a whole set of issues largely untouched that could have been explored for the last several years. Was it good that we found out about DNC corruption, of course. Does getting that information from Russians color that information, it surely does and how should we feel about that.

 

[National Acrobat]

"The Russia investigation began after the FBI learned that George Papadopoulos had been approached by a Russian agent..."

How did they get the FISA warrant?

 

[SBJJ]

Your lack of understanding of prior obstruction prosecutions is the reason you are wrong.

I cannot help you though as your ignorance has never stopped you before.

Lol. Post me a case where obstruction was found that would at all relate to trump wishing a person was fired or saying witchhunt.

Better yet do some research on motive when it comes to obstruction

 

[panamaican]

You wrote:



which Mueller did not demonstrate, since the the Russian government's "intended course of action" was to hack the DNC/DCCC servers and Mueller did not produce any evidence that Trump or his campaign were aware of that "course of action".

If you're making a more narrow statement about the intention to release the e-mails, it's wrong. The opposite is true: Mueller produced ample evidence that the campaign was not aware of the release schedule of the e-mails.

If you're making an even more narrow statement, just that the Trump campaign was sitting idly by waiting for the e-mail leaks that we were all waiting for in 2016 and expecting to benefit from them....that doesn't seem very damning at all.

Actually Mueller wrote about far more than just hacking the servers.

The interference wasn't in simply hacking the servers, it was in what was done with the hacked information.

And I already quoted to someone else where Mueller's report states that the Trump campaign expected to benefit from the release of the wikileaks information. I can't be the only person actually reading the report? Maybe I am.

 

[TheFirstEMP]

This also isn't any kind of argument.

This is the equivalent of the grade schoolers "I'm not listening!"

 

[waiguoren]

I can't be the only person actually reading the report? Maybe I am.

Again, I've read up to page 40-something. I'm not sure you're actually reading it, at least not very carefully.

Actually Mueller wrote about far more than just hacking the servers.

The interference wasn't in simply hacking the servers, it was in what was done with the hacked information.

And I already quoted to someone else where Mueller's report states that the Trump campaign expected to benefit from the release of the wikileaks information.

I can't tell if you're deflecting or just confused. Of course Trump expected to benefit from the wikileaks dumps. You and I also expected it. The Clinton campaign expected it. That is an unremarkable statement.

 

[Sketch]

I'm continuously impressed by our ongoing political clusterfuck

All aboard the Trump train? We have Big macs...

And, all hand sizes are welcome.

 

[Limbo Pete]

What we need now is Brock Lesnar to come out of nowhere, shove Barr aside from the podium and say :

I FINALLY GOT TO THE BOTTOM OF IT, AMERICA!!!

I'd pay good money to see Bork take em to Suplex City

 

[Limbo Pete]

All aboard the Trump train? We have Big macs...

And, all hand sizes are welcome.

I do have big hands and an old freezer full of Trump steaks

 

[Quipling]

bullshit

https://www.google.com/search?q=chi...ome..69i57.31389j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

You're referring to "chinagate".

What happened was that China tried to influence the election via illegally donating money to Democratic campaigns (and Clinton's defense fund).

For it to be analogous, China would have had to directly inform the campaigns of what they were doing and not been rebuffed.

The primary sets of donations to Clinton occured early in March 1996.

The Clinton campaign returned the money around May 1996 after an internal investigation identified the source. In other words, they refused the help.

The FBI investigation did not begin until several months later.

Your example supports my position, you goof.

 

[panamaican]

This seems to get into how a person feels about corruption and transparency. If there's corruption in the election process, what is the effect of receiving that information from a foreign entity? Does the value a transparency vary given the source of the information? This leads to a whole set of questions about selective transparency, is it better to have less information than more if the additional information is biased?

I think there's a whole set of issues largely untouched that could have been explored for the last several years. Was it good that we found out about DNC corruption, of course. Does getting that information from Russians color that information, it surely does and how should we feel about that.

As I said then and I say now: National sovereignty means that we should always be more concerned about external powers trying to shift our internal politics in any direction. Because their goals do not necessarily align with ours.

It's not selective transparency, it's about foreign manipulation.

Let's say someone says to me "Pan, it doesn't matter that foriegn countries are trying to shift how we think about our candidates for their benefit." Okay...fine. Then why are we worried about foreign people trying to shift how we think about religion or borders or anything at all?

Our elections are the most fundamental representation of what we want for our nation and interference in them should concern all of us to a very high degree. If someone doesn't care about foreign interference in elections then they can't honestly care about anything related to the direction of our country.

Because it's so inane to say "My god, that random person who was admitted to the country is a real threat to our future. But the massive foreign government that is shaping our elections isn't a threat at all." I think that perspective is beyond indefensible.

 

[Teppodama]

 

[xcvbn]

It's painfully obvious that Trump obstructed justice. What's not as clear imo is whether he directly colluded with Russia.

But that in no way should exonerate Trump from OOJ charges.

Trump should be impeached.

However, the GOP has done an extraordinary job in exciting their base so we as a nation must be cautious with how we move forward with impeachment proceedings. It could backfire- especially if the FBI isn't willing to fully cooperate in order to protect their sources and assets.

 

[unimackpass]

This interview is pretty hilarious. The Russian dude just starts laughing at most of the questions while the interviewer does his best face contortions to convince himself he believes his own bullcrap.

 

[National Acrobat]

As I said then and I say now: National sovereignty means that we should always be more concerned about external powers trying to shift our internal politics in any direction. Because their goals do not necessarily align with ours.

It's not selective transparency, it's about foreign manipulation.

Let's say someone says to me "Pan, it doesn't matter that foriegn countries are trying to shift how we think about our candidates for their benefit." Okay...fine. Then why are we worried about foreign people trying to shift how we think about religion or borders or anything at all?

Our elections are the most fundamental representation of what we want for our nation and interference in them should concern all of us to a very high degree. If someone doesn't care about foreign interference in elections then they can't honestly care about anything related to the direction of our country.

Because it's so inane to say "My god, that random person who was admitted to the country is a real threat to our future. But the massive foreign government that is shaping our elections isn't a threat at all." I think that perspective is beyond indefensible.

Just as a matter of proximity, you'd have to say internal corruption within our own institutions has a larger impact on subverting our governments ability to act in the general interest. And if the way foreign governments attempt to manipulate Americans is by exposing the corruption of their own institutions, then that's a bitter sweet form of manipulation.

But I do agree the attempts of foreign governments to influence our politics is one of the most serious issues we face, whether I think the Russian government is the most serious of threats or not (I don't).

 

[xcvbn]

But I do agree the attempts of foreign governments to influence our politics is one of the most serious issues we face, whether I think the Russian government is the most serious of threats or not (I don't).

Another reason why money in politics has to be addressed. Only foreign governments can compete with billionaires and wealthy corporations in buying political influence- and they have just as much incentive to do so.

But the problem is we'd then have to acknowledge that Israel and Saudi Arabia are among the worst offenders.

 

[AlexDB9]

Barr was a G in that conference....calm, collected and well spoken. You can tell the low iq media trying to make him look like a shill for Trump wasn’t ready at all

 

[National Acrobat]

Another reason why money in politics has to be addressed. Only foreign governments can compete with billionaires and wealthy corporations in buying political influence- and they have just as much incentive to do so.

But the problem is we'd then have to acknowledge that Israel and Saudi Arabia are among the worst offenders.

yup

 

[Higus]

It's painfully obvious that Trump obstructed justice. What's not as clear imo is whether he directly colluded with Russia.

If only someone caught him on camera asking Russia to hack his political opponents or something.