The Mueller investigation.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Quantum Quack, Feb 17, 2018.

  1. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    If that were the case, Putin would be bringing the sanctions up in every negotiation with the US for the sake of having them expanded, not asking for their reduction and offering hostage trades to that effect.

    I very much doubt you're LOLing about anything right now, I picture you more like pounding your fist next to a bottle of vodka and uttering drunken Slavic curses. You've already admitted that Putin's Russia is a lawless country, and yet you have trouble believing the man in charge of that lawlessness for the last 20 years would steal anything and have his name pop up in Panama. Right, sure, practising Judo with Putin in his KGB days is the best possible training not only for tackling midgets, but also for running every major government ministry and industry in the whole country.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Any evidence for the claim that Putin has really offered even a single ruble for reducing sanctions?

    The official position is that sanctions are harmful for everybody and should be avoided, but this is an issue which has to be recognized by those who do the sanctions.
    LOL, you have funny fantasies. Russia was a lawless country in Jeltsin time.

    Transforming it into a state of law is a long process. First of all, you have to gain the important power positions and put there people you can trust. This requires that you know them personally. So, the natural starting point is a team of people he knows personally, and important to control the real (deep state) power structures. Then, you have to fight corruption - the laws may be nice, but if the criminals simply have to bribe the police to get away with everything, there is no state of law. The way to fight it is bottom up, it is much easier to stop it on the lowest level than on the top level.

    Actually, I'm not aware that many of those guys from the first team play an important role now. Putin also cares about the point that the real decisions are made by those who legally have to make them. Today it is impossible for criminals to buy their freedom by bribery. The bureaucracy now behaves in a much more civilized way too, following the laws instead of having arbitrary local power to allow or forbid whatever they want. A lot of things have changed, and are changing now, but it is clear that Western propaganda sells the old picture of Jeltsin time Russia.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Not about Mueller's report. You were silly to claim it was.
    Once again, as four or five times before: You posted your belief that Barr's testimony was a source of information about Mueller's investigation and report. That was very foolish, displayed complete ignorance of Barr and the entire situation, and ruined any claim you still had left to being able to handle propaganda.
    It was also the Republican Party Line. Apparently, the corporate rightwing authoritarian marketing pros in America have found an easy mark in you, and a reliable parrot of anything they want repeated.
    Anything. Literally. You have no base of information to keep you attached to reality in any respect.
    Lack of information is - regardless of how such a state is maintained.

    You are posting in willfully maintained and explicitly defended ignorance of the contents of the Mueller Report, even while making claims about it. Yet more foolishly, you are posting propaganda feeds and links to well-known sources of disinformation about US politics and history, actual deception and falsehood, while rejecting all else - that is mudbottom gullibility for an American; Trump voter level stuff. For some European dilettante, it might be normal.
    I'm sure there are many tales about Putin which are false - maybe you are talking about them. It's impossible to tell.
    What is in the Mueller Report looks exactly like documentary evidence of Trump Familia collusion with several Russians, including Putin. Meetings, lies, financial interests, secrecy, mercenaries, organized crime involved, more lies, mutually cooperative behavior subsequent, obstruction of investigation, coverups and more lies, - - - anything left out?
    Anyone who has read the Report, or followed the explications of honest people who have, knows it is full of evidence of collusion between various Russians (including Putin) and the Trump Familia.
    So why would you think the opposite?
    Putin's agenda and tactics in colluding with Trump are complicated and interesting to be sure. But that would require a new thread - Mueller did not investigate Putin.
    You don't know what my "Party Line" is, and you don't know anything about your sources - yet you insist on making claims like that, posted directly from the US Republican propaganda feed. Have you figured out why, yet - why the parrot act?

    Meanwhile: I provide you with information you need,
    partly because you obviously don't know what you dealing with when you encounter US marketing and manipulation professionals, and as an American I have some (increasingly attenuated) ethical obligation to warn you,

    but mostly because I have seen what happens to my country when the Republican Party parrot chorus repeats stuff like that without encountering direct opposition.

    So it seems reasonable - almost obligatory, if granted the time and so forth - to take advantage of the opportunities you provide to post direct opposition to the Republican Party Line - to identify it, name it, call it out, deny it, and associate it with abysmal ignorance supporting a deep dislike of American democratic government. In the case of the bizarre Republican reaction to the Mueller Report, parroted by you, this has been straightforward.

    Anyone can use a tool, see? - which is another something the Mueller Report glances at, and something to consider next time you set out to make a tool of yourself.
    - - - -
    Evidence? Sure. Read the Mueller Report for starters - there's lots more floating around, but that would make a decent introduction.
    Not only or necessarily rubles,of course, but hotel deals and business intelligence and help getting elected US President - in addition to, as seems likely, a withholding of certain compromising information from the police and the voting public. Putin has amelioration of threat and harm to offer, after all - organized criminals do not bribe only. They also extort and blackmail. And evidence for that vulnerability of the entire Trump Familia is also found in the Mueller Report - as well as many other places.
    Last edited: Jul 28, 2019
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    It is information. It is simply unreliable information, and I have never claimed it is reliable. You simply try to distort how using propaganda sources works. Learn the logic of plausible reasoning (Bayesian probability theory). It will explain you that there will be a possibly small but nonetheless some increase of probability of A if you know "Barr said A". There may be exceptional cases where one expects that even the information about the weather by this person will be a lie, but Barr is not of this extremal type.
    Cheap. Whenever something wrong is your Party Line, and I oppose it, you claim that opposing it is Republican Party Line. You never prove it, thus, it is simply propaganda. I do not question the possible distortions of the Rep Party Line, because I couldn't care less. Initially I have not even doubted - once you oppose it, it is quite probable that some Reps will support it.

    But here it becomes obvious that it is another strategy of intentional defamation against me. Given that I have simply mentioned that such information exists and made reservations about the reliability of Barr, reservations which obviously have not been part of the Republican Party Line, you lie intentionally.
    What is the problem, if I use in a discussion with you information you have given about it? What if it appeared so reliable that you have been unable to provide counterevidence, or not even questioned it?
    This is similar to quoting Holy Scripts in discussions with religious fanatics without reading them, but relying on people who have worked hard to find interesting quotes.
    But you tell about them following the Anti-Putin Party Line.
    Because you have been unable to present a single bit of evidence for this. Your factual claims are almost always simply lies not supported by any evidence. And my personal experience with your claims about me show me that they are almost completely intentional defamation and lies, and can never be supported by evidence because there is none.
    Your Party Line is to defend what you defend here and to fight every position you name "Rep Party Line" if I use it here. So, it is obvious to any regular reader from your behavior here.
    No, I don't need the information that you don't like what I write, and this is all the information content of 95% of your postings, given that you have completely destroyed any base for trust even claims that something is "Rep Party Line".
    Maybe Americans are especially stupid people, but usually simply opposing something without arguments does not help in the long run.
    It does not excuse your lies about me supporting it, given that all I have done was to give some logically correct "if what Barr said is correct" information.
    Means, no evidence.
  8. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Means: hundreds of pages of evidence, in the Mueller Report alone.
    There are more than a dozen other sources of such evidence - from thoroughly researched magazine articles to formal law enforcement investigations.
    - - - -
    You do need that other information you rejected.
    But you have repeatedly and explicitly claimed you don't need any information at all. So - - - -
    Accurate description of your posts and claims does tend to read as "defamation", but there's not much anyone can do about that.
    So we are now agreed that when I said you had claimed Barr's testimony was a source of information about the Mueller Report, I was right. You made exactly that claim. You continue to make that claim. And the implications are exactly as described. .

    Meanwhile, as I keep reminding you, you were wrong: Barr's testimony was not information.
    Not about the Mueller Report, anyway - it could inform you about Barr's agenda, and the Republican Party Line, and the like, but you ignore all that.
    You post Republican Party (fascist) propaganda, and I label it for you. That's information for you, if you want any, but more importantly information for others. If you don't want the label, don't post the Line.
    The arguments refuting Republican Party bs were all made and archived, long ago.
    When opposing something obviously false, long argued and thoroughly refuted/rebutted, and only working by inundation and repetition, the need is for continual public reminders of reality. Fascist propaganda does not work by argument, and is not defeated by argument - as your parrot routine demonstrates here, and as I learned long ago from various Republican political campaigns and news media manipulations.
    You stated, explicitly, that you regarded Barr's testimony as a source of information. That's the claim I made.
    I presented the Mueller Report, entire but for redactions. Hundred of pages of evidence. I linked you to Barr's biography, as well, and filled you in on various aspects of the situation.
    I even advised you to read Mueller's report, and quit making a fool of yourself. That was pretty safe - I knew you wouldn't.
    You don't know what that is, or what Party it references (none, of course - there is no Party whose line matches my posting here).
    Every Rep Party Line that shows up here, whether or not you use it.
    The fact that essentially all your posts about US politics and history, economics and science, are parrotings of Republican Party propaganda feed is just a convenience for me.
    Not once.
    If you ever do that, we'll find out.
    All your posts on the topic are based in complete ignorance of the Mueller Report, which partly explains why every claim you make about it is false.

    Partly. Many ignorant people avoid making claims without information, or use their own reasoning and end up hitting or missing by chance. But in dealing with the victims of Republican media manipulation such people are not a significant factor.
  9. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    No, as has become sufficiently clear from your refusal to present any evidence for this.
    Your declarations that it exists somewhere in the universe is no evidence.
    As usual, defamation. I have explicitly claimed that I don't need information about things which are not interesting for me. Starting from the latest news about the Queen and her family.
    I know what I think, so, if I see a description about what I think which is clearly wrong, and which obviously could not have been created by a simple misunderstanding because I have explained the difference many times, I know it is defamation, and I give the necessary evidence for this.
    So you want to continue to describe my "If Barr's claims are correct" statements in this way, just to present them in a second step as if I would have claimed, "I rely here completely on Barr's reliable information"?

    It became obvious now that the whole "Barr's testimony was [not] information" discussion is your cover of the attempt to distort what I have said. The distortion is obvious and intentional. "Barr's testimony was a source of information" strongly suggests to a reader who does not know the whole context that I have trusted Barr, which is a lie. Stop lying, even in such implicit ways.
    Thus, it is classical ad hominem. Moreover, as we have found now, ad hominem defamation, because it appeared to be wrong. You have namecalled my "If Barr's claims are correct" statements as Rep Party Line, but it is completely unplausible that the Rep Party Line prescribed that Barr's claims may be wrong, thus, require such a specification.

    It is not the first time that your "Party Line" claims are wrong. The other classical example was the climate change debate, where the main discussion is about "is there a warming" and "is it human-made", in both of them I do not question the mainstream at all, but nonetheless my position is some sort of AGW denier Party Line. These are the examples where this becomes most obvious. All the other claims are also never supported by evidence, thus, probably lies too.
    Here, again, one can see the dirty tricks used. Of course, at the moment the report was not yet published but Barr's claims were public, this was an important part of the information available about the report. Given that Barr is obviously partizan, it is clearly unreliable information. I have never assumed it to be reliable information. So, Barr's biography is completely irrelevant for me. But the reader gets another impression, namely that I have trusted Barr, and, ignoring your presentations of facts that Barr is a notorious liar, continue to trust Barr.
    Given that you were unable to give any evidence that I was wrong in any particular issue, I did not make a fool of myself anyway. No need to read the chronicles of the life of the Queen and her family.
    Indeed, once I have explicitly said that I see no reason to read the chronicles of the life of the Queen and her family, as long as you don't give evidence that they contain things interesting for me, you can make a 90% safe bet that I really will not read them.
    There are hundreds of left-wing splinter groups. I couldn't care less from where you get your Party Line. Maybe it is simply your personal faction. More important, there is no necessity for me. Given that I don't use ad hominem, I have no point in identifying your particular line of argumentation with a particular splinter group. It would make no difference for me if you would be the official representative of some Left-Libertarian Democratic Antirassist Antifascist Warriors gang or whatever.
    It remains to give evidence that even a single one was false.
  10. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Once iceaura makes such a great deal about me not reading the Mueller report, here some fun about some other person where appeared some doubt if he had read the report:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  11. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Of course there's no time for that, when you could watch Putin dive undersea to receive treasure from a diver who already found it for him, or watch him waddling around on ice skates like a hockey pro (a pro with crippling arthritis and Parkinson's disease). Besides, there's a Ukrainian somewhere who doesn't think your people are special or even respectable, better go kill him before he spreads terror!

    This is what it now comes down to, the depths of the feces you'll happily wade into for the sake of feeling important to the world.... If Mueller isn't exonerating Donald Trump, then according to you it surely must mean Mueller hasn't read his own freaking report. It must have been written for him, just like Putin writes Russia's news for you back at home.
  12. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    No time for this too.
    Funny attempt to sound funny. I couldn't care less about exonerations among US politicians, I simply found the idea that Mueller has not even read his own freaking report funny enough to quote it.
  13. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    It would be even funnier if the US was run by Ronald McDonald, but for some reason such non-sequiturs don't make it into the discussion.
  14. Benson Registered Senior Member

    There's a quote, "Be careful what you wish for".

    The Democrats wished for Mueller to speak about the report, it was going to end badly, I didn't realise how bad.

    And then to top it off, a Democrat candidate ran off to Mexico to campaign for his presidency. The stoopid force is strong with the Democrats.
  15. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Way better than asking Russia to attack the US to help your campaign - or secretly meeting with a Russian spy to get dirt on your opponent.
  16. Benson Registered Senior Member

    Trump didn't and I'm surprised you condone the democrat campaigning in Mexico!! Sums it up really.
  17. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Trump: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”

    Says a lot about you that you would support a Russian attack against a US server, as long as it helped out your political agenda.
  18. Benson Registered Senior Member

    No agenda, Mueller said Trump didn't collude. So, make up whatever you wish, Trump didn't collude. If you don't allow that to sink in, then your agenda is in the way.

    From your armchair reading newspapers, you feel and conclude Trump colluded, but with the resources at Mueller's disposal, he concludes there was no collusion. Could you explain how Mueller got it so wrong and your arm chair experience was right?

    I'm fascinated.
  19. billvon Valued Senior Member

    I was not talking about collusion. I was talking about Trump publicly asking Russia to attack the US - and promising a reward.
    Again, not talking about collusion. I am replying to your post where you denied that Trump asked Russia to attack US servers. The reason you are going to fail here is that Trump's request to do so was a public tweet.

    Sad that you spend so much effort supporting enemies that attack the US.
  20. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    No, he didn't.
    The parrots have been repeating that since Barr's testimony. Why? No reading comprehension?
    It went fine.
    Now it's time to follow up on it, and impeach Trump.
    Trump colluded with Russians, in public, on TV and Twitter, for you to see for yourself. You blind?
    He specifically refused to draw that, or any other, conclusion about Trump's many dealings with Russia and Russians, or Trump's many lies about those dealings, or Trump's behavior as President related to those dealilngs and the lies about them.
    - - - -
    Already given - you have been referred directly to the report, more than 400 pages of such evidence.
    Not my fault if you refuse to read the evidence presented to you.
    For the tenth time:
    No, it was not.
    The Report was printed, bound, and ready for distribution to Congress as mandated - that was why it existed.
    The Report was available, before Barr made any claims about it. There was no need for Barr to make any claims about it. Congress was entitled to read it first hand.
    Barr had little familiarity with the Report (he was new on the job). So he was not likely to be able to make expert or informed claims about it.
    But making claims about the Report is what Trump hired him to do.
    Barr was the one withholding the report, and redacting the Report - not only from the public, but also from Congress. There was no visible reason for him to do that, and several reasons - of law, of the Constitution, and of established precedent - for him not to do that.
    But withholding and redacting the Report was what Trump hired him to do.
    As you were informed at the time, Barr's claims were not information, but disinformation. They were tactical claims in an organized effort to misrepresent the Report.
    That's what Trump hired him to provide - he had excellent qualifications for that role, and no other qualifications for that job.
    You claim to be expert in disinformation , remember? It turns out you can't even recognize it - not even its most obvious and flagrant embodiments.
    I did not claim that you were aware of how much of a fool you were making of yourself.
    Everybody can see the evidence in front of them except you and your fellow parrots, they already have it, so there is no need for me to do any work here unless I owed you a favor. I don't.
    People help those who help themselves.
    And yet you keep repeating silly false claims about that, over and over, as if it were important to sell them.
    My posting matches the media feed of no Party.
    Your posts match the Republican Party media feed as delivered by the mass media in the US - exactly, right down to specific vocabulary in English and specific errors of physical and historical fact - both of which have been explicitly posted for you, along with the simple explanation of what they demonstrate about your posting. You are a parrot of the the US Republican Party media feed and propaganda campaign.
    - - - -
    No wingnut can use the term "ad hominem argument" correctly in a post, and none of them will ever look it up in the dictionary. Nobody knows why.
    It's a useful characteristic for identification - like the rattle on a rattlesnake, or the stripes on a skunk.
  21. Benson Registered Senior Member

    The force is strong with you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  22. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Comes from reading around in the Report - at least, the redacted version Barr allowed the public to see, plus the parts that one judge removed from redaction in the Flynn case.

    And keeping an eye on the various other legal cases percolating along, a few of them just waiting until Trump is removed from office and no longer immune.

    And not overlooking the research into the older family lawsuits and legal oddities - did you notice that Trump's sister resigned from her lifetime appointment to the federal bench, despite good health and apparent enjoyment of the job, just as the details of the family inheritance of Fred's fortune were coming out in the papers? The statute of limitations does not apply to the evidence presented in impeachment proceedings, and the impeached do not get their pensions etc.

    Paying attention to events, remembering what happened and what was said as best I can, in other words. As the blogger put it: memory is the liberal superpower.

    Try it. What Mueller actually said in his report, about "collusion" and so forth, is right there in print. It was not redacted. You'll find you post less rank foolishness when you know what you are talking about.
  23. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    That's not how evidence has to be presented in a discussion. One has to specify which particular claim is false, then to correct the claim, then to refer to a specific place where the corrected claim is supported explicitly (with a quote and a link to the source of the quote). Simply "the report" is not sufficient.

    LOL. You say "no" but what you write means "yes". Because I wrote "at the moment the report was not yet published but Barr's claims were public, this was an important part of the information available about the report". "Published" means something different than "not even accessible to the Congress".
    The same holds for the information you give here, and in fact, for any information distributed - it is at least suspect of being disinformation. And that you claim that it is disinformation is nothing but a soundbite with no information at all. Everybody knows even without reading your posts that you would name information from enemy sources disinformation, simply because it's from a source you don't like.
    It is quite easy to recognize the information you give as disinformation. (You have had so many chances to answer my claims that something you wrote is disinformation by providing evidence that it is serious information but never used it.)
    As if it would matter if your peoples front of whatever is named a Party.
    One ghost driver? Hundreds, hundreds!!!!

Share This Page