Kirk Gallaway Posted March 25, 2022 Share Posted March 25, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, Pat Speer said: Ben said: The Associated Press version of events. WASHINGTON (AP) — Special counsel Robert Mueller found no evidence President Donald Trump’s campaign “conspired or coordinated” with Russia to influence the 2016 presidential election but reached no conclusion on whether Trump obstructed justice. That brought a hearty claim of vindication from Trump but set the stage for new rounds of political and legal fighting. Ben said: The Associated Press version of events. That's not true Ben. We've been through this before. This isn't the Associated Press version of events. You've parsed this quotation and it's rather misleading. Here is the actual quotation, with the small part you've left out in bold type. WASHINGTON (AP) — Special counsel Robert Mueller did not find evidence that President Donald Trump’s campaign “conspired or coordinated” with Russia to influence the 2016 presidential election but reached no conclusion on whether Trump obstructed justice, Attorney General William Barr declared Sunday. That brought a hearty claim of vindication from Trump but set the stage for new rounds of political and legal fighting. You're falsely trying to portray the first part of this statement as "The Associated Press version of events", when in reality it was a quote from William Barr. Probably the most discredited U.S. Attorney General in our lifetime. Or at least John Mitchell 50 years ago. You also don't mention that Mueller said the report "doesn't exonerate Trump." Pat's right though. I've always found your statements regarding American Justice to be very naive, almost as if you're a foreigner with no direct experience with the U.S. legal system and have a naive faith in America's "truth and justice for all." All of of us here are very aware of the inequities of the American Legal system and that people with privilege and power are getting off all the time, as Pat has enumerated. You were quoting William Barr, but are you aware Mueller thought Barr had very poorly summed up his conclusions? You portray something as an agreed upon fact, when in reality, it's a summation quote from a largely discredited AG, who was then disputed by the author who couldn't prosecute, because he didn't have the power to prosecute anyway. When you add up all the variables,the purview, the misquotations, and the disputes, your argument dissolves into vapor. Edited March 25, 2022 by Kirk Gallaway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ness Posted March 25, 2022 Share Posted March 25, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, Pat Speer said: This is so wrong it's laughable. There are plenty of historical figures who were not convicted of crimes whose behavior was abominable. The verdict of history is not validated or dismissed in a courtroom. Scopes was found guilty, but he won the case. O.J. Simpson was acquitted but he lost the case. In the eyes of history, he is guilty as hell. Richard Nixon, for that matter, kept the Vietnam War going for political reasons, at the expense of hundreds of thousands or even millions of lives. He was never tried for this. He was forced from office by the Watergate scandal. He was not convicted of a crime, but admitted to committing a crime when he accepted the pardon granted by Ford. Dubya attacked Iraq based on bogus evidence. History has not been kind to him. Now some people give him a pass because he wasn't as bad as Trump. But when you look at his record it was abominable. P.S. As far as Mueller's "no evidence" claim, there will always be an asterisk, many of Trump's closest associates refused to cooperate, and there was no cooperation from Russia. The investigation was conducted with its hands tied behind its back, and with a gun to its head. Mueller should have looked at Trump's finances, for example, but this was not pursued for fear the investigation would be shut down immediately. Contrast that with the Whitewater investigation, which subpoenaed a dress so it could be tested to see if the President's baby batter was on the fibers. Would such a subpoena have been obtained against Trump? Of course not. Trump's corrosive and corrupt attitudes tainted every bit of the executive branch during his reign of awful. It was so bad that one of the biggest suck-ups in history--Bill Barr- eventually jumped ship. So, no, Trump was not convicted of Russiagate, but we can rest assured he was guilty as hell and got away with it. As he has most everything in his painfully-long sociopathic life... It's actually worse. Never before in history has a sitting president been in mutual defense agreements with 36 subject's of multiple investigations, including seven convicted felons, while simultaneously holding pardon powers over them (this included known Russian assets in the Manafort bit btw) Adding insult to the entire affair is the DoJ memo freeing the president from criminal indictment while in office, an argument that would be extended in a second term by the fascists no doubt. We argued this earlier in the thread wherein some posters took exception to the MDA I objected to while ignoring the fact that Trump could back channel pardons and commutations in exchange for refusals or outright lies, and did. Many of the legal beagles here called this outrageous obstruction mere "process crimes" parroting the GOP talking points. It's gross. Edited March 25, 2022 by Bob Ness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted March 25, 2022 Share Posted March 25, 2022 2 hours ago, Pat Speer said: This is so wrong it's laughable. There are plenty of historical figures who were not convicted of crimes whose behavior was abominable. The verdict of history is not validated or dismissed in a courtroom. Scopes was found guilty, but he won the case. O.J. Simpson was acquitted but he lost the case. In the eyes of history, he is guilty as hell. Richard Nixon, for that matter, kept the Vietnam War going for political reasons, at the expense of hundreds of thousands or even millions of lives. He was never tried for this. He was forced from office by the Watergate scandal. He was not convicted of a crime, but admitted to committing a crime when he accepted the pardon granted by Ford. Dubya attacked Iraq based on bogus evidence. History has not been kind to him. Now some people give him a pass because he wasn't as bad as Trump. But when you look at his record it was abominable. P.S. As far as Mueller's "no evidence" claim, there will always be an asterisk, many of Trump's closest associates refused to cooperate, and there was no cooperation from Russia. The investigation was conducted with its hands tied behind its back, and with a gun to its head. Mueller should have looked at Trump's finances, for example, but this was not pursued for fear the investigation would be shut down immediately. Contrast that with the Whitewater investigation, which subpoenaed a dress so it could be tested to see if the President's baby batter was on the fibers. Would such a subpoena have been obtained against Trump? Of course not. Trump's corrosive and corrupt attitudes tainted every bit of the executive branch during his reign of awful. It was so bad that one of the biggest suck-ups in history--Bill Barr- eventually jumped ship. So, no, Trump was not convicted of Russiagate, but we can rest assured he was guilty as hell and got away with it. As he has most everything in his painfully-long sociopathic life... Well, OK, we are arguing about different things. My question is whether Trump, however woeful a figure he may be, was in fact the target of sophisticated "dirty tricks" effort by the Clintonians, who brought the (mostly unwitting but yet eager) M$M and national security state down on Trump. That seems likely to me. I mean really, the story line of the Steele Dossier=FBI investigation=headlines in NYT, WaPO, CNN, MSNBC etc. is fairly straightforward. On whether Trump was guilty of anything in the Russiagate hoax, well, we will just have to agree to disagree. This has little bearing on my assessment of Trump as a President or a person. In fact, he had many failings, IMHO. (Although Trump's sins shrink next to Nixon's and Bush Jr.'s like a mouse to an elephant). That said, I thought Trump was right on his China policies, and that the American employee class deserves a secure border against illegal labor. Keep a skeptical eye on the national security state, and its increasing scope and scale, and its affiliation with the major political parties and M$M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted March 25, 2022 Share Posted March 25, 2022 27 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said: Ben said: The Associated Press version of events. That's not true Ben. We've been through this before. This isn't the Associated Press version of events. You've parsed this quotation and it's rather misleading. Here is the actual quotation, with the small part you've left out in bold type. WASHINGTON (AP) — Special counsel Robert Mueller did not find evidence that President Donald Trump’s campaign “conspired or coordinated” with Russia to influence the 2016 presidential election but reached no conclusion on whether Trump obstructed justice, Attorney General William Barr declared Sunday. That brought a hearty claim of vindication from Trump but set the stage for new rounds of political and legal fighting. You're falsely trying to portray the first part of this statement as "The Associated Press version of events", when in reality it was a quote from William Barr. Probably the most discredited U.S. Attorney General in our lifetime. Or at least John Mitchell 50 years ago. You also don't mention that Mueller said the report "doesn't exonerate Trump." Pat's right though. I've always found your statements regarding American Justice to be very naive, almost as if you're a foreigner with no direct experience with the U.S. legal system and have a naive faith in America's "truth and justice for all." All of of us here are very aware of the inequities of the American Legal system and that people with privilege and power are getting off all the time, as Pat has enumerated. You were quoting William Barr, but are you aware Mueller thought Barr had very poorly summed up his conclusions? You portray something as an agreed upon fact, when in reality, it's a summation quote from a largely discredited AG, who was then disputed by the author who couldn't prosecute, because he didn't have the power to prosecute anyway. When you add up all the variables,the purview, the misquotations, and the disputes, your argument dissolves into vapor. Kirk-- I am quoting the AP story, which is what they wrote, and not a summary of Barr's version. Barr had not even released his dubious summary yet (at the time of the AP report). I am aware the US judicial system is not perfect. What I am arguing is that the presumption of guilt based upon accusations, committee investigations, a Warren Commission report, or a headline and planted story, is a lot lower than that in a court of law. Indeed, this is standard refrain in this forum about LHO. Of all people, those loyal followers of this forum should most skeptical of M$M-national security state narratives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Bauer Posted March 25, 2022 Share Posted March 25, 2022 9 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said: Virginia Thomas, wife of SCOTUS Justice, Clarence Thomas has now been found to be communicating with Mark Meadows about efforts to overturn the 2020 election, calling it "The Greatest Heist in American history." Thomas on Nov 10 2020. “Help This Great President stand firm, Mark!!!...You are the leader, with him, who is standing for America’s constitutional governance at the precipice. The majority knows Biden and the Left is attempting the greatest Heist of our History.” Meadows reply :“This is a fight of good versus evil,” Meadows wrote. “Evil always looks like the victor until the King of Kings triumphs. Do not grow weary in well doing. The fight continues. I have staked my career on it. Well at least my time in DC on it.” https://deadline.com/2022/03/ginni-thomas-texts-to-mark-meadows-donald-trump-1234986540/ The Ginni Thomas and Mark Meadows Texts: This Damn Case Just Gets Stranger By the Hour https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a39531967/ginni-thomas-mark-meadows-texts-2020-election/ If Thomas knew his wife was actively trying to overthrow our duly elected government and didn't try to stop her seditious actions he is complicit and should resign and if not...be impeached. He didn't know? HA! HOGWASH! I thought Martha Mitchell was bad. But Thomas's wife takes the cake! Wonder if she has her own buffalo horn head dress and wears this at the dinner table or while watching Fox News or even to bed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted March 25, 2022 Share Posted March 25, 2022 21 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said: If Thomas knew his wife was actively trying to overthrow our duly elected government and didn't try to stop her seditious actions he is complicit and should resign and if not...be impeached. He didn't know? HA! HOGWASH! I thought Martha Mitchell was bad. But Thomas's wife takes the cake! Wonder if she has her own buffalo horn head dress and wears this at the dinner table or while watching Fox News or even to bed? Don't worry Joe. Mr. Buffalo Horns is in prison for a long, long time. And nobody is ever going to find out who gave him $500 so he could take a bus to DC. How did a penniless, homeless Phoenix gadfly end up in DC? But you do raise a question: Is Virginia wearing the horns? Come to think of it, I bet those horns would win a pretty penny in an auction. Maybe some right-wing nuts would bid high to get them as a symbol of the New Republic (after the pending Civil War posed as all but inevitable in various left-wing circles). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Caddy Posted March 25, 2022 Share Posted March 25, 2022 Henry Kissinger on Ukraine - CNNBC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Bauer Posted March 25, 2022 Share Posted March 25, 2022 1 hour ago, Douglas Caddy said: Henry Kissinger on Ukraine - CNNBC Wow, very prescient. These are principles, not prescriptions. People familiar with the region will know that not all of them will be palatable to all parties. >>>The test is not absolute satisfaction but balanced dissatisfaction.<<< If some solution based on these or comparable elements is not achieved, the drift toward confrontation will accelerate. The time for that will come soon enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirk Gallaway Posted March 25, 2022 Share Posted March 25, 2022 8 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said: Kirk-- I am quoting the AP story, which is what they wrote, and not a summary of Barr's version. Barr had not even released his dubious summary yet (at the time of the AP report). I am aware the US judicial system is not perfect. What I am arguing is that the presumption of guilt based upon accusations, committee investigations, a Warren Commission report, or a headline and planted story, is a lot lower than that in a court of law. Indeed, this is standard refrain in this forum about LHO. Of all people, those loyal followers of this forum should most skeptical of M$M-national security state narratives. What I'm telling you is I tested your AP quote verbatim, and that's not the AP quote. There aren't 2 quotes. Your quote omitted that William Barr said it, and you attributed it as a fact from the AP. Ben re: Buffalo Horns said: And nobody is ever going to find out who gave him $500 so he could take a bus to DC. How did a penniless, homeless Phoenix gadfly end up in DC? Yeah and the natural assumption would be that it came from the Trump organizers of the event! But you're alluding that it came from FBI agents or you wouldn't have mentioned it. This is what I mean by "perpetual conspiracy" BS. You're using innuendo and you have no foundation. Give me more powerful evidence pointing to the FBI, than this picture showing Buffalo Horns talking with Rudy Giuliani. I'm sure you can't. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/giuliani-jake-angeli-capitol-riot/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted March 25, 2022 Share Posted March 25, 2022 (edited) 9 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said: Well, OK, we are arguing about different things. My question is whether Trump, however woeful a figure he may be, was in fact the target of sophisticated "dirty tricks" effort by the Clintonians, who brought the (mostly unwitting but yet eager) M$M and national security state down on Trump. That seems likely to me. I mean really, the story line of the Steele Dossier=FBI investigation=headlines in NYT, WaPO, CNN, MSNBC etc. is fairly straightforward. On whether Trump was guilty of anything in the Russiagate hoax, well, we will just have to agree to disagree. This has little bearing on my assessment of Trump as a President or a person. In fact, he had many failings, IMHO. (Although Trump's sins shrink next to Nixon's and Bush Jr.'s like a mouse to an elephant). That said, I thought Trump was right on his China policies, and that the American employee class deserves a secure border against illegal labor. Keep a skeptical eye on the national security state, and its increasing scope and scale, and its affiliation with the major political parties and M$M. Ben, With all due respect, this is complete bunk. You need to go back and study the history of the U.S. M$M coverage of the 2016 Presidential election. You also need to read the Mueller Report. It's obvious from your posts that you never read it. When was the Steele Dossier first published in the U.S.? How did it impact the 2016 election? Any clue? What did the analyses of the M$M coverage of the 2016 election by the Berman Institute at Harvard and the Columbia Journalism Review find? Dirty tricks by the Clintons? Are you kidding? Are you aware that Dean Baquet put the kibosh on any pre-election NYT stories about the Trump campaign's contacts with Russia, while running weekly headline stories about Hillary's Emails and Anthony Weiner's laptop? Edited March 25, 2022 by W. Niederhut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Caddy Posted March 25, 2022 Share Posted March 25, 2022 Time for Clarence Thomas to step down after 'haunting the court for years': NYT editorial board member - Raw Story - Celebrating 18 Years of Independent Journalism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Bulman Posted March 25, 2022 Share Posted March 25, 2022 "Phase One" is over? Russia says first phase of war is over as its advances in Ukraine appear to have stalled (msn.com) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted March 26, 2022 Share Posted March 26, 2022 (edited) 7 hours ago, W. Niederhut said: Ben, With all due respect, this is complete bunk. You need to go back and study the history of the U.S. M$M coverage of the 2016 Presidential election. You also need to read the Mueller Report. It's obvious from your posts that you never read it. When was the Steele Dossier first published in the U.S.? How did it impact the 2016 election? Any clue? What did the analyses of the M$M coverage of the 2016 election by the Berman Institute at Harvard and the Columbia Journalism Review find? Dirty tricks by the Clintons? Are you kidding? Are you aware that Dean Baquet put the kibosh on any pre-election NYT stories about the Trump campaign's contacts with Russia, while running weekly headline stories about Hillary's Emails and Anthony Weiner's laptop? OK, we disagree on much. If I ever find the time, I will try to read the Mueller Report in its entirety. But remember, guilt by association is always a weak reed, and innocent until proven guilty in a court of law (and with adequate defense counsel) a strong reed. "What did the analyses of the M$M coverage of the 2016 election by the Berman Institute at Harvard and the Columbia Journalism Review find?"--W. Also with all due respect, I got a grim chuckle out of this. Whether conservative, liberal, or globalist...have you ever read a study where you did not suspect the abstract and conclusion were written first, and the study designed to spec? Edited March 26, 2022 by Benjamin Cole Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted March 26, 2022 Share Posted March 26, 2022 (edited) 42 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said: OK, we disagree on much. If I ever find the time, I will try to read the Mueller Report in its entirety. But remember, guilt by association is always a weak reed, and innocent until proven guilty in a court of law (and with adequate defense counsel) a strong reed. "What did the analyses of the M$M coverage of the 2016 election by the Berman Institute at Harvard and the Columbia Journalism Review find?"--W. Also with all due respect, I got a grim chuckle out of this. Whether conservative, liberal, or globalist...have you ever read a study where you did not suspect the abstract and conclusion were written first, and the study designed to spec? So, Ben, basically, you're arguing that O.J. Simpson was innocent of murder, then? Got it. As for the aborted Mueller investigation, if you study the details, you will learn that the investigation was stonewalled by Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, Donald Trump, and others who either refused to answer key questions, or repeatedly committed perjury (as in Manafort's case.) As Pat Speer pointed out, (above) Trump also obstructed justice during the investigation by floating pardons for key witnesses, including Putin's long-time employee, Paul Manafort. If you misinterpreted the aborted/stonewalled Mueller investigation as finding Trump innocent of "collusion" with the Kremlin in 2016, you need to do some remedial reading. As for reading studies, I've done it on a weekly basis for decades, and, no. In quality studies, the abstract and conclusions are summaries of the actual data. In contrast, you have a cognitive tendency to formulate theories that ignore the data. Here are the two analyses of the M$M and the 2016 election I referred to above. The gist of it is that the M$M and social media sabotaged Hillary Clinton in 2016, not Trump. https://cyber.harvard.edu/publications/2017/08/mediacloud https://www.cjr.org/analysis/fake-news-media-election-trump.php Edited March 26, 2022 by W. Niederhut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted March 26, 2022 Share Posted March 26, 2022 7 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said: What I'm telling you is I tested your AP quote verbatim, and that's not the AP quote. There aren't 2 quotes. Your quote omitted that William Barr said it, and you attributed it as a fact from the AP. Ben re: Buffalo Horns said: And nobody is ever going to find out who gave him $500 so he could take a bus to DC. How did a penniless, homeless Phoenix gadfly end up in DC? Yeah and the natural assumption would be that it came from the Trump organizers of the event! But you're alluding that it came from FBI agents or you wouldn't have mentioned it. This is what I mean by "perpetual conspiracy" BS. You're using innuendo and you have no foundation. Give me more powerful evidence pointing to the FBI, than this picture showing Buffalo Horns talking with Rudy Giuliani. I'm sure you can't. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/giuliani-jake-angeli-capitol-riot/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts