Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 12-31-2019, 11:41 AM
Moriarty's Avatar
Moriarty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 3,120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
Russia AND Ukraine interfered in the 2016 US election. Unless you are so xenophobic as to say that "a Ukranian court finding of Ukranian interference does not merit any further investigation".
Remember, folks, that THIS is the Ukranian interference that we are talking about. It's gaslighting at its finest.

Quote:
In 2016, while Mr. Manafort was chairman of the Trump campaign, anti-corruption prosecutors in Ukraine disclosed that a pro-Russian political party had earmarked payments for Mr. Manafort from an illegal slush fund. Mr. Manafort resigned from the campaign a week later.
As a needless reminder, Paul Manafort presently sits in a federal US prison (convicted by Trump's justice department, no less) for financial fraud crimes.
  #102  
Old 12-31-2019, 12:05 PM
EasyPhil is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: NYCNYUSA
Posts: 1,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Newsflash back at you: Pointing out liars and the lies they tell is not a bias check.

I'm not holding my breath but I too think that truth matters. So if you can convince me, or anyone, that Trump is not a corrupt, incompetent, pathological liar and that media that exposes him for what he is is in fact "fake", then I'm open to such "alternative facts". Until then, I'm going to continue to fact check bullshit cites and posts like the one you're responding about.
What in the article is false? Help us see the light.
__________________
Thinking in, out and around the box!
  #103  
Old 12-31-2019, 12:10 PM
Chisquirrel is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,864
Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyPhil View Post
What are the odds that the DNC wasn't hacked but the emails were obtained by WikiLeaks via a leak? Meaning someone inside the DNC provided the emails to WikiLeaks. Perhaps a Bernie supporter dissatisfied about how the DNC was operating with respect to the primary system. Small probability of that, right?
What are the odds it was Seth Rich?
  #104  
Old 12-31-2019, 12:13 PM
EasyPhil is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: NYCNYUSA
Posts: 1,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
On the same day that Russia stopped hacking? Yes, I'd put that as relatively small likelihood. And we would expect such a person to go to Mother Jones or some other American news agency, since they would be aware that WikiLeaks is a Russian front and, as an American, has reason to keep our political secrets from them.

You will note that the majority of leaks that you see go to American news agencies.

Let's also note that:

a) We're discussing a single footnote in a summary document, where there is more in the summary document, and even more in the actual indictment, and you're already having to invent whole people who don't exist, when we have evidence of motive, opportunity, timing, and modus operandi for a particular suspect again, in just a single footnote. Do you think the case will become better or worse if we include more than one sentences worth of evidence in the discussion?
b) The indictment was issued against Russia by Rod Rosenstein - a Trump appointment. The indictment is still active, and being kept in place by Bill Barr and Rosenstein's replacement, Jeffrey Rosen - both Trump appointments. So we seem to have a least four persons who all agree that the Russians did it, three of whom were hand selected by Donald Trump.
I don't think you know what day Russia started or stopped hacking. If you do post a cite.

Four people suspect Russians did it, the court hasn't resolved that yet and I believe the trial is set for 2020. Russians and the Russian Government are two different things.
__________________
Thinking in, out and around the box!
  #105  
Old 12-31-2019, 12:15 PM
EasyPhil is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: NYCNYUSA
Posts: 1,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
What are the odds it was Seth Rich?
Nobody knows other than possibly Wikileaks and definitely the person or persons involved in the leak of the DNC emails.
__________________
Thinking in, out and around the box!
  #106  
Old 12-31-2019, 12:16 PM
EasyPhil is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: NYCNYUSA
Posts: 1,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
If I recall correctly, you have stated that you are not a Republican and that you are not a Trump supporter. Is this correct?
That is correct, I've been a member of this board since 2001.
__________________
Thinking in, out and around the box!
  #107  
Old 12-31-2019, 12:26 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyPhil View Post
I don't think you know what day Russia started or stopped hacking. If you do post a cite.
I'm pretty sure that I gave a page and footnote number, when we started this discussion.

Any chance that you can't read the Mueller report itself because any time you try you have to search the internet for someone willing to tell you that what you just read doesn't mean what it says after every sentence?

Quote:
Four people suspect Russians did it, the court hasn't resolved that yet and I believe the trial is set for 2020. Russians and the Russian Government are two different things.
The intelligence directorate of the Russian army, Unit 26165, is acting on its own, independent of the Russian government, you're arguing? I thought it was the Bernie Bros who did it?

Last edited by Sage Rat; 12-31-2019 at 12:26 PM.
  #108  
Old 12-31-2019, 12:37 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
Great, so the inelligence agencies never stamp anything as "absolutely certain". Thus, unless we enter the Kangaroo Court Zone, I can rest assured that no President will be removed from office for disagreeing with the intelligence agencies.
I guess this is as clear a statement as I can expect that a Trump supporter will put their support for Trump in front of admitting error on simple factual matters.

And, will in fact double down on their factual errors so long as it supports Trump.
  #109  
Old 12-31-2019, 12:55 PM
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,955
Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyPhil View Post
What in the article is false? Help us see the light.
What's false is the manner in which the article presents the reason for the judge's rebuke of Mueller and the manner in which you continue to misrepresent the context. He was asked not to prejudice an ongoing case before her (related to Russian troll farms) before the case was decided. It was reasonable of her to ask him to not do so in that context and reasonable for Mueller to comply with that request.

This is the case indictment in question.

The judge in no way rules that there is no connection between Russian Troll Farms and the Russian Governement. Which is the claim you seem very interested in pushing. The judge merely demands that Mueller not prejudice the jury in an ongoing case.

There. I've turned on the light for you. But I can't make you open your eyes to see.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #110  
Old 12-31-2019, 12:59 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
If I recall correctly, you have stated that you are not a Republican and that you are not a Trump supporter. Is this correct?
He's a fan of conspiracy theories (usually those relating to Jews) who has felt the need, at some point, to verify with the mods that he isn't required to answer questions and is allowed to simply assert his position, blindly, until the Sun runs out of energy.

From a practical standpoint, he serves as a mechanism for encountering and debunking conspiracy theories. I would surmise that his motive is to defend Trump since he's very pro-Israel.

Regrettably: https://publius2point0.wordpress.com...e-east-update/
  #111  
Old 12-31-2019, 04:26 PM
kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 32,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
Let's say that I tell you that studies have been performed that show that 80% of rape accusations have been proven to have been true, 5% were pure slander, and the other 15% could not be established.

Now, a particular man, Roger, has been accused of rape by ten different women. There is no indication that they know each other.

Woman by woman, there's up to a 20% chance that their testimony adds nothing. Mary could be lying, Joanne could be lying, Barbara could be lying, Mandi could be lying, and so on.

But Roger is a rapist.

At an 80% probability across 10 independent reports, the probability that Roger is innocent is 0.00001024%. That is science and math. Our 80% value was generated by an independent research effort that has no relationship to the case at hand. The calculation to reach 0.00001024% is simple math. It's 20^10 / 100^10 because those are the areas of the hypercube for the "10 liars" option and the hypercube for all possible options. If even one woman is telling the truth, when the other nine are lying, Roger is still a rapist.

In science, sleuthing, or anything else, proof is achieved through a preponderance of evidence. "Preponderance" does not mean "I have a video tape of the guy doing it". It means, "I have a bunch of independent factoids that, alone, mean nothing. But, viewing them as a whole and running some odds, we have a certain thing even if some elements of evidence prove to have been wrong."

Feel free to go through that article and assign probabilities.

What are the odds, for example, that someone else (see footnote 136 on page 41 of the Mueller report), other than Russia, also hacked into the DNC, also stopped their hacking operation on or around the same day that Russia stopped, also would be motivated to use WikiLeaks as a front?

Yeah, each of those items independently could happen. But the only person to write an article that tries to convince you to consider all those elements independently and exclusive of one another is someone whose job it is to generate political spin to mislead those who want to be mislead.
MISLED. Thus are you refuted.

Last edited by kaylasdad99; 12-31-2019 at 04:27 PM.
  #112  
Old 12-31-2019, 04:28 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 View Post
MISLED. Thus are you refuted.
Fortunately for science, it doesn't take a single invalidation to reverse the result.

But you are correct.

Last edited by Sage Rat; 12-31-2019 at 04:28 PM.
  #113  
Old 12-31-2019, 05:18 PM
EasyPhil is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: NYCNYUSA
Posts: 1,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
I guess this is as clear a statement as I can expect that a Trump supporter will put their support for Trump in front of admitting error on simple factual matters.

And, will in fact double down on their factual errors so long as it supports Trump.
How do you know he's a Trump supporter? Because he thinks differently than you?
__________________
Thinking in, out and around the box!
  #114  
Old 12-31-2019, 05:22 PM
EasyPhil is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: NYCNYUSA
Posts: 1,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
What's false is the manner in which the article presents the reason for the judge's rebuke of Mueller and the manner in which you continue to misrepresent the context. He was asked not to prejudice an ongoing case before her (related to Russian troll farms) before the case was decided. It was reasonable of her to ask him to not do so in that context and reasonable for Mueller to comply with that request.

This is the case indictment in question.

The judge in no way rules that there is no connection between Russian Troll Farms and the Russian Governement. Which is the claim you seem very interested in pushing. The judge merely demands that Mueller not prejudice the jury in an ongoing case.

There. I've turned on the light for you. But I can't make you open your eyes to see.
From the link I posted earlier:

Quote:
On May 28, U.S. District Court Judge Dabney Friedrich called attorneys prosecuting the case into her courtroom for a closed hearing. Although no reporters were allowed inside, it is now known that Friedrich agreed with one defendantís claims that Mueller had overstated the evidence when he implied in his report to Congress that the trolls were controlled by the Russian government and that the social media operations they conducted during the 2016 presidential campaign were directed by Moscow. News organizations had seized on the highly suggestive wording in his report to report they were part of a Kremlin-run operation.
What part of "overstated the evidence when he implied in his report to Congress that the trolls where controlled by the Russian government" don't you understand?
__________________
Thinking in, out and around the box!
  #115  
Old 12-31-2019, 06:13 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,424
I don't have time to read it at the moment, but here is the court transcript linked to in the article:

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/...80.144.0_1.pdf

I'd recommend double-checking the characterization given in the article.

Plausibly, it is correct. Plausibly, they're mischaracterizing.

In either case, finding someone willing to interpret things the way that you want them to, on the internet, is a lower standard of evidence than the actual record.
  #116  
Old 01-01-2020, 01:20 AM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by RealClearInvestigations
On May 28, U.S. District Court Judge Dabney Friedrich called attorneys prosecuting the case into her courtroom for a closed hearing. Although no reporters were allowed inside, it is now known that Friedrich agreed with one defendant’s claims that Mueller had overstated the evidence when he implied in his report to Congress that the trolls were controlled by the Russian government and that the social media operations they conducted during the 2016 presidential campaign were directed by Moscow. News organizations had seized on the highly suggestive wording in his report to report they were part of a Kremlin-run operation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
I don't have time to read it at the moment, but here is the court transcript linked to in the article:

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/...80.144.0_1.pdf

I'd recommend double-checking the characterization given in the article.

Plausibly, it is correct. Plausibly, they're mischaracterizing.

In either case, finding someone willing to interpret things the way that you want them to, on the internet, is a lower standard of evidence than the actual record.
I've now read it.

Going back and reading the accusation by RealClearInvestigations, I don't recall seeing any place where one could describe the judge as agreeing with Concord, in any particular respect, let alone that specific one.

Based on the discussions on the transcript, it largely seems to have been prompted by the public release of the Mueller Report. Concord alleges that the Report accuses Concord as working for the Russian government. They note that this is not part of the indictment and so is not part of the court case against them. It is improper for the government to make this allegation in public (rule 57.7), whether they believe it to be true or not, as it could affect the public reporting on Concord and thereby influence a future jury.

Concord notes that, in the case of Roger Stone, nearly all information about him has been redacted from the Report - presumably so as to not influence a jury - and yet Concord's sections are all out in the open for seeming no reason.

Now that argument appears to have been made, on paper, before the meeting with the judge. Within the transcript, the judge makes Concord's case for them, to the prosecutors, and later makes the prosecutors' case for them, to Concord. I would be inclined to think that RealClearInvestigations used this aspect and a failure to read past the beginning of the document as their basis for characterizing the hearing as they do. But, as said, the judge does not agree with Concord, she simply echoes their complaints in their document to the prosecutors, and generally seems to be satisfied with the Prosecution's answers (see quotes below).

The judge does not list out every accusation that Concord has made, she picks a few that seemed more reasonable and makes the case for Concord. The Prosecutors reply, in general, that:

1) Concord is using sections of the Mueller report that are not written about them, which simply describe the standards of a prosecutable case in accordance with the prosecutors manual, as part of explaining his methodology.
2) Roger Stone's judge issued a special order that restricted Stone from any public commentary on the matter. The government voluntarily opted to interpret the judge's order as pertaining to them as well, since it would be "unfair" for them to make commentary while the defendant could not. As such, Stone's sections were more tightly redacted than others (like Concord).
3) Ultimately, any niggling statements that may be read to imply that Concord was acting at the direction of the Russian government are vastly outweighed by the more clear text which says otherwise, which is the vast majority. Humans aren't perfect but, short of scanning through to cherry pick some few vague statements and aggressively interpret them in a specific way then out of thousands of pages of documents and hundreds of hours of testimony, you're not going to find anything that states that Concord was being operated by the Russian government.

As said, the judge seems to accept all of this.

Turning her attention to Concord, the judge is immediately hostile:

Quote:
THE COURT: Mr. Dubelier, at the outset, let me ask
you, to what extent -- in assessing prejudice to Concord, to what extent should I consider the fact that you filed the motion
to show cause on the public record and not under seal?
I.e., "You're complaining that the government issued a public statement, and you turned around and did the exact same thing that you're making the case to me as being a horrible, awful, no good thing?"

And she snipes at them again just a few lines later:

Quote:
Mr. Dubelier, look, I am trying to minimize any prejudice to your client. So I think it is appropriate to handle this under seal, and I think it would have been appropriate for you to file your motion under seal. We are where we are, and I do need to decide whether I need to take steps pursuant to your motion. But I also need to decide moving forward how we are going to minimize the risk of any further prejudice to your client. And one way to do that is not to have open hearings on this. You want headlines about this. That is not something I want.
And she further makes clear that she does in fact buy the Prosecution's arguments:

Quote:
Mr. Dubelier: And I will give you an example of how he apparently has done that today. So now we hear for the first time ever that the Department of Justice, the Deputy Attorney General, and the Special Counsel considered 57.7 in making the redactions with respect to Concord.
First of all, there is no evidence that they did. There's no evidence that they did. Mr. Kravis just got up and said it.
Judge Friedrich: He is an officer of the Court. I am going
to take him at his word.
Quote:
I appreciate the Attorney General's desire to be as forthcoming as possible with respect to Congress and the American people, but he does need to do so consistent with the rules, like, as he acknowledged, 6(e) and the local rules and orders of this court. So I am not going to fault them for trying to be forward-leaning with Congress and the public. I wish they could have been a little more careful here.
But go ahead.
Now, Concord mentions some points that the judge had not made, pointing out that page 14 of the Mueller report explicitly decribes their operation using a Russian term for a governmental active measures operation (активные мероприятия), that there had not been any redactions at all in regards to Concord in a less redacted version of the Mueller Report while Roger Stone's case was still just as buttoned up as before and other material that would be 57.7 protected seemingly still remaining redacted, and that the government's only linkage between Concord's owner (Progozhin) and the Russian government is that Progozhin owns a restaurant in Moscow that Putin used to go to, and that the only basis for this "fact" is that the New York Times said so.

The judge, as said, makes the Prosecution's case for them, here, so in general I wouldn't take any statements made to be indicative of her personal feeling on the subject, but the above quotes are actually her responses to the first and second of these accusations and plainly state that she is describing what is in her own mind. As regards page 14, she simply faults Concord for making their filling public and seems to not care to refute nor entertain their accusation. And as regards the less redacted version of Mueller, she makes the statement that she thinks the government is doing good to release information to the public, but she lets them make the case this time. This ends up leading into Dubelier's last point about the New York Times.

On this, Judge Friedrich gives the Prosecution's case for them, in essence saying, "The government may have reason for not revealing their sources and means, so what appears a weak case seems justifiable under the circumstances." Again, she doesn't state this as being her view, she simply posits the idea for Dubelier to rebut. His rebuttal is that there are some secret documents in the trial and the case should (in his mind) be made there.

She makes no comment one way or the other on this.

Dubelier calls for the Prosecution to be punished for their transgressions and, in general, seems to do little beyond banging on his table for a little while in indignation.

Judge Friedrich ends the trial saying, essentially, they both have to keep their yaps shut in public and they should both send her their recommended rules of the road along those lines - to affect both parties.

Personal commentary:

I do find that Concord's point about page 14 (particularly if, like me, you look up the actual text) seems fairly strong.

Similarly, I note that although they only discuss Roger Stone, we also see high levels of redactions in matters concerning Rick Gates and others. While it's entirely possible that the judges in those cases may have issued similar orders as the one did for Stone, I recall sufficient consistency in the Mueller Report redactions that I am more inclined to agree with Concord that their treatment is different.

However, I also note that - as said - the judge is purely hostile towards Concord in their complaint on page 14 and, in essence, refuses to discuss the subject, opting instead to chastise them for having used their complaint publicly.

I am unsure how to take that but some possibilities:

1) She recognizes that the government knows more about Concord than they are going to admit on any record to the public or any document that they are going to hand to Concord. And, similarly, she recognizes that Concord's only real aim is to get insight into the US government's sources and means of spying on Russia and/or at least trolling the US government's judiciary system. So, while she is willing to discuss at a broad level the question of whether the Mueller report might affect the jury, she is not going to use any portion of it amenable to a dishonest agenda and she will not accept any attempt to do so, regardless of whether the argument facially has merit.
2) She was annoyed by their public release of their argument and was already set to slam them for it as soon as their turn came, and the subject simply got steamrollered by that urge and they never got back to it.

And as to Stone, as said, while I'm open to the idea that the government did not treat Concord fairly in terms of redactions, ultimately that is a supposition. There is no evidence that there is not a single gag order in all those other cases as well. But, accepting that supposition as true, the question would come to motive. Under what motive would Bill Barr decide to leave Concord hanging while protecting the secrets of Roger Stone, Rick Gates, Michael Cohen, and others who are in the President's circle....

Last edited by Sage Rat; 01-01-2020 at 01:23 AM.
  #117  
Old 01-01-2020, 06:32 AM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyPhil View Post
How do you know he's a Trump supporter? Because he thinks differently than you?
Heís said he is a Trump supporter in other threads. He doesnít attempt a facade in which he supports Trump on the issues, but then lamely tries to deny that he supports Trump on the issues.
  #118  
Old 01-01-2020, 07:13 AM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyPhil View Post
What part of "overstated the evidence when he implied in his report to Congress that the trolls where controlled by the Russian government" don't you understand?
The part I do understand is that the only plausible source for this reporting is Roger Stone and his attorneys, who have no reason to be believed. If Stone said it is light outside, Iíd go check a window. And you expect someone to believe his sideís representation of an in camera discussion with the judge in his case? Please.
  #119  
Old 01-01-2020, 06:41 PM
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,955
Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyPhil View Post
From the link I posted earlier:



What part of "overstated the evidence when he implied in his report to Congress that the trolls where controlled by the Russian government" don't you understand?
Allow me to rephrase:

Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
What's false is the manner in which the article presents the reason for the judge's rebuke of Mueller and the manner in which you continue to misrepresent the context. He was asked not to prejudice an ongoing case before her (related to Russian troll farms) before the case was decided. It was reasonable of her to ask him to not do so in that context and reasonable for Mueller to comply with that request.

This is the case indictment in question.

The judge in no way rules that there is no connection between Russian Troll Farms and the Russian Governement. Which is the claim you seem very interested in pushing. The judge merely demands that Mueller not prejudice the jury in an ongoing case.

There. I've turned on the light for you. But I can't make you open your eyes to see.
While I'm happy to explain it to you again, I cannot understand it for you.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #120  
Old 01-02-2020, 02:25 AM
Mijin's Avatar
Mijin is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 9,242
To the OP, consider the following statement:

Quote:
A discredited theory, promoted by a oil company, that meteors are responsible for increasing CO2 levels -- NOT burning of fossil fuels
I see no problem with calling this theory discredited, since there's a lot of evidence that burning of fossil fuels is responsible for increased CO2, even if at some future time we find evidence (that doesn't exist now) that meteors have also contributed in some small way.

I think the misunderstanding you have is that if I say that the hypothesis that "X and not Y" is false, that I am necessarily asserting that X is entirely false. This is not the case. I am simply stating that the hypothesis is false.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:49 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017