View Poll Results: The Mueller report. The week after its released.
Trump is not charged with any crime, and Mueller's report is found to have some procedural issues. 2 2.50%
Trump is not charged with any crime, Mueller's report offers disclosure showing it was fairly conducted. 26 32.50%
Trump is charged with a crime, but the evidence presented is flimsy and circumstantial and will be quickly dismissed by his legal team. 1 1.25%
Mueller has hard evidence on collusion, including emails, and recordings. Trump gets a subpoena. 51 63.75%
Voters: 80. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #251  
Old 04-01-2019, 05:20 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 4,825
I take the NYT line, bud.
  #252  
Old 04-01-2019, 05:24 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
I take the NYT line, bud.
I'm unaware that the NYT has seen the Mueller report.
  #253  
Old 04-01-2019, 05:26 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 4,825
They didn’t see the JFK assassination either. Believe it or not, they do this thing called journalism.
  #254  
Old 04-01-2019, 06:33 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
They didn’t see the JFK assassination either. Believe it or not, they do this thing called journalism.
As far as I can tell by actually reading the article, the NYT summarized the Barr letter and included some language that presumed that the Barr letter was a true, accurate, and relatively complete summary of the Mueller report. Since the Mueller report is not publicly available, I see no reason to presume that this is true of the Barr letter.

YMMV, but I won't be making (or accepting as "gospel") any claims or conclusions about the content of the Mueller report unless and until the Mueller report is actually publicly available.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 04-01-2019 at 06:34 AM.
  #255  
Old 04-01-2019, 09:17 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,492
The poll at the top of this thread serves as a useful reminder of just how far off the SDMB's predictions can be.
  #256  
Old 04-01-2019, 09:24 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,572
Just another reminder that the Mueller report hasn't actually been released, and thus this poll doesn't yet apply.
  #257  
Old 04-01-2019, 09:29 AM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 22,350
Ditka, quote for me four random sentences from pages 57-63 of the Mueller report. We'll wait.

Can't? Really? Why? 'The Mueller report hasn't been released', you say?

Then the conditions needed to settle the poll has yet to be attained, itsm.

Last edited by JohnT; 04-01-2019 at 09:29 AM.
  #258  
Old 04-01-2019, 09:50 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 4,825
The last option of the poll doesn’t seem plausible given the mainstream press coverage of the report so far. There will some lost-causers who will doubt this, but if Mueller has “hard evidence” as described, it would be a total abortion of standards by the NYT.

The report will probably contain a few shreds of intentional inference and highly stylized narratives, similar to the indictments, but it will fall well short of “hard evidence”.

Last edited by WillFarnaby; 04-01-2019 at 09:52 AM.
  #259  
Old 04-01-2019, 09:54 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 4,825
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
As far as I can tell by actually reading the article, the NYT summarized the Barr letter and included some language that presumed that the Barr letter was a true, accurate, and relatively complete summary of the Mueller report. Since the Mueller report is not publicly available, I see no reason to presume that this is true of the Barr letter.

YMMV, but I won't be making (or accepting as "gospel") any claims or conclusions about the content of the Mueller report unless and until the Mueller report is actually publicly available.
But you will accept the report itself as gospel? IOW you will pay deference to Mueller’s narratives even though they will be accompanied by no evidence.
  #260  
Old 04-01-2019, 09:55 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
But you will accept the report itself as gospel?
I will accept it as "gospel" in terms of what the Mueller report says. The Mueller report is the gospel about the contents of the Mueller report.

Quote:
IOW you will pay deference to Mueller’s narratives even though they will be accompanied by no evidence.
More fake mind reading! You're wrong, of course, as you almost always are in your attempts at mind reading, but it's still funny.
  #261  
Old 04-01-2019, 10:01 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 4,825
“You” as in the typical liberal. It’s what you all have done from the beginning. You take a shred of narrative from the indictments and label it as evidence.

Last edited by WillFarnaby; 04-01-2019 at 10:02 AM.
  #262  
Old 04-01-2019, 10:24 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,060
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
“You” as in the typical liberal. It’s what you all have done from the beginning. You take a shred of narrative from the indictments and label it as evidence.
Yes, how foolish to derive evidence from the actual legal documents rather than from preferred media narratives.
  #263  
Old 04-01-2019, 10:45 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 4,825
The Mueller narratives are there precisely to give the media their narrative. That’s how they assumed collusion up until the report came out. They should have instead focused on the substantiated claims in the indictments. Muellers narratives were wholly unsubstantiated that’s why there were no real collusion indictments and much collusion narrative.

Last edited by WillFarnaby; 04-01-2019 at 10:46 AM.
  #264  
Old 04-01-2019, 11:08 AM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
The Mueller narratives are there precisely to give the media their narrative. That’s how they assumed collusion up until the report came out. They should have instead focused on the substantiated claims in the indictments. Muellers narratives were wholly unsubstantiated that’s why there were no real collusion indictments and much collusion narrative.
There doesn't seem to be enough to prosecute. That's about all we really know at this point. Not enough to prosecute or indite isn't the same thing as 'wholly unsubstantiated', however.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #265  
Old 04-01-2019, 11:18 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
There doesn't seem to be enough to prosecute. That's about all we really know at this point. Not enough to prosecute or indite isn't the same thing as 'wholly unsubstantiated', however.
We know that Barr's letter said this:

Quote:
... The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” ...
And we know that Mueller is not shy about correcting misinformation related to his investigation, to Buzzfeed's everlasting shame.

ETA - to review, the last poll option was:

Quote:
Mueller has hard evidence on collusion, including emails, and recordings. Trump gets a subpoena.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 04-01-2019 at 11:19 AM.
  #266  
Old 04-01-2019, 11:22 AM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
We know that Barr's letter said this:



And we know that Mueller is not shy about correcting misinformation related to his investigation, to Buzzfeed's everlasting shame.
Correct me if I'm wrong here (seriously), but that summary didn't come from or been endorsed by Muller or his team. Until we actually have the report and can dissect it we don't know much more than there wasn't sufficient evidence to prosecute or indite Trump et al. And that's it. But having sufficient evidence in a legal sense isn't the same thing as have no evidence.

I think people are jumping the gun on this whole thing at this point. We don't know very much about what all is in a report that took over a year to compile and produce and has hundreds of pages in it. A few line summary by someone who isn't on the team is not enough to draw any conclusions, IMHO. I'm no lawyer, of course, so perhaps I'm missing something here.

ETA: I didn't pick that option. Pretty obviously that isn't going to happen, so those people who did pick it were, what we commonly call, wrong. Some of the mid-tier options though still might be true. There might be some evidence, but it doesn't rise to the level where a prosecutor feels they can act. Until and unless we get the report we really won't know.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!

Last edited by XT; 04-01-2019 at 11:23 AM.
  #267  
Old 04-01-2019, 11:23 AM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 22,350
Lol. That's a lot of "what if's" and "we all know's", all done without a single cite to the actual report.

I'm not sure I agree with your police work there, Ditka.
  #268  
Old 04-01-2019, 11:28 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
Lol. That's a lot of "what if's" and "we all know's", all done without a single cite to the actual report.

I'm not sure I agree with your police work there, Ditka.
Barr's letter was quoting the report. That's why it said "As the report states..."

Oh, sure, Mueller hasn't yet hand-delivered you a copy of the report, and Barr didn't tell us which page contained the quote, so I suppose you can maintain your skepticism if it suits you, but I've got no reason to believe he's making up quotes whole-cloth.
  #269  
Old 04-01-2019, 11:33 AM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 22,350
Barr offered partial quotations of sentences within the report.

Not a single complete sentence was quoted.

Your police work is atrocious. But then, you have readily admitted you do not read that which you are arguing about, so why am I wasting my time?
  #270  
Old 04-01-2019, 11:35 AM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 7,822
Mueller Report: Not yet released, but perhaps a step closer.
"“It is not the attorney general’s job to step in and substitute his judgment for the special counsel’s. That responsibility falls to Congress — and specifically to the House Judiciary Committee — as it has in every similar investigation in modern history.”

"The Democratic-led U.S. House Judiciary Committee said it will vote on Wednesday on whether to authorize subpoenas to obtain Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s full report investigating Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election."

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN1RD2AH
  #271  
Old 04-01-2019, 11:39 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,575
I can understand that it might take some time to redact material in the report that shouldn't be public for various reasons - grand jury, intel, protecting privacy of third parties.

BUT why hasn't the Congressional "Gang of Eight" seen the report? They're cleared for all of this, AFAIK.
  #272  
Old 04-01-2019, 11:39 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
Barr offered partial quotations of sentences within the report.

Not a single complete sentence was quoted. ...
Is there some rule against quoting partial sentences? Some requirement that only complete sentences be quoted? Should we just ignore the quoted bits we do have?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
... you have readily admitted you do not read that which you are arguing about...
To what does this refer?
  #273  
Old 04-01-2019, 11:56 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,060
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
And we know that Mueller is not shy about correcting misinformation related to his investigation, to Buzzfeed's everlasting shame.
So you're characterizing one extremely broad statement indicating that some unspecified element in Buzzfeed's story was not correct in its entirety as "Mueller is not shy about correcting misinformation related to his investigation"? I'd suggest that, given the vast amount that was written about the investigation and given that Mueller's team released only that one - again, exceedingly vague - statement, I'd say Mueller was pretty damn shy about correcting misinformation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Barr's letter was quoting the report. That's why it said "As the report states..."
And yet Barr is now walking his original statement back.

Quote:
Oh, sure, Mueller hasn't yet hand-delivered you a copy of the report, and Barr didn't tell us which page contained the quote, so I suppose you can maintain your skepticism if it suits you, but I've got no reason to believe he's making up quotes whole-cloth.
And I do. So I guess we cancel each other out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Is there some rule against quoting partial sentences? Some requirement that only complete sentences be quoted? Should we just ignore the quoted bits we do have?
Because removing a partial quote from their context allows people to write entirely new narratives around that quote, often with the intent of conveying the exact opposite of the meaning of the partial quote in its original content. That's why it's such a favorite tactic of FoxNews and other right-wing media.
  #274  
Old 04-01-2019, 11:58 AM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,833
The Mueller report is over 300 pages long. We have seen 101 words and none of those words is collusion.

There is publicly available proof of collusion. There is zero probability that the Mueller report doesn't contain a bunch of evidence of collusion.

You don't get to have it both ways on, "Collusion is not a crime."
  #275  
Old 04-01-2019, 12:01 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
... And I do. So I guess we cancel each other out. ...
You seriously believe that when the full report is released, it will not contain the quotes from the Barr letter?
  #276  
Old 04-01-2019, 12:02 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
... There is zero probability that the Mueller report doesn't contain a bunch of evidence of collusion. ...
What do you think the probability is that it contains "hard evidence on collusion, including emails, and recordings"?
  #277  
Old 04-01-2019, 12:04 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
What do you think the probability is that it contains "hard evidence on collusion, including emails, and recordings"?
Emails for sure. We already have publicly available emails that are evidence of collusion. Not sure about recordings.
  #278  
Old 04-01-2019, 12:32 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
“You” as in the typical liberal. It’s what you all have done from the beginning. You take a shred of narrative from the indictments and label it as evidence.
So just straw man bullshit, I guess? Silly me to assume that when quoting my post in your response that you were responding to my post.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 04-01-2019 at 12:32 PM.
  #279  
Old 04-01-2019, 01:09 PM
Dacien is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
The poll at the top of this thread serves as a useful reminder of just how far off the SDMB's predictions can be.
I'm choosing to believe that many people voted for collusion evidence and subpoena as an act of defiance. This board is much too intelligent for me to believe otherwise.

It's worth asking, though: what is meant by evidence of collusion? You mean evidence of a conspiracy? Evidence of some crime that could be referred to as collusion? Because that's a much, much higher bar than simply "Some people legally talked with Russians/foreign Individuals", which is all collusion seems to mean anymore.

Last edited by Dacien; 04-01-2019 at 01:13 PM.
  #280  
Old 04-01-2019, 01:14 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Emails for sure. We already have publicly available emails that are evidence of collusion. Not sure about recordings.
What, specifically, are you referring to?
  #281  
Old 04-01-2019, 01:33 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
What, specifically, are you referring to?
There's a bunch, but one example is the emails scheduling the Trump Tower meeting. Those are hard evidence of cooperation between the Trump campaign and the Russian effort to get Trump elected.
  #282  
Old 04-01-2019, 01:39 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
There's a bunch, but one example is the emails scheduling the Trump Tower meeting. Those are hard evidence of cooperation between the Trump campaign and the Russian effort to get Trump elected.
What, specifically, did those emails say? Who were they from and who were they to?
  #283  
Old 04-01-2019, 01:42 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
What, specifically, did those emails say? Who were they from and who were they to?
I don't for a second believe that you are unaware of these emails.

What do you think the answers to your own questions are?
  #284  
Old 04-01-2019, 01:49 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 4,825
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
So just straw man bullshit, I guess? Silly me to assume that when quoting my post in your response that you were responding to my post.
Yes, what you have said and will say on the matter will be quite inconsequential. No need to craft a special response to every liberal on the spectrum. It would indeed be silly to do so.
  #285  
Old 04-01-2019, 01:52 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Yes, what you have said and will say on the matter will be quite inconsequential. No need to craft a special response to every liberal on the spectrum. It would indeed be silly to do so.
If you actually want a discussion, feel free to respond to any specific points I make that you disagree with, and I'll try and respond.

If you just want to post cryptic silliness like whatever this post is, then you probably won't get much in the way of interaction or exchange of ideas.
  #286  
Old 04-01-2019, 01:55 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
I don't for a second believe that you are unaware of these emails.

What do you think the answers to your own questions are?
I'm asking you because you made the claim. If you don't have any evidence to support it, I'll just put it on the pile of other unsupported assertions you've made.
  #287  
Old 04-01-2019, 02:00 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I'm asking you because you made the claim. If you don't have any evidence to support it, I'll just put it on the pile of other unsupported assertions you've made.
You asked for emails that provided hard evidence of collusion and I provided an example.

Your pretending that you don't know who wrote those emails does nothing to advance the conversation.
  #288  
Old 04-01-2019, 02:08 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 7,822
That meeting and the emails concerning it are probably covered in the Mueller report. Once the report is released, we'll know more.
  #289  
Old 04-01-2019, 02:18 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
That meeting and the emails concerning it are probably covered in the Mueller report. Once the report is released, we'll know more.
CNN reported in 2017 that Mueller planned to look at them. I suspect he looked at the and decided it didn't amount to collusion. As you say though, we'll know more once the report is released.
  #290  
Old 04-01-2019, 02:21 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
That meeting and the emails concerning it are probably covered in the Mueller report. Once the report is released, we'll know more.
We also don't know what exactly was referred to other law enforcement offices. There may be plenty of evidence of various crimes, but some of it might not be contained in the official Mueller report, because it was referred to SDNY or some other office.

We really know almost nothing about what Mueller found in his investigation, and we won't until the full report is released and any referred investigations are completed and the results released.
  #291  
Old 04-01-2019, 02:22 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 40,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I'm asking you because you made the claim. If you don't have any evidence to support it, I'll just put it on the pile of other unsupported assertions you've made.
I know you think it's fun to make people jump through an endless variety of hoops, and to feel like you've won the argument if they get disgusted and refuse to jump fast enough. However, if you Google "Trump Tower Emails", you'll find exhaustive resources that answer your question.

I will be pleasantly surprised if you do your own work here.

Last edited by Left Hand of Dorkness; 04-01-2019 at 02:22 PM.
  #292  
Old 04-01-2019, 02:25 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
I know you think it's fun to make people jump through an endless variety of hoops, and to feel like you've won the argument if they get disgusted and refuse to jump fast enough. However, if you Google "Trump Tower Emails", you'll find exhaustive resources that answer your question.

I will be pleasantly surprised if you do your own work here.
It's not MY work. You're asking me to do Lance Turbo's work for him. If "go Google it" is now considered a satisfactory response to requests for citations for assertions made on the SDMB, you're going to see a lot more of that. Do you think that would be helpful for the level if discourse around here?

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 04-01-2019 at 02:27 PM.
  #293  
Old 04-01-2019, 02:28 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
CNN reported in 2017 that Mueller planned to look at them. I suspect he looked at the and decided it didn't amount to collusion. As you say though, we'll know more once the report is released.
They are publicly available evidence of collusion. The scheduling of the meeting was a collusive act. The meeting taking place was a collusive act.

Mueller, on the other hand, probably didn't decide one way or the other on whether they amounted to collusion. You can't have it both ways on, "Collusion is not a crime."
  #294  
Old 04-01-2019, 02:31 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
They are publicly available evidence of collusion. The scheduling of the meeting was a collusive act. The meeting taking place was a collusive act.

Mueller, on the other hand, probably didn't decide one way or the other on whether they amounted to collusion. You can't have it both ways on, "Collusion is not a crime."
But he DID decide:

“[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

How do your allegedly "collusive act[s]" fit into that narrative?
  #295  
Old 04-01-2019, 02:42 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
But he DID decide:

“[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

How do your allegedly "collusive act[s]" fit into that narrative?
I don't understand your question. Mueller did decide that those collusive acts did not establish a crime. That's what the sentence fragment that Barr quoted states.

He didn't decide that the collusive acts weren't collusion. That doesn't make any sense because it is self contradictory.

It is 100% certain that collusion occurred. There is publicly available proof of that. Mueller's inability to establish a crime does not refute that. You can't have it both ways on, "Collusion is not a crime."
  #296  
Old 04-01-2019, 02:43 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 40,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
It's not MY work. You're asking me to do Lance Turbo's work for him.
No. It's not his work to Google one of the top news stories of the past two years for you. If you're unable to keep up with top news stories, it'd behoove you to excuse yourself politely from conversations about these stories.
  #297  
Old 04-01-2019, 02:49 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
I don't understand your question. Mueller did decide that those collusive acts did not establish a crime. That's what the sentence fragment that Barr quoted states.

He didn't decide that the collusive acts weren't collusion. That doesn't make any sense because it is self contradictory.

It is 100% certain that collusion occurred. There is publicly available proof of that. Mueller's inability to establish a crime does not refute that. You can't have it both ways on, "Collusion is not a crime."
The Mueller report quote doesn't use the word "crime". How did you determine that his findings were so narrow?
  #298  
Old 04-01-2019, 02:57 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
The Mueller report quote doesn't use the word "crime". How did you determine that his findings were so narrow?
So now we care about which specific words were and were not in the quote?

This is silly.

There is publicly available proof of collusion. The sentence fragments Barr quoted from the Mueller report do not mention collusion at all so therefore do nothing to refute the publicly available proof of collusion.
  #299  
Old 04-01-2019, 03:02 PM
tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
The Mueller report quote doesn't use the word "crime". How did you determine that his findings were so narrow?
He declined to produce an indictment.
  #300  
Old 04-01-2019, 03:23 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 22,350
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Is there some rule against quoting partial sentences? Some requirement that only complete sentences be quoted? Should we just ignore the quoted bits we do have?


To what does this refer?
To this.
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 03:13 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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 © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017