Remember, folks, that THIS is the Ukranian interference that we are talking about. It’s gaslighting at its finest.
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.
What in the article is false? Help us see the light.
What are the odds it was Seth Rich?
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.
Nobody knows other than possibly Wikileaks and definitely the person or persons involved in the leak of the DNC emails.
That is correct, I’ve been a member of this board since 2001.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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/2018/12/19/middle-east-update/
MISLED. Thus are you refuted. 
Fortunately for science, it doesn’t take a single invalidation to reverse the result.
But you are correct. 
How do you know he’s a Trump supporter? Because he thinks differently than you?
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?
I don’t have time to read it at the moment, but here is the court transcript linked to in the article:
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:
As said, the judge seems to accept all of this.
Turning her attention to Concord, the judge is immediately hostile:
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:
And she further makes clear that she does in fact buy the Prosecution’s arguments:
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:
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…
He’s said he is a Trump supporter in other threads. He doesn’t attempt a facade in which he supports Trump on the issues, but then lamely tries to deny that he supports Trump on the issues.
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, I’d go check a window. And you expect someone to believe his side’s representation of an in camera discussion with the judge in his case? Please.
Allow me to rephrase:
While I’m happy to explain it to you again, I cannot understand it for you.
To the OP, consider the following statement:
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.