Mueller Investigation pt4

Status
Not open for further replies.
"You really do have trouble with English comprehension don't you?"

Oh yeah, mmmm-mmmm, that is the stuff!

Not making claims, making hypothesis! Might not be a mistake, might not be a lie, might might might maybe...

Anyone who believes that Matt Whittaker said pre-AG the Mueller investigation was legitimate is out of their confounded minds, yet that is was thorough thorough thorough Seth claimed.

"Of course, I am being generous by assuming that you actually understand what he has said. "

Oh that right there is the good stuff, folks!

/can a brother get a laughing dog??? Fantastic
 
My apologies if this has been asked and answered, I don't have the time to search through 93 pages of this thread.

I keep hearing the pundits say it's risky to pardon Stone because then he can't take the fifth - he must answer.

Not sure why this is a risk, all he has to do is lie. Again. Only risk is perjury, he does a few years and he's out working for Infowars. Or Trump just pardons him again.
 
Stacko said:

Weird that Russia is attempting to discredit the Mueller investigation. It's almost like they're guilty or something.
Click to expand...
For those that want the English translation:

The Guardian: Russians leaked Mueller investigation evidence online, prosecutors say
FBI investigators had found no evidence that government servers holding the data had been hacked, according to Mueller’s team, pointing instead to a leak on the Russian side.
Click to expand...

So documents Mueller's team shared with Russian attorneys representing
Mueller disclosed the leak in a filing as part of his prosecution of Concord Management and Consulting, a Russian company that allegedly funded hacking operations by Russia’s notorious Internet Research Agency (IRA).
Click to expand...

The files weren't damaging to the Mueller investigation but the site they were leaked on tried to make it look like that's all Mueller had which wasn't true.
It said: “The person who created the webpage used their knowledge of the non-sensitive discovery to make it appear as though the irrelevant files contained on the webpage were the sum total evidence of ‘IRA and Russian collusion’ gathered by law enforcement in this matter in an apparent effort to discredit the investigation.”
Click to expand...
 
Faydra said:
My apologies if this has been asked and answered, I don't have the time to search through 93 pages of this thread.

I keep hearing the pundits say it's risky to pardon Stone because then he can't take the fifth - he must answer.

Not sure why this is a risk, all he has to do is lie. Again. Only risk is perjury, he does a few years and he's out working for Infowars. Or Trump just pardons him again.
Click to expand...
I agree. But I quit arguing with people on the thread who insist pleading the 5th has all these consequences to Trump.
 
I still think Stone is going to (at least try to) stall until the Mueller report is released.

Until then there's no way of knowing which way the wind will blow, rather to jump ship or go down with it.

Ironically Trump's, until now very effective, tactic of "Have so many crises going at once that your enemies can't focus on any one of them so you oddly kind of stay safe" might be coming back to bite him in the ass because it works both ways. The people keep his ass covered have to deal with the same problem, which crises do you cover his ass concerning?

Purely cynical if I'm Stone I wait. If the Mueller probe takes Trump down (or it becomes inevitable that it will) I jump ship and start getting really, really stupid and forgetful about everything Trump told me to do hoping to just survive while everybody is focused on Trump. If the Mueller probe goes the other way I hide behind the President while keeping him safe, something that Stone is supposedly good at.

That's actually prediction for all the Trump underlings. If/When it becomes clear that Trump is going they'll start going low, hoping taking out Trump will be enough to make them slip under the radar.
 
Last edited:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/30/mueller-evidence-leaked-online-russians
"Russians leaked Mueller investigation evidence online, prosecutors say "
This article is horribly written.
Mueller’s court filing on Wednesday said the names and structure of folders containing the leaked files matched those used by Mueller’s office when it shared the data, and that these had not been made public.
Click to expand...
...
FBI investigators had found no evidence that government servers holding the data had been hacked, according to Mueller’s team, pointing instead to a leak on the Russian side
Click to expand...
It said: “The person who created the webpage used their knowledge of the non-sensitive discovery to make it appear as though the irrelevant files contained on the webpage were the sum total evidence of ‘IRA and Russian collusion’ gathered by law enforcement in this matter in an apparent effort to discredit the investigation.
Click to expand...

I'm confused. What exactly was hacked? It seems like just one small aspect of the investigation may have been compromised and this is much ado about nothing
 
portlandatheist said:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/30/mueller-evidence-leaked-online-russians
"Russians leaked Mueller investigation evidence online, prosecutors say "
This article is horribly written.

I'm confused. What exactly was hacked? It seems like just one small aspect of the investigation may have been compromised and this is much ado about nothing
Click to expand...
Nothing was hacked. I posted this earlier. Post #3684 above.

Essentially when the Russian company was charged, Mueller turned over discovery items to their attorneys which ended up on a web page that tried to insinuate it was all Mueller had. That was in attempt to discredit the investigation. It wasn't all Mueller had and the leaked documents weren't particularly sensitive.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
That's actually prediction for all the Trump underlings. If/When it becomes clear that Trump is going they'll start going low, hoping taking out Trump will be enough to make them slip under the radar.
Click to expand...

I know you are talking more about the criminal sense than the political power sense, but I think your comment speaks to why Pelosi's win on the shutdown was so important. If Trump can't get things done then why stick by him?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Nothing was hacked. I posted this earlier. Post #3684 above.

Essentially when the Russian company was charged, Mueller turned over discovery items to their attorneys which ended up on a web page that tried to insinuate it was all Mueller had. That was in attempt to discredit the investigation. It wasn't all Mueller had and the leaked documents weren't particularly sensitive.
Click to expand...

Opps, sorry for the duplication and thanks for the explanation. The article could have been much more clear.
 
The Big Dog said:
Oh yeah, mmmm-mmmm, that is the stuff!
Click to expand...

dodge.png


The Big Dog said:
Not making claims, making hypothesis! Might not be a mistake, might not be a lie, might might might maybe...
Click to expand...

dodge.png


The Big Dog said:
Anyone who believes that Matt Whittaker said pre-AG the Mueller investigation was legitimate is out of their confounded minds, yet that is was thorough thorough thorough Seth claimed.
Click to expand...

Or made a simple typing error - Dear Leader does that with more than half of his tweets, many of which are bona-fide, verifiable, outright, bare-faced, pants-on-fire lies!


The Big Dog said:
Oh that right there is the good stuff, folks!
Click to expand...

dodge.png
 
JoeMorgue said:
I still think Stone is going to (at least try to) stall until the Mueller report is released.

Until then there's no way of knowing which way the wind will blow, rather to jump ship or go down with it.

Ironically Trump's, until now very effective, tactic of "Have so many crises going at once that your enemies can't focus on any one of them so you oddly kind of stay safe" might be coming back to bite him in the ass because it works both ways. The people keep his ass covered have to deal with the same problem, which crises do you cover his ass concerning?

Purely cynical if I'm Stone I wait. If the Mueller probe takes Trump down (or it becomes inevitable that it will) I jump ship and start getting really, really stupid and forgetful about everything Trump told me to do hoping to just survive while everybody is focused on Trump. If the Mueller probe goes the other way I hide behind the President while keeping him safe, something that Stone is supposedly good at.

That's actually prediction for all the Trump underlings. If/When it becomes clear that Trump is going they'll start going low, hoping taking out Trump will be enough to make them slip under the radar.
Click to expand...
Stone is as lovable and moral and cunning as a ****-house rat. He will try every trick in the book, legal and illegal, to save his own skin. And if that means squealing on Donny then he will do it. Loud and clear.
 
If Stone has any self-awareness, he knows he can't go to trial: any jury would convict him.
So I do think he will flip if presented with evidence that Trump is done either way.
Of course, Mueller might not be interested in letting Stone off lightly.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
If Stone has any self-awareness, he knows he can't go to trial: any jury would convict him. Stone is not a numbty. So I'm sure is VERY aware of this.

So I do think he will flip if presented with evidence that Trump is done either way. In a trice.

Of course, Mueller might not be interested in letting Stone off lightly. If Stone has even jay-walked, Mueller will hand him over with a nice thick rap-sheet...after Donny is gone and can't pardon him.
Click to expand...
Inserts.
 
PhantomWolf said:
Really? Do you test the weight carrying ability of every chair you sit down in before doing so, or do you believe that the manufacturer did their job satisfactorily and that the chair will hold your weight without collapsing?

Do you test all the food your eat, or do you take it on faith that the company followed FDA procedures and that the food is safe to consume?

Shall I continue?
Click to expand...
To be fair, that's evidence really, and not faith. If the chair was bought, or the food was bought in a regulated outlet, the probability is that these commodities fulfilled the safety criteria laid down by the authorities. One can reasonably assume that, so the very existence of the thing in the marketplace is evidence of its fitness. That is why deregulation is so bad an idea. It removes such evidence and compels the purchaser to undertake the tests you refer to.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Nothing was hacked. I posted this earlier. Post #3684 above.

Essentially when the Russian company was charged, Mueller turned over discovery items to their attorneys which ended up on a web page that tried to insinuate it was all Mueller had. That was in attempt to discredit the investigation. It wasn't all Mueller had and the leaked documents weren't particularly sensitive.
Click to expand...

Watching Rachel Maddow tonight, I have a more clear picture of what is going on:
We indicted Concord Management
Concord Management as a defendant hired an attorney to represent them which gave them discovery and then that discovery provided by the Mueller team was leaked online.
Basically, they abused discovery and have no intention on protecting their defendants in trial and the data "breach" is just limited to what the Mueller team knew would probably be compromised anyway.
 
portlandatheist said:
Watching Rachel Maddow tonight, I have a more clear picture of what is going on:
We indicted Concord Management
Concord Management as a defendant hired an attorney to represent them which gave them discovery and then that discovery provided by the Mueller team was leaked online.
Basically, they abused discovery and have no intention on protecting their defendants in trial and the data "breach" is just limited to what the Mueller team knew would probably be compromised anyway.
Click to expand...

It may be worth adding that pretty much everyone who was paying any attention at all saw shenanigans looming the moment Concorde Management began their "defense" maneuvers. Except maybe for those like The Big Dog, though whether TBD didn't see it coming or TBD hates America is up in the air.

Oh, and the discovery wasn't just leaked. A major part of the story is that it was altered, then released. Hard to say what was edited without the originals available, though. Things to discredit the investigation in short, though, supposedly.
 
Last edited:
Craig B said:
To be fair, that's evidence really, and not faith. If the chair was bought, or the food was bought in a regulated outlet, the probability is that these commodities fulfilled the safety criteria laid down by the authorities. One can reasonably assume that, so the very existence of the thing in the marketplace is evidence of its fitness. That is why deregulation is so bad an idea. It removes such evidence and compels the purchaser to undertake the tests you refer to.
Click to expand...

What you are calling evidence is really just a bunch of claims. The Manufacturer claims that its chair is suitable for sale, it doesn't provide proof of that claim. The Food processor claims that it obeys FDA regulations, and the FDA claims that it checked to make sure, but there is no actual evidence given to the consumer beyond those claims. While the probability that those claims are true is high, it doesn't make them evidence for the claims to be true.

Bob says that he doesn't believe any claims without actual evidence, so....
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Nothing was hacked. I posted this earlier. Post #3684 above.

Essentially when the Russian company was charged, Mueller turned over discovery items to their attorneys which ended up on a web page that tried to insinuate it was all Mueller had. That was in attempt to discredit the investigation. It wasn't all Mueller had and the leaked documents weren't particularly sensitive.
Click to expand...

The defendant (the company) is claiming they were hacked, right?
 
PhantomWolf said:
What you are calling evidence is really just a bunch of claims. The Manufacturer claims that its chair is suitable for sale, it doesn't provide proof of that claim. The Food processor claims that it obeys FDA regulations, and the FDA claims that it checked to make sure, but there is no actual evidence given to the consumer beyond those claims. While the probability that those claims are true is high, it doesn't make them evidence for the claims to be true.

Bob says that he doesn't believe any claims without actual evidence, so....
Click to expand...

It's called background knowledge, or priors, from Bayes' theorem. We use background knowledge, not faith, to understand that it's likely that the chair we're about to sit on will support our weight.
 
PhantomWolf said:
Really? Do you test the weight carrying ability of every chair you sit down in before doing so, or do you believe that the manufacturer did their job satisfactorily and that the chair will hold your weight without collapsing?

Do you test all the food your eat, or do you take it on faith that the company followed FDA procedures and that the food is safe to consume?

Shall I continue?
Click to expand...

Craig B said:
To be fair, that's evidence really, and not faith. If the chair was bought, or the food was bought in a regulated outlet, the probability is that these commodities fulfilled the safety criteria laid down by the authorities. One can reasonably assume that, so the very existence of the thing in the marketplace is evidence of its fitness. That is why deregulation is so bad an idea. It removes such evidence and compels the purchaser to undertake the tests you refer to.
Click to expand...

PhantomWolf said:
What you are calling evidence is really just a bunch of claims. The Manufacturer claims that its chair is suitable for sale, it doesn't provide proof of that claim. The Food processor claims that it obeys FDA regulations, and the FDA claims that it checked to make sure, but there is no actual evidence given to the consumer beyond those claims. While the probability that those claims are true is high, it doesn't make them evidence for the claims to be true.

Bob says that he doesn't believe any claims without actual evidence, so....
Click to expand...

Paul2 said:
It's called background knowledge, or priors, from Bayes' theorem. We use background knowledge, not faith, to understand that it's likely that the chair we're about to sit on will support our weight.
Click to expand...

Addressed well Paul.

This idea that people use faith (at least how theists define faith) to trust that a chair will hold us, that our food is safe, that a pen will write or that gravity will keep us from floating away is not anywhere comparable to how theists define faith like in Hebrews. 'faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." There is a difference between using knowledge and history to assess a likelihood as oppossed to making a wild ass presumption without reason.

.
 
A religious colleague once tried the "you have faith when you sit in a chair" nonsense on me. I asked him if he would trustingly throw himself into a chair if it had a broken back and only three legs.

I did once sit in a chair that collapsed on me. I learnt from that experience, and every other experience.
 
acbytesla said:
Addressed well Paul.

This idea that people use faith (at least how theists define faith) to trust that a chair will hold us, that our food is safe, that a pen will write or that gravity will keep us from floating away is not anywhere comparable to how theists define faith like in Hebrews. 'faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." There is a difference between using knowledge and history to assess a likelihood as oppossed to making a wild ass presumption without reason.

.
Click to expand...

I think that a bit of a switch happened, however, along the way. Faith is not necessarily the same thing as belief, and there are more than one way to define both.
 
Belz... said:
I think that a bit of a switch happened, however, along the way. Faith is not necessarily the same thing as belief, and there are more than one way to define both.
Click to expand...

They use faith to justify belief. Never reasonable.

Faith is the excuse people give when they dont have a good reason. Because if you had a good reason you would offer the reason.
 
acbytesla said:
They use faith to justify belief. Never reasonable.

Faith is the excuse people give when they dont have a good reason. Because if you had a good reason you would offer the reason.
Click to expand...

What I mean is that it's not erroneous to say that you have a belief that sitting on a chair will be ok. Belief can be based on evidence or reasonable expectations, etc.
 
Pixel42 said:
A religious colleague once tried the "you have faith when you sit in a chair" nonsense on me. I asked him if he would trustingly throw himself into a chair if it had a broken back and only three legs.

I did once sit in a chair that collapsed on me. I learnt from that experience, and every other experience.
Click to expand...

You mean you stopped sitting in chairs? Only kidding. ;)

Sure, you might be wary about the next few chairs you sat in, but chance are, fairly soon you would return to casually expecting that chairs would support you.
 
Belz... said:
What I mean is that it's not erroneous to say that you have a belief that sitting on a chair will be ok. Belief can be based on evidence or reasonable expectations, etc.
Click to expand...

I get what you're saying. You make a presuppositions based on knowledge and experience.

I distinctly remembered when I was a theist struggling to justify my religion. I relied on this 'we all practice faith on a daily basis' argument as foundational. I use to use money as opposed to a chair. I think it's better. We all accept money despite that it is just pieces of paper, chunks of zinc and digits in cyberspace. Now that's faith I argued.

But of course, it is flawed since we'd quickly abandon our currency the moment people stopped accepting it.
 
acbytesla said:
You mean you stopped sitting in chairs? Only kidding. ;)

Sure, you might be wary about the next few chairs you sat in, but chance are, fairly soon you would return to casually expecting that chairs would support you.
Click to expand...

I don't casually expect a chair to support me if it has a broken back and only three legs.

We learn from experience what will and will not support our weight. A toddler will climb up onto almost anything, and if it collapses, the toddler learns a valuable lesson. We always assess the chair we're about to sit on, just because that assessment is almost always done unconsciously doesn't mean it isn't happening. We only become aware of it when that assessment throws up a warning which causes us to hesitate, and perhaps test the chair by leaning on it before trusting our weight to it.
 
Pixel42 said:
I don't casually expect a chair to support me if it has a broken back and only three legs.
We learn from experience what will and will not support our weight. A toddler will climb up onto almost anything, and if it collapses, the toddler learns a valuable lesson. We always assess the chair we're about to sit on, just because that assessment is almost always done unconsciously doesn't mean it isn't happening. We only become aware of it when that assessment throws up a warning which causes us to hesitate, and perhaps test the chair by leaning on it before trusting our weight to it.
Click to expand...

I never said you did.
 
BobTheCoward said:
The defendant (the company) is claiming they were hacked, right?
Click to expand...
Why don't you read the posts and links.

FBI found no evidence of any hacking. If you find something contradictory, post it with a link.

But even if the 'company' claims it, it would be suspect to cover up their leaking the documents. They not only leaked the documents, they tried to distort what Mueller had.
 
Norman Alexander said:
Stone is as lovable and moral and cunning as a ****-house rat. He will try every trick in the book, legal and illegal, to save his own skin. And if that means squealing on Donny then he will do it. Loud and clear.
Click to expand...

It says something the aside from Donnie, Stone has no defenders in the GOP.
Fact is, he has been considered toxic by 90% of the GOP for some time. Just about every other political operative hates his guts.
 
portlandatheist said:
Watching Rachel Maddow tonight, I have a more clear picture of what is going on:
We indicted Concord Management
Concord Management as a defendant hired an attorney to represent them which gave them discovery and then that discovery provided by the Mueller team was leaked online.
Basically, they abused discovery and have no intention on protecting their defendants in trial and the data "breach" is just limited to what the Mueller team knew would probably be compromised anyway.
Click to expand...

And COncord Management seems to have a direct line to Vladimir...
 
I am sort or interested in what the report will say, if anything, about the motivation for Russia supporting Trump. More and more I am in the camp it was not so much to get a obedient puppet in the White House, but that they Knew Trump would cause massive disruption in the United States and therefore in the Western Allaiance as whole. Any benefits that Trump could give to the Russians were just a bonus.
 
dudalb said:
I am sort or interested in what the report will say, if anything, about the motivation for Russia supporting Trump. More and more I am in the camp it was not so much to get a obedient puppet in the White House, but that they Knew Trump would cause massive disruption in the United States and therefore in the Western Allaiance as whole. Any benefits that Trump could give to the Russians were just a bonus.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that might be Putin's motive, but why did Trump go along? The question is what hold do the Russians have on Trump? What other candidate, particularly a Republican candidate, let alone a Republican president, would allow himself to be so openly and blatantly used by Russia? It has to be more than just a promise to build a tower in Moscow.
 
Bob001 said:
Yeah, that might be Putin's motive, but why did Trump go along? The question is what hold do the Russians have on Trump? What other candidate, particularly a Republican candidate, let alone a Republican president, would allow himself to be so openly and blatantly used by Russia? It has to be more than just a promise to build a tower in Moscow.
Click to expand...

20 plus years of money laundering perhaps?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom