|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
Talk:Mueller investigation
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
"Political tribalism"[edit]
Looking at the totality of events, it's clear that the Russia Investigation and the Mueller Report, have revealed the heightened political tribalism in the Trump era. Democrats and Republicans often made up their minds about the report without understanding or even reading the contents of the report.
I know this is evident in the Republican Party that people just dig in their heels and just repeat "no collusion" while but I need to find examples of "the other side". Democrats also have a big portion where they didn't read the report, but they put in more effort in promoting literacy at least, illustrated in the Politico article. Still, this passage has a small taste of "both sides" and it probably needs to be substantiated to demonstrate "both sides". --It's-a me, 
LeftyGreenMario! 04:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- Can you explain a bit clearer. Both sides of what? What is the opposite of "no collusion"? "Yes collusion"? The report doesn't say that. nobsDie fascists! Make America Great! 04:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- I mean the article summarizes that the reaction to the report underscores the tribalism. While there is a degree of truth that both sides (Dems and Repubs for simplicity sake) do tend to jump to conclusions, to say or imply that they commit in the same degree (which the passage has done) is misleading. From the article, I've seen more tribalism and loyalty from Repubs, given that one Repub guy that wanted impeachment and that read the report just got piled on from his party, and Imo the Dems are actually arguing with each other how to proceed with the report and they put more effort into getting people to read the report. This is what I gathered from the article. --It's-a me,
LeftyGreenMario! 05:38, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- Huh? One Repub went against the report and wants to impeach, while only 137 of 231 Dems went against the report and want to impeach. If I were a Dem, I'd say that almost makes sense. nobsDie fascists! Make America Great! 08:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- my point@LeftyGreenMariowas primarily that the report itself just made people bury themselves in their corners without actually reading or understanding the reports content. --RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- Can we find examples? I know later in the article, there are people who said to not have read the report and formed an opinion. We should refer to that passage to supplement those claims. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- I'm sure we could but is it really necessary. Reading this report, any person with a semblance of knowledge could see these acts meeting the standard of High Crimes and Misdemeanors. Instead it has fallen by the wayside because it is a little complicated and also because the WH has stonewalled virtually all cooperation. Maybe you have a suggestion for a better way to phrase it (an aside, thank you for your contributions to the page it is vastly improved.)--RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:10, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- Can we find examples? I know later in the article, there are people who said to not have read the report and formed an opinion. We should refer to that passage to supplement those claims. --It's-a me,
- my point@LeftyGreenMariowas primarily that the report itself just made people bury themselves in their corners without actually reading or understanding the reports content. --RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- Huh? One Repub went against the report and wants to impeach, while only 137 of 231 Dems went against the report and want to impeach. If I were a Dem, I'd say that almost makes sense. nobsDie fascists! Make America Great! 08:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- I mean the article summarizes that the reaction to the report underscores the tribalism. While there is a degree of truth that both sides (Dems and Repubs for simplicity sake) do tend to jump to conclusions, to say or imply that they commit in the same degree (which the passage has done) is misleading. From the article, I've seen more tribalism and loyalty from Repubs, given that one Repub guy that wanted impeachment and that read the report just got piled on from his party, and Imo the Dems are actually arguing with each other how to proceed with the report and they put more effort into getting people to read the report. This is what I gathered from the article. --It's-a me,
| Wherein Rob robs robust roblox |
|---|
|
Ahem[edit]
Judge Throws Out Guilty Verdict for Flynn Partner and Acquits. nobsDie fascists! Make America Great! 21:40, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- Unrelated.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:55, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- If it's unrelated, why do your put it in mainspace? nobsI'm dumbstrzok! 00:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- because it doesn't matter they way you intended to frame it. The decision is highly unusual, considering it wasn't overturned on appeal.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 15:11, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- Yes indeed the decision is highly unusual, a judge overturning a jury verdict. His reasons seem almost the same as in the Arthur Anderson case, prosecuted by the same Andrew Wiessmann, by a 9-0 SCOTUS verdict. nobsI'm dumbstrzok! 16:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- because it doesn't matter they way you intended to frame it. The decision is highly unusual, considering it wasn't overturned on appeal.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 15:11, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- If it's unrelated, why do your put it in mainspace? nobsI'm dumbstrzok! 00:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Allegedly[edit]
Get the fuck out of here with that bullshit @RobSmith--RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
| Wherein Rob blah blah blahs |
|---|
Oh for fuck’s sake nobs; you do realise that the reason these sources use the ”alleged” or ”allegedly” is that the matter concerns an ongoing trial, right? I.e. that Flynn is literally facing these allegations in a court of law, but has not (yet) been convicted? The use of ”alleged” or ”allegedly” in this manner is standard cautionary practice in any media reference to matters pertaining to ongoing trials, no matter how preponderant the evidence might be. Please tell me that you aren’t as thick or desperate so as to not understand this. ScepticWombat (talk) 00:49, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Please note that my post was not in favour of indiscriminately slapping alleged(ly) all over the place as the media hedging is more of an over cautious convention employed in relation to specific points under judicial scrutiny, rather than an ironclad necessity. Overly hedging throughout the article would create an unreasonable impression of uncertainty and underplay the well documented and sourced aspects already in place. Whether such things will result in outright convictions have no bearing of their shady and unsavoury character. To draw a parallel to a somewhat similar example: Nixon was not actually impeached (because he resigned) and was subsequently pardoned before any formal conviction could be reached, but that doesn’t mean we have to plaster our articles on Tricky Dick and Watergate with alleged(ly)s. ScepticWombat (talk) 19:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Literally none of what you said is based on reality, only a fiction of justice that you simultaneously attack and revere based on how it's actions align with your political opinions.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Your Vox citation cites the WSJ which is this article:
Seems pretty clear the Mueller team was illegally leaking investigatory information to the media, denying Flynn's right to a fair and impartial jury. Go to journalism school to learn the use of the word "allegedly" if you want to pretend to be a writer. nobsI'm dumbstrzok! 19:33, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
|
| non-germane |
|---|
|
- Can I robrail this now? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:25, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- Please do, this no longer is about the page, and is simply more delusional conspiracy spinning bullshit.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- Can I robrail this now? --It's-a me,
| Wherein Rob demonstrates simple investigatory logic or something |
|---|
|
Shit hits the fan, Round 1[edit]
- In 2017 FISA Judge Rosemary Collyer released a report showing the FBI was abusing the NSA database with unlawful FISA(702) search queries (timeframe 2016). In this 2018 opinion, released October 2019, FISA Judge James Boasberg outlines the same and similar activity continued throughout 2017/2018. This is the period of Mueller's investigative activity. [4]
FBI’s Use of Surveillance Database Violated Americans’ Privacy Rights, Court Found, Wall Street Journal, Oct. 8, 2019.
Judge Boasberg reviewed 2017 through March 2018.
Mueller Report, Page 13:
- For more than the past year, the FBI also embedded personnel at the Office who did not work on the Special Counsel’s investigation, but whose purpose was to review the results of the investigation and to send—in writing—summaries of foreign intelligence and counterintelligence information to FBI HQ and FBI Field Offices. nobsI'm dumbstrzok! 23:35, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah this doesn't mean what you think it means.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
- We have people going over the document right now. Important to remember, the Mueller report dated March 2019 page 13 reads "For more than the past year..."; Judge Boasberg rulings cover the period of the Trump Transition up to March 2018. This includes the period of Mueller's appointment (May 18, 2017 up to March 2018, when Mueller began embedding FBI personnel to review foreign intelligence and counterintelligence information and provide summaries.
- I note this now cause I don't want this to get lost in the avalanche of damning information about to come out. nobsI'm dumbstrzok! 02:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
- You mean standard operating procedure when a domestic and counterintelligence operation have overlap? You do you man, none of it matters.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 15:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
- Looks like both Mueller and Rosenstein have their nuts in a vice now. nobsI'm dumbstrzok! 16:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
- Get help.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
- Looks like both Mueller and Rosenstein have their nuts in a vice now. nobsI'm dumbstrzok! 16:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
- You mean standard operating procedure when a domestic and counterintelligence operation have overlap? You do you man, none of it matters.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 15:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah this doesn't mean what you think it means.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Round 2, Brennan and Clapper's nuts in a vice[edit]
[5] One specific charge is Brennan's false statement under oath that the Steele dossier ("Crown materials") played no part in the January 6, 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment, whereas Comey has already fingered Brennan in an email that Brennan insisted 2 pages from the pee-pee memo be included. nobsNo border! No Wall! No USA at All! 16:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Round 3 Flynn was framed[edit]
Sidney Powell just ripped the Mueller investigation to shreds. [6] It won't take long for Judge Sullivan to make a final ruling - may even be before Horowitz's FISA abuse report on Obama's Nixonian political spying is released. nobsNo border! No Wall! No USA at All! 16:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Lol[edit]
None of this matters, the Daily Caller is not valid source. Also there is nothing about what criminality they are investigating, when that investigation began, or who may be the target. But the reporting is a nice change of pace from Mulvaney admitting to a crime, Bill Taylor providing evidence of a crime, Giuliani facing an impending indictment and Trump generally melting into a puddle before our very eyes.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:21, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- It would be great if the database of all American phone calls didn't exist, the FISA court was just a regular fucking court instead, and nobs apologized for his treason. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- When Flynn walks, Mifsud is revealed as a Western asset, Brennan is charged, and the whole Crossfire Hurricane and Mueller investigation are revealed as the house of cards that it is, it's too bad I can't use my flat screen with this mainspace page open to wipe my ass with. I'll have to buy a printer jet for the first time in years to do that. nobsNo border! No Wall! No USA at All! 20:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- Flynn is going to prison, Misfud is not an asset, Brennan can't be charged with anything, and the Mueller Investigation is based in facts, not in the absurd ramblings of Rudy Giuliani or the syphilitic ramblings of Trump.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:21, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- When Flynn walks, Mifsud is revealed as a Western asset, Brennan is charged, and the whole Crossfire Hurricane and Mueller investigation are revealed as the house of cards that it is, it's too bad I can't use my flat screen with this mainspace page open to wipe my ass with. I'll have to buy a printer jet for the first time in years to do that. nobsNo border! No Wall! No USA at All! 20:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH[edit]
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/22/us/politics/russia-investigation-inspector-general-report.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage Eat shit.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
"The prosecutor handpicked by Attorney General William P. Barr to scrutinize how U.S. agencies investigated President Trump’s 2016 campaign said he could not offer evidence to the Justice Department’s inspector general to support the suspicions of some conservatives that the case was a setup by American intelligence, people familiar with the matter said.
Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s office contacted U.S. Attorney John Durham, the prosecutor Barr personally tapped to lead a separate review of the 2016 probe into possible coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia, the people said. The inspector general also contacted several U.S. intelligence agencies.
Among Horowitz’s questions: whether a Maltese professor who interacted with a Trump campaign adviser was actually a U.S. intelligence asset deployed to ensnare the campaign, the people said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the inspector general’s findings have not been made public." [7] How you feeling fuck face?RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC)