This is a fascinating interview – and not only because it is a highly respected independent journalist, Aaron Maté, interviewing his highly respected mental health expert father, Dr. Gabor Maté. It is fascinating because it is objective and adult – unlike so much of the Russiagate reporting. It is an adult discussion.
I have been shocked at how people I thought should know better got caught up in the Russiagate hysteria. This interview helps me understand the psychology behind such unthinking acceptance of what I saw from the beginning was a diversion away from the real issues and an unthinking excuse for an election result which did not conform to predictions. This whole approach has prevented liberal and democratic forces from addressing the real problems they have. It has disarmed them at a time when a more intelligent approach is needed if Trump is to be defeated in 2020.
Well, I have often said that humans are not a rational species, more a rationalising one. I should have not been surprised at the way apparently rational people ended up being emotionally driven. Dr. Gabor Maté explains how we all succumb to such approaches when facing trauma like the election of a Donal trump.
Yes, he’s correct, which underlines the very reason his voice will be ignored in favour of the Rachel Maddows of this world.
Pretty depressing, it also answers why its business as usual as far as climate catastrophe goes. Thats a message no one wants to hear.
The impacts on our lives if radical change was undertaken would be altogether too much sacrifice.
What about my stuff!!??
My godgiven right to travel overseas every year?
Craig Murray has a very good critique of the Mueller investigation , and how he managed to ignore any evidence that might contradict the desired outcome https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/05/the-real-muellergate-scandal/
Yes, I thought Murray’s critique was good. I never get over my amazement about how bad some of the highly respected reports can be. There seems to have been no serious attempt to properly check things out in this case.
Apologies . . I had meant to place this comment under this blog post where it would be more relevant:
First question to you: Did you even bother reading the Mueller Report? I hope the answer is no, which would mean you are relying on sources you choose simply because they confirm your biases. Because if the answer is yes, that means you are purposely writing deceptive opinion pieces. For what purpose? . . Good question.
Ken, this is nuts. You are literally part of the process of trying to re-write history as it is unfolding.
Since your comments in this post are rather vague, let’s clarify. You didn’t say it, but Mate is discussing the Mueller Report: “So that means that some people wanted Mueller to find evidence of collusion, which means that emotionally they were invested in it.” . . . . “Or you can say there must be a devil somewhere behind all this, and that devil is a foreign power, and his name is Putin, and his country is Russia.”
He is saying that the Report found no evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign & Russia. That is simply a lie.
He’s basing everything he says here on that Report . . but he knows he’s misrepresenting it because he takes the time to attack Mueller personally. Johnstone: “Maté talked about how Mueller, despite his horrible track record of supporting the WMD lie in the lead-up to the Iraq invasion, has been made into a hero, . . “
This is a guy, like you, who either never read the report or is purposely trying to misrepresent it. And then he mixes it up in a stew of bullshit pop psychology to make it sound cerebral, which it is not. It is simply a political lie.
So let’s talk about the Report & Russiagate, since you, Johnstone, & Mate are lying about it. You are saying the Report says there was no evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign & Russia to influence the 2016 election . . . but . .
. . The Report actually says There were two efforts by Russia to influence the 2016 election. 1.) The first effort involved disinformation and social-media operations (kind of like what you’re doing here . . . and 2.) The second effort involved hacking into computers to get e-mails from people affiliated with Hillary Clinton’s campaign and Democratic Party organizations to gather and disseminate information.
There’s your boogeyman, which Mate says is non-existent.
According to the Report, the Russian government QUOTE, “perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome.” . . . . Moreover, the Trump Campaign QUOTE, “expected it would benefit” from stolen materials which were released through Russian efforts.
The Report also says that Trump’s Campaign Director instructed his deputy to QUOTE, “provide Kilimnik with updates on the Trump campaign—including internal polling data.” The Report also goes on to say that, “Manafort expected Kilimnik to share that information with others in Ukraine and with Deripaska. Gates periodically sent such polling data to Kilimnik during the campaign.”
Ken, these were the findings of the Mueller Report which contra
So the question remains . . have you bothered to read the report or are parroting sources that make you feel good . . because your mother didn’t breast feed you and your father drank himself to death 😉 (see . . I can do it too.) Up until this point I had given you the benefit of the doubt that your mind was closed shut, unwilling to admit you were wrong . . a symptom of old age. But I am fast approaching the point at which I may conclude you are purposely pushing a false narrative. If that is the case, the purpose of your agenda remains the key question.
So the question remains . . have you bothered to read the report or are parroting sources that make you feel good . . because your mother didn’t breast feed you and your father drank himself to death 😉 (see . . I can do it too.) Up until this point I had given you the benefit of the doubt that your mind was closed shut, unwilling to admit you were wrong . . a symptom of old age. But I am fast approaching the point at which I may conclude you are purposely pushing a false narrative. If that is the case, the purpose of your agenda remains the key question.
David, you are simply using the old bait and switch diversion when you say:
“So let’s talk about the Report & Russiagate, since you, Johnstone, & Mate are lying about it. You are saying the Report says there was no evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign & Russia to influence the 2016 election . . . but . .
. . The Report actually says There were two efforts by Russia to influence the 2016 election. 1.) The first effort involved disinformation and social-media operations (kind of like what you’re doing here . . . and 2.) The second effort involved hacking into computers to get e-mails from people affiliated with Hillary Clinton’s campaign and Democratic Party organizations to gather and disseminate information.”
It is simply a fact that “the Report says there was no evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign & Russia to influence the 2016 election.” There is no evidence of “collusion,” “coordination” etc.
But the switch you use is the fact the Muller report does claim there was evidence of interference – quite a different issue.
Mind you, I think the Mueller report is pathetic. It did nothing to check out the so-called evidence of interference and appears simply to rely on the evidence-free January 6 intelligence report. That is quite disgusting for an investigative body. It also relied on the Democrat-aligned Crowdstrike report. Again pathetic.
You seem unwilling to come to grips with Gabor’s analysis. I think it is extremely good. So instead of pointing to any flaws in his analysis, you resort to a personal attack on him – using an irrelevant citation to “prove” it.
Come on. Look at the evidence. Actually consider what Gabor says.
Your whole approach (and that of so many who drank the Russiagate kool-aid) reminds me of someone whose marriage has suddenly broken down. They have not yet advanced to a stage enabling them to understand why (and what they contributed to the breakdown) and are desperately looking for excuses and scapegoats to avoid facing up to their own problems which caused the marriage breakdown.
Yes – I have read the first part of the report and will get back to the second part soon (Had some big family issues including the birth of a beautiful great grand-daughter in the last week). I think the report demonstrates how pathetic the investigation has been. You could get some insight into the problem is you read George Papadopoulos’s book outlining his experience (remember, his entrapment was the issue which was meant to have initiated the whole Russiagate investigation). It is Deep State Target: How I Got Caught in the Crosshairs of the Plot to Bring Down President Trump He appears rather naive and does not have a full understanding of what has driven this whole Russiagate hysteria – but it is worth actually seeing how this thing started off.
The book is relatively short and easy to read – much easier than the Mueller report.
1.) Congratulations on the birth of your great grand daughter. My first grand daughter will be born in December.
2.) Your comment: “David, you are simply using the old bait and switch diversion . . .
“It is simply a fact that “the Report says there was no evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign & Russia to influence the 2016 election.” There is no evidence of “collusion,” “coordination” etc.
“But the switch you use is the fact the Muller report does claim there was evidence of interference – quite a different issue.”
Response: What are you talking about? Was not Paul Manafort the “Chairman of the Trump Campaign?” Does not the Report specifically say that Manafort directed Gates to supply polling data with the intent of influencing the 2016 election?
Try to connect the dots here. If Trump’s campaign manager is supplying data to foreign actors with the intent of influencing the election, that’s kind of a coordinated effort.
As for your comments about Gabor, a pop-psychologist who is not widely regarded in professional circles, who is commenting about what’s going on inside the head of a narcissist whom he has never personally examined, you’re free to believe anything you choose.
I would be more interested in professional comments regarding state of denial in people like you who choose to believe there was no coordination between the Trump campaign & Russia, and use the very Report which says such a conspiracy did exist as evidence that it did not.
Not that you are one of his supporters . . but this does apply–
” While dozens of psychologists have analyzed Trump, to explain the man’s political invincibility, it is more important to understand the minds of his staunch supporters. While various popular articles have illuminated a multitude of reasons for his unwavering support, there appears to be no comprehensive analysis that contains all of them.” https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mind-in-the-machine/201812/complete-psychological-analysis-trumps-support
I’m thinking maybe The Dunning-Kruger Effect may apply here.
“The investigation uncovered extensive evidence that Paul Manafort’s and Richard Gates’s
pre-campaign work for the government of Ukraine violated FARA. Manafort and Gates were
charged for that conduct and admitted to it when they pleaded guilty to superseding criminal
information in the District of Columbia prosecution.” (p 182)
But did not find any evidence he cooperated with the government of the RF (see the image from p184 -sorry this did not allow text):
Yes, Mueller considered the handing over of polling data (as you say ” specifically say that Manafort directed Gates to supply polling data”) but clearly did not see this as cooperating with the Russian government. In fact, Kilimnik was a business associate of Manafort’s and the information appears to have been passed to Ukrainian oligarchs – who did have a great interest in the election and we have yet to see the details of the Ukrainian government interferences in the US 2016 elections.
David, your attack on Gabor is the classic smear technique – developed by US intelligence agencies and used extensively to avoid discussing information. It is used extensively in the corporate media. You resort to this smearing all the time and do so to avoid interacting with the evidence or opinions.
By all means, attack Gabor’s analysis (and I would be interested in a reasoned critique of his analysis) but you lose all credibility when you resort to the smear technique.
I personally find his analysis very convincing – if you don’t then tell me why.
You say:
“I would be more interested in professional comments regarding state of denial in people like you who choose to believe there was no coordination between the Trump campaign & Russia, and use the very Report which says such a conspiracy did exist as evidence that it did not.”
This is simply an example of what Gabor was talking about. You completely turn around the findings of the Muller investigation (there was no evidence of a conspiracy at all) and attempt to pretend that anyone who acknowledges that truth is deluded. That is the classic example of the problem Gabor talked about.
In politics, people are rarely rational. Gabor’s analysis does apply to both sides. But we are discussing here an extreme case of hysteria which has not only endangered world peace but also destroyed US political thinking.
All the indications are that Democrats have simply not learned from their mistake and are objectively doing everything they can to ensure a Trump victory in 2020. They should recognize the myth has died and start to deal with the issues that ordinary people are concerned about.
By continuing to misrepresent the investigation findings and thinking they can revive the hysteria they are laying themselves wide open to being thoroughly discredited when information comes out from the new investigation of how the Russiagate hysteria happened. They asked for this fight so they cannot pretend the new investigation is vindictive or appear at all convincing when they argue that declassification should not happen.
Ken, allow me to respond to your comments regarding Pop Psychologist, Gabor Mate, as that is all I have time for right now.
Your comment: “David, your attack on Gabor is the classic smear technique – developed by US intelligence agencies and used extensively to avoid discussing information. It is used extensively in the corporate media. You resort to this smearing all the time and do so to avoid interacting with the evidence or opinions.”
Response: It’s not a smear if what I said is true. I said Gabor is “a pop-psychologist who is not widely regarded in professional circles, who is commenting about what’s going on inside the head of a narcissist whom he has never personally examined,” (oops, my bad. I smeared Trump. I shouldn’t have called him a narcissist, as I am not a professional psychologist, nor have I ever examined him.)
First of all, your blind defense of anyone who shares your biases worries me. That’s a layman’s opinion & in no way meant to be taken as psychological advice.
In the second place, Gabor Mate, in this interview, was in violation of the American Psychiatric Association’s Principles of Medical Ethics, which state that it is unethical for psychiatrists to give a professional opinion about public figures whom they have not examined in person, and from whom they have not obtained consent to discuss their mental health in public statements.
Definition of Pop Psychology: “psychological or pseudopsychological counseling, interpretations, concepts, terminology, etc., often simplistic or superficial, popularized by certain personalities, magazine articles, television shows, advice columns, or the like, that influence the general public.”
Here we have a guy, Gabor Mate, who is telling us all about what’s going on inside the head of a public figure whom he as never examined, much less met. By definition, that makes him an unethical pop psychologist. That’s not a smear. It’s the truth, and it has just been proven.
This is what Mate says about a fellow human being whom he has never as much as spoken to:
“Donald Trump is the clearest example of a traumatized politician one could ever see. He’s in denial of reality all the time. He is self aggrandizing. His fundamental self concept is that of a nobody. So he has to make himself huge and big all the time and keep proving to the world how powerful and smart, what kind of degrees he’s got and how smart he is. It’s a compensation for terrible self image. He can’t pay attention to anything, which means that his brain is too scattered because it was too painful for him to pay attention.
What does this all come down to? The childhood that we know that he had in the home of a dictatorial child disparaging father… who demeaned his children mercilessly. One of Trump’s brothers drank himself to death. And Trump compensates for all that by trying to make himself as big and powerful and successful as possible. And, of course, he makes up for his anger towards his mother . . . ”
WOW!
This is a guy who is in violation of psychiatric ethics, by providing an analysis of a pop public figure.
How is what I said incorrect? I said, Gabor is “a pop-psychologist who is not widely regarded in professional circles, who is commenting about what’s going on inside the head of a narcissist whom he has never personally examined,”
I would normally be the last one to defend the rights of Donald Trump, but in this case I’ll make an exception. Trump would be well within his rights to sue this bozo. And he would win.
And no, Mate is not widely regarded in professional circles.
David, you seem to have made assumptions without even listening to the interview. Gabor may have made a few derogatory statements about Trump (who doesn’t – aand there have been plenty of US psychologists who have attempted an analysis of the buffoon without actual examination. It’s been part of the “resistance.”)
But Gabor’s important analysis was about the reaction of the public to Trump’s election – particularly people who just couldn’t believe it could happen. I think his analysis of this was spot on – and it is telling that you refuse to engage with his analysis.
This is why you resort to the smear – attempting to divert attention away from the facts, and the smearing a person or source in absence of this. It’s not honest but you do it all the time.
Ken, in your post you said, “I advise readers who do not have time to watch this very important interview to read Caitlin Johnstone’s article about it – This Talk Between Aaron & Gabor Maté Is The Best Political Video I’ve Ever Seen.”
That is what I did. That was the source I used which was the foundation for my comments. Your argument is with Caitlain Johnstone, not with me.
By the way, everything I said is a fact. I documented everything I wrote. It’s not a smear if it is true. The fact that you can’t come to grips with reality is your problem, and it says more about you than it does about me.
Ok. I will respond to this, which seems to be the most weighty issue in your mind.:
“But Gabor’s important analysis was about the reaction of the public to Trump’s election – particularly people who just couldn’t believe it could happen.”
“People who just couldn’t believe it could happen.”
Can you tell me how many of these alleged people Mate has personally examined? Has he documented any of these cases, and written about them for his peers to review? My understanding is that Mate’s specialty is drug addiction. How does that qualify somebody to get inside the heads of people who, as far as the evidence shows, he hasn’t as much as spoken to?
Evidence is kind of important to you, isn’t it?
Do I really need to say more? Again, your blind defense of any bozo who happens to support and elevate your biases worries me.
David, you still refuse to engage with Gabor’s description of the problem. I have said that to me his analysis is spot on. Why don’t you challenge the analysis instead of smearing him or making excuses? After all, if I has attempted to discredit any of your contributions by asking how many Kremlin or RT officials you had I interviewed you would think me mad.
Ken: ” . . if I has attempted to discredit any of your contributions by asking how many Kremlin or RT officials you had I interviewed you would think me mad.”
Response: If I was pretending to be a professional psychologist, putting forth a psychoanalysis of Kremlin or RT officials, I would think you incompetent or just plain lazy if you DIDN’T ask me how many of them I had personally interviewed.
How is it possible for a psychologist to understand what is going on inside the heads of a collective group of people whom he has never as much as spoken to?
Again: Can you tell me how many of these alleged people Mate has personally examined?
Why don’t YOU come to grips with these fundamental, essential questions instead of diverting away from them?
Ken: “I have said that to me his analysis is spot on.”
Response: What analysis? Ken-the-scientist hasn’t even bothered to question his non-existent methodology. Why is that? Unlike Mate and his imaginary election-deniers, I’ve had exchanges with you: therefore, allow me to explain it. —
I don’t know what’s going on inside your head, or why. But something’s wrong somewhere based on your pattern of blind support for anyone who pushes or supports your agenda.
“Gabor explained that the reason for this emotional investment ensued from the trauma of seeing Trump elected. They had the choice between consciously feeling through the pain and fear of that trauma and then doing some serious examinations of the factors that led to Trump’s election, or blaming the whole thing on a foreign boogeyman and avoiding that self-confrontation altogether.”
Seriously, Ken, don’t you think it would be a basic necessity to have interviewed actual people in order to say that they were traumatized in some way?
The bigger question here is why is this “Critical Analysis,” upon which you so highly pride yourself, not applied to those who elevate and support your biases?
Once again, David, you refuse to engage with Gabor’s analysis of the situation. It is a highly realistic analysis – anyone having gone through, or observed someone going through, the trauma of a relationship breakup will recognise the performance of people who refuse to recognise their own problems, or looking for an external threat to blame, etc.
One does not have to be a psychologist or carry out a personal diagnosis to see the symptoms.
But I suspect that as you are in the middle of this trauma, looking for an external cause for Trump’s election rather than seeing what really caused this unusual and, to many undesirable, event you are not yet ready to consider any objective analysis. To you, “Putin did it” is a lifeline.
But, considering the time involved (after all one gets over a marriage breakup within 2 years) and the evidence available to anyone who cares to look without adherence to a narrative, isn’t it about time you stopped attacking people who have been able to see through this hysteria?
Ken, you’re hilarious. Ok, I’ll play Gabor’s game . .
You continue to bring up the 2016 election. Again, you just brought it up in this last comment. You seem to be focused on the event. Why is that?
Since re-living the Trump election is the manifestation of your conflict between consciously feeling through the pain and fear of that trauma and then doing some serious examinations of the factors that led to Trump’s election, it is clear that you have been traumatized on a deep, emotional level.
Of course, it’s because you hate your mother. Did your brother drink himself to death?
Ken: “Once again, David, you refuse to engage with Gabor’s analysis of the situation.”
Response: Once again, Ken, there is no analysis of anything, one reason being that there is no “situation.” There is no “hysteria.” I’ll discuss this in a moment.
But first, this interview isn’t even an analysis. If I had written a paper of this caliber in college, I would have had remarks on it telling me of my broad sweeping gross generalizations.
You write that anyone who has “observed someone going through, the trauma of a relationship breakup will recognize” what’s going on here. The difference between your analogy, and Gabor’s comments on this alleged “hysteria,” is that in your case, the case of a breakup of a couple personally known to you, we are talking about specific people, people who are known personally to you and with whom you have interacted.
Gabor, on the other hand, cites no specifics. He does not claim he is discussing anyone with whom he has ever spoken. In short, the evidence shows that he is doing nothing more than making things up about people he has never met.
That is because there is no evidence of anything he says. But that doesn’t matter to you, does it.
In the second place, there is no “Russiagate hysteria.” It doesn’t exist. There is a “Denial hysteria,” from which you are suffering . . and that is the bigger issue. But first, let’s look at what “hysteria” is:
“a psychological disorder (not now regarded as a single definite condition) whose symptoms include conversion of psychological stress into physical symptoms (somatization), selective amnesia, shallow volatile emotions, and overdramatic or attention-seeking behavior.”
Note: “Selective amnesia.”
Why do I say the “Russiagate hysteria” is non-existent? Because normal people would conclude that there was a conspiracy of sorts between the Trump campaign and Russia based on what the Mueller Report says.
One thing that we should be able to agree on is that according to Mueller, there were “multiple, systematic” efforts at Russian election interference from which the Trump campaign was eager to benefit. There should be no debate about that. That is a clear fact, according to the Report.
It is also clear from the Report that on July 27, 2016, Trump publicly said, ““Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing” . . This was a reference to Hillary Clinton’s emails which were reportedly stored on a personal server.
We should be able to agree on that. There is no debate about it.
The Report goes on to say that “Within approximately five hours” of Trump’s comments, Russian military intelligence began a cyberattack against “Clinton’s personal office.” . . . This is in the Report. Again there is no debate about it if we are going to base our conclusions on the Report.
And you did just that.
Just from this one example alone, a normal person would conclude that there was some sort of coordination going on. Trump asked Russia to do something . . within 5 hours Russia began to do it. That’s how coordination works . . and that’s how a normal person would see it.
That’s not hysteria, that’s drawing a natural conclusion from a normal perception of events that actually took place.
But there’s more about this single event. The Report goes on to say that after his July 27 comment, Trump “asked individuals affiliated with his campaign to find the deleted Clinton emails.” This included Michael Flynn.
Flynn then reached out to a Republican Senate staffer and a party operative who worked separately to obtain the emails. The operative raised money to support the project, which he marketed as “coordinated with the Trump campaign,” and told others that he was in communication with Russian hackers who had access to emails he believed were Mrs. Clinton’s.
But the Report “did not establish” that the operative had actually made contact with any real Russian hackers. And while the staffer obtained emails, an effort funded by someone close to the campaign found that they were not really Mrs. Clinton’s either.
In other words, they were incompetent. It didn’t work out for them.
“Collusion” has no legal definition. But if the term means working behind the scenes with Russian actors to obtain hacked information damaging to Mrs. Clinton, then this section of the Report describes just that — collusion that took place at Mr. Trump’s request. It just wasn’t successful.
Again, your “selective amnesia” seems to have caused you to overlook these details.
And we haven’t even discussed Manafort’s sharing of Polling data with a Russian man, Konstantin Kilimnik, whom, again, according to the Report, “the F.B.I. assesses to have ties to Russian intelligence.”
Even though Mueller “could not reliably determine Manafort’s purpose” in sharing the data with Mr. Kilimnik, one must ask ‘why’ polling data was shared.
Do I need to go on? Do I need to discuss all 17 Trump associates who had contacts with Russians or Wikileaks, or the 100 face-to-face interactions, phone calls or electronic messages with Russians or Kremlin-linked figures? Do I need to discuss the lying about the purpose of the Trump Tower meeting by Donald Trump, Jr.?
This is all according to the Mueller Report, which you say is your “vindication” (YOUR QUOTE) “that the narrative we have been fed by the corporate or mainstream media over the last two years has been false. It has been fake news.”
But the Mueller Report doesn’t say that at all. You are in denial. You have “selective amnesia” about what you read and about what you allow into your mind, and by definition, you are suffering from hysteria.
Again, you need to worry more about your own denial more than you need to worry about normal conclusions drawn by normal people about what they have read in the Mueller Report.
I hope this addresses your concerns about why I “refuse to engage with Gabor’s analysis of the situation.”
1.) There is no analysis of anything. What you are referring to analyses are nothing but broad, sweeping, gross generalizations of people whom Gabor has never met, much less interviewed. And . .
2.) There is no “situation.” The so-called “Russiagate hysteria” does not exist. There is only the normal conclusion reached by people who have actually read the report.
You are in denial.
I would hope this would put an end to the discussion, . . I would hope that it addresses my “refusal to engage” topic that I consider a joke . . but your own pattern of denial leads me to believe this won’t be the end of it.
David, you still refuse to engage with the excellent analysis presented by Gabor. An analysis which attempts to provide light on how the Russiagate hysteria took hold in the US.
Quite simply – you are in denial. Another stage of this psychological phenomenon. A stage we often see in people who have suddenly been bereaved by the decision of their spouse to leave them.
You make this incredible claim:
“Why do I say the “Russiagate hysteria” is non-existent? Because normal people would conclude that there was a conspiracy of sorts between the Trump campaign and Russia based on what the Mueller Report says.”
Just incredible given that the Mueller report specifically says there was absolutely no evidence of collusion. And psychological normal – and also intelligent – people have been pointing out for 2 years that no evidence existed. In this respect, I am a normal person and the Mueller report was no surprise to me.
I think the problem here is that your definition of “normal people” are people who uncritically accept a false narrative because it fits their prejudices and “explains” something horrible without them having to take a single step to look for the real causes of the horrible event.
David, you are attempting to relitigate something which is now completely dead – and in the process ignoring the new investigations of corruption in the FBI and intelligence agencies which led to the creation of the collusion myth. You are also playing into Trump’s hands – he recognises that the continual attemtps by some in the Democrat Party to breath life into the Russiagate corpse will only help him win again in 2020.
I won’t bother responding to your attempts to rehash failed arguments from the past but it is worth responding to this claim of yours:
“And we haven’t even discussed Manafort’s sharing of Polling data with a Russian man, Konstantin Kilimnik, whom, again, according to the Report, “the F.B.I. assesses to have ties to Russian intelligence.””
We have in fact discussed this but it is worth revisiting because of the new evidence that Kilimnik was actually acting as a US asset, in constant contact with the US embassy in Kiev passing on information about the governing party and, post-coup, opposition political groups.
It is worth considering this new evidence and its implications. I think it shows how poor the Mueller investigation was – and how suspect many of its statements and assumptions are. Life is certainly more complex than the naive narrative’s presented to us to justify the Russiagate myth. already we have seen, and are seeing again, evidence of interference by state forces of foreign governments – specifically the UK, Canada and Ukraine in the US 2016 elections. I suspect the involvement of Ukraine will turn out to be much bigger than what we currently know publicly. I also suspect that when some of the truth does come out there we be evidence of a Ukrainian role in organisations like Popornot, the Integrity Initiative, and similar NATO-connected disinformation agencies pretending to be campaigning against disinformation.
Ken, thank you for your response. It’s getting late & I’m getting ready for bed, so I can’t give your comment the diligence it deserves, at the moment. But two things jump out at me and I feel the need to respond.
UNBELIEVABLE!!
That was my first reaction when I read your comment. First this from you:
“I think it shows how poor the Mueller investigation was – and how suspect many of its statements and assumptions are.”
Response: Well wait a minute! Aren’t you the same person who said:
Here we have a blatant example of your biased hypocrisy. On one hand, when you believe the Mueller Report supports your bias you claim vindication & victory. On the other hand, when your agenda is called into question based on THAT SAME REPORT, it is a “poor investigation” and its many statements & assumptions are “suspect.”
Your biased hypocrisy speaks for itself. You are not a scientist. You are nothing but a political pundit. And you’re not a very good one at that.
The second thing that jumped out at me was this: “the Mueller report specifically says there was absolutely no evidence of collusion.”
Response: Really? It specifically says that?? SHOW ME THAT QUOTE You are either purposely lying, or you didn’t read the Report.
The fact is it says no such thing. The fact that coordination between the Trump campaign & Russian actors didn’t rise to meet the bar of criminal conspiracy is NOT the same thing as saying the Report “specifically says there was absolutely no evidence of collusion.”
When Mueller concluded that he “did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities,” he is not saying that there is no evidence of “collusion” at all. What he is saying is that there is insufficient evidence to prove that the Trump administration was directly involved in Russian crimes like stealing Clinton’s emails.
But did the Trump campaign actively work with the Russian government to improve its electoral chances? If that’s the standard, then the report provides plenty of evidence to suggest the answer is yes.
First, Russia repeatedly reached out to the Trump campaign to establish a connection to the Kremlin. “The Russian contacts consisted of business connections, offers of assistance to the Campaign, invitations for candidate Trump and Putin to meet in person, invitations for Campaign officials and representatives of the Russian government to meet, and policy positions seeking improved U.S.-Russian relations,”
This – from the Mueller Report, which you said “vindicated” you, until it disagreed with your agenda . . then of course we see how “poor the Mueller investigation was.”
Second, the Trump campaign was receptive — sometimes going beyond what was on offer from the Kremlin. Some of the examples of this are egregious.
For example, Manafort’s meetings with Konstantin Kilimnik, a Russian political consultant with a history of connections to the GRU intelligence agency. How do we know this? Because the Mueller Report, the source for your feeling of vindication, says of him that “the F.B.I. assesses to have ties to Russian intelligence.”
Oh, Wait A Minute! You also said that the Mueller Report was “poor,” and many of its statements and assumptions were “suspect.”
So, to be clear . . When the Mueller Report supports your agenda you use it as a source for vindication. And when that same Report disproves what you are saying it’s a poor investigation. Got It!
You have just lost any semblance of credibility that you may have once had. I am actually beginning to feel sorry for you.
David, you did not engage with the analysis – you did everything to avoid engaging by indulging in smears. And you continue.
Of course it is a broad generalisation – for Christ’s sake, it is attempting to analyse a broad response amongst a large population. it is not a personal analysis.
And your attempt to discredit this broad analysis by suggesting it involves people he has never met – well where does this put you in your continual smearing of people like me and others who you have never met?
And what can be said about the grubby tactic of responding to my article by immediately searching for material to smear Gabor with instead of responding to what he actually says?
David, I do not use the Mueller report to support anything. I have simply said his conclusion there was no evidence of collusion vindicates my own interpretation of the available evidence. TYhis does not change the fact that it is a poor report. It is biased and he obviously worked hard to find evidence to incriminate Trump. In this, he failed and admitted it.
However, his assumptions about interference were unwarranted (absolutely no evidence was considered) and the specific example I gave you of the characterisation of Kilimnik, as possibly a Russian agent when he must have known (or at least the information was available) that Kilimnik, was a US asset indicates how poor and biased the investigation was.
But once again you have attacked me in an attempt to diver the cock-up you made about Kilimnik. You have also demonstrated your inability to consider that others may approach reports like Muellers’ in a more sophisticated way than you have.
Ken, you said, “the Mueller report specifically says there was absolutely no evidence of collusion.”
That is not correct. In fact it is a lie. I have already presented 3 examples of evidence from the Report which did show a coordinated effort between the Trump people & Russia.
The fact that this coordination didn’t rise to meet the bar of criminal conspiracy is NOT the same thing as saying the Report “specifically says there was absolutely no evidence of collusion.”
You literally cannot admit what is in that Report. When it supports your political agenda it is your “vindication.” When you disagree with it, you claim it is poorly written.
Get some help. The first step is admitting there is a problem.
What do you want me to say about Gabor. He’s a pop psychologist who is about as relevant to me as Dr. Phil.
You are a great admirer of him. You said his interview, (Your Quote) “helps me understand the psychology behind such unthinking acceptance of what I saw from the beginning was a diversion away from the real issues and an unthinking excuse for an election result which did not conform to predictions.”
You told me that I was traumatized because Trump was elected. I can tell you for a fact that you are full of crap. I had no emotional investment in Hillary. (Frankly, I would have preferred a different Republican.) From the beginning I said Trump would be entertaining as hell . . and he has been; but the entertainment factor is beginning to wear thin.
There, for the first time you’ve just had a glimpse inside my political head.
You say that Gabor Mate’ helps you understand the psychology of people like me. That understanding has led you to believe that I have been traumatized in some way because of the 2016 election. Your understanding is not correct. Therefore Dr. Mate’s pop psychology, intended for the masses-people like you, must be flawed in some way. He is not a force for the enlightenment of the world.
I hope this conforms to your request that I engage the analysis of Dr. Mate’. I have used a specific example of a flawed conclusion which was spawned by his observations of a theoretical group of people he believes exists, which, as far as I know, do not.
If, because of him, you believe I am one of those imaginary people, he is wrong. You are wrong. Your understanding of me, which was put in your head by him is wrong. Therefore he is wrong.
The fact that I can read the Mueller Report, digest it, have an understanding of what it says, and tell you what is in it when you refuse to accept it doesn’t make me traumatized. It makes me intelligent.
Ken: “Of course it is a broad generalisation – for Christ’s sake, it is attempting to analyse a broad response amongst a large population. it is not a personal analysis.”
Response: When I was in college, I wrote a lot of papers. It’s a legitimate criticism that I saw written on my own work. Look what it did for you, here. From his gross generalization, you incorrectly believed that I was traumatized in some way because of the 2016 election. That’s why we don’t do it.
More interesting, however, is your use of the expletive, “for Christ’s sake.” (It’s interesting that an atheist would capatalize Christ – Well, it is a proper noun.) This specific example from a specific person with whom I have interacted in the past – you – tells me that you have a deep emotional investment in the defense of Mate’s arguments, if not Mate’ himself.
See the difference here. I’m talking about a specific person with whom I have interacted, and I am citing a specific example from that person. Mate’, on the other hand, is talking about some imagined group of people which may or may not exist. (After all, you thought I was one of them. “Look! They’re everywhere!!” Coo Coo.) And he caused you to jump to at least one identifiable incorrect conclusion.
A cursory reading of your comment shows a clear emotional investment here. I’m not making a point here, . . it’s just interesting that you appear to be guilty of the very thing of which your post accuses others. 😉
Let me provide an allegory of what I see going on here between you and me and your continued insistence that I “engage in Mate’s analysis.”
Here’s the allegory:
Two men are watching Don Quixote on his horse jousting against an imagined enemy.
The first man says, “I really like what he’s doing. He’s an excellent combatant, don’t you think?”
The second says, “No. He’s nuts.”
The first: “What’s wrong with the way he is jousting?”
The second guy says, “He’s jousting against something that’s not there. He’s nuts.”
The first man presses him again. “You still haven’t told me what’s wrong with the way he is jousting. You’ve done everything you can to avoid finding an actual problem with his technique and form. You’ve smeared him, but you haven’t discussed what your problem is with the way he is jousting.”
David, in my interaction with you – a real person- I see strong evidence for Gabor’s analysis. You are in denial. You are reacting badly to the democratic results of the 2016 elections and you have attempted to explain the result by adhering to an evidence-free conspiracy theory conveniently provided you by Clinton, the Democratic leadership,. the corporate media and sections of the FBI and intelligence agencies.
You have completely avoided looking for real reasons for Clinton’s defeat. You avoid looking at the corruption in the DNC revealed by the Wikipedia leaks.
Your situation parallels very closely to that of a person whose spouse has unexpectedly (to him/her) left him/her. A person looking for external reasons for the spousal departure. In contrast, the spouse has been conscious for years of your own lack of empathy and respect for him/her and the collapse of the marriage.
A person in this position only makes progress when they start looking for the real reasons for the collapse of the marriage. Participates in a non-blame counseling consideration. In the process they can address their own failings, the mistakes they contributed to the failed marriage, and become a better person.
Your denial and adherence to an external failed conspiracy theory to explain the trauma of the failed 2016 election parallels large sections of the Democratic Party membership. For this reason, the opposition to Trump and support for anti-war and progressive economic and social policies in the US is undermined.
Quite simply, your denial (and active attacks on those who don’t suffer your illusions) will only help Trump’s election in 2020
“You literally cannot admit what is in that Report. When it supports your political agenda it is your “vindication.” When you disagree with it, you claim it is poorly written.”
Where did I comment on the nature of Muller’s writing? I have never claimed it is poorly written.
I have said the report is poor because it relies in many of its parts on assumptions and does not demand evidence for the assumptions. It ignores completely things like the relationship of persons like Kilimnik, Downer, and Misfud to western intelligence agencies while instead wrongly characterising Kilimnik and Misfud as Russian assets.
A simple objective or scientific analysis of any report often produces this sort of contradictory response. I have no trouble accepting the main collusion of the Mueller report that the investigations showed no evidence of collusion – because it is based on evidence and I came to the same conclusion with the evidence available., The investigation did not provide any new evidence – in that sense, I feel vindicated.
But I have no trouble criticising the report for its faults at all. I take exactly the same attitude to scientific papers and reports when I consider them.
The parts of the Mueller report claiming Russian interference, specifically the Wikipedia links and the activity of the IRA are not at all convincing. They are either evidence-free or conflict with other evidence not considered. (What about the forensic evidence of the Wikipedia leaks provided to Mueller and Trump by the Intelligence Veterans – convincing evidence showing the Wikipedia leaks were download to a USB type device and could not have been hacked via the internet). Similarly, the activity of the IRA has been vastly overblown. A simple look at the tweets purportedly promoted by the IRA surely show this and I think anyone building a case of “interference ” on them is behaving pathetically. Read my article on the way the vaccination tweets have been “weaponised). – Who is weaponising the vaccination debate?
For what its worth, having read the Mueller Report I conclude beyond reasonable doubt that
1) Senior Trump campaign members colluded with a foreign power by encouraging it to conspire with him and positively answering overtures by a foreign power that to their knowledge was offering information intended to influence a US election. However the evidence gathered of this the collusion did not rise to the level of proving all elements of an active conspiracy.
2) Donald Trump engaged in multiple instances of obstruction of justice.
“However the evidence gathered of this the collusion did not rise to the level of proving all elements of an active conspiracy.”
Could you please describe to me a single element that was proved and what that evidence was? I ask this because your phraseology implies some elements were actually proven.
Bugger it – why no specifically describe to me the evidence which leads you to determine a conspiracy even if it does not rise to a certain undefined level. Is it the claim that Mifsud was a Russian asset? That Kilimnik was a Russian asset? (If so I have a bridge you might be interested in buying).
As for the red herring of obstruction. Do you see the “lies” of Flynn and Papadopoulos as “obstruction? Have you not heard of using entrapment to produce “obstruction?”
There is also the crime of “obstruction” by a person wrongly accused of a crime who then does everything to avoid a lynching.
I am sick to death of naive people who have drunk the kool-aid and blithely attempt to make the Mueller report say something it clearly doesn’t. Such people are only aiding and abetting a buffoon win yet another US presidential election by refusing to fight him on the real problems. Trump is laughing at these people – while encouraging them.
I’ll let Richard answer your questions to him in his own way, but there are a few ridiculous points you are making.
First of all, read the Mueller Report. It’s obvious you haven’t . . or if you have read it, you haven’t let it sink in.
Next, testimony under oath is considered valid evidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testimony No need to belabor the point as you often do in your attempt to divert and confuse issues. It’s a fact. End of story. We’ve gone over this before, but it doesn’t seem to sink in. I shouldn’t need to be telling you again, but your mind doesn’t seem to be open to this reality.
This is why Trump refuses to testify under oath.
Ken: “As for the red herring of obstruction. Do you see the “lies” of Flynn and Papadopoulos as “obstruction? Have you not heard of using entrapment to produce “obstruction?””
Response: On obstruction, I notice you didn’t mention the testimony of Don McGahn. Perhaps your pro-Russian sources failed to bring his existence to light.
Yes, there is a person named Don McGhan. If you’ve read the Report, as you claim, you would know that. You would also know that his testimony provided the most glaring examples of Obstruction of Justice by Trump in that Report.
In short, here is his story:
According to McGhan, Trump “directed him to have the Special Counsel removed.” And then a second time, Trump said, “Mueller has got to go.” After McGhan resigned and then returned, news of Trump’s Obstruction attempt had leaked to the press. Trump then pressed McGhan to falsify the record and deny what had happened.
This is why Trump is trying to stop McGhan from publicly testifying. He doesn’t want people to hear an actual account of his actions. McGhan’s testimony is the evidence you just asked for.
So, in an attempt to say that “Obstruction” did not occur, you provide this irrelevant example: “There is also the crime of “obstruction” by a person wrongly accused of a crime who then does everything to avoid a lynching.”
I say irrelevant because a lynching has nothing to do with judicial procedure; therefore, it has nothing to do with the Trump case. Most lynchings don’t include a trial-by-jury, the fleet of million dollar lawyers that Trump has at his disposal, or the ability of the accused to go on Fox News and plead his case to the public.
A lynching is a racist crime. It typically happens in the dead of night. And the accused has no voice. . . . But of course you used the example of a lynching because it was the most extreme example of injustice toward an accused that you could think of.
Obstruction of justice does not require a preceding crime. As an example, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit has ruled that, a defendant can still be convicted of Obstruction “even if (his) primary motivation was to extricate the sister of his childhood friend from a troubled situation.” https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/219675/united-states-v-rickie-durham/
But what we have in the Trump case is far worse than that. Here we have a man who believes he has the right to silence an investigation on himself. If that was true, Trump would be above the law, and he could do anything with no consequence. Obviously that is incorrect. . . . Unless you want to tell me that he IS above the law, and he should be able to get away with anything.
One last thing on your comment. You wrote, “Such people are only aiding and abetting a buffoon win yet another US presidential election by refusing to fight him on the real problems.”
Response: It’s nice to see such a creative rationalization for spewing back the biased propaganda that you enjoy suckling. I’m glad your mind hasn’t completely gone . . but they say rationalization is the last to go.
And finally this: “David, . . . . I see strong evidence for Gabor’s analysis. You are in denial. You are reacting badly to the democratic results of the 2016 elections and you have attempted to explain the result by adhering to an evidence-free conspiracy theory . .”
Ken, I have some very dear friends who are Persian. In 2008 Hillary Clinton said she would “obliterate Iran.” That was the most irresponsible, dangerous comment I have ever heard any public servant make. Ever. Moreover, even if I was a Hillary fan, I would still have to admit that losing this election was the best thing that ever happened to her.
If she had won, the first 2 years of her presidency would have been tied up in impeachment hearings. After all, Republicans were talking about impeaching her even before the election took place. http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/remember-when-republicans-were-prepared-impeach-hillary-clinton As it is, she gets to sit on the sidelines, play the victim, and criticize the Commander in Chief. Not a bad gig.
So, to these mythical, traumatized-Hillary-lovers that you & Mate’ claim exist I would say, ‘Cheer up. Losing this election is the best thing that could have happened to your beloved Hillary.’
But if you want to keep on telling me that I have been traumatized by the election, by all means, do so. You are only proving what a closed, shut-down mind you really have.
Ken, you asked Richard, “Bugger it – why no specifically describe to me the evidence which leads you to determine a conspiracy even if it does not rise to a certain undefined level.”
I’m going to take the liberty of answering that question; not because I have anything original to offer . . On the contrary. I’m going to copy/paste a section of a comment I have already submitted, but either you didn’t read it, or your mind was too closed shut to accept it.
You will find my previously submitted comment right here:
My comment: “It is also clear from the Report that on July 27, 2016, Trump publicly said, ““Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing” . . This was a reference to Hillary Clinton’s emails which were reportedly stored on a personal server.
“We should be able to agree on that. There is no debate about it.
“The Report goes on to say that “Within approximately five hours” of Trump’s comments, Russian military intelligence began a cyberattack against “Clinton’s personal office.” . . . This is in the Report. Again there is no debate about it if we are going to base our conclusions on the Report.
“And you did just that.
“Just from this one example alone, a normal person would conclude that there was some sort of coordination going on. Trump asked Russia to do something . . within 5 hours Russia began to do it. That’s how coordination works . . and that’s how a normal person would see it.
“That’s not hysteria, that’s drawing a natural conclusion from a normal perception of events that actually took place.” END QUOTE
Ken, factual, historical events are evidence. I have just provided a sequence of factual, historical events.
Even after reading this you still asked, “why no specifically describe to me the evidence which leads you to determine a conspiracy even if it does not rise to a certain undefined level.”
What I described was evidence of coordination that did not rise to meet the bar of “criminal conspiracy.” Asked & Answered.
Even though you’ve already read this . . you still asked for it. You have just proven that your mind is closed shut, incapable of digesting and understanding information which counters your viewpoints.
David, your continued claim that the Mueller report concluded that there had been collusion between the Trump campaign and the leadership of the Russian Federation is simply tiresome. As is your stupid charge that anyone who disagrees with you has not read the report. Many people have read the report and cited contents to show the conclusion of no collusion.
It is those who claim there is evidence of collusion who did not cite evidence (of collusion) but draw unwarranted conclusions. It is likely most of them are just repeating a [proivioded narrative and have never actually read the report.
I should not have to repeat this but early in the report, there is a simple conclusion on page 9:
“the evidence was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election.”
That conclusion is inescapable and, to my mind, is consistent with all the information and evidence I have seen. that is why I felt vindicated.
Here is a problem with your approach. You claim there is evidence. Of course there is – but not of collusion.
There is evidence Flynn spoke with the Russian ambassador. But that is not evidence of collusion.
There is evidence that Trump cracked a silly political joke about asking Russians to release emails – but that is evidence of what he said, not collusion.
I could go on and on (as you do) but all the example you cite are simply evidence of one thing or another but not evidence of collusion.
This approach is simply silly – as is the old trick of saying that there is no proof there was no collusion. The old trick of implying one can prove a negative when we simply know that is not the case. it is the same trick used by anti-science campaigners such as anti-fluoride activists.
Another trick you fall back on is to go on about obstruction., That aspect simply does not interest me as powerful people always obstruct justice, one way or the other. I have no doubt it probably occurred (although apparently not at a level which could lead to a successful prosecution according to Barr). But the fact is powerful people will always obstruct efforts to incriminate them – whether they have committed a crime or not.
OK, David, I can accept you may not be a supporter of Clinton. But that is beside the point. You still show evidence of denial about the election result. You attempt to explain away Trump’s victory by advancing a Manchurian candidate scenario. An argument the election was stolen by a foreign power, etc.
My arguments about suffering from trauma and being in denial still apply whether you were a supporter of Clinton or not. You have obviously been shocked by an unexpected election result. Your concentration on this and your inability to get out of denial will only help Trump to victory in 2020.
Care to tell us who you voted for in 2016 if it was not Trump or Clinton. Maybe if I had been a USA citizen we could have voted for the same person. Perhaps Dr Jill Stein?
Now you cite Page 9 of the Mueller Report: “the evidence was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election.”
Those two statements are not the same thing.
What Richard Christie said, however, is completely consistent with the passage you cited. Richard said, “ . the evidence gathered of this the collusion did not rise to the level of proving all elements of an active conspiracy.”
Richard’s comment is also consistent with the Report itself. For example, let’s take a look at what Mueller says about the infamous Trump Tower meeting of June 9th, 2016. On page 185, the Report says “The special counsel considered whether to charge Trump campaign officials with crimes in connection with the June 9 meeting.” . . .
What?? Considered whether to charge Trump campaign officials with crimes?? What Crimes?
It is against the law to take anything of value as a political contribution, from foreign nationals. But no one was charged with any crimes were they. Mueller cites 2 reasons for this:
First, Mueller couldn’t prove that Trump’s team knew they were acting illegally. And second, the value of the information may have been too low to prosecute.
It’s in the Report. Read it.
The main conclusion here is that the evidence was insufficient to show that the Trump campaign coordinated or conspired with Russia. Again, that is not the same thing as saying, “the Mueller report specifically says there was absolutely no evidence of collusion.”
You’ve been drinking the kool-aid.
There was plenty of evidence. It just didn’t rise to the level of criminal conspiracy. This is what I have consistently said. Moreover, Mueller also says, investigators couldn’t get all the information they wanted. Donald Trump Jr. never agreed to an interview, the same with several key Russians. Some witnesses lied to investigators initially. Some campaign aides deleted their texts. And Mueller states the president’s written answers were inadequate.
Mueller specifically says it’s possible this missing information could shed new light on the investigation. This is why the Democrats & the Southern District of New York are pursuing further investigations into Trump. It’s not because the Mueller Report “specifically said there was absolutely no evidence of collusion,” as you have said. It’s because the Report specifically says there’s plenty more evidence to be found.
Moreover, the Report specifically says that when Trump found out about the Special Counsel he said, “I’m fucked. My presidency is over.” These are not the words of an innocent man, and Mueller put that detail into his report for a specific reason.
Regarding “Obstruction,” which you irrelevantly justified in the case of a lynching, and are calling a red herring, I don’t think anybody is in disagreement here.
I never called anyone a “Manchurian candidate.” Those are your words and whatever definition you are applying to them.
Who did I vote for in 2016? Well, I really wanted John Kasich to win. I think he could have done a great job of bringing the country together. Hillary is a divisive figure, and Trump is divisive as hell.
Why wasn’t I “traumatized” when Kasich didn’t get the nomination???
I did vote for Hillary, even though I believed the Republicans would tie her up with contrived scandals. . But when Trump won, I thought, “Ok, who knows, maybe he can do a great job,” and I wished the best for him . . . But on Day 1, when he sent Sean Spicer out in front of the Press to announce – to lie – that Trump had the largest inaugural crowd in the history of U.S. Presidents, I knew he was a joke. This is what this guy wants to focus on?
In 2008, Candidate Hillary said she would obliterate Iran, and that was awful, but now we’ve got U.S. drones being shot down by Iran over the Straits of Hurmuz. She said it . . Trump is in the process of doing it. This guy is a disaster. I’m not traumatized by his election. I’m traumatized by his presidency, and it looks like the rest of the nation is too.
Ken: “I have no doubt it (obstruction) probably occurred (although apparently not at a level which could lead to a successful prosecution according to Barr).
Response: According to Barr?? Hahahahahahahahh . . Hahahahahahah. . Good one. Glad to see you still have a sense of humor.
David, Barr’s comment was based on expert opinion in his department. But if you seriously think they are completely wrong well then you will be vindicated when there are successful prosecutions of Trump team members for obstruction.
No, the two statements are not the same thing – My comment summarised an evaluation, the Mueller comment was an acceptance of lack of evidence for collusion but expressed in legalistic, and biased, terms.
The comment “the evidence gathered of this the collusion did not rise to the level of proving all elements of an active conspiracy” simply reveal desperate denialism which could be used for any trial result where the decision did not go the way of the biased observer. This approach to unpleasant facts is used by our mates in the anti-fluoride movement – you should be able to recognise it.
So you voted for someone who you marginally accepted was the best of two extremely bad choices? Why? Have you no imagination? Why not consider Stein – her record is far better.
You claim this as the turning point for you:
“when he sent Sean Spicer out in front of the Press to announce – to lie – that Trump had the largest inaugural crowd in the history of U.S. Presidents, I knew he was a joke. This is what this guy wants to focus on?”
Interesting! I also saw that point as significant. One the one hand we had a president acting very unpresidential. On the other hand, we had a media acting very biased and not worthy of journalism.
The second aspect was fundamental to me, but not the first. Why should you be surprised that a US president lies – that is what they do? It’s normal for their profession? Why should you be surprised he was childish? Surely you were aware of his personality.
But why were you not concerned about the bias and childishness of the media on this issue – surely that is more fundamental?
What I saw was, in fact, two stories – “alternative facts.” The size of the crowd in the Washington Mall (clearly smaller than for Obama’s inauguration). And the size of the TV audience worldwide – clearly the largest – if only because of technological advances and the wider spread access to TV worldwide.
Trump could easily point to the TV audience – and he did. The media lied pretending his comments were about the crowd in the Mall.
You think this made Trump a joke (he was already a joke in my mind) but you ignore the fact that this lie made the US media a joke (again already a joke in my mind).
What really shocked me was the willingness of many liberals, many people I respected before, simply losing their critical skills and accepting and slavishly repeating the media lies. I say this seriously. I had scientific friends who childishly ranted on that there cannot be “alternative facts” – when clearly there can. The facts about the numbers in the Mall and the TV audience were different – they were “alternative facts” about numbers watching the inauguration.
Why was this simple fact so difficult for my scientific and liberal friends to understand? Because they were not thinking rationally. They were trying to explain away the unpleasant election results and willing to see faults everywhere – even when there weren’t any.
On the size of Trump’s inauguration crowd, you write: “One the one hand we had a president acting very unpresidential. On the other hand, we had a media acting very biased and not worthy of journalism.”
In your following comments you explain why the lying of the president wasn’t as important to you as the lies of the media. This says a lot more about you and your biases than it does about the media. In the first place, why would you even bother to waste your time defending Trump on this? But more importantly, you have absolutely no evidence for anything you say.
You write: “The second aspect (a biased media) was fundamental to me, but not the first.”
Yes, that’s part of the problem. When you look through that lens, you are not seeing the world accurately. If the mainstream media disagrees with a preconceived bias, you assume it’s a lie. For example, about that crowd size, you write:
“The size of the crowd in the Washington Mall (clearly smaller than for Obama’s inauguration). And the size of the TV audience worldwide – clearly the largest – if only because of technological advances and the wider spread access to TV worldwide.”
You write: “Trump could easily point to the TV audience – and he did. The media lied pretending his comments were about the crowd in the Mall.”
Response: Evidence please . . . . . . No, he didn’t point to the TV audience. The media didn’t lie. Trump’s comments WERE about the crowd in the mall. You will find Trump’s comments in their entirety in my next link.
Three days after his inauguration he gave a self-absorbed speech at CIA headquarters. Not only did Trump say that God stopped the rain and made the sun shine for him, he said, “But we had a massive field of people. You saw them. Packed. . . . I looked out, the field was — it looked like a million, million and a half people. . . . But, you know, we have something that’s amazing because we had — it looked — honestly, it looked like a million and a half people. Whatever it was, it was. But it went all the way back to the Washington Monument. And I turn on — and by mistake I get this network, and it showed an empty field. And it said we drew 250,000 people. Now, that’s not bad, but it’s a lie. We had 250,000 people literally around — you know, in the little bowl that we constructed. That was 250,000 people. The rest of the 20-block area, all the way back to the Washington Monument, was packed.”
See Paragraphs 17-18 of Trump’s Speech here https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-cia-speech-transcript/
I didn’t cherry-pick those comments. Sean Spicer, and Kellyanne Conway talked about other alternative audiences, later, in an effort to back-peddle (and they lied too), but Trump was solely focused on the physical crowd that attended his inauguration. Maybe he did make comments about a world-wide audience, but I’ve never seen them and you haven’t provided evidence of it.
Now in the context of Trump’s unbelievable comments, the Press had the every responsibility to point out to the citizens of the United States that their president wasn’t in touch with reality. That is just a fact. They didn’t lie. They were doing their jobs. As a citizen, I would like to know about Trump’s unusual obsession with crowd size. And the fact that he needs to lie about it. To me, it goes to his character.
Unless you want to tell me that God made the sun shine through the rain for him. (His quote from that same speech: “I said, it was almost raining, the rain should have scared them away, but God looked down and he said, we’re not going to let it rain on your speech. . . . It was amazing. And then it became really sunny. And then I walked off and it poured right after I left. It poured.”)
Now, you write, “I had scientific friends who childishly ranted on that there cannot be “alternative facts” – when clearly there can.”
Response: Let’s look at Kellyanne Conway’s statement about “alternative facts” in its original context. Where did this phrase originate?
In that interview, Kellyanne said, “I’m very heartened to see Nielsen just came out with the ratings, 31 million people watching the inauguration. President Obama had 20.5 million watching his second inauguration four short years ago.” . . . There’s your alternative fact. I refer you back to the link to Nielsen that I provided earlier.
Chuck Todd says, “Why put him out there for the very first time in front of that podium to utter a provable falsehood? It’s a small thing. But the first time he confronts the public it’s a falsehood?” . . . So, from that point, Todd & Conway are talking about what has been framed as a “falsehood.”
Even Conway concedes. In her next statement she says, “I want to have a great open relationship with our press. But look what happened the day before talking about falsehoods.” She then pointed out a mistake made by the Press, which Todd says “was corrected immediately.” So we they are still talking about falsehoods here.
CONWAY: “Don’t be so overly dramatic about it, Chuck. What– You’re saying it’s a falsehood. And they’re giving Sean Spicer, our press secretary, gave alternative facts to that. But the point remains—“
Todd: “Wait a minute– Alternative facts?”
CONWAY: “–that there’s—“
TODD: Alternative facts? Four of the five facts he uttered, the one thing he got right–
KELLYANNE CONWAY: –hey, Chuck, why– Hey Chuck—
CHUCK TODD: –was Zeke Miller. Four of the five facts he uttered were just not true. Look, alternative facts are not facts. They’re falsehoods.
KELLYANNE CONWAY: Chuck, do you think it’s a fact or not that millions of people have lost their plans or health insurance and their doctors under President Obama? Do you think it’s a fact that everything we heard from these women yesterday happened on the watch of President Obama? He was president for eight years. Donald Trump’s been here for about eight hours. https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-01-22-17-n710491
Ok, Ken, they were clearly talking about lies. “Falsehoods.” They weren’t saying, “The facts about the numbers in the Mall and the TV audience were different.” (Your quote).
Let’s take another look at your rationalization for the use of the phrase, “alternative facts” by the Trump Administration.
Your quote: “What really shocked me was the willingness of many liberals, many people I respected before, simply losing their critical skills and accepting and slavishly repeating the media lies. I say this seriously. I had scientific friends who childishly ranted on that there cannot be “alternative facts” – when clearly there can. The facts about the numbers in the Mall and the TV audience were different – they were “alternative facts” about numbers watching the inauguration.”
What you have done here, is you have taken a phrase which was born from a discussion about blatant lying, uttering falsehoods, and you have completely reframed it so that it doesn’t interfere with your biases. I hope that this stark revelation of your own alternative facts will force you to rethink your own critical skills.
By the way, both Factcheck.org & Snopes Factcheck agree that it is not possible to determine whether the size of the Trump inaugural viewing audience worldwide was the largest in history. It’s just not possible. So when you say, “And the size of the (Trump’s) TV audience worldwide – clearly the largest – if only because of technological advances and the wider spread access to TV worldwide,” is clearly something you made up. You have absolutely no evidence to support the statement. https://www.factcheck.org/2017/01/the-facts-on-crowd-size/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-inauguration-viewership/
Kellyanne Conway agrees with me. In that same interview she said, “–look, I actually don’t think that– maybe this is me as a pollster, Chuck. And you know data well. I don’t think you can prove those numbers one way or the other. There’s no way to really quantify crowds. We all know that.”
Even she is saying Spicer’s alternative facts aren’t provable. Your liberal friends are correct. There cannot be alternative facts, as the phrase is used in its original context.
However, there can be alternative facts if you reframe the definition to push your agenda.
You re-wrote the truth. You’re not a scientist. You’re a political pundit.
Ken: ” the Mueller comment was an acceptance of lack of evidence for collusion but expressed in legalistic, and biased, terms.”
Here’s that comment: ” “the evidence was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election.”
First of all, The Mueller Report itself says it is not looking for “collusion.” So when you say, “lack of evidence for collusion,” that is technically true. But we do seem to be using it interchangeably with “conspiracy” & “coordination.”
As for Richard’s comment, “the evidence gathered of this the collusion did not rise to the level of proving all elements of an active conspiracy,” you say “simply reveal desperate denialism which could be used for any trial result where the decision did not go the way of the biased observer.”
Well, if the decision did not go the way of the observer, then the evidence didn’t rise to meet the threshold of criminal activity. That is exactly what Richard said.
Ken, Mueller himself said he considered indicting those involved in the Trump Tower meeting. (See Vol 1, Page 185) Why would he do that if there was “absolutely no evidence” of anything? He considered indicting, but didn’t indict . . . not because there was no evidence, but because 1.) he wasn’t convinced they knew they were acting illegally, and 2.) the “Value,” of the political information which was supplied by foreign nationals to help Trump win the election (there’s your collusion which Mueller says existed) may not have been great enough to prosecute.
Read the Report. You’re the only one here denying the factual, readable evidence.
David, you claim lies about the size of the inauguration audience were the turning point for you as far as Trump is concerned. You wrote:
“when he sent Sean Spicer out in front of the Press to announce – to lie – that Trump had the largest inaugural crowd in the history of U.S. Presidents, I knew he was a joke. This is what this guy wants to focus on?”
Then later you reinforce this by saying:
“Trump’s comments WERE about the crowd in the mall.”
Spicer clearly refers to the tv and device coverage as being the largest audience. My instinct is to agree simply on the basis of technological advances (in both TVs and devices). I am not really worried about the actual numbers and I don’t believe one could actually get full figures – as Spicer challenges the media to do. But it is a reasonable conclusion. As is my conclusion about the lower numbers in the Mall – Trump was certainly far less popular in Washington and the East Coast than Obama was.
It is dishonest to respond to his comments on the wide coverage (and mine on worldwide coverage), including devices, to cite figures for US TV audiences (which incidentally produced headlines like Trump inauguration ratings second biggest in 36 years https://ew.com/tv/2017/01/21/trump-inauguration-ratings/
Really, David. This is childish. I have already suggested you get a life. But attempting to debate these numbers (which are of little importance) and resorting to political tricks like this. Come on.
Both Trump and his team on the one hand, and the biased media on the other did sow confusion on this – but at least Spicer’s comments are clear – and you were relying on them for your “Johnny come lately” “Road to Damascus” revelation about Trump. Perhaps you should have listened more closely and been a little more critical in your hearing and reading.
“In your following comments you explain why the lying of the president wasn’t as important to you as the lies of the media. This says a lot more about you and your biases than it does about the media. In the first place, why would you even bother to waste your time defending Trump on this?”
Surely you are not so naïve as to assume politicians don’t lie. The old saying “You can tell when a politician is lying – their lips are moving” is no longer considered a joke. It is a fact of life and sensible people take that into account.
Quite frankly I think anyone who assumes politicians are telling the truth, who refuses to engage their critical skills in these situations, is extremely biased and not credible.
Yes, lies by the media are more of an issue for me. But again I think people who blindly use media sources to confirm their biases and uncritically accept what the media say are again very naïve. This naivety is far more widespread than the naivety of believing politicians but there is currently a strong trend to refuse to accept the claims of corporate media on trust. And that is excellent from my point of view.
This education of readers and viewers is becoming more and more essential as the corporate media resort to open lies more and more often. Just take the reporting of the recent MH17 JIT press conference and the 2008 Georgia-Russia war as examples. Outright lies are being promoted by the media. The more intelligent reader can see this because they have a memory and use alternative sources.
Nowhere do I defend Trump. That is just a cheap shot on your part. I am defending truth, opposing lies and misunderstanding and it is really cheap of you to portray that as a political defense of Trump. He is simply a buffoon (not the first to occupy that position) and it distresses me that he is currently laughing all the way to the 2020 elections because of the huge Russiagate deception. A deception aimed at covering up corruption in the Democratic Party. It is surely in the people’s interest that this corruption is overcome and that they can find a political force willing to defend their interests instead of using such mythology to protect the elite.
My biggest disappointment was with the behaviour of people I had formerly respected – scientific and liberal colleagues. That has been a small lesson for me. I am of course aware that liberals and scientific people are not immune to confirmation bias. Just somewhat surprised at how blatantly they succumbed to it in 2016/2017 – to the extent of even supporting the huge Russiagate lie. It disturbs me that people I thought sensible would let their partisan feelings entrap them in a lie that is so dangerous for world peace.
David, again you attempt to direct the discussion away from the real issues: You say:
“Now, you write, “I had scientific friends who childishly ranted on that there cannot be “alternative facts” – when clearly there can.”
Response: Let’s look at Kellyanne Conway’s statement about “alternative facts” in its original context. Where did this phrase originate?”
Can you not see I do not give a stuff about what politicians or their spokespeople say? I specifically referred to “I had scientific friends who childishly ranted on that there cannot be “alternative facts.”” I am talking about the behavior of people I considered rational.
For example, I pulled up several people online who had lost their marbles in this way. I remember specifically discussing the alternative facts of Mall and worldwide TV & online audiences with one scientist who just could not accept these were alternative facts. Incredible! You would think the acknowledgment of this obvious point was equivalent to him losing his virginity. It just shows how partisanship and confirmation bias can screw up even the most rational person.
Trump only spoke about the immediate inaugural crowd standing in front of him. I also wrote, “Sean Spicer, and Kellyanne Conway talked about other alternative audiences, later, in an effort to back-peddle (and they lied too), but Trump was solely focused on the physical crowd that attended his inauguration.”
Now you write, “Well, look again at the Spicer comments that you refer to. The video is in the Pilitico report Was Trump’s inauguration the most-streamed of all time? . . .Spicer clearly refers to the tv and device coverage as being the largest audience.”
Yes. That’s what I said. You said Trump was talking about a Worldwide audience, and the media lied about it. YOUR QUOTE: “The media lied pretending his (Trump’s) comments were about the crowd in the Mall.”
The point, which you seem to be diverting away from, is that the media didn’t lie. You lied about what the media said. And you criticized the media for a lie that you invented. Now you’re back-peddling and discussing what Spicer said, pretending that’s what you originally meant.
Ken, I caught you in a lie. You lie to push your political agenda. You’re not a scientist. Stop pretending to be one. You’re nothing but a political pundit.
“Ken, I caught you in a lie. You lie to push your political agenda. You’re not a scientist. Stop pretending to be one. You’re nothing but a political pundit.”
I get that all the time from our anti-fluoridation mates – its a tactic of last resort when they can no longer discuss the science or the positions I have challenged them on.
My scientific credibility is not determined by you or them – it’s determined by the record of my career and my scientific record as it exists in my publications.
It is sad that you have resorted to their level and succumbed to abusing me and making highly erroneous and irrelevant claims. Sad!
David, in the real world, of course, things are never black and white. Consequently it is easy to cherry-pick reports to fit and confirm one’s biases. And you are doing so.
Both the president and the media obfuscated on this issue but a cautious observer is able to find the main trends. Spicer’s comment that I quoted was completely relevant. And one must look at the main effect of media reports. The fact that I had discussed this issue with liberal and scientific colleagues who were convinced that the president and his spokespeople had made a claim about the mall crowd when they were commenting on coverage in general shows the effect of the media. Just as the media has convinced its readership that the Russian Federation is unquestionably responsible for the Skripal poisonings and the tragic downing of MH17. Or that the media has convinced its readership that the Syrian government was responsible for a chemical weapons attack in Douma.
A careful reading of even the corporate media shows such interpretations are at least unwarranted (via lack of evidence presented and assumptions made). A bit of memory and actual investigation of real sources and reading or alternative media confirms this and can even indicate who the real culprits might be in these cases.
Frankly, David, I just think you are unnaturally gullible, or more likely driven by ideological imperatives, in placing such faith in the corporate media.
However, you are welcome to that faith. I have learned to adopt a more critical and sensible approach to media sources I come across.
Your campaign to force me into the self-censorship silo you occupy is never going to succeed.
Quote from Aaron Mate’: “So that means that some people wanted Mueller to find evidence of collusion, which means that emotionally they were invested in it.”
Exchange between Adam Schiff & Robert Mueller during Mueller’s testimony before Congress:
SCHIFF: “Trump and his campaign welcomed and encouraged Russian interference?”
MUELLER: “Yes.”
SCHIFF: “And then Trump and his campaign lied about it to cover it up?”. — MUELLER: “Yes.”
Hmm . . It seems that even Robert Mueller was emotionally invested & he wanted himself to find evidence . . . . No, That’s not what this shows.
It seems that even Adam Schiff was emotionally invested . . . No, That’s not what this shows either.
It seems that Robert Mueller actually DID find evidence of collusion, it was written in his Report, but the “no collusion” theorists, like Mate’ & Perrott, were so emotionally invested in THEIR scenario that, even though it was written in black & white, they still refused to believe it. Even though Mueller himself admitted, under oath, that the Trump Campaign welcomed & encouraged Russian interference, they probably still refuse to believe that it’s written in the Mueller Report.
Yes . . That what this shows. It also demonstrates the effect of Right Wing & Russian State Propaganda fake news media on the human brain.
David – get a life. Your concentration on this conspiracy theory just shows you are not interested in supporting the political movements necessary to remove Trump.
The Mueller investigation could not find evidence of collusion – and that is why no legal actions alleging collusion have resulted. It’s as simple as that. You continual repetition of a lie will not change that fact. Nor will it lead to any legal actions.
Ken: “Your concentration on this conspiracy theory just shows you are not interested in supporting the political movements necessary to remove Trump.”
Response: Supporting a political movement to remove Trump is irrelevant to this discussion.
Ken: “The Mueller investigation could not find evidence of collusion ”
Response: (From the Mueller hearing in which Mueller testified Under Oath) SCHIFF: “Trump and his campaign welcomed and encouraged Russian interference?”
MUELLER: “Yes.”
You are wrong, Ken. According to Mueller, under oath, the Trump campaign welcomed & encouraged Russian interference. How many times do you have to read that before the truth will sink in? . . I’m thinking it never will because you are not capable of opening your mind, even in the face of stark reality.
Ken: ” . . . that is why no legal actions alleging collusion have resulted. ‘
Response: 1.) Collusion isn’t a crime. We’ve been through this before. If your mind was a parachute, you would plunge to your death because you are unable to open it enough to let new information into it. Please see p. 181 of Volume I of the Mueller Report which says,
“The office’s focus on the question of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined by Federal law, not the commonly discussed term, “collusion.””
2.) The Russian-Trump cooperation which the Mueller team found did not rise to the level of criminal conspiracy. However, the Report also said this needed more investigation. We’ve been through this before.
3.) A sitting president can’t be indicted.
(From the Mueller hearing) Rep. Ken Buck, R-Colo.: “Could you charge the president with a crime after he left office?”
Mueller: “Yes.”
Ken: “You continual repetition of a lie will not change that fact.”
Response: You just accused Robert Mueller of committing perjury, since he seems to be repeating that same “lie,” . . Under Oath.
Your continued denial about what is really in the Mueller Report will not simply make it go away. But you keep on denying it. It’s entertaining as hell.
Your argument about what is in the Mueller Report is with the author of that report, not with me. I am only repeating his words.
The fact that you want to disagree with Robert Mueller about what he wrote in his own report, speaks volumes about your emotional need to not only cling to your own biased-laden scenario, it also says a lot about your grasp of reality, and is a clear demonstration of your unusual need to win any argument at all cost.
Let me repeat that. You are disagreeing with Robert Mueller about what Robert Mueller wrote in the Mueller Report. . . Get some help before it’s too late.
SCHIFF: “Trump and his campaign welcomed and encouraged Russian interference?”
MUELLER: “Yes.”
SCHIFF: “And then Trump and his campaign lied about it to cover it up?”
MUELLER: “Yes.”
David, you ignore the simple fact. No prosecutions have been initiated for collusion. Surely that indicates all the investigations do not have evidence of collusion. How else can one explain this?
No amount of desperate searching for the meaning behind polticians statments changes that simple fact does it.
Meanwhile, Trump is laughing his way to a second win because of the obsessions of people like you who refuse to give up childish conspiracy theories and concentrate on real issues.
Ken: “David, you ignore the simple fact. No prosecutions have been initiated for collusion. Surely that indicates all the investigations do not have evidence of collusion. How else can one explain this?”
Response: Since I did consider and respond to that point two comments ago, your repeated point either shows an inability to read and comprehend, or an unwillingness to open your mind.
I don’t think you have a reading problem. I think your problem is that you simply DON’T read. I don’t think you ever read the Mueller Report, or you would already have an answer to your own question.
Ken: “No amount of desperate searching for the meaning behind polticians statments changes that simple fact does it.”
Response: If you are referring to Robert Mueller, testifying under oath, under penalty of perjury, admitting that the Trump campaign “welcomed and encouraged Russian interference,” in the 2016 election . . . I’m afraid I have to point out that Republican Robert Mueller is not a politician. If he were, as a Republican, as so many Republicans have done, he would have turned a blind eye to the entire matter, and he would have used the phrase “nothing burger.”
” . . desperate searching for the meaning behind polticians statments . . ”
You’re funny. The meaning of “Yes” is yes. How is interpreting “yes” as an affirmative to a question posed “desperate searching?” It looks, to any objective reader, that you’re the one desperately trying to make excuses for the fact that Mueller testified under oath that there was cooperation between the Trump campaign & Russian actors . . & cover-up by the Trump team.
THE SHEER IRONY HERE is that this post began as an indictment, by Ken & Mate’, of the emotional stability of those who actually read the Mueller Report and understood what it said. Now look what’s going on. Even after Mueller himself testified in front of the entire world to the contrary, Ken still can’t give up the notion that Russia did not meddle in the 2016 election, and the Trump campaign offered them no encouragement. That lie is like mother’s milk to you.
Again, you are disagreeing with Robert Mueller about what Robert Mueller wrote in the Mueller Report. And your comments like, “No amount of desperate searching for the meaning behind politicians statements . . ” themselves reek of desperation. . . Get some help before it’s too late.
Let’s end this. Either show me where, in the Mueller Report, it specifically says there was absolutely no evidence of collusion . . or admit you were wrong.
If you can show me where Mueller says there was “absolutely no evidence of collusion,” I will be happy to admit I was wrong, and we can get on with our lives.
David – you do not get to “end this.” That already happened with the release of the report of the Mueller investigation which contained the clear words:
the evidence was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election.
Now you may continue to quibble because I used the term “absolutely no evidence of collusion” but that is simply childish. You may obsessively continue to search for some sort of meaning in the statements of politicians and officials. But the clear fact is that there is no evidence that could lead to even an unsuccessful legal charge of collusion.
There is nothing of that sort in the report and you have simply stopped trying to drag up supposed evidence as more and more information comes to hand of how fake this set up was from the beginning.
Give up. You will have no greater success at convincing me by relying on someone’s opinion than the anti-fluoride campaigners have had.
Ken: “Now you may continue to quibble because I used the term “absolutely no evidence of collusion” but that is simply childish.”
Question: To be clear, are you now changing your position from saying that ‘there was absolutely no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign & Russia,” (a claim you have repeated over and over again) . . . to, “there is no evidence that could lead to even an unsuccessful legal charge of collusion?”
As anyone who can read knows, these are entirely different statements and have entirely different meanings.
Question: since you cited the passage from the Mueller report, is that your position now? “The evidence was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election.”
Or are you taking this poorly written, muddy position? “there is no evidence that could lead to even an unsuccessful legal charge of collusion?” (I don’t think your double negative was intended. I think you meant to say, ‘there is no evidence that could lead to a successful charge . . ‘)
These, also, are two different statements with two different meanings. Mueller is saying there IS evidence of coordination between the Trump campaign & Russia, but it doesn’t rise to meet the bar of criminal conspiracy.
This is consistent with what I’ve written throughout this thread. Richard Christie said exactly the same thing in his comment: “Senior Trump campaign members colluded with a foreign power by encouraging it to conspire with him and positively answering overtures by a foreign power that to their knowledge was offering information intended to influence a US election. However the evidence gathered of this the collusion did not rise to the level of proving all elements of an active conspiracy.” https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2019/05/10/psychology-of-russiagate-an-adult-discussion-for-a-change/#comment-130905
Again, that is exactly what Mueller is saying in the passage you just cited.
However, this is not consistent with your previous position that there was NO evidence. You are very vague & sloppy in your writing on this. Please clarify. Do you agree with Mueller in the passage you just cited, with Richard Christie, and with me . . . or are you still taking the position that there was no evidence at all?
In Mueller’s first public statement after the release of the Report, he said, “We Chose Our Words Carefully.” It is not childish to strive to determine the meanings of the passages of this Report. It is what Mueller requested we do.
No, David, my comment was intended. I don’t think the Mueller team consider they had any “evidence” which could be used even for a bad indictment on collusion which would be unsuccessful. They only went ahead with the IRA indictment because they didn’t think they could ever proceed with the “guilty” out of the country. The fact that Concord has fronted up is proving embarrassing for them.
It doesn’t matter what Mueller “says” for political effect (or how you choose to interpret him). No evidence was found in the investigation. Opinion is not evidence and that is why the indictments of Russian citizens based on opinions are extremely weak and obviously only brought in because they just didn’t expect them to go ahead.
I have always been clear. The evidence discussed in the report is not evidence of collusion (although racists will see it that way because simply the act of talking to a r=ussian, to them, is collusion). I repeat evidence of a meeting in Trump Tower including a Russian lawyer, or of information passed on to a Ukrainian/Russian (who turns out to be a US agent) about polling are simply evidence of those specific actions which are not denied. They are not evidence of collusion and it is simply extreme confirmation bias based on xenophobia to claim that it is.
If there is any way to show the evidence of meetings, misrepresenting meeting dates, etc., showed collusion then there would have been indictments. The fact there were none on collusion proves my point, no matter how convoluted conspiracy theorists wish to argue otherwise.
Of course, it is impossible to prove a negative, but the fact you and Richard have sunk to this level – a level often resorted to by anti-fluoride activists – shows a complete lack of objectivity. Absolutely no evidence, none of that presented in Mueller’s report, can be used to show collusion – hence no collusion indictments.
“If there is any way to show the evidence of meetings, misrepresenting meeting dates, etc., showed collusion then there would have been indictments. The fact there were none on collusion proves my point, . .”
First you said there was absolutely no evidence of collusion (despite the fact that the Report says they weren’t looking for “collusion.”) Then, as you dig your heels in, unable to admit you are wrong, you say the fact that there were no indictments on collusion proves your point.
First of all, let’s try not to use that word – collusion. It has no legal definition and is therefore meaningless in this discussion.
Second, your argument here is silly. ‘The fact that there were no indictments on collusion proves there was no collusion.’ (Of course we mean criminal conspiracy.) How exactly did you draw that laughable legal conclusion?
A wealthy man had a safe behind a portrait on the wall in his study which was robbed. Fingerprints from his maid were found on the picture frame and on the safe itself. Surveillance video showed a hooded figure, about the same size & shape as his maid, robbing the safe. The fingerprints & the video are evidence. But they didn’t indict the maid. Do you know why?
The evidence was not sufficient. The fingerprints could be explained away by her normal activities in the house, and the video proved nothing other than the robber was probably a woman.
From Mueller’s report: “The evidence was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election.”
Of course there was evidence. For example, the Mueller Report specifically points to an incident on July 27, 2016 in which Trump publicly said, “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”
The Report goes on to say, IN THE CONTEXT OF THAT COMMENT, within five hours of candidate Trump saying those words, the GRU targeted Clinton’s personal office for the first time.
That, my friend, is evidence of coordination toward a mutual end.
Those 2 events were put in the report together for a reason. It’s not sufficient to indict, but you would have to be swimming in denial to continue saying there is no evidence.
You also pointed to Manifort’s & Gate’s polling data. I’d love to hear you explain that away. . . . And the Trump Tower meeting, which was surrounded by lies & cover-ups by the Trump team.
Do you know why there were no indictments involving the Trump Tower meeting? It’s not because there was no evidence, as you adamantly say.
According to the Report, first, Mueller can’t prove that Trump’s team knew they were acting illegally. It is against the law to take political contributions from foreign nationals. And, two, the value of the information may have been too low to prosecute.
What this means is that the evidence wasn’t sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government.
This is exactly what Richard Christie said in his comment, it is exactly what I have said throughout this thread, and it is consistent with the “clear words” from the Mueller Report which you cited above.
And this nonsense from you is sheer desperation. Your quote: “It doesn’t matter what Mueller “says” for political effect (or how you choose to interpret him).”
You are implying that Mueller has a political agenda . . that, for political reasons, he really wants to nail Trump. This is what the Report actually says about that:
“. . if we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.” — Republican, Mueller wanted to clear the president, but he couldn’t.
Your comments reek of desperation & denial. Perhaps its time for you to admit the truth and give up. At this point you are only making yourself look foolish in the face of reality.
David. you keep saying there was evidence of collusion (and let’s face it changing the term to coordination at this late stage is surely an act of desperation) and then you say that “the evidence wasn’t sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government.”
Well, the evidence that you are a pedophile and have been interfering with children is not sufficient (i.e. I can’t find anything convincing to support my bias) to charge you of any wrongdoing but it would be absolute insanity (and surely a sign of corruption on my part) if I acknowledged that but still said you were guilty of pedophilia and there was “evidence” to prove it. (And for Christ’s sake it would be extremely easy for me to find “evidence” that you spoke with or met with a child).
I guess that is the sort of mythology that politicians, and especially US politicians, indulge in all the time. And it’s easy to do so if it stokes racism or xenophobia that the population is indoctrinated with.
At the moment we are dealing with something similar to the Mueller report – the Canadian research on maternal urinary fluoride and child IQ. There is all this talk about “evidence” – a very weak best-fit regression line used with suspect data (consider the residuals), statements by the media, the university and individual scientists (carefully worded to not actually say there is proof but still getting the message across that water fluoridation is dangerous for the fetus). Instead of relying on this hearsay and suspect “evidence” and authority (universities, scientists, authors, media) I actually looked at the data. I find that actual evidence is being ignored (such as the mean IQ values in fluoridated and unfluoridated areas). That the “evidence” of a trend is extremely weak, relying on a statistical analysis of data not normally distributed and explaining only 1.3% of the IQ variance. And yet the media, the authors, the journal, the university, etc. are saying that a 1mg/L increase in MUF causes or is associated with a 4.6 drop in IQ for boys. Blatantly presenting that as established fact when simply looking at the data revealed in the paper shows that is simply not the case. There is absolutely no predictive power in that association. Just look at the data points in the presented graphs. Just as in the Mueller investigation – the real evidence is in front of our eyes – we can see how scattered the data is and this should tell us the reporting “findings” are just bullshit.
I hesitate to compare you with anti-fluoride campaigners (but hell, you have said very bad things about me). But in terms of respect for facts, for real evidence, and in terms of whishing to confirm a bias, impose a narrative and being willing to distort, misrepresent and reinvent evidence, you are behaving in exactly the same way.
I attempt (and I hope successfully) to adopt a scientific ethos in approaching things like the Candian research and the Mueller report. If I see convincing evidence of something I hope I can easily acknowledge this and draw the obvious conclusions. But I am not going to allow “authority” the prevailing mythology, xenophobia or anti-scientific atmosphere divert me. I will always attmept to base my conclusions (which are always conditio9nal) on evidecne, on facts. Not prejudice, xenophobia or group thought.
Ken: “But in terms of respect for facts, for real evidence, and in terms of whishing to confirm a bias, impose a narrative and being willing to distort, misrepresent and reinvent evidence, you are behaving in exactly the same way.”
Response: Which evidence have I misrepresented & reinvented? Does the word ‘evidence’ have a different nuance in New Zealand than it does in the United States?
“Of course there was evidence. For example, the Mueller Report specifically points to an incident on July 27, 2016 in which Trump publicly said, “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”
The Report goes on to say, IN THE CONTEXT OF THAT COMMENT, within five hours of candidate Trump saying those words, the GRU targeted Clinton’s personal office for the first time.
That, my friend, is evidence of coordination toward a mutual end.”
To say this was in the Mueller report does not make it “evidence” of anything any more than to say Green et al referred to an IQ drop of 4.6 points makes it actually real or true. One has to do some thinking for oneself.
1: Yes, most observers heard/saw Trump crack his joke “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press” – something cynically aimed at the press (which he was deriding) as much as Clinton.
Clearly, this is a factual statement – Trump actually said that or something like it. But, surely, one has to be an absolute fool or highly biased to see his joke and cynical dig at Clinton/the mainstream media that as an actual request aimed at the Russian Federation! You believe that and there is a bridge in New York I might be able to see you. Or worse, you could believe every flippant comment a politician makes.
2: OK, (and I cannot be bothered checking) the Mueller report says “the GRU targeted Clinton’s personal office for the first time.” Does that statement bear any relevance to facts? What evidence was given for the claim? The Mueller report is full of statements like this which are completely unsupported but those conditioned by Russiaphobia, the prevailing racism, and xenophobia, and the extremely strong group thought on this these claims simply do not question them or ask for evidence. You are in this group – as both you and Mueller are over the pathetic January 2017 “Intelligence” report that the faithful rely on to confirm their baises (but never read).
These statements (as was the “intelligence” report) are certainly questioned by me (as was Green et al’s claim of a 4.6 IQ drop). I demand to see evidence for such claims. They are serious and should never be accepted without checking. Green’s claim was not supported by the evidence when looked at properly and I have no grounds to assume Mueller’s unsupported claims are any better (At least Green et al provided the data which enabled me to see how false their unsupported claim is – Mueller and the “intelligence” report never had any data for these claims).
Ken, you had said, “. . in terms of respect for facts, for real evidence, and in terms of whishing to confirm a bias, impose a narrative and being willing to distort, misrepresent and reinvent evidence, you are behaving in exactly the same way.”
I asked you which evidence I had misrepresented or reinvented.
You answered, “One example David is this.” And you pointed to Trump’s request to Russia that they find Hillary’s 30 thousand emails, and that they would be “mightily rewarded” by our press. According to the Mueller Report, 5 hours later, Russia began doing just that.
If I understand your response to my question correctly, somehow I misrepresented or reinvented this timeline evidence which was laid out in the Mueller Report because you believe it was a joke.
Ken: “. . one has to be an absolute fool or highly biased to see his joke and cynical dig at Clinton/the mainstream media that as an actual request aimed at the Russian Federation!”
Response: Do you have any evidence that candidate Trump was joking? Was he smiling when he said it? Did anyone in his audience understand his comment to be humorous? Did anyone in his audience laugh?
Watch the video. What I see is that up until that point, candidate Trump had been making eye contact with his audience which was physically present. When he began to say, “Russia, if you’re listening . . ,” he looked directly into the camera. This is a fact. Watch it yourself.
According to the Mueller Report, (and this entire post is about What Is and What Is Not in that Report), the facts are that Trump requested Russia to do something, and within 5 hours they began to do it.
That you believe it to be a joke is your opinion. Your opinion is irrelevant. We are only discussing what is and what is not in the Mueller Report.
Again, for the second time, which evidence have I misrepresented or reinvented?
David, you are goign around in circles – presumably because you cannot find any credible evidence to support your claim of GRU releasing emails. And it is pathetic to attempt to use Trump’s stupid joke as evidence.
I’m not claiming that GRU released emails. That is an entirely different discussion. Please try to remain focused on the discussion at hand. As you will recall, Gabor Mate’, about whom your post was written, said, “ . some people wanted Mueller to find evidence of collusion, which means that emotionally they were invested in it.”
This is a discussion about what Mueller found and what he put in his report. It is not a discussion about the validity of that evidence. When we both have seen the entire uncensored Report, perhaps we can have that discussion. Until then, it would only be speculative to entertain such an exchange.
Perhaps it was your attempted diversion into a new topic that confused you and gave the appearance of circularity.
If you have any valid evidence to support your opinion that Trump’s comment was a joke please present it. In my opinion it was a blatant display of his arrogance. He believes he is untouchable. But again, that is another discussion.
So, for the third time, which evidence have I personally misrepresented or reinvented?
David you wrote this in answer to my point there was no evidence:
“Of course there was evidence. For example, the Mueller Report specifically points to an incident on July 27, 2016 in which Trump publicly said, “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”
The Report goes on to say, IN THE CONTEXT OF THAT COMMENT, within five hours of candidate Trump saying those words, the GRU targeted Clinton’s personal office for the first time.
That, my friend, is evidence of coordination toward a mutual end.”
Now you say “I’m not claiming that GRU released emails.”
I realise all this denial leads to confusion – but are you now stepping back from your claim there was evidence?
You go on to say:
“This is a discussion about what Mueller found and what he put in his report. It is not a discussion about the validity of that evidence. When we both have seen the entire uncensored Report, perhaps we can have that discussion.”
OK, you are now classifying unsupported speculation as “evidence.” And, come on, you are the one who is presenting Mueller’s report as “evidence” – not me. You are the one who started the discussion with this mythological “evidence.”
And isn’t this a classic – “If you have any valid evidence to support your opinion that Trump’s comment was a joke please present it.” Surely you are not so foolish as to think you have no requirement to support your claims with evidence – not me. I am not the one making the fantastical claims.
Have you really retreated so far than now your charge is not that Trump colluded with someone but that he blatantly “displayed arrogance.” Come off it. That is what US presidents do – unfortunately for the rest of the world which suffers the subsequent bombings and regime changes.
Ken, I hate to have to keep reminding you what this discussion is about. It’s almost as if your knee-jerk deflection has become a normal part of your thought process.
In the video that you presented . .on your own post., Gabor Mate’ said, “ . some people wanted Mueller to find evidence of collusion, which means that emotionally they were invested in it.”
The entire erroneous thesis of your post is about “the inevitable disappointment which followed after Robert Mueller failed to turn up any evidence of collusion between the Russian government and the 2016 Trump campaign, as the result of emotional investment.” – Mate’
You are both saying that Mueller presented no evidence of conspiracy in his report
Is that not correct?
Well that’s a lie. In Volume I, Robert Mueller presented, “multiple links between Trump Campaign officials and individuals tied to the Russian government. Those links included Russian offers of assistance to the Campaign. In some instances, the Campaign was receptive to the offer, while in other instances the Campaign officials shied away.” – Mueller Report
Robert Mueller presented “Russian offers of assistance to the campaign.”
Gabor Mate said, “Robert Mueller failed to turn up any evidence of collusion between the Russian government.” Mate’ is either lying, or he is ignorant.
I don’t know how to make this any clearer. I doubt that would matter, though. You are bent on deflecting away from what is actually in the Mueller Report to another discussion and abandoning the main contention of your own post.
Also, for the 4th time now, which evidence have I personally misrepresented or reinvented?
“And isn’t this a classic – “If you have any valid evidence to support your opinion that Trump’s comment was a joke please present it.” Surely you are not so foolish as to think you have no requirement to support your claims with evidence – not me. I am not the one making the fantastical claims.”
Response: I don’t know what you are talking about. I was asking you for evidence of your fantastic claim, and, as expected, you presented none.
David, you yourself have admitted =you are suing the term “evidecne” loosely. As a scientist, I prefer to use the term in a meaningful way. Mate is perfectly correct to say Mueller did not find evidence of collusion. You effectively acknowledge this by refusing to cite specific evidence.
AS I have pointed out meeting with a Russian national (which is an extremely common occurrence for most of us – as is meeting with a British or Ukranian national) is not evidence of collusion. Nor is Trump cracking a joke on stage.
You reveal how pathetic your argument has become, how much you are resorting to squeezing blood out of a dead stone, by citing vague comments from Muller or his report. It’s like me saying you are guilty of pedophilia because you have been seen talking to kids.
Pathetic. But I guess that happens to people who continue to whip a dead horse. Russiagate has been thoroughly discredited and only losers (who are effectively aiding Trump’s reelection) refuse to move on.
Ken, your attempt to re-write history, to re-write the contents of what is contained in the Mueller Report, is the sad testimony of an aging, closed-minded blogger who has a political agenda.
David, I disagree. You have already defined the way you use the word:
“This is a discussion about what Mueller found and what he put in his report. It is not a discussion about the validity of that evidence. “
You are already acknowledging that the report claims themselves may not be valid. I agree – that is why I ask for the evidence for the claims. There appear to be none.
Now you go further and are using hearsay – the fact that Welch said something and Mueller said something as “evidence” of collusion. It simply isn’t.
Evidence is something that can be looked at, can be checked. I can check that Welch and Mueller said something but that is trivial and deceptive. It is the old trick anti-fluoridationists use of quoting authority. I cannot check that as real evidence of conspiracy or collusion.
You have presented Trumps joke and Mueller claim of a GRU response as “evidence.” I can check and verify Trump made a joke. I can not check and verify Muller’s claim of GRU action because absolutely nothing was presented to support that claim.
Now, come on. Enough of your personal attacks – they are just becoming tiresome and do nothing for your case. Either put up or shut up.
Continuing in this manner may help Trump in his reelection bid but beating this dead horse is doing nothing to fight his policies.
Perhaps you should be directing your attacks at the DNC. They look like they are going to repeat the same old mistakes of 2016. Their efforts, once again, to silence progressive candidates will simply hand the election over to Trump again.
Ken: “You are already acknowledging that the report claims themselves may not be valid.” — That is a lie. I said you are in no position to make the fantastic claim that evidence presented in the Mueller Report is false because you haven’t seen the entire Report. You are the one making the outlandish claim that evidence presented is false; therefore, it is on you to prove your extrordinary claims.
Please don’t put words in my mouth. It suggests a failing mind on your part.
Let’s take a moment to pause and recap so we can see how we’ve gotten here.
When Bill Barr presented his fake 4 page summary of the Mueller Report you dedicated an entire post to your feeling of vindication . . . That the Mueller Report confirmed your belief there was no “collusion” between the Trump campaign & certain Russian interests.
I knew it i knew it i knew it i knew it i knew it i knew it!!!! . No Collusion!!
But now that we know Bill Barr was misrepresenting the Report your approach seems to have changed. Now that Mueller himself has testified under oath that there was plenty of evidence of a conspiracy (evidence uncovered didn’t rise to the level of criminality), now that we can read the Report ourselves, you’re telling us there is no proof of the evidence cited.
When you believed the Mueller Report claimed there was no evidence of conspiracy you were through the roof with vindication. Now that the truth has been revealed, with plenty of evidence presented, it’s hearsay, or there’s no proof . . . In short, the Mueller Report is a fraud.
Could you be more hypocritical?
One more thing. Please don’t use the word “collusion.” It is a demonstration of your ignorance and proof that you never bothered to read the Report.
“This is a discussion about what Mueller found and what he put in his report. It is not a discussion about the validity of that evidence.”
This indicates the problem. When I use the word “evidence” I am referring to the facts or data which support and do not support a claim. That is the usual scientific understanding of the word.
You have come to use “evidence” in a different way. Of course the fact that Mueller writes something in his report or said something can be stated as evidence of what he wrote or stated. But as you point out it is not evidence of the veracity of what he wrote or said.
Unfortunately when I ask for evidence of collusion you attempt to confuse the issue by producing evidence of a claim of collusion – not evidence of collusions but then go on to say your cited “evidence” is evidence of collusion.
It’s not and it is dishonest of you to make that claim.
But you get worse – referring to Barr’s statement about the report as “fake” and saying “Barr was misrepresenting the Report.” You live in a fantasy world – especially as Barr was actually quoting from the report.
You claim “plenty of evidence presented” of collusion but strangely are unable to present the evidence – even falling back on the statement that you do not claim the “evidence” is validated.
Stop playing with words. There is absolutely no valid evidence of collusion and you know it. (And I shouldn’t’ have to use the word valid).
Russias leaders living amongst a generous landscape for kids to talk and play about, some multicultural with portrayed family members near and far need to be protected, Their police with contentious issues to contend with at times may feel foreign intervention trying to culturally tear them down as in other countries with acceptance upon certain issues not always appreciated and certain family members may feel the brunt of this. Their leaders and Police not doubt do what they can at times. Dr Gabor mates comments of interest.
Ken: “Unfortunately when I ask for evidence of collusion you attempt to confuse the issue by producing evidence of a claim of collusion”
Response: If you had bothered to read the Report, you wouldn’t be lazily using the word “collusion.” As I recall, Mueller addressed the inappropriateness of that word early on.
Perhaps you should take the time to read the Report before continuing a discussion about what is and what is not in the Report.
Ken says, “But you get worse – referring to Barr’s statement about the report as “fake” and saying “Barr was misrepresenting the Report.” You live in a fantasy world – especially as Barr was actually quoting from the report.”
Wow! Barr was actually quoting from the report. In that case, since “actually quoting from the report,” makes everything he said in his fake 4-page letter real, then your old anti-fluoride opponents are correct in everything they say, since they often selectively quote directly from studies that they misrepresent.
Or don’t the same rules apply when your bias is being threatened.
I “live in a fantasy world,” because I have claimed that Barr’s letter misrepresented the Mueller Report. . . . Well then, Robert Mueller must also live in that same fantasy world regarding his own report. You know, the one that his office wrote.
This is what he had to say about Barr’s fake 4-page letter:
“The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office’s work and conclusion. There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/special-counsel-mueller-s-letter-to-attorney-general-barr/e32695eb-c379-4696-845a-1b45ad32fff1/
You seem to have taken it upon yourself to disagree with the author of the Mueller Report about what is in the Mueller Report. If that’s not ego driven, I don’t know what is.
What’s your next move, a public disagreement with God about what is in the Bible?
I suppose God is to the individual what the individual deems God to be. It’s not for me to tell you what God is to you. You’re probably old enough to be comfortable with your own answers; and if not, young enough to find new answers.
It was a bit ethnocentric of me to have referenced the Bible, wasn’t it. Nor would I have ascribed a gender to God.
Oh, I think there could still be some real collusion in there somewhere as the interference from the UK, Australia and Ukraine come to light with the current investigation.
But, yes, the Intelligate investigation could reveal some serious conspiracies – if allowed to. However, I suspect the deep state will control how much is revealed.
Open Parachute 
Yes, he’s correct, which underlines the very reason his voice will be ignored in favour of the Rachel Maddows of this world.
Pretty depressing, it also answers why its business as usual as far as climate catastrophe goes. Thats a message no one wants to hear.
The impacts on our lives if radical change was undertaken would be altogether too much sacrifice.
What about my stuff!!??
My godgiven right to travel overseas every year?
Craig Murray has a very good critique of the Mueller investigation , and how he managed to ignore any evidence that might contradict the desired outcome
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/05/the-real-muellergate-scandal/
but whoosh
LikeLike
Gabor Maté may have his admirers, but it is likely that none of them value science-based mental health practices.
LikeLike
lindarosarn – I think he is on the ball with this particular analysis.
LikeLike
Yes, I thought Murray’s critique was good. I never get over my amazement about how bad some of the highly respected reports can be. There seems to have been no serious attempt to properly check things out in this case.
LikeLike
Apologies . . I had meant to place this comment under this blog post where it would be more relevant:
First question to you: Did you even bother reading the Mueller Report? I hope the answer is no, which would mean you are relying on sources you choose simply because they confirm your biases. Because if the answer is yes, that means you are purposely writing deceptive opinion pieces. For what purpose? . . Good question.
Ken, this is nuts. You are literally part of the process of trying to re-write history as it is unfolding.
Since your comments in this post are rather vague, let’s clarify. You didn’t say it, but Mate is discussing the Mueller Report: “So that means that some people wanted Mueller to find evidence of collusion, which means that emotionally they were invested in it.” . . . . “Or you can say there must be a devil somewhere behind all this, and that devil is a foreign power, and his name is Putin, and his country is Russia.”
He is saying that the Report found no evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign & Russia. That is simply a lie.
He’s basing everything he says here on that Report . . but he knows he’s misrepresenting it because he takes the time to attack Mueller personally. Johnstone: “Maté talked about how Mueller, despite his horrible track record of supporting the WMD lie in the lead-up to the Iraq invasion, has been made into a hero, . . “
This is a guy, like you, who either never read the report or is purposely trying to misrepresent it. And then he mixes it up in a stew of bullshit pop psychology to make it sound cerebral, which it is not. It is simply a political lie.
So let’s talk about the Report & Russiagate, since you, Johnstone, & Mate are lying about it. You are saying the Report says there was no evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign & Russia to influence the 2016 election . . . but . .
. . The Report actually says There were two efforts by Russia to influence the 2016 election. 1.) The first effort involved disinformation and social-media operations (kind of like what you’re doing here . . . and 2.) The second effort involved hacking into computers to get e-mails from people affiliated with Hillary Clinton’s campaign and Democratic Party organizations to gather and disseminate information.
There’s your boogeyman, which Mate says is non-existent.
According to the Report, the Russian government QUOTE, “perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome.” . . . . Moreover, the Trump Campaign QUOTE, “expected it would benefit” from stolen materials which were released through Russian efforts.
The Report also says that Trump’s Campaign Director instructed his deputy to QUOTE, “provide Kilimnik with updates on the Trump campaign—including internal polling data.” The Report also goes on to say that, “Manafort expected Kilimnik to share that information with others in Ukraine and with Deripaska. Gates periodically sent such polling data to Kilimnik during the campaign.”
Ken, these were the findings of the Mueller Report which contra
LikeLike
(comment continued) . . Ken, these are the findings of the Mueller Report . .
. . . which contradicts the crux of everything you have written in this post, . . taken from Gabor Mate, a self-proclaimed psychology/addiction guru who isn’t widely thought of in professional circles (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/addiction-in-society/201112/the-seductive-dangerous-allure-gabor-mat ) .
So the question remains . . have you bothered to read the report or are parroting sources that make you feel good . . because your mother didn’t breast feed you and your father drank himself to death 😉 (see . . I can do it too.) Up until this point I had given you the benefit of the doubt that your mind was closed shut, unwilling to admit you were wrong . . a symptom of old age. But I am fast approaching the point at which I may conclude you are purposely pushing a false narrative. If that is the case, the purpose of your agenda remains the key question.
LikeLike
. . . contradicts the crux of everything you have written in this post, . . taken from Gabor Mate, a self-proclaimed psychology/addiction guru who isn’t widely thought of in professional circles (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/addiction-in-society/201112/the-seductive-dangerous-allure-gabor-mat ) .
So the question remains . . have you bothered to read the report or are parroting sources that make you feel good . . because your mother didn’t breast feed you and your father drank himself to death 😉 (see . . I can do it too.) Up until this point I had given you the benefit of the doubt that your mind was closed shut, unwilling to admit you were wrong . . a symptom of old age. But I am fast approaching the point at which I may conclude you are purposely pushing a false narrative. If that is the case, the purpose of your agenda remains the key question.
LikeLike
David, you are simply using the old bait and switch diversion when you say:
It is simply a fact that “the Report says there was no evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign & Russia to influence the 2016 election.” There is no evidence of “collusion,” “coordination” etc.
But the switch you use is the fact the Muller report does claim there was evidence of interference – quite a different issue.
Mind you, I think the Mueller report is pathetic. It did nothing to check out the so-called evidence of interference and appears simply to rely on the evidence-free January 6 intelligence report. That is quite disgusting for an investigative body. It also relied on the Democrat-aligned Crowdstrike report. Again pathetic.
You seem unwilling to come to grips with Gabor’s analysis. I think it is extremely good. So instead of pointing to any flaws in his analysis, you resort to a personal attack on him – using an irrelevant citation to “prove” it.
Come on. Look at the evidence. Actually consider what Gabor says.
Your whole approach (and that of so many who drank the Russiagate kool-aid) reminds me of someone whose marriage has suddenly broken down. They have not yet advanced to a stage enabling them to understand why (and what they contributed to the breakdown) and are desperately looking for excuses and scapegoats to avoid facing up to their own problems which caused the marriage breakdown.
LikeLike
Yes – I have read the first part of the report and will get back to the second part soon (Had some big family issues including the birth of a beautiful great grand-daughter in the last week). I think the report demonstrates how pathetic the investigation has been. You could get some insight into the problem is you read George Papadopoulos’s book outlining his experience (remember, his entrapment was the issue which was meant to have initiated the whole Russiagate investigation). It is Deep State Target: How I Got Caught in the Crosshairs of the Plot to Bring Down President Trump He appears rather naive and does not have a full understanding of what has driven this whole Russiagate hysteria – but it is worth actually seeing how this thing started off.
The book is relatively short and easy to read – much easier than the Mueller report.
LikeLike
Stephen Cohen is also critical of the Mueller investigation. Pointing out it never did a forensic investigation of the intelligence report claims.
https://soundcloud.com/kpfa-fm-94-1-berkeley/why-didnt-mueller-do-his-own-forensics-why-didnt-he-speak-to-julian-assange
LikeLike
1.) Congratulations on the birth of your great grand daughter. My first grand daughter will be born in December.
2.) Your comment: “David, you are simply using the old bait and switch diversion . . .
“It is simply a fact that “the Report says there was no evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign & Russia to influence the 2016 election.” There is no evidence of “collusion,” “coordination” etc.
“But the switch you use is the fact the Muller report does claim there was evidence of interference – quite a different issue.”
Response: What are you talking about? Was not Paul Manafort the “Chairman of the Trump Campaign?” Does not the Report specifically say that Manafort directed Gates to supply polling data with the intent of influencing the 2016 election?
Try to connect the dots here. If Trump’s campaign manager is supplying data to foreign actors with the intent of influencing the election, that’s kind of a coordinated effort.
As for your comments about Gabor, a pop-psychologist who is not widely regarded in professional circles, who is commenting about what’s going on inside the head of a narcissist whom he has never personally examined, you’re free to believe anything you choose.
I would be more interested in professional comments regarding state of denial in people like you who choose to believe there was no coordination between the Trump campaign & Russia, and use the very Report which says such a conspiracy did exist as evidence that it did not.
Not that you are one of his supporters . . but this does apply–
” While dozens of psychologists have analyzed Trump, to explain the man’s political invincibility, it is more important to understand the minds of his staunch supporters. While various popular articles have illuminated a multitude of reasons for his unwavering support, there appears to be no comprehensive analysis that contains all of them.” https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mind-in-the-machine/201812/complete-psychological-analysis-trumps-support
I’m thinking maybe The Dunning-Kruger Effect may apply here.
LikeLike
Muller reported with reference to Manafort:
But did not find any evidence he cooperated with the government of the RF (see the image from p184 -sorry this did not allow text):
Yes, Mueller considered the handing over of polling data (as you say ” specifically say that Manafort directed Gates to supply polling data”) but clearly did not see this as cooperating with the Russian government. In fact, Kilimnik was a business associate of Manafort’s and the information appears to have been passed to Ukrainian oligarchs – who did have a great interest in the election and we have yet to see the details of the Ukrainian government interferences in the US 2016 elections.
David, your attack on Gabor is the classic smear technique – developed by US intelligence agencies and used extensively to avoid discussing information. It is used extensively in the corporate media. You resort to this smearing all the time and do so to avoid interacting with the evidence or opinions.
By all means, attack Gabor’s analysis (and I would be interested in a reasoned critique of his analysis) but you lose all credibility when you resort to the smear technique.
I personally find his analysis very convincing – if you don’t then tell me why.
You say:
“I would be more interested in professional comments regarding state of denial in people like you who choose to believe there was no coordination between the Trump campaign & Russia, and use the very Report which says such a conspiracy did exist as evidence that it did not.”
This is simply an example of what Gabor was talking about. You completely turn around the findings of the Muller investigation (there was no evidence of a conspiracy at all) and attempt to pretend that anyone who acknowledges that truth is deluded. That is the classic example of the problem Gabor talked about.
In politics, people are rarely rational. Gabor’s analysis does apply to both sides. But we are discussing here an extreme case of hysteria which has not only endangered world peace but also destroyed US political thinking.
All the indications are that Democrats have simply not learned from their mistake and are objectively doing everything they can to ensure a Trump victory in 2020. They should recognize the myth has died and start to deal with the issues that ordinary people are concerned about.
By continuing to misrepresent the investigation findings and thinking they can revive the hysteria they are laying themselves wide open to being thoroughly discredited when information comes out from the new investigation of how the Russiagate hysteria happened. They asked for this fight so they cannot pretend the new investigation is vindictive or appear at all convincing when they argue that declassification should not happen.
LikeLike
Ken, allow me to respond to your comments regarding Pop Psychologist, Gabor Mate, as that is all I have time for right now.
Your comment: “David, your attack on Gabor is the classic smear technique – developed by US intelligence agencies and used extensively to avoid discussing information. It is used extensively in the corporate media. You resort to this smearing all the time and do so to avoid interacting with the evidence or opinions.”
Response: It’s not a smear if what I said is true. I said Gabor is “a pop-psychologist who is not widely regarded in professional circles, who is commenting about what’s going on inside the head of a narcissist whom he has never personally examined,” (oops, my bad. I smeared Trump. I shouldn’t have called him a narcissist, as I am not a professional psychologist, nor have I ever examined him.)
First of all, your blind defense of anyone who shares your biases worries me. That’s a layman’s opinion & in no way meant to be taken as psychological advice.
In the second place, Gabor Mate, in this interview, was in violation of the American Psychiatric Association’s Principles of Medical Ethics, which state that it is unethical for psychiatrists to give a professional opinion about public figures whom they have not examined in person, and from whom they have not obtained consent to discuss their mental health in public statements.
This is called the Goldwater Rule. You can read all about it here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldwater_rule
And finally, Mate is a pop psychologist.
Definition of Pop Psychology: “psychological or pseudopsychological counseling, interpretations, concepts, terminology, etc., often simplistic or superficial, popularized by certain personalities, magazine articles, television shows, advice columns, or the like, that influence the general public.”
Here we have a guy, Gabor Mate, who is telling us all about what’s going on inside the head of a public figure whom he as never examined, much less met. By definition, that makes him an unethical pop psychologist. That’s not a smear. It’s the truth, and it has just been proven.
This is what Mate says about a fellow human being whom he has never as much as spoken to:
“Donald Trump is the clearest example of a traumatized politician one could ever see. He’s in denial of reality all the time. He is self aggrandizing. His fundamental self concept is that of a nobody. So he has to make himself huge and big all the time and keep proving to the world how powerful and smart, what kind of degrees he’s got and how smart he is. It’s a compensation for terrible self image. He can’t pay attention to anything, which means that his brain is too scattered because it was too painful for him to pay attention.
What does this all come down to? The childhood that we know that he had in the home of a dictatorial child disparaging father… who demeaned his children mercilessly. One of Trump’s brothers drank himself to death. And Trump compensates for all that by trying to make himself as big and powerful and successful as possible. And, of course, he makes up for his anger towards his mother . . . ”
WOW!
This is a guy who is in violation of psychiatric ethics, by providing an analysis of a pop public figure.
How is what I said incorrect? I said, Gabor is “a pop-psychologist who is not widely regarded in professional circles, who is commenting about what’s going on inside the head of a narcissist whom he has never personally examined,”
I would normally be the last one to defend the rights of Donald Trump, but in this case I’ll make an exception. Trump would be well within his rights to sue this bozo. And he would win.
And no, Mate is not widely regarded in professional circles.
This from one of the many articles critical of him: “And if you question or challenge him, it’s obviously you that is at fault, so there is no chance of healthy dialogue. You either buy in to the whole package or you are wrong. That’s never a healthy position to take.” https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/addiction-in-society/201703/is-gabor-mat-sacrosanct
You seem to have the same problem . . although this is a mere layman’s opinion and not to be taken professionally.
(by the way, if you are interested in a more insightful analysis of Trump, you might want to take a look at this interview of Howard Stern by Anderson Cooper. At least Stern has actually met and has had discussions with Trump.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/05/25/howard_stern_trump_needs_therapy_for_childhood_trauma_wanted_me_to_endorse_him_speak_at_rnc.html 😉 )
As I said before, I’ll get to the rest of your erroneous comment when I have more time.
LikeLike
David, you seem to have made assumptions without even listening to the interview. Gabor may have made a few derogatory statements about Trump (who doesn’t – aand there have been plenty of US psychologists who have attempted an analysis of the buffoon without actual examination. It’s been part of the “resistance.”)
But Gabor’s important analysis was about the reaction of the public to Trump’s election – particularly people who just couldn’t believe it could happen. I think his analysis of this was spot on – and it is telling that you refuse to engage with his analysis.
This is why you resort to the smear – attempting to divert attention away from the facts, and the smearing a person or source in absence of this. It’s not honest but you do it all the time.
LikeLike
Ken, in your post you said, “I advise readers who do not have time to watch this very important interview to read Caitlin Johnstone’s article about it – This Talk Between Aaron & Gabor Maté Is The Best Political Video I’ve Ever Seen.”
That is what I did. That was the source I used which was the foundation for my comments. Your argument is with Caitlain Johnstone, not with me.
LikeLike
By the way, everything I said is a fact. I documented everything I wrote. It’s not a smear if it is true. The fact that you can’t come to grips with reality is your problem, and it says more about you than it does about me.
LikeLike
Ok. I will respond to this, which seems to be the most weighty issue in your mind.:
“But Gabor’s important analysis was about the reaction of the public to Trump’s election – particularly people who just couldn’t believe it could happen.”
“People who just couldn’t believe it could happen.”
Can you tell me how many of these alleged people Mate has personally examined? Has he documented any of these cases, and written about them for his peers to review? My understanding is that Mate’s specialty is drug addiction. How does that qualify somebody to get inside the heads of people who, as far as the evidence shows, he hasn’t as much as spoken to?
Evidence is kind of important to you, isn’t it?
Do I really need to say more? Again, your blind defense of any bozo who happens to support and elevate your biases worries me.
LikeLike
David, you still refuse to engage with Gabor’s description of the problem. I have said that to me his analysis is spot on. Why don’t you challenge the analysis instead of smearing him or making excuses? After all, if I has attempted to discredit any of your contributions by asking how many Kremlin or RT officials you had I interviewed you would think me mad.
LikeLike
Ken: ” . . if I has attempted to discredit any of your contributions by asking how many Kremlin or RT officials you had I interviewed you would think me mad.”
Response: If I was pretending to be a professional psychologist, putting forth a psychoanalysis of Kremlin or RT officials, I would think you incompetent or just plain lazy if you DIDN’T ask me how many of them I had personally interviewed.
How is it possible for a psychologist to understand what is going on inside the heads of a collective group of people whom he has never as much as spoken to?
Again: Can you tell me how many of these alleged people Mate has personally examined?
Why don’t YOU come to grips with these fundamental, essential questions instead of diverting away from them?
Ken: “I have said that to me his analysis is spot on.”
Response: What analysis? Ken-the-scientist hasn’t even bothered to question his non-existent methodology. Why is that? Unlike Mate and his imaginary election-deniers, I’ve had exchanges with you: therefore, allow me to explain it. —
I don’t know what’s going on inside your head, or why. But something’s wrong somewhere based on your pattern of blind support for anyone who pushes or supports your agenda.
LikeLike
This is from Johnstone’s article:
“Gabor explained that the reason for this emotional investment ensued from the trauma of seeing Trump elected. They had the choice between consciously feeling through the pain and fear of that trauma and then doing some serious examinations of the factors that led to Trump’s election, or blaming the whole thing on a foreign boogeyman and avoiding that self-confrontation altogether.”
Seriously, Ken, don’t you think it would be a basic necessity to have interviewed actual people in order to say that they were traumatized in some way?
The bigger question here is why is this “Critical Analysis,” upon which you so highly pride yourself, not applied to those who elevate and support your biases?
LikeLike
Once again, David, you refuse to engage with Gabor’s analysis of the situation. It is a highly realistic analysis – anyone having gone through, or observed someone going through, the trauma of a relationship breakup will recognise the performance of people who refuse to recognise their own problems, or looking for an external threat to blame, etc.
One does not have to be a psychologist or carry out a personal diagnosis to see the symptoms.
But I suspect that as you are in the middle of this trauma, looking for an external cause for Trump’s election rather than seeing what really caused this unusual and, to many undesirable, event you are not yet ready to consider any objective analysis. To you, “Putin did it” is a lifeline.
But, considering the time involved (after all one gets over a marriage breakup within 2 years) and the evidence available to anyone who cares to look without adherence to a narrative, isn’t it about time you stopped attacking people who have been able to see through this hysteria?
LikeLike
Ken, you’re hilarious. Ok, I’ll play Gabor’s game . .
You continue to bring up the 2016 election. Again, you just brought it up in this last comment. You seem to be focused on the event. Why is that?
Since re-living the Trump election is the manifestation of your conflict between consciously feeling through the pain and fear of that trauma and then doing some serious examinations of the factors that led to Trump’s election, it is clear that you have been traumatized on a deep, emotional level.
Of course, it’s because you hate your mother. Did your brother drink himself to death?
LikeLike
Ok.
Ken: “Once again, David, you refuse to engage with Gabor’s analysis of the situation.”
Response: Once again, Ken, there is no analysis of anything, one reason being that there is no “situation.” There is no “hysteria.” I’ll discuss this in a moment.
But first, this interview isn’t even an analysis. If I had written a paper of this caliber in college, I would have had remarks on it telling me of my broad sweeping gross generalizations.
You write that anyone who has “observed someone going through, the trauma of a relationship breakup will recognize” what’s going on here. The difference between your analogy, and Gabor’s comments on this alleged “hysteria,” is that in your case, the case of a breakup of a couple personally known to you, we are talking about specific people, people who are known personally to you and with whom you have interacted.
Gabor, on the other hand, cites no specifics. He does not claim he is discussing anyone with whom he has ever spoken. In short, the evidence shows that he is doing nothing more than making things up about people he has never met.
That is because there is no evidence of anything he says. But that doesn’t matter to you, does it.
In the second place, there is no “Russiagate hysteria.” It doesn’t exist. There is a “Denial hysteria,” from which you are suffering . . and that is the bigger issue. But first, let’s look at what “hysteria” is:
“a psychological disorder (not now regarded as a single definite condition) whose symptoms include conversion of psychological stress into physical symptoms (somatization), selective amnesia, shallow volatile emotions, and overdramatic or attention-seeking behavior.”
Note: “Selective amnesia.”
Why do I say the “Russiagate hysteria” is non-existent? Because normal people would conclude that there was a conspiracy of sorts between the Trump campaign and Russia based on what the Mueller Report says.
One thing that we should be able to agree on is that according to Mueller, there were “multiple, systematic” efforts at Russian election interference from which the Trump campaign was eager to benefit. There should be no debate about that. That is a clear fact, according to the Report.
It is also clear from the Report that on July 27, 2016, Trump publicly said, ““Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing” . . This was a reference to Hillary Clinton’s emails which were reportedly stored on a personal server.
We should be able to agree on that. There is no debate about it.
The Report goes on to say that “Within approximately five hours” of Trump’s comments, Russian military intelligence began a cyberattack against “Clinton’s personal office.” . . . This is in the Report. Again there is no debate about it if we are going to base our conclusions on the Report.
And you did just that.
Just from this one example alone, a normal person would conclude that there was some sort of coordination going on. Trump asked Russia to do something . . within 5 hours Russia began to do it. That’s how coordination works . . and that’s how a normal person would see it.
That’s not hysteria, that’s drawing a natural conclusion from a normal perception of events that actually took place.
But there’s more about this single event. The Report goes on to say that after his July 27 comment, Trump “asked individuals affiliated with his campaign to find the deleted Clinton emails.” This included Michael Flynn.
Flynn then reached out to a Republican Senate staffer and a party operative who worked separately to obtain the emails. The operative raised money to support the project, which he marketed as “coordinated with the Trump campaign,” and told others that he was in communication with Russian hackers who had access to emails he believed were Mrs. Clinton’s.
But the Report “did not establish” that the operative had actually made contact with any real Russian hackers. And while the staffer obtained emails, an effort funded by someone close to the campaign found that they were not really Mrs. Clinton’s either.
In other words, they were incompetent. It didn’t work out for them.
“Collusion” has no legal definition. But if the term means working behind the scenes with Russian actors to obtain hacked information damaging to Mrs. Clinton, then this section of the Report describes just that — collusion that took place at Mr. Trump’s request. It just wasn’t successful.
Again, your “selective amnesia” seems to have caused you to overlook these details.
And we haven’t even discussed Manafort’s sharing of Polling data with a Russian man, Konstantin Kilimnik, whom, again, according to the Report, “the F.B.I. assesses to have ties to Russian intelligence.”
Even though Mueller “could not reliably determine Manafort’s purpose” in sharing the data with Mr. Kilimnik, one must ask ‘why’ polling data was shared.
Do I need to go on? Do I need to discuss all 17 Trump associates who had contacts with Russians or Wikileaks, or the 100 face-to-face interactions, phone calls or electronic messages with Russians or Kremlin-linked figures? Do I need to discuss the lying about the purpose of the Trump Tower meeting by Donald Trump, Jr.?
This is all according to the Mueller Report, which you say is your “vindication” (YOUR QUOTE) “that the narrative we have been fed by the corporate or mainstream media over the last two years has been false. It has been fake news.”
But the Mueller Report doesn’t say that at all. You are in denial. You have “selective amnesia” about what you read and about what you allow into your mind, and by definition, you are suffering from hysteria.
Again, you need to worry more about your own denial more than you need to worry about normal conclusions drawn by normal people about what they have read in the Mueller Report.
I hope this addresses your concerns about why I “refuse to engage with Gabor’s analysis of the situation.”
1.) There is no analysis of anything. What you are referring to analyses are nothing but broad, sweeping, gross generalizations of people whom Gabor has never met, much less interviewed. And . .
2.) There is no “situation.” The so-called “Russiagate hysteria” does not exist. There is only the normal conclusion reached by people who have actually read the report.
You are in denial.
I would hope this would put an end to the discussion, . . I would hope that it addresses my “refusal to engage” topic that I consider a joke . . but your own pattern of denial leads me to believe this won’t be the end of it.
LikeLike
David, you still refuse to engage with the excellent analysis presented by Gabor. An analysis which attempts to provide light on how the Russiagate hysteria took hold in the US.
Quite simply – you are in denial. Another stage of this psychological phenomenon. A stage we often see in people who have suddenly been bereaved by the decision of their spouse to leave them.
You make this incredible claim:
Just incredible given that the Mueller report specifically says there was absolutely no evidence of collusion. And psychological normal – and also intelligent – people have been pointing out for 2 years that no evidence existed. In this respect, I am a normal person and the Mueller report was no surprise to me.
I think the problem here is that your definition of “normal people” are people who uncritically accept a false narrative because it fits their prejudices and “explains” something horrible without them having to take a single step to look for the real causes of the horrible event.
David, you are attempting to relitigate something which is now completely dead – and in the process ignoring the new investigations of corruption in the FBI and intelligence agencies which led to the creation of the collusion myth. You are also playing into Trump’s hands – he recognises that the continual attemtps by some in the Democrat Party to breath life into the Russiagate corpse will only help him win again in 2020.
I won’t bother responding to your attempts to rehash failed arguments from the past but it is worth responding to this claim of yours:
We have in fact discussed this but it is worth revisiting because of the new evidence that Kilimnik was actually acting as a US asset, in constant contact with the US embassy in Kiev passing on information about the governing party and, post-coup, opposition political groups.
Have a read of this article from The Hill – Key figure that Mueller report linked to Russia was a State Department intel source.
It is worth considering this new evidence and its implications. I think it shows how poor the Mueller investigation was – and how suspect many of its statements and assumptions are. Life is certainly more complex than the naive narrative’s presented to us to justify the Russiagate myth. already we have seen, and are seeing again, evidence of interference by state forces of foreign governments – specifically the UK, Canada and Ukraine in the US 2016 elections. I suspect the involvement of Ukraine will turn out to be much bigger than what we currently know publicly. I also suspect that when some of the truth does come out there we be evidence of a Ukrainian role in organisations like Popornot, the Integrity Initiative, and similar NATO-connected disinformation agencies pretending to be campaigning against disinformation.
LikeLike
Ken, thank you for your response. It’s getting late & I’m getting ready for bed, so I can’t give your comment the diligence it deserves, at the moment. But two things jump out at me and I feel the need to respond.
UNBELIEVABLE!!
That was my first reaction when I read your comment. First this from you:
“I think it shows how poor the Mueller investigation was – and how suspect many of its statements and assumptions are.”
Response: Well wait a minute! Aren’t you the same person who said:
“Today I am feeling vindicated. And that vindication comes from a very strange source – . . . the principal conclusions of Special Counsel, Robert S. Mueller . . .” https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2019/03/25/getting-out-alive-why-we-should-always-demand-evidence/
Here we have a blatant example of your biased hypocrisy. On one hand, when you believe the Mueller Report supports your bias you claim vindication & victory. On the other hand, when your agenda is called into question based on THAT SAME REPORT, it is a “poor investigation” and its many statements & assumptions are “suspect.”
Your biased hypocrisy speaks for itself. You are not a scientist. You are nothing but a political pundit. And you’re not a very good one at that.
The second thing that jumped out at me was this: “the Mueller report specifically says there was absolutely no evidence of collusion.”
Response: Really? It specifically says that?? SHOW ME THAT QUOTE You are either purposely lying, or you didn’t read the Report.
The fact is it says no such thing. The fact that coordination between the Trump campaign & Russian actors didn’t rise to meet the bar of criminal conspiracy is NOT the same thing as saying the Report “specifically says there was absolutely no evidence of collusion.”
When Mueller concluded that he “did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities,” he is not saying that there is no evidence of “collusion” at all. What he is saying is that there is insufficient evidence to prove that the Trump administration was directly involved in Russian crimes like stealing Clinton’s emails.
But did the Trump campaign actively work with the Russian government to improve its electoral chances? If that’s the standard, then the report provides plenty of evidence to suggest the answer is yes.
First, Russia repeatedly reached out to the Trump campaign to establish a connection to the Kremlin. “The Russian contacts consisted of business connections, offers of assistance to the Campaign, invitations for candidate Trump and Putin to meet in person, invitations for Campaign officials and representatives of the Russian government to meet, and policy positions seeking improved U.S.-Russian relations,”
This – from the Mueller Report, which you said “vindicated” you, until it disagreed with your agenda . . then of course we see how “poor the Mueller investigation was.”
Second, the Trump campaign was receptive — sometimes going beyond what was on offer from the Kremlin. Some of the examples of this are egregious.
For example, Manafort’s meetings with Konstantin Kilimnik, a Russian political consultant with a history of connections to the GRU intelligence agency. How do we know this? Because the Mueller Report, the source for your feeling of vindication, says of him that “the F.B.I. assesses to have ties to Russian intelligence.”
Oh, Wait A Minute! You also said that the Mueller Report was “poor,” and many of its statements and assumptions were “suspect.”
So, to be clear . . When the Mueller Report supports your agenda you use it as a source for vindication. And when that same Report disproves what you are saying it’s a poor investigation. Got It!
You have just lost any semblance of credibility that you may have once had. I am actually beginning to feel sorry for you.
LikeLike
Oh, I forgot this. Your quote: “David, you still refuse to engage with the excellent analysis presented by Gabor. ”
Response: Yes I did. As I said, it is not an analysis. It is nothing but broad sweeping gross generalizations of people whom Gabor has never met. Your selective amnesia is not only forcing me to re-hash what I have already said, but it is also proving that you are in a state of hysterical denial. Please review this comment: https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2019/05/10/psychology-of-russiagate-an-adult-discussion-for-a-change/#comment-130718
LikeLike
David, you did not engage with the analysis – you did everything to avoid engaging by indulging in smears. And you continue.
Of course it is a broad generalisation – for Christ’s sake, it is attempting to analyse a broad response amongst a large population. it is not a personal analysis.
And your attempt to discredit this broad analysis by suggesting it involves people he has never met – well where does this put you in your continual smearing of people like me and others who you have never met?
And what can be said about the grubby tactic of responding to my article by immediately searching for material to smear Gabor with instead of responding to what he actually says?
Pathetic.
LikeLike
David, I do not use the Mueller report to support anything. I have simply said his conclusion there was no evidence of collusion vindicates my own interpretation of the available evidence. TYhis does not change the fact that it is a poor report. It is biased and he obviously worked hard to find evidence to incriminate Trump. In this, he failed and admitted it.
However, his assumptions about interference were unwarranted (absolutely no evidence was considered) and the specific example I gave you of the characterisation of Kilimnik, as possibly a Russian agent when he must have known (or at least the information was available) that Kilimnik, was a US asset indicates how poor and biased the investigation was.
But once again you have attacked me in an attempt to diver the cock-up you made about Kilimnik. You have also demonstrated your inability to consider that others may approach reports like Muellers’ in a more sophisticated way than you have.
LikeLike
Ken, you said, “the Mueller report specifically says there was absolutely no evidence of collusion.”
That is not correct. In fact it is a lie. I have already presented 3 examples of evidence from the Report which did show a coordinated effort between the Trump people & Russia.
The fact that this coordination didn’t rise to meet the bar of criminal conspiracy is NOT the same thing as saying the Report “specifically says there was absolutely no evidence of collusion.”
You literally cannot admit what is in that Report. When it supports your political agenda it is your “vindication.” When you disagree with it, you claim it is poorly written.
Get some help. The first step is admitting there is a problem.
What do you want me to say about Gabor. He’s a pop psychologist who is about as relevant to me as Dr. Phil.
You are a great admirer of him. You said his interview, (Your Quote) “helps me understand the psychology behind such unthinking acceptance of what I saw from the beginning was a diversion away from the real issues and an unthinking excuse for an election result which did not conform to predictions.”
You told me that I was traumatized because Trump was elected. I can tell you for a fact that you are full of crap. I had no emotional investment in Hillary. (Frankly, I would have preferred a different Republican.) From the beginning I said Trump would be entertaining as hell . . and he has been; but the entertainment factor is beginning to wear thin.
There, for the first time you’ve just had a glimpse inside my political head.
You say that Gabor Mate’ helps you understand the psychology of people like me. That understanding has led you to believe that I have been traumatized in some way because of the 2016 election. Your understanding is not correct. Therefore Dr. Mate’s pop psychology, intended for the masses-people like you, must be flawed in some way. He is not a force for the enlightenment of the world.
I hope this conforms to your request that I engage the analysis of Dr. Mate’. I have used a specific example of a flawed conclusion which was spawned by his observations of a theoretical group of people he believes exists, which, as far as I know, do not.
If, because of him, you believe I am one of those imaginary people, he is wrong. You are wrong. Your understanding of me, which was put in your head by him is wrong. Therefore he is wrong.
The fact that I can read the Mueller Report, digest it, have an understanding of what it says, and tell you what is in it when you refuse to accept it doesn’t make me traumatized. It makes me intelligent.
LikeLike
Ken: “Of course it is a broad generalisation – for Christ’s sake, it is attempting to analyse a broad response amongst a large population. it is not a personal analysis.”
Response: When I was in college, I wrote a lot of papers. It’s a legitimate criticism that I saw written on my own work. Look what it did for you, here. From his gross generalization, you incorrectly believed that I was traumatized in some way because of the 2016 election. That’s why we don’t do it.
More interesting, however, is your use of the expletive, “for Christ’s sake.” (It’s interesting that an atheist would capatalize Christ – Well, it is a proper noun.) This specific example from a specific person with whom I have interacted in the past – you – tells me that you have a deep emotional investment in the defense of Mate’s arguments, if not Mate’ himself.
See the difference here. I’m talking about a specific person with whom I have interacted, and I am citing a specific example from that person. Mate’, on the other hand, is talking about some imagined group of people which may or may not exist. (After all, you thought I was one of them. “Look! They’re everywhere!!” Coo Coo.) And he caused you to jump to at least one identifiable incorrect conclusion.
A cursory reading of your comment shows a clear emotional investment here. I’m not making a point here, . . it’s just interesting that you appear to be guilty of the very thing of which your post accuses others. 😉
LikeLike
Ken,
Let me provide an allegory of what I see going on here between you and me and your continued insistence that I “engage in Mate’s analysis.”
Here’s the allegory:
Two men are watching Don Quixote on his horse jousting against an imagined enemy.
The first man says, “I really like what he’s doing. He’s an excellent combatant, don’t you think?”
The second says, “No. He’s nuts.”
The first: “What’s wrong with the way he is jousting?”
The second guy says, “He’s jousting against something that’s not there. He’s nuts.”
The first man presses him again. “You still haven’t told me what’s wrong with the way he is jousting. You’ve done everything you can to avoid finding an actual problem with his technique and form. You’ve smeared him, but you haven’t discussed what your problem is with the way he is jousting.”
The first man says, “You’re nuts too.”
LikeLike
David, in my interaction with you – a real person- I see strong evidence for Gabor’s analysis. You are in denial. You are reacting badly to the democratic results of the 2016 elections and you have attempted to explain the result by adhering to an evidence-free conspiracy theory conveniently provided you by Clinton, the Democratic leadership,. the corporate media and sections of the FBI and intelligence agencies.
You have completely avoided looking for real reasons for Clinton’s defeat. You avoid looking at the corruption in the DNC revealed by the Wikipedia leaks.
Your situation parallels very closely to that of a person whose spouse has unexpectedly (to him/her) left him/her. A person looking for external reasons for the spousal departure. In contrast, the spouse has been conscious for years of your own lack of empathy and respect for him/her and the collapse of the marriage.
A person in this position only makes progress when they start looking for the real reasons for the collapse of the marriage. Participates in a non-blame counseling consideration. In the process they can address their own failings, the mistakes they contributed to the failed marriage, and become a better person.
Your denial and adherence to an external failed conspiracy theory to explain the trauma of the failed 2016 election parallels large sections of the Democratic Party membership. For this reason, the opposition to Trump and support for anti-war and progressive economic and social policies in the US is undermined.
Quite simply, your denial (and active attacks on those who don’t suffer your illusions) will only help Trump’s election in 2020
LikeLike
David – you say of me:
Where did I comment on the nature of Muller’s writing? I have never claimed it is poorly written.
I have said the report is poor because it relies in many of its parts on assumptions and does not demand evidence for the assumptions. It ignores completely things like the relationship of persons like Kilimnik, Downer, and Misfud to western intelligence agencies while instead wrongly characterising Kilimnik and Misfud as Russian assets.
A simple objective or scientific analysis of any report often produces this sort of contradictory response. I have no trouble accepting the main collusion of the Mueller report that the investigations showed no evidence of collusion – because it is based on evidence and I came to the same conclusion with the evidence available., The investigation did not provide any new evidence – in that sense, I feel vindicated.
But I have no trouble criticising the report for its faults at all. I take exactly the same attitude to scientific papers and reports when I consider them.
The parts of the Mueller report claiming Russian interference, specifically the Wikipedia links and the activity of the IRA are not at all convincing. They are either evidence-free or conflict with other evidence not considered. (What about the forensic evidence of the Wikipedia leaks provided to Mueller and Trump by the Intelligence Veterans – convincing evidence showing the Wikipedia leaks were download to a USB type device and could not have been hacked via the internet). Similarly, the activity of the IRA has been vastly overblown. A simple look at the tweets purportedly promoted by the IRA surely show this and I think anyone building a case of “interference ” on them is behaving pathetically. Read my article on the way the vaccination tweets have been “weaponised). –
Who is weaponising the vaccination debate?
LikeLike
For what its worth, having read the Mueller Report I conclude beyond reasonable doubt that
1) Senior Trump campaign members colluded with a foreign power by encouraging it to conspire with him and positively answering overtures by a foreign power that to their knowledge was offering information intended to influence a US election. However the evidence gathered of this the collusion did not rise to the level of proving all elements of an active conspiracy.
2) Donald Trump engaged in multiple instances of obstruction of justice.
LikeLike
Richard, you say:
Could you please describe to me a single element that was proved and what that evidence was? I ask this because your phraseology implies some elements were actually proven.
Bugger it – why no specifically describe to me the evidence which leads you to determine a conspiracy even if it does not rise to a certain undefined level. Is it the claim that Mifsud was a Russian asset? That Kilimnik was a Russian asset? (If so I have a bridge you might be interested in buying).
As for the red herring of obstruction. Do you see the “lies” of Flynn and Papadopoulos as “obstruction? Have you not heard of using entrapment to produce “obstruction?”
There is also the crime of “obstruction” by a person wrongly accused of a crime who then does everything to avoid a lynching.
I am sick to death of naive people who have drunk the kool-aid and blithely attempt to make the Mueller report say something it clearly doesn’t. Such people are only aiding and abetting a buffoon win yet another US presidential election by refusing to fight him on the real problems. Trump is laughing at these people – while encouraging them.
LikeLike
Ken,
I’ll let Richard answer your questions to him in his own way, but there are a few ridiculous points you are making.
First of all, read the Mueller Report. It’s obvious you haven’t . . or if you have read it, you haven’t let it sink in.
Next, testimony under oath is considered valid evidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testimony No need to belabor the point as you often do in your attempt to divert and confuse issues. It’s a fact. End of story. We’ve gone over this before, but it doesn’t seem to sink in. I shouldn’t need to be telling you again, but your mind doesn’t seem to be open to this reality.
This is why Trump refuses to testify under oath.
Ken: “As for the red herring of obstruction. Do you see the “lies” of Flynn and Papadopoulos as “obstruction? Have you not heard of using entrapment to produce “obstruction?””
Response: On obstruction, I notice you didn’t mention the testimony of Don McGahn. Perhaps your pro-Russian sources failed to bring his existence to light.
(You remind me of the woman, Cathy Garnaat, who attended a Justin Amash Town hall. After the event, she said, ““I was surprised to hear there was anything negative in the Mueller report at all about President Trump. I hadn’t heard that before. I’ve mainly listened to conservative news and I hadn’t heard anything negative about that report and President Trump has been exonerated.”) https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/05/31/fox-news-viewer-surprised-that-mueller-hadnt-exonerated-trump-obstruction/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.1d74c9c84b76
Yes, there is a person named Don McGhan. If you’ve read the Report, as you claim, you would know that. You would also know that his testimony provided the most glaring examples of Obstruction of Justice by Trump in that Report.
In short, here is his story:
According to McGhan, Trump “directed him to have the Special Counsel removed.” And then a second time, Trump said, “Mueller has got to go.” After McGhan resigned and then returned, news of Trump’s Obstruction attempt had leaked to the press. Trump then pressed McGhan to falsify the record and deny what had happened.
This is why Trump is trying to stop McGhan from publicly testifying. He doesn’t want people to hear an actual account of his actions. McGhan’s testimony is the evidence you just asked for.
So, in an attempt to say that “Obstruction” did not occur, you provide this irrelevant example: “There is also the crime of “obstruction” by a person wrongly accused of a crime who then does everything to avoid a lynching.”
I say irrelevant because a lynching has nothing to do with judicial procedure; therefore, it has nothing to do with the Trump case. Most lynchings don’t include a trial-by-jury, the fleet of million dollar lawyers that Trump has at his disposal, or the ability of the accused to go on Fox News and plead his case to the public.
A lynching is a racist crime. It typically happens in the dead of night. And the accused has no voice. . . . But of course you used the example of a lynching because it was the most extreme example of injustice toward an accused that you could think of.
Obstruction of justice does not require a preceding crime. As an example, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit has ruled that, a defendant can still be convicted of Obstruction “even if (his) primary motivation was to extricate the sister of his childhood friend from a troubled situation.” https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/219675/united-states-v-rickie-durham/
But what we have in the Trump case is far worse than that. Here we have a man who believes he has the right to silence an investigation on himself. If that was true, Trump would be above the law, and he could do anything with no consequence. Obviously that is incorrect. . . . Unless you want to tell me that he IS above the law, and he should be able to get away with anything.
One last thing on your comment. You wrote, “Such people are only aiding and abetting a buffoon win yet another US presidential election by refusing to fight him on the real problems.”
Response: It’s nice to see such a creative rationalization for spewing back the biased propaganda that you enjoy suckling. I’m glad your mind hasn’t completely gone . . but they say rationalization is the last to go.
And finally this: “David, . . . . I see strong evidence for Gabor’s analysis. You are in denial. You are reacting badly to the democratic results of the 2016 elections and you have attempted to explain the result by adhering to an evidence-free conspiracy theory . .”
Ken, I have some very dear friends who are Persian. In 2008 Hillary Clinton said she would “obliterate Iran.” That was the most irresponsible, dangerous comment I have ever heard any public servant make. Ever. Moreover, even if I was a Hillary fan, I would still have to admit that losing this election was the best thing that ever happened to her.
If she had won, the first 2 years of her presidency would have been tied up in impeachment hearings. After all, Republicans were talking about impeaching her even before the election took place. http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/remember-when-republicans-were-prepared-impeach-hillary-clinton As it is, she gets to sit on the sidelines, play the victim, and criticize the Commander in Chief. Not a bad gig.
So, to these mythical, traumatized-Hillary-lovers that you & Mate’ claim exist I would say, ‘Cheer up. Losing this election is the best thing that could have happened to your beloved Hillary.’
But if you want to keep on telling me that I have been traumatized by the election, by all means, do so. You are only proving what a closed, shut-down mind you really have.
LikeLike
Ken, you asked Richard, “Bugger it – why no specifically describe to me the evidence which leads you to determine a conspiracy even if it does not rise to a certain undefined level.”
I’m going to take the liberty of answering that question; not because I have anything original to offer . . On the contrary. I’m going to copy/paste a section of a comment I have already submitted, but either you didn’t read it, or your mind was too closed shut to accept it.
You will find my previously submitted comment right here:
My comment: “It is also clear from the Report that on July 27, 2016, Trump publicly said, ““Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing” . . This was a reference to Hillary Clinton’s emails which were reportedly stored on a personal server.
“We should be able to agree on that. There is no debate about it.
“The Report goes on to say that “Within approximately five hours” of Trump’s comments, Russian military intelligence began a cyberattack against “Clinton’s personal office.” . . . This is in the Report. Again there is no debate about it if we are going to base our conclusions on the Report.
“And you did just that.
“Just from this one example alone, a normal person would conclude that there was some sort of coordination going on. Trump asked Russia to do something . . within 5 hours Russia began to do it. That’s how coordination works . . and that’s how a normal person would see it.
“That’s not hysteria, that’s drawing a natural conclusion from a normal perception of events that actually took place.” END QUOTE
Ken, factual, historical events are evidence. I have just provided a sequence of factual, historical events.
Even after reading this you still asked, “why no specifically describe to me the evidence which leads you to determine a conspiracy even if it does not rise to a certain undefined level.”
What I described was evidence of coordination that did not rise to meet the bar of “criminal conspiracy.” Asked & Answered.
Even though you’ve already read this . . you still asked for it. You have just proven that your mind is closed shut, incapable of digesting and understanding information which counters your viewpoints.
LikeLike
David, your continued claim that the Mueller report concluded that there had been collusion between the Trump campaign and the leadership of the Russian Federation is simply tiresome. As is your stupid charge that anyone who disagrees with you has not read the report. Many people have read the report and cited contents to show the conclusion of no collusion.
It is those who claim there is evidence of collusion who did not cite evidence (of collusion) but draw unwarranted conclusions. It is likely most of them are just repeating a [proivioded narrative and have never actually read the report.
I should not have to repeat this but early in the report, there is a simple conclusion on page 9:
That conclusion is inescapable and, to my mind, is consistent with all the information and evidence I have seen. that is why I felt vindicated.
Here is a problem with your approach. You claim there is evidence. Of course there is – but not of collusion.
There is evidence Flynn spoke with the Russian ambassador. But that is not evidence of collusion.
There is evidence that Trump cracked a silly political joke about asking Russians to release emails – but that is evidence of what he said, not collusion.
I could go on and on (as you do) but all the example you cite are simply evidence of one thing or another but not evidence of collusion.
This approach is simply silly – as is the old trick of saying that there is no proof there was no collusion. The old trick of implying one can prove a negative when we simply know that is not the case. it is the same trick used by anti-science campaigners such as anti-fluoride activists.
Another trick you fall back on is to go on about obstruction., That aspect simply does not interest me as powerful people always obstruct justice, one way or the other. I have no doubt it probably occurred (although apparently not at a level which could lead to a successful prosecution according to Barr). But the fact is powerful people will always obstruct efforts to incriminate them – whether they have committed a crime or not.
LikeLike
OK, David, I can accept you may not be a supporter of Clinton. But that is beside the point. You still show evidence of denial about the election result. You attempt to explain away Trump’s victory by advancing a Manchurian candidate scenario. An argument the election was stolen by a foreign power, etc.
My arguments about suffering from trauma and being in denial still apply whether you were a supporter of Clinton or not. You have obviously been shocked by an unexpected election result. Your concentration on this and your inability to get out of denial will only help Trump to victory in 2020.
Care to tell us who you voted for in 2016 if it was not Trump or Clinton. Maybe if I had been a USA citizen we could have voted for the same person. Perhaps Dr Jill Stein?
LikeLike
Ken, you’re all over the place. You have said, “Just incredible given that the Mueller report specifically says there was absolutely no evidence of collusion.” https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2019/05/10/psychology-of-russiagate-an-adult-discussion-for-a-change/#comment-130727
Now you cite Page 9 of the Mueller Report: “the evidence was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election.”
Those two statements are not the same thing.
What Richard Christie said, however, is completely consistent with the passage you cited. Richard said, “ . the evidence gathered of this the collusion did not rise to the level of proving all elements of an active conspiracy.”
Richard’s comment is also consistent with the Report itself. For example, let’s take a look at what Mueller says about the infamous Trump Tower meeting of June 9th, 2016. On page 185, the Report says “The special counsel considered whether to charge Trump campaign officials with crimes in connection with the June 9 meeting.” . . .
What?? Considered whether to charge Trump campaign officials with crimes?? What Crimes?
It is against the law to take anything of value as a political contribution, from foreign nationals. But no one was charged with any crimes were they. Mueller cites 2 reasons for this:
First, Mueller couldn’t prove that Trump’s team knew they were acting illegally. And second, the value of the information may have been too low to prosecute.
It’s in the Report. Read it.
The main conclusion here is that the evidence was insufficient to show that the Trump campaign coordinated or conspired with Russia. Again, that is not the same thing as saying, “the Mueller report specifically says there was absolutely no evidence of collusion.”
You’ve been drinking the kool-aid.
There was plenty of evidence. It just didn’t rise to the level of criminal conspiracy. This is what I have consistently said. Moreover, Mueller also says, investigators couldn’t get all the information they wanted. Donald Trump Jr. never agreed to an interview, the same with several key Russians. Some witnesses lied to investigators initially. Some campaign aides deleted their texts. And Mueller states the president’s written answers were inadequate.
Mueller specifically says it’s possible this missing information could shed new light on the investigation. This is why the Democrats & the Southern District of New York are pursuing further investigations into Trump. It’s not because the Mueller Report “specifically said there was absolutely no evidence of collusion,” as you have said. It’s because the Report specifically says there’s plenty more evidence to be found.
Moreover, the Report specifically says that when Trump found out about the Special Counsel he said, “I’m fucked. My presidency is over.” These are not the words of an innocent man, and Mueller put that detail into his report for a specific reason.
Regarding “Obstruction,” which you irrelevantly justified in the case of a lynching, and are calling a red herring, I don’t think anybody is in disagreement here.
I never called anyone a “Manchurian candidate.” Those are your words and whatever definition you are applying to them.
Who did I vote for in 2016? Well, I really wanted John Kasich to win. I think he could have done a great job of bringing the country together. Hillary is a divisive figure, and Trump is divisive as hell.
Why wasn’t I “traumatized” when Kasich didn’t get the nomination???
I did vote for Hillary, even though I believed the Republicans would tie her up with contrived scandals. . But when Trump won, I thought, “Ok, who knows, maybe he can do a great job,” and I wished the best for him . . . But on Day 1, when he sent Sean Spicer out in front of the Press to announce – to lie – that Trump had the largest inaugural crowd in the history of U.S. Presidents, I knew he was a joke. This is what this guy wants to focus on?
In 2008, Candidate Hillary said she would obliterate Iran, and that was awful, but now we’ve got U.S. drones being shot down by Iran over the Straits of Hurmuz. She said it . . Trump is in the process of doing it. This guy is a disaster. I’m not traumatized by his election. I’m traumatized by his presidency, and it looks like the rest of the nation is too.
Why isn’t Gabor Mate’ talking about that?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ken: “I have no doubt it (obstruction) probably occurred (although apparently not at a level which could lead to a successful prosecution according to Barr).
Response: According to Barr?? Hahahahahahahahh . . Hahahahahahah. . Good one. Glad to see you still have a sense of humor.
LikeLike
David, Barr’s comment was based on expert opinion in his department. But if you seriously think they are completely wrong well then you will be vindicated when there are successful prosecutions of Trump team members for obstruction.
LikeLike
No, the two statements are not the same thing – My comment summarised an evaluation, the Mueller comment was an acceptance of lack of evidence for collusion but expressed in legalistic, and biased, terms.
The comment “the evidence gathered of this the collusion did not rise to the level of proving all elements of an active conspiracy” simply reveal desperate denialism which could be used for any trial result where the decision did not go the way of the biased observer. This approach to unpleasant facts is used by our mates in the anti-fluoride movement – you should be able to recognise it.
So you voted for someone who you marginally accepted was the best of two extremely bad choices? Why? Have you no imagination? Why not consider Stein – her record is far better.
You claim this as the turning point for you:
Interesting! I also saw that point as significant. One the one hand we had a president acting very unpresidential. On the other hand, we had a media acting very biased and not worthy of journalism.
The second aspect was fundamental to me, but not the first. Why should you be surprised that a US president lies – that is what they do? It’s normal for their profession? Why should you be surprised he was childish? Surely you were aware of his personality.
But why were you not concerned about the bias and childishness of the media on this issue – surely that is more fundamental?
What I saw was, in fact, two stories – “alternative facts.” The size of the crowd in the Washington Mall (clearly smaller than for Obama’s inauguration). And the size of the TV audience worldwide – clearly the largest – if only because of technological advances and the wider spread access to TV worldwide.
Trump could easily point to the TV audience – and he did. The media lied pretending his comments were about the crowd in the Mall.
You think this made Trump a joke (he was already a joke in my mind) but you ignore the fact that this lie made the US media a joke (again already a joke in my mind).
What really shocked me was the willingness of many liberals, many people I respected before, simply losing their critical skills and accepting and slavishly repeating the media lies. I say this seriously. I had scientific friends who childishly ranted on that there cannot be “alternative facts” – when clearly there can. The facts about the numbers in the Mall and the TV audience were different – they were “alternative facts” about numbers watching the inauguration.
Why was this simple fact so difficult for my scientific and liberal friends to understand? Because they were not thinking rationally. They were trying to explain away the unpleasant election results and willing to see faults everywhere – even when there weren’t any.
LikeLike
On the size of Trump’s inauguration crowd, you write: “One the one hand we had a president acting very unpresidential. On the other hand, we had a media acting very biased and not worthy of journalism.”
In your following comments you explain why the lying of the president wasn’t as important to you as the lies of the media. This says a lot more about you and your biases than it does about the media. In the first place, why would you even bother to waste your time defending Trump on this? But more importantly, you have absolutely no evidence for anything you say.
You write: “The second aspect (a biased media) was fundamental to me, but not the first.”
Yes, that’s part of the problem. When you look through that lens, you are not seeing the world accurately. If the mainstream media disagrees with a preconceived bias, you assume it’s a lie. For example, about that crowd size, you write:
“The size of the crowd in the Washington Mall (clearly smaller than for Obama’s inauguration). And the size of the TV audience worldwide – clearly the largest – if only because of technological advances and the wider spread access to TV worldwide.”
Response: Evidence please. . . . . . Neilson says it wasn’t. According to the Neilson Company which tracks TV audiences, Ronald Reagan’s TV inauguration size was larger with an audience of 41.8 Million viewers. Trump came in 5th with an audience of 31 Million viewers. This was less than Reagan, Obama, Nixon, and Carter. https://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2017/nearly-31-million-americans-watch-president-donald-trumps-inauguration.html
You write: “Trump could easily point to the TV audience – and he did. The media lied pretending his comments were about the crowd in the Mall.”
Response: Evidence please . . . . . . No, he didn’t point to the TV audience. The media didn’t lie. Trump’s comments WERE about the crowd in the mall. You will find Trump’s comments in their entirety in my next link.
Three days after his inauguration he gave a self-absorbed speech at CIA headquarters. Not only did Trump say that God stopped the rain and made the sun shine for him, he said, “But we had a massive field of people. You saw them. Packed. . . . I looked out, the field was — it looked like a million, million and a half people. . . . But, you know, we have something that’s amazing because we had — it looked — honestly, it looked like a million and a half people. Whatever it was, it was. But it went all the way back to the Washington Monument. And I turn on — and by mistake I get this network, and it showed an empty field. And it said we drew 250,000 people. Now, that’s not bad, but it’s a lie. We had 250,000 people literally around — you know, in the little bowl that we constructed. That was 250,000 people. The rest of the 20-block area, all the way back to the Washington Monument, was packed.”
See Paragraphs 17-18 of Trump’s Speech here https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-cia-speech-transcript/
I didn’t cherry-pick those comments. Sean Spicer, and Kellyanne Conway talked about other alternative audiences, later, in an effort to back-peddle (and they lied too), but Trump was solely focused on the physical crowd that attended his inauguration. Maybe he did make comments about a world-wide audience, but I’ve never seen them and you haven’t provided evidence of it.
Now in the context of Trump’s unbelievable comments, the Press had the every responsibility to point out to the citizens of the United States that their president wasn’t in touch with reality. That is just a fact. They didn’t lie. They were doing their jobs. As a citizen, I would like to know about Trump’s unusual obsession with crowd size. And the fact that he needs to lie about it. To me, it goes to his character.
Unless you want to tell me that God made the sun shine through the rain for him. (His quote from that same speech: “I said, it was almost raining, the rain should have scared them away, but God looked down and he said, we’re not going to let it rain on your speech. . . . It was amazing. And then it became really sunny. And then I walked off and it poured right after I left. It poured.”)
Now, you write, “I had scientific friends who childishly ranted on that there cannot be “alternative facts” – when clearly there can.”
Response: Let’s look at Kellyanne Conway’s statement about “alternative facts” in its original context. Where did this phrase originate?
In that interview, Kellyanne said, “I’m very heartened to see Nielsen just came out with the ratings, 31 million people watching the inauguration. President Obama had 20.5 million watching his second inauguration four short years ago.” . . . There’s your alternative fact. I refer you back to the link to Nielsen that I provided earlier.
Chuck Todd says, “Why put him out there for the very first time in front of that podium to utter a provable falsehood? It’s a small thing. But the first time he confronts the public it’s a falsehood?” . . . So, from that point, Todd & Conway are talking about what has been framed as a “falsehood.”
Even Conway concedes. In her next statement she says, “I want to have a great open relationship with our press. But look what happened the day before talking about falsehoods.” She then pointed out a mistake made by the Press, which Todd says “was corrected immediately.” So we they are still talking about falsehoods here.
CONWAY: “Don’t be so overly dramatic about it, Chuck. What– You’re saying it’s a falsehood. And they’re giving Sean Spicer, our press secretary, gave alternative facts to that. But the point remains—“
Todd: “Wait a minute– Alternative facts?”
CONWAY: “–that there’s—“
TODD: Alternative facts? Four of the five facts he uttered, the one thing he got right–
KELLYANNE CONWAY: –hey, Chuck, why– Hey Chuck—
CHUCK TODD: –was Zeke Miller. Four of the five facts he uttered were just not true. Look, alternative facts are not facts. They’re falsehoods.
KELLYANNE CONWAY: Chuck, do you think it’s a fact or not that millions of people have lost their plans or health insurance and their doctors under President Obama? Do you think it’s a fact that everything we heard from these women yesterday happened on the watch of President Obama? He was president for eight years. Donald Trump’s been here for about eight hours.
https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-01-22-17-n710491
Ok, Ken, they were clearly talking about lies. “Falsehoods.” They weren’t saying, “The facts about the numbers in the Mall and the TV audience were different.” (Your quote).
Let’s take another look at your rationalization for the use of the phrase, “alternative facts” by the Trump Administration.
Your quote: “What really shocked me was the willingness of many liberals, many people I respected before, simply losing their critical skills and accepting and slavishly repeating the media lies. I say this seriously. I had scientific friends who childishly ranted on that there cannot be “alternative facts” – when clearly there can. The facts about the numbers in the Mall and the TV audience were different – they were “alternative facts” about numbers watching the inauguration.”
What you have done here, is you have taken a phrase which was born from a discussion about blatant lying, uttering falsehoods, and you have completely reframed it so that it doesn’t interfere with your biases. I hope that this stark revelation of your own alternative facts will force you to rethink your own critical skills.
By the way, both Factcheck.org & Snopes Factcheck agree that it is not possible to determine whether the size of the Trump inaugural viewing audience worldwide was the largest in history. It’s just not possible. So when you say, “And the size of the (Trump’s) TV audience worldwide – clearly the largest – if only because of technological advances and the wider spread access to TV worldwide,” is clearly something you made up. You have absolutely no evidence to support the statement.
https://www.factcheck.org/2017/01/the-facts-on-crowd-size/
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-inauguration-viewership/
Kellyanne Conway agrees with me. In that same interview she said, “–look, I actually don’t think that– maybe this is me as a pollster, Chuck. And you know data well. I don’t think you can prove those numbers one way or the other. There’s no way to really quantify crowds. We all know that.”
Even she is saying Spicer’s alternative facts aren’t provable. Your liberal friends are correct. There cannot be alternative facts, as the phrase is used in its original context.
However, there can be alternative facts if you reframe the definition to push your agenda.
You re-wrote the truth. You’re not a scientist. You’re a political pundit.
LikeLike
Ken: ” the Mueller comment was an acceptance of lack of evidence for collusion but expressed in legalistic, and biased, terms.”
Here’s that comment: ” “the evidence was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election.”
First of all, The Mueller Report itself says it is not looking for “collusion.” So when you say, “lack of evidence for collusion,” that is technically true. But we do seem to be using it interchangeably with “conspiracy” & “coordination.”
As for Richard’s comment, “the evidence gathered of this the collusion did not rise to the level of proving all elements of an active conspiracy,” you say “simply reveal desperate denialism which could be used for any trial result where the decision did not go the way of the biased observer.”
Well, if the decision did not go the way of the observer, then the evidence didn’t rise to meet the threshold of criminal activity. That is exactly what Richard said.
Ken, Mueller himself said he considered indicting those involved in the Trump Tower meeting. (See Vol 1, Page 185) Why would he do that if there was “absolutely no evidence” of anything? He considered indicting, but didn’t indict . . . not because there was no evidence, but because 1.) he wasn’t convinced they knew they were acting illegally, and 2.) the “Value,” of the political information which was supplied by foreign nationals to help Trump win the election (there’s your collusion which Mueller says existed) may not have been great enough to prosecute.
Read the Report. You’re the only one here denying the factual, readable evidence.
LikeLike
David, you claim lies about the size of the inauguration audience were the turning point for you as far as Trump is concerned. You wrote:
Then later you reinforce this by saying:
Well, look again at the Spicer comments that you refer to. The video is in the Pilitico report Was Trump’s inauguration the most-streamed of all time?
Spicer clearly refers to the tv and device coverage as being the largest audience. My instinct is to agree simply on the basis of technological advances (in both TVs and devices). I am not really worried about the actual numbers and I don’t believe one could actually get full figures – as Spicer challenges the media to do. But it is a reasonable conclusion. As is my conclusion about the lower numbers in the Mall – Trump was certainly far less popular in Washington and the East Coast than Obama was.
It is dishonest to respond to his comments on the wide coverage (and mine on worldwide coverage), including devices, to cite figures for US TV audiences (which incidentally produced headlines like Trump inauguration ratings second biggest in 36 years https://ew.com/tv/2017/01/21/trump-inauguration-ratings/
Really, David. This is childish. I have already suggested you get a life. But attempting to debate these numbers (which are of little importance) and resorting to political tricks like this. Come on.
Both Trump and his team on the one hand, and the biased media on the other did sow confusion on this – but at least Spicer’s comments are clear – and you were relying on them for your “Johnny come lately” “Road to Damascus” revelation about Trump. Perhaps you should have listened more closely and been a little more critical in your hearing and reading.
LikeLike
David, you write:
Surely you are not so naïve as to assume politicians don’t lie. The old saying “You can tell when a politician is lying – their lips are moving” is no longer considered a joke. It is a fact of life and sensible people take that into account.
Quite frankly I think anyone who assumes politicians are telling the truth, who refuses to engage their critical skills in these situations, is extremely biased and not credible.
Yes, lies by the media are more of an issue for me. But again I think people who blindly use media sources to confirm their biases and uncritically accept what the media say are again very naïve. This naivety is far more widespread than the naivety of believing politicians but there is currently a strong trend to refuse to accept the claims of corporate media on trust. And that is excellent from my point of view.
This education of readers and viewers is becoming more and more essential as the corporate media resort to open lies more and more often. Just take the reporting of the recent MH17 JIT press conference and the 2008 Georgia-Russia war as examples. Outright lies are being promoted by the media. The more intelligent reader can see this because they have a memory and use alternative sources.
Nowhere do I defend Trump. That is just a cheap shot on your part. I am defending truth, opposing lies and misunderstanding and it is really cheap of you to portray that as a political defense of Trump. He is simply a buffoon (not the first to occupy that position) and it distresses me that he is currently laughing all the way to the 2020 elections because of the huge Russiagate deception. A deception aimed at covering up corruption in the Democratic Party. It is surely in the people’s interest that this corruption is overcome and that they can find a political force willing to defend their interests instead of using such mythology to protect the elite.
My biggest disappointment was with the behaviour of people I had formerly respected – scientific and liberal colleagues. That has been a small lesson for me. I am of course aware that liberals and scientific people are not immune to confirmation bias. Just somewhat surprised at how blatantly they succumbed to it in 2016/2017 – to the extent of even supporting the huge Russiagate lie. It disturbs me that people I thought sensible would let their partisan feelings entrap them in a lie that is so dangerous for world peace.
LikeLike
David, again you attempt to direct the discussion away from the real issues: You say:
Can you not see I do not give a stuff about what politicians or their spokespeople say? I specifically referred to “I had scientific friends who childishly ranted on that there cannot be “alternative facts.”” I am talking about the behavior of people I considered rational.
For example, I pulled up several people online who had lost their marbles in this way. I remember specifically discussing the alternative facts of Mall and worldwide TV & online audiences with one scientist who just could not accept these were alternative facts. Incredible! You would think the acknowledgment of this obvious point was equivalent to him losing his virginity. It just shows how partisanship and confirmation bias can screw up even the most rational person.
LikeLike
Ken, you write, “It is dishonest to respond to his (Sean Spicer’s) comments on the wide coverage (and mine on worldwide coverage), . . ”
Speaking of dishonest, you originally wrote, “Trump could easily point to the TV audience – and he did. The media lied pretending his comments were about the crowd in the Mall.” https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2019/05/10/psychology-of-russiagate-an-adult-discussion-for-a-change/#comment-131145
Of course the media did not lie, and I documented Trump’s comments here: https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2019/05/10/psychology-of-russiagate-an-adult-discussion-for-a-change/#comment-131158
Trump only spoke about the immediate inaugural crowd standing in front of him. I also wrote, “Sean Spicer, and Kellyanne Conway talked about other alternative audiences, later, in an effort to back-peddle (and they lied too), but Trump was solely focused on the physical crowd that attended his inauguration.”
Now you write, “Well, look again at the Spicer comments that you refer to. The video is in the Pilitico report Was Trump’s inauguration the most-streamed of all time? . . .Spicer clearly refers to the tv and device coverage as being the largest audience.”
Yes. That’s what I said. You said Trump was talking about a Worldwide audience, and the media lied about it. YOUR QUOTE: “The media lied pretending his (Trump’s) comments were about the crowd in the Mall.”
The point, which you seem to be diverting away from, is that the media didn’t lie. You lied about what the media said. And you criticized the media for a lie that you invented. Now you’re back-peddling and discussing what Spicer said, pretending that’s what you originally meant.
Ken, I caught you in a lie. You lie to push your political agenda. You’re not a scientist. Stop pretending to be one. You’re nothing but a political pundit.
LikeLike
Just once, Ken, it would be nice if you could say, “I made a mistake . . I didn’t intend to lie.”
If you could do that, you would have a lot more credibility than you have right now.
Your inability to admit either a mistake or a lie is childish. Don’t you think it’s past time for you to grow up.
LikeLike
David, this lament of yours is familiar:
“Ken, I caught you in a lie. You lie to push your political agenda. You’re not a scientist. Stop pretending to be one. You’re nothing but a political pundit.”
I get that all the time from our anti-fluoridation mates – its a tactic of last resort when they can no longer discuss the science or the positions I have challenged them on.
My scientific credibility is not determined by you or them – it’s determined by the record of my career and my scientific record as it exists in my publications.
It is sad that you have resorted to their level and succumbed to abusing me and making highly erroneous and irrelevant claims. Sad!
LikeLike
David, in the real world, of course, things are never black and white. Consequently it is easy to cherry-pick reports to fit and confirm one’s biases. And you are doing so.
Both the president and the media obfuscated on this issue but a cautious observer is able to find the main trends. Spicer’s comment that I quoted was completely relevant. And one must look at the main effect of media reports. The fact that I had discussed this issue with liberal and scientific colleagues who were convinced that the president and his spokespeople had made a claim about the mall crowd when they were commenting on coverage in general shows the effect of the media. Just as the media has convinced its readership that the Russian Federation is unquestionably responsible for the Skripal poisonings and the tragic downing of MH17. Or that the media has convinced its readership that the Syrian government was responsible for a chemical weapons attack in Douma.
A careful reading of even the corporate media shows such interpretations are at least unwarranted (via lack of evidence presented and assumptions made). A bit of memory and actual investigation of real sources and reading or alternative media confirms this and can even indicate who the real culprits might be in these cases.
Frankly, David, I just think you are unnaturally gullible, or more likely driven by ideological imperatives, in placing such faith in the corporate media.
However, you are welcome to that faith. I have learned to adopt a more critical and sensible approach to media sources I come across.
Your campaign to force me into the self-censorship silo you occupy is never going to succeed.
LikeLike
LikeLiked by 1 person
Quote from Aaron Mate’: “So that means that some people wanted Mueller to find evidence of collusion, which means that emotionally they were invested in it.”
Exchange between Adam Schiff & Robert Mueller during Mueller’s testimony before Congress:
SCHIFF: “Trump and his campaign welcomed and encouraged Russian interference?”
MUELLER: “Yes.”
SCHIFF: “And then Trump and his campaign lied about it to cover it up?”. — MUELLER: “Yes.”
Hmm . . It seems that even Robert Mueller was emotionally invested & he wanted himself to find evidence . . . . No, That’s not what this shows.
It seems that even Adam Schiff was emotionally invested . . . No, That’s not what this shows either.
It seems that Robert Mueller actually DID find evidence of collusion, it was written in his Report, but the “no collusion” theorists, like Mate’ & Perrott, were so emotionally invested in THEIR scenario that, even though it was written in black & white, they still refused to believe it. Even though Mueller himself admitted, under oath, that the Trump Campaign welcomed & encouraged Russian interference, they probably still refuse to believe that it’s written in the Mueller Report.
Yes . . That what this shows. It also demonstrates the effect of Right Wing & Russian State Propaganda fake news media on the human brain.
LikeLike
David – get a life. Your concentration on this conspiracy theory just shows you are not interested in supporting the political movements necessary to remove Trump.
The Mueller investigation could not find evidence of collusion – and that is why no legal actions alleging collusion have resulted. It’s as simple as that. You continual repetition of a lie will not change that fact. Nor will it lead to any legal actions.
LikeLike
Ken: “Your concentration on this conspiracy theory just shows you are not interested in supporting the political movements necessary to remove Trump.”
Response: Supporting a political movement to remove Trump is irrelevant to this discussion.
Ken: “The Mueller investigation could not find evidence of collusion ”
Response: (From the Mueller hearing in which Mueller testified Under Oath) SCHIFF: “Trump and his campaign welcomed and encouraged Russian interference?”
MUELLER: “Yes.”
You are wrong, Ken. According to Mueller, under oath, the Trump campaign welcomed & encouraged Russian interference. How many times do you have to read that before the truth will sink in? . . I’m thinking it never will because you are not capable of opening your mind, even in the face of stark reality.
Ken: ” . . . that is why no legal actions alleging collusion have resulted. ‘
Response: 1.) Collusion isn’t a crime. We’ve been through this before. If your mind was a parachute, you would plunge to your death because you are unable to open it enough to let new information into it. Please see p. 181 of Volume I of the Mueller Report which says,
“The office’s focus on the question of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined by Federal law, not the commonly discussed term, “collusion.””
2.) The Russian-Trump cooperation which the Mueller team found did not rise to the level of criminal conspiracy. However, the Report also said this needed more investigation. We’ve been through this before.
3.) A sitting president can’t be indicted.
(From the Mueller hearing) Rep. Ken Buck, R-Colo.: “Could you charge the president with a crime after he left office?”
Mueller: “Yes.”
Ken: “You continual repetition of a lie will not change that fact.”
Response: You just accused Robert Mueller of committing perjury, since he seems to be repeating that same “lie,” . . Under Oath.
Your continued denial about what is really in the Mueller Report will not simply make it go away. But you keep on denying it. It’s entertaining as hell.
LikeLike
David, it is very simple. If the investigation had found any credible evidence of collusion there would be prosecutions.
There has not been a single prosecution for collusion.
You are simply attempting to save face for having fallen for this naive and stupid conspiracy theory and desperately search for anything to recover.
It isn’t working.
Meanwhile, Trump is having a good laugh at people like you who are helping him win the next elections.
LikeLike
Ken,
Your argument about what is in the Mueller Report is with the author of that report, not with me. I am only repeating his words.
The fact that you want to disagree with Robert Mueller about what he wrote in his own report, speaks volumes about your emotional need to not only cling to your own biased-laden scenario, it also says a lot about your grasp of reality, and is a clear demonstration of your unusual need to win any argument at all cost.
Let me repeat that. You are disagreeing with Robert Mueller about what Robert Mueller wrote in the Mueller Report. . . Get some help before it’s too late.
SCHIFF: “Trump and his campaign welcomed and encouraged Russian interference?”
MUELLER: “Yes.”
SCHIFF: “And then Trump and his campaign lied about it to cover it up?”
MUELLER: “Yes.”
LikeLike
David, you ignore the simple fact. No prosecutions have been initiated for collusion. Surely that indicates all the investigations do not have evidence of collusion. How else can one explain this?
No amount of desperate searching for the meaning behind polticians statments changes that simple fact does it.
Meanwhile, Trump is laughing his way to a second win because of the obsessions of people like you who refuse to give up childish conspiracy theories and concentrate on real issues.
LikeLike
Ken: “David, you ignore the simple fact. No prosecutions have been initiated for collusion. Surely that indicates all the investigations do not have evidence of collusion. How else can one explain this?”
Response: Since I did consider and respond to that point two comments ago, your repeated point either shows an inability to read and comprehend, or an unwillingness to open your mind.
I don’t think you have a reading problem. I think your problem is that you simply DON’T read. I don’t think you ever read the Mueller Report, or you would already have an answer to your own question.
Ken: “No amount of desperate searching for the meaning behind polticians statments changes that simple fact does it.”
Response: If you are referring to Robert Mueller, testifying under oath, under penalty of perjury, admitting that the Trump campaign “welcomed and encouraged Russian interference,” in the 2016 election . . . I’m afraid I have to point out that Republican Robert Mueller is not a politician. If he were, as a Republican, as so many Republicans have done, he would have turned a blind eye to the entire matter, and he would have used the phrase “nothing burger.”
” . . desperate searching for the meaning behind polticians statments . . ”
You’re funny. The meaning of “Yes” is yes. How is interpreting “yes” as an affirmative to a question posed “desperate searching?” It looks, to any objective reader, that you’re the one desperately trying to make excuses for the fact that Mueller testified under oath that there was cooperation between the Trump campaign & Russian actors . . & cover-up by the Trump team.
THE SHEER IRONY HERE is that this post began as an indictment, by Ken & Mate’, of the emotional stability of those who actually read the Mueller Report and understood what it said. Now look what’s going on. Even after Mueller himself testified in front of the entire world to the contrary, Ken still can’t give up the notion that Russia did not meddle in the 2016 election, and the Trump campaign offered them no encouragement. That lie is like mother’s milk to you.
Again, you are disagreeing with Robert Mueller about what Robert Mueller wrote in the Mueller Report. And your comments like, “No amount of desperate searching for the meaning behind politicians statements . . ” themselves reek of desperation. . . Get some help before it’s too late.
LikeLike
Ken, in this comment you said, ” . . the Mueller report specifically says there was absolutely no evidence of collusion.” https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2019/05/10/psychology-of-russiagate-an-adult-discussion-for-a-change/#comment-130727
Let’s end this. Either show me where, in the Mueller Report, it specifically says there was absolutely no evidence of collusion . . or admit you were wrong.
If you can show me where Mueller says there was “absolutely no evidence of collusion,” I will be happy to admit I was wrong, and we can get on with our lives.
It should be easy for you. Are you up for it?
LikeLike
David – you do not get to “end this.” That already happened with the release of the report of the Mueller investigation which contained the clear words:
Now you may continue to quibble because I used the term “absolutely no evidence of collusion” but that is simply childish. You may obsessively continue to search for some sort of meaning in the statements of politicians and officials. But the clear fact is that there is no evidence that could lead to even an unsuccessful legal charge of collusion.
There is nothing of that sort in the report and you have simply stopped trying to drag up supposed evidence as more and more information comes to hand of how fake this set up was from the beginning.
Give up. You will have no greater success at convincing me by relying on someone’s opinion than the anti-fluoride campaigners have had.
Evidence is what convinces me.
LikeLike
Ken: “Now you may continue to quibble because I used the term “absolutely no evidence of collusion” but that is simply childish.”
Question: To be clear, are you now changing your position from saying that ‘there was absolutely no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign & Russia,” (a claim you have repeated over and over again) . . . to, “there is no evidence that could lead to even an unsuccessful legal charge of collusion?”
As anyone who can read knows, these are entirely different statements and have entirely different meanings.
LikeLike
Question: since you cited the passage from the Mueller report, is that your position now? “The evidence was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election.”
Or are you taking this poorly written, muddy position? “there is no evidence that could lead to even an unsuccessful legal charge of collusion?” (I don’t think your double negative was intended. I think you meant to say, ‘there is no evidence that could lead to a successful charge . . ‘)
These, also, are two different statements with two different meanings. Mueller is saying there IS evidence of coordination between the Trump campaign & Russia, but it doesn’t rise to meet the bar of criminal conspiracy.
This is consistent with what I’ve written throughout this thread. Richard Christie said exactly the same thing in his comment: “Senior Trump campaign members colluded with a foreign power by encouraging it to conspire with him and positively answering overtures by a foreign power that to their knowledge was offering information intended to influence a US election. However the evidence gathered of this the collusion did not rise to the level of proving all elements of an active conspiracy.” https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2019/05/10/psychology-of-russiagate-an-adult-discussion-for-a-change/#comment-130905
Again, that is exactly what Mueller is saying in the passage you just cited.
However, this is not consistent with your previous position that there was NO evidence. You are very vague & sloppy in your writing on this. Please clarify. Do you agree with Mueller in the passage you just cited, with Richard Christie, and with me . . . or are you still taking the position that there was no evidence at all?
In Mueller’s first public statement after the release of the Report, he said, “We Chose Our Words Carefully.” It is not childish to strive to determine the meanings of the passages of this Report. It is what Mueller requested we do.
LikeLike
No, David, my comment was intended. I don’t think the Mueller team consider they had any “evidence” which could be used even for a bad indictment on collusion which would be unsuccessful. They only went ahead with the IRA indictment because they didn’t think they could ever proceed with the “guilty” out of the country. The fact that Concord has fronted up is proving embarrassing for them.
It doesn’t matter what Mueller “says” for political effect (or how you choose to interpret him). No evidence was found in the investigation. Opinion is not evidence and that is why the indictments of Russian citizens based on opinions are extremely weak and obviously only brought in because they just didn’t expect them to go ahead.
I have always been clear. The evidence discussed in the report is not evidence of collusion (although racists will see it that way because simply the act of talking to a r=ussian, to them, is collusion). I repeat evidence of a meeting in Trump Tower including a Russian lawyer, or of information passed on to a Ukrainian/Russian (who turns out to be a US agent) about polling are simply evidence of those specific actions which are not denied. They are not evidence of collusion and it is simply extreme confirmation bias based on xenophobia to claim that it is.
If there is any way to show the evidence of meetings, misrepresenting meeting dates, etc., showed collusion then there would have been indictments. The fact there were none on collusion proves my point, no matter how convoluted conspiracy theorists wish to argue otherwise.
Of course, it is impossible to prove a negative, but the fact you and Richard have sunk to this level – a level often resorted to by anti-fluoride activists – shows a complete lack of objectivity. Absolutely no evidence, none of that presented in Mueller’s report, can be used to show collusion – hence no collusion indictments.
LikeLike
Ken, your entire argument has come down to this:
“If there is any way to show the evidence of meetings, misrepresenting meeting dates, etc., showed collusion then there would have been indictments. The fact there were none on collusion proves my point, . .”
First you said there was absolutely no evidence of collusion (despite the fact that the Report says they weren’t looking for “collusion.”) Then, as you dig your heels in, unable to admit you are wrong, you say the fact that there were no indictments on collusion proves your point.
First of all, let’s try not to use that word – collusion. It has no legal definition and is therefore meaningless in this discussion.
Second, your argument here is silly. ‘The fact that there were no indictments on collusion proves there was no collusion.’ (Of course we mean criminal conspiracy.) How exactly did you draw that laughable legal conclusion?
A wealthy man had a safe behind a portrait on the wall in his study which was robbed. Fingerprints from his maid were found on the picture frame and on the safe itself. Surveillance video showed a hooded figure, about the same size & shape as his maid, robbing the safe. The fingerprints & the video are evidence. But they didn’t indict the maid. Do you know why?
The evidence was not sufficient. The fingerprints could be explained away by her normal activities in the house, and the video proved nothing other than the robber was probably a woman.
From Mueller’s report: “The evidence was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election.”
Of course there was evidence. For example, the Mueller Report specifically points to an incident on July 27, 2016 in which Trump publicly said, “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”
The Report goes on to say, IN THE CONTEXT OF THAT COMMENT, within five hours of candidate Trump saying those words, the GRU targeted Clinton’s personal office for the first time.
That, my friend, is evidence of coordination toward a mutual end.
Those 2 events were put in the report together for a reason. It’s not sufficient to indict, but you would have to be swimming in denial to continue saying there is no evidence.
You also pointed to Manifort’s & Gate’s polling data. I’d love to hear you explain that away. . . . And the Trump Tower meeting, which was surrounded by lies & cover-ups by the Trump team.
Do you know why there were no indictments involving the Trump Tower meeting? It’s not because there was no evidence, as you adamantly say.
According to the Report, first, Mueller can’t prove that Trump’s team knew they were acting illegally. It is against the law to take political contributions from foreign nationals. And, two, the value of the information may have been too low to prosecute.
What this means is that the evidence wasn’t sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government.
This is exactly what Richard Christie said in his comment, it is exactly what I have said throughout this thread, and it is consistent with the “clear words” from the Mueller Report which you cited above.
And this nonsense from you is sheer desperation. Your quote: “It doesn’t matter what Mueller “says” for political effect (or how you choose to interpret him).”
You are implying that Mueller has a political agenda . . that, for political reasons, he really wants to nail Trump. This is what the Report actually says about that:
“. . if we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.” — Republican, Mueller wanted to clear the president, but he couldn’t.
Your comments reek of desperation & denial. Perhaps its time for you to admit the truth and give up. At this point you are only making yourself look foolish in the face of reality.
LikeLike
David. you keep saying there was evidence of collusion (and let’s face it changing the term to coordination at this late stage is surely an act of desperation) and then you say that “the evidence wasn’t sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government.”
Well, the evidence that you are a pedophile and have been interfering with children is not sufficient (i.e. I can’t find anything convincing to support my bias) to charge you of any wrongdoing but it would be absolute insanity (and surely a sign of corruption on my part) if I acknowledged that but still said you were guilty of pedophilia and there was “evidence” to prove it. (And for Christ’s sake it would be extremely easy for me to find “evidence” that you spoke with or met with a child).
I guess that is the sort of mythology that politicians, and especially US politicians, indulge in all the time. And it’s easy to do so if it stokes racism or xenophobia that the population is indoctrinated with.
At the moment we are dealing with something similar to the Mueller report – the Canadian research on maternal urinary fluoride and child IQ. There is all this talk about “evidence” – a very weak best-fit regression line used with suspect data (consider the residuals), statements by the media, the university and individual scientists (carefully worded to not actually say there is proof but still getting the message across that water fluoridation is dangerous for the fetus). Instead of relying on this hearsay and suspect “evidence” and authority (universities, scientists, authors, media) I actually looked at the data. I find that actual evidence is being ignored (such as the mean IQ values in fluoridated and unfluoridated areas). That the “evidence” of a trend is extremely weak, relying on a statistical analysis of data not normally distributed and explaining only 1.3% of the IQ variance. And yet the media, the authors, the journal, the university, etc. are saying that a 1mg/L increase in MUF causes or is associated with a 4.6 drop in IQ for boys. Blatantly presenting that as established fact when simply looking at the data revealed in the paper shows that is simply not the case. There is absolutely no predictive power in that association. Just look at the data points in the presented graphs. Just as in the Mueller investigation – the real evidence is in front of our eyes – we can see how scattered the data is and this should tell us the reporting “findings” are just bullshit.
I hesitate to compare you with anti-fluoride campaigners (but hell, you have said very bad things about me). But in terms of respect for facts, for real evidence, and in terms of whishing to confirm a bias, impose a narrative and being willing to distort, misrepresent and reinvent evidence, you are behaving in exactly the same way.
I attempt (and I hope successfully) to adopt a scientific ethos in approaching things like the Candian research and the Mueller report. If I see convincing evidence of something I hope I can easily acknowledge this and draw the obvious conclusions. But I am not going to allow “authority” the prevailing mythology, xenophobia or anti-scientific atmosphere divert me. I will always attmept to base my conclusions (which are always conditio9nal) on evidecne, on facts. Not prejudice, xenophobia or group thought.
LikeLike
Ken: “But in terms of respect for facts, for real evidence, and in terms of whishing to confirm a bias, impose a narrative and being willing to distort, misrepresent and reinvent evidence, you are behaving in exactly the same way.”
Response: Which evidence have I misrepresented & reinvented? Does the word ‘evidence’ have a different nuance in New Zealand than it does in the United States?
LikeLike
One example David is this. You say:
To say this was in the Mueller report does not make it “evidence” of anything any more than to say Green et al referred to an IQ drop of 4.6 points makes it actually real or true. One has to do some thinking for oneself.
1: Yes, most observers heard/saw Trump crack his joke “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press” – something cynically aimed at the press (which he was deriding) as much as Clinton.
Clearly, this is a factual statement – Trump actually said that or something like it. But, surely, one has to be an absolute fool or highly biased to see his joke and cynical dig at Clinton/the mainstream media that as an actual request aimed at the Russian Federation! You believe that and there is a bridge in New York I might be able to see you. Or worse, you could believe every flippant comment a politician makes.
2: OK, (and I cannot be bothered checking) the Mueller report says “the GRU targeted Clinton’s personal office for the first time.” Does that statement bear any relevance to facts? What evidence was given for the claim? The Mueller report is full of statements like this which are completely unsupported but those conditioned by Russiaphobia, the prevailing racism, and xenophobia, and the extremely strong group thought on this these claims simply do not question them or ask for evidence. You are in this group – as both you and Mueller are over the pathetic January 2017 “Intelligence” report that the faithful rely on to confirm their baises (but never read).
These statements (as was the “intelligence” report) are certainly questioned by me (as was Green et al’s claim of a 4.6 IQ drop). I demand to see evidence for such claims. They are serious and should never be accepted without checking. Green’s claim was not supported by the evidence when looked at properly and I have no grounds to assume Mueller’s unsupported claims are any better (At least Green et al provided the data which enabled me to see how false their unsupported claim is – Mueller and the “intelligence” report never had any data for these claims).
LikeLike
Ken, you had said, “. . in terms of respect for facts, for real evidence, and in terms of whishing to confirm a bias, impose a narrative and being willing to distort, misrepresent and reinvent evidence, you are behaving in exactly the same way.”
I asked you which evidence I had misrepresented or reinvented.
You answered, “One example David is this.” And you pointed to Trump’s request to Russia that they find Hillary’s 30 thousand emails, and that they would be “mightily rewarded” by our press. According to the Mueller Report, 5 hours later, Russia began doing just that.
If I understand your response to my question correctly, somehow I misrepresented or reinvented this timeline evidence which was laid out in the Mueller Report because you believe it was a joke.
Ken: “. . one has to be an absolute fool or highly biased to see his joke and cynical dig at Clinton/the mainstream media that as an actual request aimed at the Russian Federation!”
Response: Do you have any evidence that candidate Trump was joking? Was he smiling when he said it? Did anyone in his audience understand his comment to be humorous? Did anyone in his audience laugh?
Watch the video. What I see is that up until that point, candidate Trump had been making eye contact with his audience which was physically present. When he began to say, “Russia, if you’re listening . . ,” he looked directly into the camera. This is a fact. Watch it yourself.
According to the Mueller Report, (and this entire post is about What Is and What Is Not in that Report), the facts are that Trump requested Russia to do something, and within 5 hours they began to do it.
That you believe it to be a joke is your opinion. Your opinion is irrelevant. We are only discussing what is and what is not in the Mueller Report.
Again, for the second time, which evidence have I misrepresented or reinvented?
LikeLike
David, you are goign around in circles – presumably because you cannot find any credible evidence to support your claim of GRU releasing emails. And it is pathetic to attempt to use Trump’s stupid joke as evidence.
LikeLike
Ken,
I’m not claiming that GRU released emails. That is an entirely different discussion. Please try to remain focused on the discussion at hand. As you will recall, Gabor Mate’, about whom your post was written, said, “ . some people wanted Mueller to find evidence of collusion, which means that emotionally they were invested in it.”
This is a discussion about what Mueller found and what he put in his report. It is not a discussion about the validity of that evidence. When we both have seen the entire uncensored Report, perhaps we can have that discussion. Until then, it would only be speculative to entertain such an exchange.
Perhaps it was your attempted diversion into a new topic that confused you and gave the appearance of circularity.
If you have any valid evidence to support your opinion that Trump’s comment was a joke please present it. In my opinion it was a blatant display of his arrogance. He believes he is untouchable. But again, that is another discussion.
So, for the third time, which evidence have I personally misrepresented or reinvented?
LikeLike
David you wrote this in answer to my point there was no evidence:
Now you say “I’m not claiming that GRU released emails.”
I realise all this denial leads to confusion – but are you now stepping back from your claim there was evidence?
You go on to say:
OK, you are now classifying unsupported speculation as “evidence.” And, come on, you are the one who is presenting Mueller’s report as “evidence” – not me. You are the one who started the discussion with this mythological “evidence.”
And isn’t this a classic – “If you have any valid evidence to support your opinion that Trump’s comment was a joke please present it.” Surely you are not so foolish as to think you have no requirement to support your claims with evidence – not me. I am not the one making the fantastical claims.
Have you really retreated so far than now your charge is not that Trump colluded with someone but that he blatantly “displayed arrogance.” Come off it. That is what US presidents do – unfortunately for the rest of the world which suffers the subsequent bombings and regime changes.
LikeLike
Ken, I hate to have to keep reminding you what this discussion is about. It’s almost as if your knee-jerk deflection has become a normal part of your thought process.
In the video that you presented . .on your own post., Gabor Mate’ said, “ . some people wanted Mueller to find evidence of collusion, which means that emotionally they were invested in it.”
The entire erroneous thesis of your post is about “the inevitable disappointment which followed after Robert Mueller failed to turn up any evidence of collusion between the Russian government and the 2016 Trump campaign, as the result of emotional investment.” – Mate’
You are both saying that Mueller presented no evidence of conspiracy in his report
Is that not correct?
Well that’s a lie. In Volume I, Robert Mueller presented, “multiple links between Trump Campaign officials and individuals tied to the Russian government. Those links included Russian offers of assistance to the Campaign. In some instances, the Campaign was receptive to the offer, while in other instances the Campaign officials shied away.” – Mueller Report
Robert Mueller presented “Russian offers of assistance to the campaign.”
Gabor Mate said, “Robert Mueller failed to turn up any evidence of collusion between the Russian government.” Mate’ is either lying, or he is ignorant.
I don’t know how to make this any clearer. I doubt that would matter, though. You are bent on deflecting away from what is actually in the Mueller Report to another discussion and abandoning the main contention of your own post.
Also, for the 4th time now, which evidence have I personally misrepresented or reinvented?
LikeLike
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/7/24/1874207/-Mueller-agrees-investigation-did-not-fail-to-turn-up-evidence-of-conspiracy
LikeLike
Oh, one more thing, . . Your Quote:
“And isn’t this a classic – “If you have any valid evidence to support your opinion that Trump’s comment was a joke please present it.” Surely you are not so foolish as to think you have no requirement to support your claims with evidence – not me. I am not the one making the fantastical claims.”
Response: I don’t know what you are talking about. I was asking you for evidence of your fantastic claim, and, as expected, you presented none.
LikeLike
David, you yourself have admitted =you are suing the term “evidecne” loosely. As a scientist, I prefer to use the term in a meaningful way. Mate is perfectly correct to say Mueller did not find evidence of collusion. You effectively acknowledge this by refusing to cite specific evidence.
AS I have pointed out meeting with a Russian national (which is an extremely common occurrence for most of us – as is meeting with a British or Ukranian national) is not evidence of collusion. Nor is Trump cracking a joke on stage.
You reveal how pathetic your argument has become, how much you are resorting to squeezing blood out of a dead stone, by citing vague comments from Muller or his report. It’s like me saying you are guilty of pedophilia because you have been seen talking to kids.
Pathetic. But I guess that happens to people who continue to whip a dead horse. Russiagate has been thoroughly discredited and only losers (who are effectively aiding Trump’s reelection) refuse to move on.
LikeLike
Ken, your attempt to re-write history, to re-write the contents of what is contained in the Mueller Report, is the sad testimony of an aging, closed-minded blogger who has a political agenda.
“When Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) asked if the decision not to bring charges of conspiracy against members of the Trump campaign “does not mean your investigation failed to turn up evidence of conspiracy,” Mueller responded: “That is correct.”” https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/7/24/1874207/-Mueller-agrees-investigation-did-not-fail-to-turn-up-evidence-of-conspiracy
I am using the word “evidence” in the same way other people who use the English language use the word.
LikeLike
David, I disagree. You have already defined the way you use the word:
You are already acknowledging that the report claims themselves may not be valid. I agree – that is why I ask for the evidence for the claims. There appear to be none.
Now you go further and are using hearsay – the fact that Welch said something and Mueller said something as “evidence” of collusion. It simply isn’t.
Evidence is something that can be looked at, can be checked. I can check that Welch and Mueller said something but that is trivial and deceptive. It is the old trick anti-fluoridationists use of quoting authority. I cannot check that as real evidence of conspiracy or collusion.
You have presented Trumps joke and Mueller claim of a GRU response as “evidence.” I can check and verify Trump made a joke. I can not check and verify Muller’s claim of GRU action because absolutely nothing was presented to support that claim.
Now, come on. Enough of your personal attacks – they are just becoming tiresome and do nothing for your case. Either put up or shut up.
Continuing in this manner may help Trump in his reelection bid but beating this dead horse is doing nothing to fight his policies.
Perhaps you should be directing your attacks at the DNC. They look like they are going to repeat the same old mistakes of 2016. Their efforts, once again, to silence progressive candidates will simply hand the election over to Trump again.
LikeLike
Ken: “You are already acknowledging that the report claims themselves may not be valid.” — That is a lie. I said you are in no position to make the fantastic claim that evidence presented in the Mueller Report is false because you haven’t seen the entire Report. You are the one making the outlandish claim that evidence presented is false; therefore, it is on you to prove your extrordinary claims.
Please don’t put words in my mouth. It suggests a failing mind on your part.
Let’s take a moment to pause and recap so we can see how we’ve gotten here.
When Bill Barr presented his fake 4 page summary of the Mueller Report you dedicated an entire post to your feeling of vindication . . . That the Mueller Report confirmed your belief there was no “collusion” between the Trump campaign & certain Russian interests.
I knew it i knew it i knew it i knew it i knew it i knew it!!!! . No Collusion!!
But now that we know Bill Barr was misrepresenting the Report your approach seems to have changed. Now that Mueller himself has testified under oath that there was plenty of evidence of a conspiracy (evidence uncovered didn’t rise to the level of criminality), now that we can read the Report ourselves, you’re telling us there is no proof of the evidence cited.
When you believed the Mueller Report claimed there was no evidence of conspiracy you were through the roof with vindication. Now that the truth has been revealed, with plenty of evidence presented, it’s hearsay, or there’s no proof . . . In short, the Mueller Report is a fraud.
Could you be more hypocritical?
One more thing. Please don’t use the word “collusion.” It is a demonstration of your ignorance and proof that you never bothered to read the Report.
LikeLike
By the way, for the 5th time now, which evidence have I personally misrepresented or reinvented?
Is there a problem with me asking you to substantiate you slanderous claims?
LikeLike
David – let’s be clear, you actually wrote:
“This is a discussion about what Mueller found and what he put in his report. It is not a discussion about the validity of that evidence.”
This indicates the problem. When I use the word “evidence” I am referring to the facts or data which support and do not support a claim. That is the usual scientific understanding of the word.
You have come to use “evidence” in a different way. Of course the fact that Mueller writes something in his report or said something can be stated as evidence of what he wrote or stated. But as you point out it is not evidence of the veracity of what he wrote or said.
Unfortunately when I ask for evidence of collusion you attempt to confuse the issue by producing evidence of a claim of collusion – not evidence of collusions but then go on to say your cited “evidence” is evidence of collusion.
It’s not and it is dishonest of you to make that claim.
But you get worse – referring to Barr’s statement about the report as “fake” and saying “Barr was misrepresenting the Report.” You live in a fantasy world – especially as Barr was actually quoting from the report.
You claim “plenty of evidence presented” of collusion but strangely are unable to present the evidence – even falling back on the statement that you do not claim the “evidence” is validated.
Stop playing with words. There is absolutely no valid evidence of collusion and you know it. (And I shouldn’t’ have to use the word valid).
LikeLike
Russias leaders living amongst a generous landscape for kids to talk and play about, some multicultural with portrayed family members near and far need to be protected, Their police with contentious issues to contend with at times may feel foreign intervention trying to culturally tear them down as in other countries with acceptance upon certain issues not always appreciated and certain family members may feel the brunt of this. Their leaders and Police not doubt do what they can at times. Dr Gabor mates comments of interest.
LikeLike
Ken: “Unfortunately when I ask for evidence of collusion you attempt to confuse the issue by producing evidence of a claim of collusion”
Response: If you had bothered to read the Report, you wouldn’t be lazily using the word “collusion.” As I recall, Mueller addressed the inappropriateness of that word early on.
Perhaps you should take the time to read the Report before continuing a discussion about what is and what is not in the Report.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ken says, “But you get worse – referring to Barr’s statement about the report as “fake” and saying “Barr was misrepresenting the Report.” You live in a fantasy world – especially as Barr was actually quoting from the report.”
Wow! Barr was actually quoting from the report. In that case, since “actually quoting from the report,” makes everything he said in his fake 4-page letter real, then your old anti-fluoride opponents are correct in everything they say, since they often selectively quote directly from studies that they misrepresent.
Or don’t the same rules apply when your bias is being threatened.
I “live in a fantasy world,” because I have claimed that Barr’s letter misrepresented the Mueller Report. . . . Well then, Robert Mueller must also live in that same fantasy world regarding his own report. You know, the one that his office wrote.
This is what he had to say about Barr’s fake 4-page letter:
“The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office’s work and conclusion. There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/special-counsel-mueller-s-letter-to-attorney-general-barr/e32695eb-c379-4696-845a-1b45ad32fff1/
LikeLiked by 1 person
David, clearly this discussion has faltered. No new information and seemingly it is now only driven by ego.
I think its time we moved on.
LikeLike
Agreed.
On the one hand you have said, “Today I am feeling vindicated. . . .
“His (A.G. Barr’s) letter reports the principal conclusions of Special Counsel, Robert S. Mueller . . . That conclusion shows that the narrative we have been fed by the corporate or mainstream media over the last two years has been false. It has been fake news.” https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2019/03/25/getting-out-alive-why-we-should-always-demand-evidence/
And on the other hand, Robert Mueller has written that Attorney General Barr’s letter, “did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office’s work and conclusion. There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/special-counsel-mueller-s-letter-to-attorney-general-barr/e32695eb-c379-4696-845a-1b45ad32fff1/
You seem to have taken it upon yourself to disagree with the author of the Mueller Report about what is in the Mueller Report. If that’s not ego driven, I don’t know what is.
What’s your next move, a public disagreement with God about what is in the Bible?
LikeLike
David, who is this “God” you are talking about? And has she said anything about collusion?
LikeLike
I suppose God is to the individual what the individual deems God to be. It’s not for me to tell you what God is to you. You’re probably old enough to be comfortable with your own answers; and if not, young enough to find new answers.
It was a bit ethnocentric of me to have referenced the Bible, wasn’t it. Nor would I have ascribed a gender to God.
If you’d like to have that discussion, we can.
LikeLike
Discussing gods is about as bad as discussion collusion. So much depends on faith.
Seems to me these discussions are for mugs only.
LikeLike
I think you mean conspiracy. (Read the Report!)
LikeLike
Oh, I think there could still be some real collusion in there somewhere as the interference from the UK, Australia and Ukraine come to light with the current investigation.
But, yes, the Intelligate investigation could reveal some serious conspiracies – if allowed to. However, I suspect the deep state will control how much is revealed.
LikeLike
Your last comment is irrelevant, silly, and conspiracy theory oriented. But to your previous comment . . .
If it weren’t for faith, we would all still be living in caves.
LikeLike
And you lay charges of conspiracy theories!!
Look what has happened to McCabe and his relationship with CNN.
LikeLike
Deep State? Come on, Ken.
“In the United States, the term “deep state” is used to describe a conspiracy theory . . ” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_state_in_the_United_States
LikeLike