After Two-Year Investigation, “No Evidence of Collusion”

[jamil]

I think collusion between the Clinton campaign and Russia to disseminate false information was worse and there were potential laws being broken in the process with the use of the bogus bought and paid for information to take down Trump.

If the roles were reversed we could possibly have seen an endless Republican led investigation into Clinton, but the difference, the press would be protecting rather than prosecuting the POTUS.

 

[churchmouse]

If the roles were reversed we could possibly have seen an endless Republican led investigation into Clinton, but the difference, the press would be protecting rather than prosecuting the POTUS.

Having the MSM behind you is a serious plus. This has become so evident in the last 20 years.

 

[jamil]

Having the MSM behind you is a serious plus. This has become so evident in the last 20 years.

It’s amazing to me that Republicans are even competitive. The number I’ve seen floating around is something close to 93% of journalists identified as either democrats or left leaning, only ~7% Republicans or right leaning. I don’t care what journalists say, they can’t not be biased. There are too many studies which show that people’s world views influence how they perceive events. Reporters can’t help it. They can’t override that. Not consistently. The only way to make the news less ideologically skewed is to have an even mix of world views.

Take Snopes for example. Their investigators are all left. They claim they’re objective. I don’t doubt that they try to be; or that they are internally. I do doubt that they can consistently see the same story through different world views to come up with an externally objective conclusion.

If they want to be the foremost accurate fact checker, at least for political fact-checking, they should have a team of two rational ideological opposites tag team the research, and they can’t publish their joint conclusion untill they both agree on a consensus.

 

[churchmouse]

It’s amazing to me that Republicans are even competitive. The number I’ve seen floating around is something close to 93% of journalists identified as either democrats or left leaning, only ~7% Republicans or right leaning. I don’t care what journalists say, they can’t not be biased. There are too many studies which show that people’s world views influence how they perceive events. Reporters can’t help it. They can’t override that. Not consistently. The only way to make the news less ideologically skewed is to have an even mix of world views.

Take Snopes for example. Their investigators are all left. They claim they’re objective. I don’t doubt that they try to be; or that they are internally. I do doubt that they can consistently see the same story through different world views to come up with an externally objective conclusion.

If they want to be the foremost accurate fact checker, at least for political fact-checking, they should have a team of two rational ideological opposites tag team the research, and they can’t publish their joint conclusion untill they both agree on a consensus.

Can you even imagine the confrontations in the break room.

 

[jamil]

Can you even imagine the confrontations in the break room.

What that would require is a very good employment interview system. They’d have to screen out bat**** crazy. It’s been my experience that I can talk to people on the left who aren’t bat**** crazy. And we can agree the facts while disagreeing on our opinions about the facts. It’s not a fact-checker’s job to report opinions about facts. It is to report the facts which support or refute a political claim.

 

[Doug]

I think collusion between the Clinton campaign and Russia to disseminate false information was worse and there were potential laws being broken in the process with the use of the bogus bought and paid for information to take down Trump.

The difference is that everyone expects the Democrats to try to win BAMN (by any means necessary). No one is surprised by Democrat leaking, double counting, mixing accepted and rejected ballots,...
Isn't it possible that the security on Hiliary's server was intentionally weak to allow hackers to get in as part payment for Russian assistance? If Hiliary had won, any investigation would have quickly ended because the "correct" person won. Since she didn't win, the effort now is to make the election illegitimate.

 

[KG1]

The difference is that everyone expects the Democrats to try to win BAMN (by any means necessary). No one is surprised by Democrat leaking, double counting, mixing accepted and rejected ballots,...
Isn't it possible that the security on Hiliary's server was intentionally weak to allow hackers to get in as part payment for Russian assistance? If Hiliary had won, any investigation would have quickly ended because the "correct" person won. Since she didn't win, the effort now is to make the election illegitimate.

High ranking people in the DOJ and FBI scrambled on to plan B when Hillary lost. They never expected Trump to win so there would have been no need for a plan B.

 

[BugI02]

What that would require is a very good employment interview system. They’d have to screen out bat**** crazy. It’s been my experience that I can talk to people on the left who aren’t bat**** crazy. And we can agree the facts while disagreeing on our opinions about the facts. It’s not a fact-checker’s job to report opinions about facts. It is to report the facts which support or refute a political claim.

I believe you are in engineering, as am I. We thus regularly interact with a much more rational subset of the general public. Is it possible that this distorts your assumptions about just how many non-bat**** crazy people exist to the left and thus overestimate the possibilities of the the two larger parent groups to agree on facts while disagreeing on the interpretations of the facts? Looking toward some posited government that includes the non-bat**** crazy from both left and right I predominantly see some kind of technocracy, and I see a technocracy as largely amoral in pursuit of the correct outcome (as they see it) and perhaps only slightly better than a socialist government. I think both fail spectacularly, but for differing reasons

 

[jamil]

I believe you are in engineering, as am I. We thus regularly interact with a much more rational subset of the general public. Is it possible that this distorts your assumptions about just how many non-bat**** crazy people exist to the left and thus overestimate the possibilities of the the two larger parent groups to agree on facts while disagreeing on the interpretations of the facts? Looking toward some posited government that includes the non-bat**** crazy from both left and right I predominantly see some kind of technocracy, and I see a technocracy as largely amoral in pursuit of the correct outcome (as they see it) and perhaps only slightly better than a socialist government. I think both fail spectacularly, but for differing reasons

I interact with a lot more than just engineers. Product planners, marketers, business analysts, and others, but my exposure to the other side is not just at work. It's extended family, friends, etcetera. I live in Trump country so, although there's somewhat of a bubble on the right, but because it's near a larger metro area, there's still plenty of exposure to the other side. And, there's not as big of a bubble on the left locally. They're more exposed to real ass Trumpers, not the fake racist Nazi white nationalist Trumpers the media reports. So finding bubble dwelling far leftist nutballs is rarer.

So here's an example of what I'm talking about with the media. Did you happen to catch Bari Weiss on Joe Rogan a few weeks ago? She sort of had a mostly sane outlook on most things, and I'd say just some positions I tend to disagree with. She took a middle of the road tack regarding the MAGA kids, for example. But she has this mater-of-fact assumption that the MAGA slogan and especially the hat, are as much racist symbols as the Klan's white sheet. But then, look at the bubble she lives in.

She's a NY Times reporter living in NY. She has zero exposure to real ass Trumpers. The only Trumpers she has any exposure to are the ones constructed of devil-straw in her own mind. If she lived around them and worked with them, she'd likely still disagree with most of their positions on things. But she'd also know they're real people, with real concerns, who want many of the things she wants, and they aren't the straw monsters she imagines now. I think Bari Weiss tries to be objective. But she often fails in outcome because she lives in a bubble where she has no contact with the people she has all these negative opinions about. So that illustrates the point about the press and bias, and how it might help to have to work with a person of the opposing world view.

Though I think she's an honest broker, she's also a product of her bubble. She could be an excellent fact checker if she were paired with an honest broker who has the opposite world view. They may hate each other at first, but eventually they'll get to talking as coworkers who share a common space do, about stuff that has nothing to do with work. They'll both start to realize the other is a real ass person and not the straw monster they've both conjured of the other. But they both have to be honest brokers, willing to concede they could be wrong about some preconceptions.

If they really are objective, they'll both look at the same evidence and challenge each other about what is factual and what is not. We often like to think things are facts when they support our world view. But maybe we're just full of ****. It helps to hear from people outside of our bubbles who we still trust, who have a different world view, who can challenge us on whether those things are facts or just assumptions in our biased imaginations. I'd like an opportunity to challenge her obvious assumption that MAGA=racist.

 

[BugI02]

Understood. I interact mostly with engineers and scientists in a largely mature industry (industrial chemistry). I and my co-workers are consultants so we have to already have some chops to get hired. We tend to be older, to the extent that i can't think of anyone at work who thinks there is a chance in hell that socialism could ever be a good thing. Most of them are cut from the 'better dead than red' cloth, so I will admit that professionally I live in a bubble. Family is a totally different story, split probably 40/60 conservative/progressive with some weird ideas that don't fit either template (one of my nephews is ex-Army, conservative but thinks only ex-military have the skills to own firearms privately )

I encounter people of manifold ideas on client's shop floors, but I don't feel at liberty to engage in wide-ranging discussion. I live in a university town and am active socially in enough areas of interest to have friends and aquaintances from the full spectrum. My personal experience is that for the ones at the extreme left, I have to admit Trump is literally Hitler as a pre-condition for discussing anything. I cannot question climate change, the 97%, tax cuts only benefit the 1% ad infinitum because they simply will. not. listen. If they haven't read it or heard it from the MSM greek chorus, then it didn't happen. These are people who are able to see that Fox news is biased to the right, but see 90+% hewing to a single viewpoint (often with identical talking points) from the MSM as the truth rather than an indication of a comparable bias

I see my own attempts at 'winning hearts and minds' working out the way that usually does

 

[jamil]

Understood. I interact mostly with engineers and scientists in a largely mature industry (industrial chemistry). I and my co-workers are consultants so we have to already have some chops to get hired. We tend to be older, to the extent that i can't think of anyone at work who thinks there is a chance in hell that socialism could ever be a good thing. Most of them are cut from the 'better dead than red' cloth, so I will admit that professionally I live in a bubble. Family is a totally different story, split probably 40/60 conservative/progressive with some weird ideas that don't fit either template (one of my nephews is ex-Army, conservative but thinks only ex-military have the skills to own firearms privately )

I encounter people of manifold ideas on client's shop floors, but I don't feel at liberty to engage in wide-ranging discussion. I live in a university town and am active socially in enough areas of interest to have friends and aquaintances from the full spectrum. My personal experience is that for the ones at the extreme left, I have to admit Trump is literally Hitler as a pre-condition for discussing anything. I cannot question climate change, the 97%, tax cuts only benefit the 1% ad infinitum because they simply will. not. listen. If they haven't read it or heard it from the MSM greek chorus, then it didn't happen. These are people who are able to see that Fox news is biased to the right, but see 90+% hewing to a single viewpoint (often with identical talking points) from the MSM as the truth rather than an indication of a comparable bias

I see my own attempts at 'winning hearts and minds' working out the way that usually does

Only adding that I've never had to agree that Trump is literally Hitler to earn a spot at the children's table to discuss politics. But admittedly there are topics I avoid. I think I have a fairly moderate view on climate change but I work with some real diehard global warming extremists types, so rather than making their heads explode, I'd rather avoid the topic.

Oh. And here's an example of being able to talk with people sanely about many topics, but not with some topics. Over the holidays I had some interesting discussions with my nieces, the daughters of my SIL and BIL, who are I'd say pretty far left and kinda living in a bubble. One of the nieces is a freshman in collage in, let's say in a very progressive area of the country. We talked a lot about the importance of presenting opposing views, which she agreed with, and she seemed to have a pretty good grasp of both sides of many issues. I avoided a discussion of guns because I know she's anti-gun, and that's one of the topics we probably can't have a sane discussion about.

But the subject eventually evolved into a discussion on wealth inequality and the 1%. I asked her if she knew the points made on the other side of that issue. We had agreed earlier that a position you hold in which you don't know the arguments of both sides, is not a very well reasoned position. But she denied that there even is another side to income inequality. She told me she wrote a paper on the subject and asserted her knowledge was sufficient, and declared that there isn't another side of it. As I tried to challenge that, she told me that she was getting angry. Okay. It would be better for her to learn how to discuss things while dealling with anger or frustration, and no better way than to talk to someone who might present some facts she hadn't thought about. But, she's not my daughter, and it was clear she had no intention of entertaining any challenges to the viewpoint she likely held before she even wrote the paper. So that ended that.

 

[cbhausen]

Only adding that I've never had to agree that Trump is literally Hitler to earn a spot at the children's table to discuss politics. But admittedly there are topics I avoid. I think I have a fairly moderate view on climate change but I work with some real diehard global warming extremists types, so rather than making their heads explode, I'd rather avoid the topic.

Oh. And here's an example of being able to talk with people sanely about many topics, but not with some topics. Over the holidays I had some interesting discussions with my nieces, the daughters of my SIL and BIL, who are I'd say pretty far left and kinda living in a bubble. One of the nieces is a freshman in collage in, let's say in a very progressive area of the country. We talked a lot about the importance of presenting opposing views, which she agreed with, and she seemed to have a pretty good grasp of both sides of many issues. I avoided a discussion of guns because I know she's anti-gun, and that's one of the topics we probably can't have a sane discussion about.

But the subject eventually evolved into a discussion on wealth inequality and the 1%. I asked her if she knew the points made on the other side of that issue. We had agreed earlier that a position you hold in which you don't know the arguments of both sides, is not a very well reasoned position. But she denied that there even is another side to income inequality. She told me she wrote a paper on the subject and asserted her knowledge was sufficient, and declared that there isn't another side of it. As I tried to challenge that, she told me that she was getting angry. Okay. It would be better for her to learn how to discuss things while dealling with anger or frustration, and no better way than to talk to someone who might present some facts she hadn't thought about. But, she's not my daughter, and it was clear she had no intention of entertaining any challenges to the viewpoint she likely held before she even wrote the paper. So that ended that.

You avoided the topic of guns because you knew she was anti-gun and presumed you couldn’t have a sane discussion about it? If everyone took this attitude the Second Amendment would be gone in a generation or two. Maybe take her shooting? It’s worked for me in the past.

 

[jamil]

You avoided the topic of guns because you knew she was anti-gun and presumed you couldn’t have a sane discussion about it? If everyone took this attitude the Second Amendment would be gone in a generation or two. Maybe take her shooting? It’s worked for me in the past.

There are some things where it’s kinda silly to judge others when you’re not there. This is one of those. I think I read people well enough and she’s not receptive. It’s ideological, not just misinformation. You can fix misinformation a lot easier. If you think you can just take everyone of any prior belief to the range one time and convert them, that’s just naive. She will not step foot on a gun range at this point. She will not touch a gun. These are things I already know about her. Things you wouldn't have the opportunity to know.

I’ve taken many “non-gun” people to the range. When they’re ready. My goal isn’t to convert them. It’s just to be there to help them learn how to be safe with guns, and get them to see for themselves the facts of the pro-gun side, and the misconceptions on from the anti side. And to see gun enthusiasts as normal people. Some of them have become “gun” people themselves. There are a couple of guys I go to the range with fairly regularly. Some still don’t care for guns much personally, but at least now they’re not anti-gun. But anyway, maybe get the full picture before passing judgement.

 

[AtTheMurph]

There was never any evidence of collusion. None. This was an investigation into a supposed crime for which prosecutors could produce zero actual evidence and as far as we know, the only evidence they ever produced to the court was tainted, politically produced bull that they did not inform the court of it's provenance.

That production of this tainted "evidence" is a crime for which the prosecutors should face jail or worse. It may well be deemed treason.

I have blueprints to build a guillotine, the National Razor, because it seems we are in need of a very close shave in this country.

 

[cbhausen]

There are some things where it’s kinda silly to judge others when you’re not there. This is one of those. I think I read people well enough and she’s not receptive. It’s ideological, not just misinformation. You can fix misinformation a lot easier. If you think you can just take everyone of any prior belief to the range one time and convert them, that’s just naive. She will not step foot on a gun range at this point. She will not touch a gun. These are things I already know about her. Things you wouldn't have the opportunity to know.

I’ve taken many “non-gun” people to the range. When they’re ready. My goal isn’t to convert them. It’s just to be there to help them learn how to be safe with guns, and get them to see for themselves the facts of the pro-gun side, and the misconceptions on from the anti side. And to see gun enthusiasts as normal people. Some of them have become “gun” people themselves. There are a couple of guys I go to the range with fairly regularly. Some still don’t care for guns much personally, but at least now they’re not anti-gun. But anyway, maybe get the full picture before passing judgement.

Thanks for the additional explanation and your efforts as explained therein. I was going off the phrase “...probably can’t have a sane discussion...” when I wrote my response. I apologize for how it came out.

 

[El-Cigarro]

Guys, it's like THIS. When the LEFT take power, and your doors are kicked in, and your guns confiscated, by force, blame the left. It's their fault. Period......

 

[Kutnupe14]

There was never any evidence of collusion. None. This was an investigation into a supposed crime for which prosecutors could produce zero actual evidence and as far as we know, the only evidence they ever produced to the court was tainted, politically produced bull that they did not inform the court of it's provenance.

That production of this tainted "evidence" is a crime for which the prosecutors should face jail or worse. It may well be deemed treason.

I have blueprints to build a guillotine, the National Razor, because it seems we are in need of a very close shave in this country.

So Manafort and Stone were doing what exactly? It would seem to me that their associations with the Russians, Pro-Russian Ukrainians, Wikileaks, and Guccifer 2.0 neatly fall into the:

"...any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of president Donald Trump:.."

Mandate.

So seriously, what would you call Manafort (campaign chairman) and Stone's (campaign advisor) actions, if not collusion???

 

[jamil]

Guys, it's like THIS. When the LEFT take power, and your doors are kicked in, and your guns confiscated, by force, blame the left. It's their fault. Period......

Depending on your religious views, you either HAVE to post, or you never post again. I mean, if you have a dark sense of humer you just let 'er ride at 666 posts. But I can see if you're religious, maybe you post to get off the 666. Either way.

 

[jamil]

So Manafort and Stone were doing what exactly? It would seem to me that their associations with the Russians, Pro-Russian Ukrainians, Wikileaks, and Guccifer 2.0 neatly fall into the:


Mandate.

So seriously, what would you call Manafort (campaign chairman) and Stone's (campaign advisor) actions, if not collusion???

Which mandate? They haven't found an impeachable offense yet have they? This investigation is Kenneth Star - Democrat Edition.

 

[cbhausen]

Which mandate? They haven't found an impeachable offense yet have they? This investigation is Kenneth Star - Democrat Edition.

A question or two for you: Did or did not President Clinton lie under oath? And another one for you: Have other people been sent up the river for perjuring themselves for more trivial matters? What about Hillary?

As far as I know not one single fact uncovered during the Star Investigation has ever been refuted. One may think it is salacious, frivolous or whatever. But it was conducted in an absolutely professional manner.