This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1barney67
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/collusiongate-rip
This is not what you expected if you’ve been watching CNN or MSNBC or reading the New York Times or the Washington Post these past two years. Their viewers and readers have been savoring the prospect of Donald Trump being frog-marched out of the White House, on his way to prison, with the smirk wiped off his face.
This is not what you expected if you’ve been watching CNN or MSNBC or reading the New York Times or the Washington Post these past two years. Their viewers and readers have been savoring the prospect of Donald Trump being frog-marched out of the White House, on his way to prison, with the smirk wiped off his face.
2RickHarsch
Maybe. But big business men get away with a lot of shit. Unfortunately for many apparently the Mueller report became synonymous with the hope that Trump would be found to have colluded with a foreign adversary, which really wouldn't be such a good thing. There is no doubt he is guilty of financial misadventures, and his refusal to release his taxes is troubling--as is the refusal for people to demand them.
What shouldn't be lost in this demi-exoneration is that a lot of bizarre things had to happen to justify the investigation, and that the investigation's results have not been fully revealed.
What shouldn't be lost in this demi-exoneration is that a lot of bizarre things had to happen to justify the investigation, and that the investigation's results have not been fully revealed.
3krolik
I hope we'll have access to the full report, which would be a healthy exercise in transparency.
Pending that hoped-for development, I found this an interesting synthesis of the current situation. It's from a conservative pundit, Barn:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/26/opinion/mueller-report-trump-russia.html
Pending that hoped-for development, I found this an interesting synthesis of the current situation. It's from a conservative pundit, Barn:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/26/opinion/mueller-report-trump-russia.html
4prosfilaes
It has been a disgrace as well, as Taibbi argues, for our intelligence agencies. He compares their promotion of Collusiongate with their assurances that Saddam Hussein was seeking weapons of mass destruction. But he doesn’t note one important difference. On Iraq, the intelligence agencies were doing their job as best they could. They subjected the evidence to the pessimistic appraisal that is arguably appropriate in that line of work.
On Collusiongate, the CIA and the FBI were acting contrary to their usual rule of refraining from interference in domestic politics. Instead, as has become clear thanks largely to former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., they were relying heavily on a document bought and paid for by the Democratic National Committee, to the point of presenting it as evidence to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court without identifying its provenance.
Right, the false evidence that lead to the Iraq War that killed 50,000 combatants and hundreds of thousands of non-combatants was correctly evaluated, despite the fact that it's hard to see what the worst case scenario was; in fact, I'd say the results were about as bad as you could get if Iraq had had weapons of mass of destruction.
On the other hand, the idea that a foreign power might be about to take control of the US presidency is something that, far from a pessimistic appraisal and action, doesn't even deserve an investigation.
Go back before 1992 and tell any Republican that an advisor to a US presidential candidate had told an Australian ambassador that he was privy to the fact that the Russians had stolen dirt on his opponent*, said Republican would have flipped their lid. They would have demanded a full investigation into the matter at the very least.
Oh, and as for “broke every written and unwritten rule in pursuit of this story, starting with the prohibition on reporting things we can’t confirm”? What evidence the FBI presented to the FISC is still classified. The general thrust of the leaks seems to be the FBI presented information about the provenance of the Steele Dossier, but if the Examiner wants to worry about things they can't confirm, let's start with stuff that happened that's recorded in sealed, classified documents.
* That is, what George Papadopoulos told Alexander Downer around May 10, 2016.
On Collusiongate, the CIA and the FBI were acting contrary to their usual rule of refraining from interference in domestic politics. Instead, as has become clear thanks largely to former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., they were relying heavily on a document bought and paid for by the Democratic National Committee, to the point of presenting it as evidence to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court without identifying its provenance.
Right, the false evidence that lead to the Iraq War that killed 50,000 combatants and hundreds of thousands of non-combatants was correctly evaluated, despite the fact that it's hard to see what the worst case scenario was; in fact, I'd say the results were about as bad as you could get if Iraq had had weapons of mass of destruction.
On the other hand, the idea that a foreign power might be about to take control of the US presidency is something that, far from a pessimistic appraisal and action, doesn't even deserve an investigation.
Go back before 1992 and tell any Republican that an advisor to a US presidential candidate had told an Australian ambassador that he was privy to the fact that the Russians had stolen dirt on his opponent*, said Republican would have flipped their lid. They would have demanded a full investigation into the matter at the very least.
Oh, and as for “broke every written and unwritten rule in pursuit of this story, starting with the prohibition on reporting things we can’t confirm”? What evidence the FBI presented to the FISC is still classified. The general thrust of the leaks seems to be the FBI presented information about the provenance of the Steele Dossier, but if the Examiner wants to worry about things they can't confirm, let's start with stuff that happened that's recorded in sealed, classified documents.
* That is, what George Papadopoulos told Alexander Downer around May 10, 2016.
5proximity1
>4 prosfilaes:
...(let us 'recall' (LOL!) that this)
"idea that a foreign power might be about to take control of the US presidency ..."
had its sole source in "a document bought and paid for by the Democratic National Committee," which was known by those peddling it to be raw, unsubstantiated, unverified allegations, all of which, on examination, turned out to be false.
and, thus, on that basis, which, again, was known, yes, that
..."is something that (as we know now after three years and many millions of dollars wasted,) far from a pessimistic appraisal and action, doesn't (and never did) even deserve an investigation ..."
