Mega-Thread: Mueller investigation

[Ripster42]

Who looks at it? Who decides? The courts are not just the arbiters for punishment. They are the ultimate decision of guilt, and therefore whether a crime has been committed. Without a conviction, a crime cannot truly exist. An event, sure. We can say we know what happened, and we can be reasonably sure of the circumstances, etc. But we cannot be sure of a crime without the courts process being completed.

Again, it's the difference between a killer and a murderer.

You keep using legal words that come from legal processes and then want to disavow yourself of those legal foundations when handing out legal conclusions. You can't have it both ways. You can know something happened, and use non-legal words to describe it (i.e. a killing, a taking, etc.), but you cannot call it a crime (i.e. a murder, a robbery) without the full weight of the court bearing down and concluding.

Courts in fact do decide what those motivations were and what those behaviors were when deciding what happened. I can give you any number of situations in which we cannot know what crime was committed until the courts decide what the full scope of factors were in the event that took place. A killing is yet another perfect example. Self defense? Premeditation? Involuntary? Those are all statutory factors that must be decided by a court.

Now, there are many times where we KNOW that some form of crime has taken place, and we're almost certain as to what the conclusions of the court will be (i.e. a jury trial and their decision). But we can't be certain until that process has played out. So we cannot be certain a crime had occurred until the courts decide.

Again, you're concerned with the court's stamp of approval. All a court does is give the gov't a process for determining punishment and assigning blame. The crime happened regardless. It's independent of the judicial system. Did the act described by the legislature take place? Getting a conviction doesn't change what happened in the past.

Let me put it another way, a court convicts a man for a crime he didn't commit. By your logic, he committed the crime because the courts determined it to be so. The courts retroactively changed the past and had him commit the crime. This is the way people who do not believe in an objective reality talk. It's essentially a form of insanity. That objective reality exists, with or without your consent. Courts don't change the past.

[Orbitus]

Bullshit. Nothing has changed on the right in 40 years(sad as that might be).

Yeah, you are delusional if you think this is true.

[draynay]

Let me put it another way, a court convicts a man for a crime he didn't commit. By your logic, he committed the crime because the courts determined it to be so. The courts retroactively changed the past and had him commit the crime. This is the way people who do not believe in an objective reality talk. It's essentially a form of insanity. That objective reality exists, with or without your consent. Courts don't change the past.

Ugh this thread is caught in a loop.

[Gaaz]

Twitter bots, fake facebook accounts and the like.

Kind of like New Knowledge, a US pro democratic party "think tank", who created "Russian bots" to influence Alabama elections by linking a republican candidate to Russia and accusing him of pedophilia? Yeah... those Russians just do not know when to stop... Wait, what? I get confused....

[PosPosPos]

Yeah, you are delusional if you think this is true.

I mean...this depends on perspective.

The (far) right being the steadfast bastion of hate and fear for more than 40 years, for instance, would definitely qualify as "nothing has changed" in that sense.

[Endus]

Again, you're concerned with the court's stamp of approval. All a court does is give the gov't a process for determining punishment and assigning blame. The crime happened regardless. It's independent of the judicial system. Did the act described by the legislature take place? Getting a conviction doesn't change what happened in the past.

Your entire argument is begging the question. The conclusion you're trying to draw is "this crime happened", and you're using as a premise, "the crime happened regardless". You can't assume your conclusion as one of your premises. It's a hand-wave to skip over having to establish something as fact.

You can't assume that any such crime occurred, in the first place. You'd have to prove that. Conveniently, we have a system of courts which do exactly that.

Let me put it another way, a court convicts a man for a crime he didn't commit. By your logic, he committed the crime because the courts determined it to be so. The courts retroactively changed the past and had him commit the crime. This is the way people who do not believe in an objective reality talk. It's essentially a form of insanity. That objective reality exists, with or without your consent. Courts don't change the past.

This is incorrect, and a deliberate misinterpretation.

You're confusing "what actually happened" with "the court's determination as to whether what actually happened was a crime".

Say you get accused of killing your wife. You totally didn't, but you have no alibi. There's enough circumstantial evidence that you did it that you get convicted. This doesn't retroactively change the facts, because you can appeal, and if new evidence comes forward to identify the real killer, that conviction can be voided. The facts remain the facts. But all anyone has to draw a conclusion with are those facts. If all those facts tell us that you are a murderer, people are going to think that. We can't read your mind, nor can we turn time back so we can observe the past directly; we have to go by the facts available to us. That can mean we get it wrong, but it's all we've got to work with.

The objective reality is that you did not kill your wife, but you are a convicted murderer. People calling you a "murderer" are technically accurate, and perfectly justified. If you can correct that record, that doesn't retroactively make them liars.

And if you've never been to court for the murder of your wife because the cops never considered you a suspect, someone calling you a "murderer" is slanderous. Unless they can provide facts that back up their opinion, to at least a reasonable degree. Yes, this might mean they're "slandering" you for something you actually did and got away with, but this is how things work. We can't psychically read truth from the fabric of reality, we have to assess the known facts and go from there.

If you're using legal terms, in reference to a legal decision, you need to stick with the legal definition of those terms. Or you're being deliberately dishonest.

[SirBeef]

Kind of like New Knowledge, a US pro democratic party "think tank", who created "Russian bots" to influence Alabama elections by linking a republican candidate to Russia and accusing him of pedophilia? Yeah... those Russians just do not know when to stop... Wait, what? I get confused....

So you seem to think I would like it if it were to happen to the "other" side but doen by Americans I would be OK with it?

[Bodakane]

Yes Bots on forums, twitter accounts and similar lol. As if anyone is going to change their political opinion based on some tweet they read. LoL. Even political forums like this are purely for self-righteous venting so people can feel superior. There's very little "discussion" and nobody wants to even contemplate views outside of their own as being anything but based on inherent flaws in those people's character (ie they're a nazi/libtard)

I can see how their involvement in the wikileaks hacking would have contributed to Clintons loss but the rest is just crap. Everyone blamed Cambrdige Analytica until that bogeyman was revealed to be obvious bullshit. Now, with Russophobia the go-to of the media, we're just blaming it all on those pesky Russians instead.

Look, i've seen the chain emails and facebook crap they spewed. I've seen how numerous people bought all of it, hook, line and sinker. From the plutonium lie to the pizza parlor insanity, that was all lies and all passed around to people who believed it. Trump only won by a few votes in key swing states, places that were targeted. Every single US intelligence agency agrees this happened.

[rogueMatthias]

Look, i've seen the chain emails and facebook crap they spewed. I've seen how numerous people bought all of it, hook, line and sinker. From the plutonium lie to the pizza parlor insanity, that was all lies and all passed around to people who believed it. Trump only won by a few votes in key swing states, places that were targeted. Every single US intelligence agency agrees this happened.

That's why it's baloney- it was passed to people who would believe it. You need to have already been drinking the Koolaid deeply to believe any of this crap. Do you think anybody but the most hardened of anti-Democrats would have believed the whole peado-Pizza-parlour crap?

You think anyone who doesn't already hate Hilary would take memes like this seriously?



I'm not saying there was no "interference" but if you look at any patterns, if anything it looks like Russia is just trying to fuck with everyone, polarise people more and increase divisions. They were even promoting Clinton and BLM too after all.

At the same time though, people in practically every country were peddling this shit too (it wasn't just Russia) because it was an easy dollar. People are so far in bubbles on both sides they'd click on any articles, no matter how ridiculous, if it played to their cognitive biases.

[Orbitus]

That's why it's baloney- it was passed to people who would believe it. You need to have already been drinking the Koolaid deeply to believe any of this crap. Do you think anybody but the most hardened of anti-Democrats would have believed the whole peado-Pizza-parlour crap?

You think anyone who doesn't already hate Hilary would take memes like this seriously?

Do you know what demographic that Trump won, besides white and male? UNEDUCATED PEOPLE. It wouldn't honestly surprise me how many people believe that meme and how many believe the Pizzagate. I mean, look at the retard that went and shot up the pizzaplace.

[Dacien]

@rogueMatthias I was going to post that picture with something along the lines of "This is what apparently swayed the election", but decided against it. We should absolutely take threats to our elections seriously, and I'm glad we are, but the idea that people were moderate and on the fence about whether to vote for Hillary or Trump and this Facebook post pushed them to the Trump camp is hilarious. Same with the "pumped up Bernie" meme, or any of the others that got posted. The only thing something like those posts did was encourage already-Trump voters to vote for Trump even harder.

Additionally, there was some analysis out there last year or so that showed the total number of people exposed to these images was really, really low.

[Orbitus]

@rogueMatthias I was going to post that picture with something along the lines of "This is what apparently swayed the election", but decided against it. We should absolutely take threats to our elections seriously, and I'm glad we are, but the idea that people were moderate and on the fence about whether to vote for Hillary or Trump and this Facebook post pushed them to the Trump camp is hilarious. Same with the "pumped up Bernie" meme, or any of the others that got posted. The only thing something like those posts did was encourage already-Trump voters to vote for Trump even harder.

Additionally, there was some analysis out there last year or so that showed the total number of people exposed to these images was really, really low.

Do you understand how many people watch Fox News? People that watch Fox News, know less about actual reality, than people who watch NO NEWS.

[rogueMatthias]

Do you know what demographic that Trump won, besides white and male? UNEDUCATED PEOPLE. It wouldn't honestly surprise me how many people believe that meme and how many believe the Pizzagate. I mean, look at the retard that went and shot up the pizzaplace.

Ok, so please tell me how Russia telling "uneducated" Fox News-watching Trump supporters that they should support Trump somehow swayed the election?

The effects of a meme campaign would have been negligible at best, (moreso as they were doing memes for both sides in the election) , especially compared to things like Comeys behaviour during the end of the election which undoubtedly was a large contribution to Trump's win.

[Orbitus]

Ok, so please tell me how Russia telling uneducated Fox News-watching Trump supporters that they should support Trump somehow swayed the election?

The effects of a meme campaign would have been negligible at best, (moreso as they were doing memes for both sides in the election) , especially compared to things like Comeys behaviour during the end of the election which undoubtedly was a large contribution to Trump's win.

Again, you don't understand, because you are part of the uneducated demographic apparently.

[Bodakane]

That's why it's baloney- it was passed to people who would believe it. You need to have already been drinking the Koolaid deeply to believe any of this crap. Do you think anybody but the most hardened of anti-Democrats would have believed the whole peado-Pizza-parlour crap?

You think anyone who doesn't already hate Hilary would take memes like this seriously?



I'm not saying there was no "interference" but if you look at any patterns, if anything it looks like Russia is just trying to fuck with everyone, polarise people more and increase divisions. They were even promoting Clinton and BLM too after all.

At the same time though, people in practically every country were peddling this shit too (it wasn't just Russia) because it was an easy dollar. People are so far in bubbles on both sides they'd click on any articles, no matter how ridiculous, if it played to their cognitive biases.

Do you think any small town, Evangelical, family values preaching, pearl clutcher would have chosen big city, serial cheating potty mouth big money Trump, if they didn't think the alternatives were fucking children in a pizza parlor? Come the fuck on.

[Machismo]

That's why it's baloney- it was passed to people who would believe it. You need to have already been drinking the Koolaid deeply to believe any of this crap. Do you think anybody but the most hardened of anti-Democrats would have believed the whole peado-Pizza-parlour crap?

You think anyone who doesn't already hate Hilary would take memes like this seriously?



I'm not saying there was no "interference" but if you look at any patterns, if anything it looks like Russia is just trying to fuck with everyone, polarise people more and increase divisions. They were even promoting Clinton and BLM too after all.

At the same time though, people in practically every country were peddling this shit too (it wasn't just Russia) because it was an easy dollar. People are so far in bubbles on both sides they'd click on any articles, no matter how ridiculous, if it played to their cognitive biases.

I watched my mother get brainwashed by shit like this. She literally voted for Jesse Jackson back in the day, and she reposted nonsense bullshit like this for two straight years.

[cubby]

That's exactly what I tried to explain earlier. /shrug

Yeah, people can be stubborn when it comes to maybe admitting they were wrong. I'll give it a couple more tries, but that's about all I can throw at it.

- - - Updated - - -

Again, you're concerned with the court's stamp of approval. All a court does is give the gov't a process for determining punishment and assigning blame. The crime happened regardless. It's independent of the judicial system. Did the act described by the legislature take place? Getting a conviction doesn't change what happened in the past.

A court isn't a "stamp of approval" - it's the deciding body of law that ultimately determines if a conviction exists or not, and therefore if a crime has been committed.

Let me put it another way, a court convicts a man for a crime he didn't commit. By your logic, he committed the crime because the courts determined it to be so. The courts retroactively changed the past and had him commit the crime. This is the way people who do not believe in an objective reality talk. It's essentially a form of insanity. That objective reality exists, with or without your consent. Courts don't change the past.

Ah, ok - I see. What you're still doing is using legal terms to define an action and conclusion. If you want to say someone killed someone, fine, they are a killer. What they are not is a murderer, at least until the court has convicted them. No conviction, no crime. Because a conviction is a direct reflection and application of a legal process.

So legally speaking, the innocent man scenario you described is entirely accurate, according to the rules of law. First he did, then he didn't, because the courts retroactively changed the past.

What you're conflating is labels versus actions. Labels are what courts give people who have committed crimes. Murdered. Rapist. Embezzler. Those words do not exist outside a court of law. I return to the example of a killer vs a murderer. You can know that a person killed someone, but they are not a murderer until a court determines it to be so. Only one of those words is a crime.

You claim there are objective standards to laws. So we KNOW that he is a murderer, even if a court decided he wasn't. But the rules of law is subjective. "Reasonable doubt" - "malice aforethought" - "manslaughter/murder" - all of those terms are subjective. Someone has to decide. Usually a jury but sometimes a judge. So we can't KNOW anything until a court has decided a crime has taken place.

Which is why a crime cannot have taken place until a person is convicted.

[Gestopft]

Do you think any small town, Evangelical, family values preaching, pearl clutcher would have chosen big city, serial cheating potty mouth big money Trump, if they didn't think the alternatives were fucking children in a pizza parlor? Come the fuck on.

We don't have to speculate though: they did, because the "big city, serial cheating potty mouth big money" candidate promised to put anti-abortion judges on the SCOTUS. McConnell holding that seat open was a huge part of getting the "family values" crowd to vote for Trump. White Evangelicals literally changed their position on the importance of a candidate's morality in order to justify supporting Trump.

[Cthulhu 2020]

@rogueMatthias I was going to post that picture with something along the lines of "This is what apparently swayed the election", but decided against it. We should absolutely take threats to our elections seriously, and I'm glad we are, but the idea that people were moderate and on the fence about whether to vote for Hillary or Trump and this Facebook post pushed them to the Trump camp is hilarious. Same with the "pumped up Bernie" meme, or any of the others that got posted. The only thing something like those posts did was encourage already-Trump voters to vote for Trump even harder.

Additionally, there was some analysis out there last year or so that showed the total number of people exposed to these images was really, really low.

Some of the facebook ads used were emphasizing that Hillary ran a child sex ring in a pizza parlor basement. This was proven false of course, but in the counties where this ad was pushed heavily, there was a noticeable shift in voting from the norm, away from Trump and towards Hillary.

You believe it's silly to think that facebook ads can change the outcome of an election, and you link one of the more extreme of the extreme memes passed around facebook. Sure, those only riled up the base, but there were far more than that one, and many WERE convinced of Hillary Clinton criminal activity. Did you sleep through the entire 2016 election and how the tag line was that Hillary was a criminal and a thief?

[Shalcker]

Some of the facebook ads used were emphasizing that Hillary ran a child sex ring in a pizza parlor basement. This was proven false of course, but in the counties where this ad was pushed heavily, there was a noticeable shift in voting from the norm, away from Trump and towards Hillary.

Which counties is that specifically? Could you give a link?

...wait, you mean it hurt Trump ("shift away from Trump")? Probably a mistake...