• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

US Politics The Mueller Investigation - report is out

JessFR said:
It becomes obstruction as soon as you attempt to stop the functioning of the investigation. Just because people get away with it doesn't make it not serious.

This isn't a matter of interpretation or debate, obstruction IS a serious crime. You can argue that it shouldn't be, but currently it is.

And I'd hardly say the president is the poor underdog vs the prosecutor with the full power of the state. The prosecutor is the underdog in this story.

Not that there even is a prosecutor here yet.

This seems pretty cut and dry to me, if the president is permitted to obstruct investigation into their wrongdoing without it also being an example of wrong doing, it undermines the very rule of law even more so than the current interpretation of qualified immunity already does.
Click to expand...
There is no Rule of Law as you put it, it is all down to nuance interpretation and implementation.
George Bush blatently lied to congress over the Iraq war, that is a federal offence, a high crime, nothing happened.

Apologies I used weasel words, investigator not prosecutor sometimes and vice versa. investigator presents evidence of a prima facie case to answer, prosecutor decides whether to run it. Nobody has any illusion that the investigator is impartial or neutral he works for the State and therefore the prosecution. He who pays the piper calls the tunes.
Mueller struggled to produce evidence of a prima facie case of collusion. Maybe there wasn't any collusion, maybe Mueller couldn't find the evidence, maybe Trumps stonewalling and obstruction prevented that. Maybe Mueller didn't want to find the evidence?

The story is really that of a failed investigation, and a report which is not conclusive either way.

The most likely scenario is that this is a face saving maneuver, both sides can argue what the report means and what IS actually IS, in the mean time the world keeps on turnin and unless the recession accelerates Trump will be re-elected president. Politicians know that most people have the memory of a goldfish, so all you have to do is ride out a the storm and everyone will forget.

There is also no way you can spin it that the investigator backed by all the resources of the FBI and law enforcement is the underdog. The investigator can make unlimited errors practically without consequence to either themselves or the investigation.

I suggest perhaps controversially your world view that Obstruction as a serious crime is merely a sop which is presented when a fishing expedition fails to come up with any real fish.

Everyone knows including the Dems and the FBI knows where the fish are with Trump they are not Russian fish
Just as everyone knew where the fish were with HW Bush and Slick Willy Clinton, unfortunately the accusers also are guilty of exactly the same thing with the same people. Follow the money!!
 
Last edited:
novaveritas said:
There is no Rule of Law as you put it, it is all down to nuance interpretation and implementation
Click to expand...
well, yes and no. the letter of the law is set exactly as written on its face, which is why vague laws are so awful and unacceptable, because they can be used to justify all kinds of stuff that was never intended when it was written, although some, like drug and terrorism laws, are intentionally written vague specifically so they can be used to criminalize all kinds of things that wouldn't be allowed to be prohibited if they were stated explicitly. precedence is one of the most important things in interpreting and executing laws

the spirit of the law, the intent behind it, is the part that is always open to interpretation, and conflicts between a law's letter and spirit are used to overturn bad laws and create precedents for different interpretations and implementations of the law

but yeah, basically law comes down to whoever can create and give the most valid and convincing argument
 
So, part of this 'investigation' was Russian meddling in the election on Trump's behalf...correct? And there is still 'electoral college' angst in that Hillary would have won a popular vote? Consider this






So who was meddling in the election? We've seen Russia wasn't doing Trump any favors, but the largest donor to Hillary's campaign was doing all in it's power to meddle in her favor. Is this OK?
 
Looking a little deeper at the owner of the twitter account and some of the replies, it's littered with "Q" (let the conspiracists resume nattering). Who posted it, however, shouldn't change what is said by the expert, nor what this means.
 
Well I never said Hillary wasn't corrupt. Of course I also don't know if that meme is true. Wouldn't be surprised though, Google is corrupt as fuck too. If it is true, then absolutely it's not okay. As far as Russian meddling, unless you think the Mueller report is a bunch of lies, the extent of Russian meddling through social media and troll farms is outlined quite nicely. Of course that doesn't mean Trump knew about it. I think Russia has been meddling in our national discourse between the political parties on the Internet for some time in an attempt to cause division and reduce our government's ability to function, which has worked quite nicely. Russia is interested in being the primary world superpower. Russia and China both actually, and they're doing whatever they can to undermine us in order to get there.
 
Xorkoth said:
I think Russia has been meddling in our national discourse between the political parties on the Internet for some time in an attempt to cause division and reduce our government's ability to function, which has worked quite nicely. Russia is interested in being the primary world superpower. Russia and China both actually, and they're doing whatever they can to undermine us in order to get there.
Click to expand...

Fully agree.

Though, the tweet is not a meme, it is a video clip of a House Judiciary hearing where Ted Cruz is asking this expert what power Google has over elections. This is a real hearing, in front of congress, by an expert on the subject.

Google Expert to Senator Cruz: 15 Million 2020 Votes At Risk

...
Epstein further warned, “In 2020, you can bet that all of these companies are going to go all out, and the methods they are using are invisible, they’re subliminal, they are more powerful than most any effects I’ve ever seen in behavioral sciences and I’ve been in behavioral sciences for almost 40 years.”

Cruz reminded those at the hearing that Google’s parent company, Alphabet, was Clinton’s biggest corporate supporter in 2016. The company donated $1.6 million to the former Secretary of State, according to OpenSecrets.org.

The senator asked Epstein after his testimony if it was true that a “handful of Silicon Valley billionaires and giant corporations are able to spend millions of dollars, if not billions, collectively massively influencing the results of the elections.” Epstein gave the troubling answer, “Senator, with respect I must correct you. If Mark Zuckerberg chooses to send out a go vote reminder to just Democrats on election day, that doesn’t cost him a dime.”

Cruz voiced the fears of the GOP when it came to Big Tech, saying “we have no way of knowing if Google or Facebook or Twitter sends things to Democrats or Republicans or how they bias it because its a black box with no transparency or accountability whatsoever.”

Epstein suggested that Congress move to make Google’s search index public, which would simply reshape the company slightly and make its decisions to rank and order information more transparent.
Click to expand...

More info on the 'expert' Dr. Robert Epstein

...
Epstein has been a commentator for National Public Radio's Marketplace, the Voice of America, and Disney Online. His popular writings have appeared in Reader's Digest, The Washington Post, The Sunday Times (London), Good Housekeeping, Parenting, and other magazines and newspapers. An autobiographical essay documenting his long involvement with the media was published in 2006 in the academic journal Perspectives on Psychological Science.[2]
...
In 2012, Epstein publicly disputed with Google Search over a security warning placed on links to his website.[10] His website, which features mental health screening tests, was blocked for serving malware that could infect visitors to the site. Epstein emailed "Larry Page, Google's chief executive; David Drummond, Google's legal counsel; Epstein's congressman; and journalists from The New York Times, The Washington Post, Wired, and Newsweek."[10] In it, Epstein threatened legal action if the warning concerning his website was not removed, and denied that any problems with his website existed.[10] Several weeks later, Epstein admitted his website had been hacked, but still criticized Google for tarnishing his name and not helping him find the infection.[11] Epstein has since continued anti-Google advocacy, writing in TIME magazine that Google had "a fundamentally deceptive business model".[12][13] Epstein also has said that Google could rig the 2016 US presidential election and that search engine manipulation was "a serious threat to the democratic system of government".[14] According to Epstein, "Perhaps the most effective way to wield political influence in today's high-tech world is to donate money to a candidate and then to use technology to make sure he or she wins. The technology guarantees the win, and the donation guarantees allegiance, which Google has certainly tapped in recent years with the Obama administration."[14]

Throughout 2016, Epstein had discussed the possibility of Google search algorithm manipulation in favor of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.[15][16] He estimated in a September article that as many as three million votes in the upcoming election could be shifted as a result.[17] His research on the issue was called into question by many other outlets from 2014 through 2017.[18][19][20] In 2017, former head of Google Search Amit Singhal directly disputed this claim, explaining that "Google has never ever re-ranked search results on any topic (including elections) to manipulate user sentiment."[21]

In a 2017 article, Epstein criticized efforts by companies such as Google and Facebook to suppress fake news through algorithms, noting "the dangers in allowing big technology companies to decide which news stories are legitimate".[22]

Other journalists and researchers have expressed concerns similar to Epstein's. Safiya Noble cited Epstein's research about search engine bias in her 2018 book Algorithms of Oppression,[23] although she has expressed doubt that search engines ought to counter-balance the content of large, well-resourced and highly trained newsrooms with what she called "disinformation sites" and "propaganda outlets".[24] Ramesh Srinivasan, a professor of information studies at UCLA focusing on "the relationships between technology and politics", agreed with Epstein that "the larger issue" of how search engines can shape users' views is "extremely important", but questioned how many undecided voters are using Google to them help decide who to vote for.[24]

In August 2018, Paula Bolyard wrote an article for the conservative opinion and commentary blog PJ Media that reported that 96% of a set of Google search results for news about Donald Trump were from what she called "left-leaning and anti-Trump media outlets";[25] her results were subsequently tweeted by Trump himself,[26] but were evaluated as "false" by fact-checking website PolitiFact.[27]

The Los Angeles Times reported in March 2019 that Epstein's criticism of Google had been "warmly embraced" by conservative sources, a phenomenon that Epstein said "is driving me crazy".[24]
Click to expand...

That last line....LOL.

Related reading - Not just conservatives: Google and Big Tech can shift millions of votes in any direction

= = = = =

But this reminds me of ...

Funny, When Obama Harvested Facebook Data On Millions Of Users To Win In 2012, Everyone Cheered

Facebook faces what some are calling an "existential crisis" over revelations that its user data fell into the hands of the Trump campaign. Whether or not the attacks on the social media giant are justified, the fact is that the Obama campaign used Facebook (FB) data in the same way in 2012. But the reaction from the pundits and press back then was, shall we say, somewhat different.

...

But while the Trump campaign used Cambridge Analytica during the primaries, it didn't use the information during the general election campaign, relying instead on voter data provided by the Republican National Committee, according to CBS News. It reports that "the Trump campaign had tested the RNC data, and it proved to be vastly more accurate than Cambridge Analytica's."

Since this involves the Trump campaign, the news accounts have been suffused with dark conspiratorial tones. The Times article talks about how Trump consultants "exploited" Facebook data, and quotes a source calling it a "scam." It has been widely described as a massive data breach.

But Facebook had been promoting itself to political parties looking for a new way to reach voters.

Nor was this the first time Facebook users had their data unwittingly shared with a political campaign.

In 2012, the Obama campaign encouraged supporters to download an Obama 2012 Facebook app that, when activated, let the campaign collect Facebook data both on users and their friends.

...

The campaign boasted that more than a million people downloaded the app, which, given an average friend-list size of 190, means that as many as 190 million had at least some of their Facebook data vacuumed up by the Obama campaign — without their knowledge or consent.

If anything, Facebook made it easy for Obama to do so. A former campaign director, Carol Davidsen, tweeted that "Facebook was surprised we were able to suck out the whole social graph, but they didn't stop us once they realized that was what we were doing."

...

The campaign readily admitted that this subtle deception was key to their Facebook strategy.

...

The effort was called a "game-changer" in the 2012 election, and the Obama campaign boasted that it was "the most groundbreaking piece of technology developed for the campaign."

The only difference, as far as we can discern, between the two campaigns' use of Facebook, is that in the case of Obama the users themselves agreed to share their data with the Obama campaign, as well as that of their friends.

The users that downloaded the Cambridge app, meanwhile, were only told that the information would be used for academic purposes. Nor was the data to be used for anything other than academic purposes.

It's an important distinction, to be sure, and Facebook is right to be attacked for its inability to control how its user data were being gathered and shopped around. (Facebook tightened its privacy rules on data sharing apps in 2015.)

But keep in mind that it wasn't the Trump campaign that solicited the collection of the data. And, as we said, it didn't use the data in the general election campaign.

Obama, in contrast, was collecting live data on active users right up until Election Day, and at a scale that dwarfed anything the Trump campaign could access.

...

When Obama was exploiting Facebook users to help win re-election, it was an act of political genius. When Trump attempted something similar, with unclear results, it's a travesty of democracy and further evidence that somehow he stole the election.
Click to expand...

Article is focused on the media outrage about Trump's campaign while lauding Obama's team in doing this. The key to me is both sides are doing this. Both sides. And social media is at times complicit, if not encouraging it.
 
alasdairm said:
are you perhaps arguing for election reform and, for example, the reversal of citizen's united? or is it only a problem when corporations use their power and money to help democrats win elections?
Click to expand...
No and Yes.
It is a problem when corporations use their power and money in an underhanded way.
 
Last edited:
TheLoveBandit said:
So, part of this 'investigation' was Russian meddling in the election on Trump's behalf...correct? And there is still 'electoral college' angst in that Hillary would have won a popular vote? Consider this






So who was meddling in the election? We've seen Russia wasn't doing Trump any favors, but the largest donor to Hillary's campaign was doing all in it's power to meddle in her favor. Is this OK?
Click to expand...


The most extreme form of projection and hypocrisy.

Clinton even "colluded" with Russians by buying (fake) damaging information meant to hurt a presidential candidate from Russian officials via a foreign spy and violating campaign finance law by hiding the payments. Why aren't people super duper upset over this???
 
Xorkoth said:
Well I never said Hillary wasn't corrupt. Of course I also don't know if that meme is true. Wouldn't be surprised though, Google is corrupt as fuck too. If it is true, then absolutely it's not okay. As far as Russian meddling, unless you think the Mueller report is a bunch of lies, the extent of Russian meddling through social media and troll farms is outlined quite nicely. Of course that doesn't mean Trump knew about it. I think Russia has been meddling in our national discourse between the political parties on the Internet for some time in an attempt to cause division and reduce our government's ability to function, which has worked quite nicely. Russia is interested in being the primary world superpower. Russia and China both actually, and they're doing whatever they can to undermine us in order to get there.
Click to expand...

Google CEO Sundar Pichai said they found evidence of Russians spending $4,700 on Facebook ads. The Clinton campaign spent $1.2 BILLION. If that's all it takes to swing an election then the USA has far bigger problems than Russians - who posted many memes that were also anti-Trump lol

BTW look at Hillary if you want to know why the Chinese are doing so well. She met with Chinese officials while she had an unsecured blackberry with access to 'above top secret' US state secrets on her bathroom server. This was either unacceptable gross negligence or wilful treason. While she was Sec of State, Beijing found CIA spies in their govt and shot them, starting with one in front of a government building.
 
Please post about the Clintons in the Clinton Discussion Thread:

The Clinton Discussion Thread

and regarding Q (Qanon) - IMO it's a government psy-op that is connected to the Trump administration in some way. The "Q army" (which is growing daily) have been following Q's online posts/drops since Oct '17. They are cryptic enough to allow the followers to find clues and confirmations - but...
www.bluelight.org www.bluelight.org
 
Many stories overlap. Please stop trying to stifle any damaging talk against the Clintons.
 
No one is trying to stifle discussion.

Please post in the linked thread or feel free to start another one about the Clintons, unless it pertains directly to the Mueller investigation.

If you have any questions, please send a message to TLB, swilow, Xorkoth, JessFR, tathra, or me. Thank you.
 
Xorkoth mentioned China. What does China have to do with Mueller Investigation?
 
Well the mueller investigation included looking into foreign interference in US elections. So chances are foreign countries are going to come up in discussing that subject.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top