5 ms·

> Russia-gating Was exaggerated, but resulted in multiple guilty pleas and convictions of Trump associates and campaign workers. On the other hand, the electi

> Russia-gating Was exaggerated, but resulted in multiple guilty pleas and convictions of Trump associates and campaign workers. On the other hand, the election fraud theories are utter bunk. As predicted, all of the mistakes which have been discovered in the audits were far too small to affect the result. > denying election results in 2016 ... Hillary Clinton Did Clinton go after the election results as-such or are you talking about criticism of the Electoral College and its ability to allow minoritarian rule? > denying election results in ... 2018 ... Stacy Abrams The election where one of the candidates was in charge of the election process and refused to recuse himself? The election where an audit was requested but the data just happened to have been wiped?

trentnix 6y ago
Was exaggerated, but resulted in multiple guilty pleas and convictions of Trump associates and campaign workers. Not for any actual Russia collusion. Seems like that's an important detail you missed in your yeah, but.
- jaccarmac 6y ago
  My prediction is that you will try to weasel around by defining "collusion" as repeatedly more specific, but: - Papadopoulos admitted to lying to the FBI about Russian contact - Flynn admitted to lying to the FBI about the contents of his conversations with the Russian ambassador - Cohen admitted to lying to Congress about Trump business plans in Moscow The fact that multiple Trump associates lied to the FBI to protect details of their and his dealings in Russia smells a lot like smoke. I don't believe that Russian interference was the reason Trump won, but there are clear conflicts of interest. The obstruction charges against Trump himself were explicitly not pursued because of his political position.
  - trentnix 6y ago
    Flynn admitted to lying to the FBI about the contents of his conversations with the Russian ambassador Sounds scandalous, but we actually know the actual contents of the those conversations! And once again, there's no there, there. Seems to be another important omission in your follow-up yeah, but. I've no interest in this side vs. that side. For sure, there are no saints to be found. But the original point is that the New York Times played a key role in the spread of misinformation that we know, and was fairly obvious from the beginning, was actually political disinformation. And it's clear those media outlets weren't simply patsies - they were willful propagandists. Many good people were misled because they trusted the Times and other outlets they considered reputable. The Times abused that trust. And now the Times is assuming that, thanks to some form of Gell-Mann Amnesia, people will believe tomorrow's paper is honest reporting even though yesterday's paper was a pile of lies.
    - jaccarmac 6y ago
      > there's no there, there Flynn lied not to protect the contents of the conversations, but to explicitly deny a deal which was discussed. That is a "there". Besides, Flynn is a small part of a small part of my original argument. Sure, Flynn in particular is not the best example. But he is not the only one, which is why I provided others. > the New York Times played a key role in the spread of misinformation that ... was actually political disinformation. Which NYT articles in particular contained misinformation that was actually political disinformation? > those media outlets ... were willful propagandists By "those media outlets" do you mean the NYT or does the plural imply other sources which spread disinformation? If the latter, which particular outlets are you accusing? And what is the evidence of intent which the accusation would seem to require?
      - trentnix 6y ago
        https://taibbi.substack.com/p/russiagate-is-wmd-times-a-million https://taibbi.substack.com/p/russiagate-is-wmd-times-a-mill... https://theintercept.com/2019/01/20/beyond-buzzfeed-the-10-worst-most-embarrassing-u-s-media-failures-on-the-trumprussia-story/ https://theintercept.com/2019/01/20/beyond-buzzfeed-the-10-w...
        jaccarmac 6y ago
        I never disagreed that the story was exaggerated by the left-liberal media establishment. But your claims were that the NYT intentionally published disinformation. The Intercept piece does not seem to prove this, and in fact none of the ten failures include NYT stories. I find Taibbi odious to read, so only skimmed that article. I would appreciate direct links to New York Times articles with disinformation if that is still your claim. Nevertheless, his piece seems to mention. 1. The lionization of Robert Mueller by the NYT. I don't disagree with this, but as far as I'm concerned this falls under exaggeration and not misinformation. 2. A breathless editorial. As an opinion piece, I believe that this is likewise exaggeration. 3. The NYT's coverage of "repeated contacts" with Russian intelligence. I already mentioned the multiple guilty pleas about this issue, which you did not refute. 4. A story about RT appearing over a C-SPAN broadcast, which appears not to be a hack. The NYT's story does not assert that the feed was hacked, and contains C-SPAN's explanation of likely technical difficulties. 5. An NYT story about Russian interference in social media. This one isn't even about the Russiagate investigation at all. Once again, I do not deny that the media establishment was breathlessly eager for Mueller to confirm their most extreme suspicions. I don't deny that US media relies on evil Russian tropes to push stories. But you are evading my direct questions and requests for information, and gesturing at the tone of Russia-related coverage, instead of backing up your false assertion that the New York Times willfully propagandized the public with disinformation about Russiagate.
raxxorrax 6y ago
Sometimes exaggeration must be an understatement...
- jaccarmac 6y ago
  Give me some links to mainstream news stories which go beyond exaggeration, then.

trentnix 6y ago

Was exaggerated, but resulted in multiple guilty pleas and convictions of Trump associates and campaign workers. Not for any actual Russia collusion. Seems like that's an important detail you missed in your yeah, but.

jaccarmac 6y ago
My prediction is that you will try to weasel around by defining "collusion" as repeatedly more specific, but: - Papadopoulos admitted to lying to the FBI about Russian contact - Flynn admitted to lying to the FBI about the contents of his conversations with the Russian ambassador - Cohen admitted to lying to Congress about Trump business plans in Moscow The fact that multiple Trump associates lied to the FBI to protect details of their and his dealings in Russia smells a lot like smoke. I don't believe that Russian interference was the reason Trump won, but there are clear conflicts of interest. The obstruction charges against Trump himself were explicitly not pursued because of his political position.
- trentnix 6y ago
  Flynn admitted to lying to the FBI about the contents of his conversations with the Russian ambassador Sounds scandalous, but we actually know the actual contents of the those conversations! And once again, there's no there, there. Seems to be another important omission in your follow-up yeah, but. I've no interest in this side vs. that side. For sure, there are no saints to be found. But the original point is that the New York Times played a key role in the spread of misinformation that we know, and was fairly obvious from the beginning, was actually political disinformation. And it's clear those media outlets weren't simply patsies - they were willful propagandists. Many good people were misled because they trusted the Times and other outlets they considered reputable. The Times abused that trust. And now the Times is assuming that, thanks to some form of Gell-Mann Amnesia, people will believe tomorrow's paper is honest reporting even though yesterday's paper was a pile of lies.
  - jaccarmac 6y ago
    > there's no there, there Flynn lied not to protect the contents of the conversations, but to explicitly deny a deal which was discussed. That is a "there". Besides, Flynn is a small part of a small part of my original argument. Sure, Flynn in particular is not the best example. But he is not the only one, which is why I provided others. > the New York Times played a key role in the spread of misinformation that ... was actually political disinformation. Which NYT articles in particular contained misinformation that was actually political disinformation? > those media outlets ... were willful propagandists By "those media outlets" do you mean the NYT or does the plural imply other sources which spread disinformation? If the latter, which particular outlets are you accusing? And what is the evidence of intent which the accusation would seem to require?
    - trentnix 6y ago
      https://taibbi.substack.com/p/russiagate-is-wmd-times-a-million https://taibbi.substack.com/p/russiagate-is-wmd-times-a-mill... https://theintercept.com/2019/01/20/beyond-buzzfeed-the-10-worst-most-embarrassing-u-s-media-failures-on-the-trumprussia-story/ https://theintercept.com/2019/01/20/beyond-buzzfeed-the-10-w...
      - jaccarmac 6y ago
        I never disagreed that the story was exaggerated by the left-liberal media establishment. But your claims were that the NYT intentionally published disinformation. The Intercept piece does not seem to prove this, and in fact none of the ten failures include NYT stories. I find Taibbi odious to read, so only skimmed that article. I would appreciate direct links to New York Times articles with disinformation if that is still your claim. Nevertheless, his piece seems to mention. 1. The lionization of Robert Mueller by the NYT. I don't disagree with this, but as far as I'm concerned this falls under exaggeration and not misinformation. 2. A breathless editorial. As an opinion piece, I believe that this is likewise exaggeration. 3. The NYT's coverage of "repeated contacts" with Russian intelligence. I already mentioned the multiple guilty pleas about this issue, which you did not refute. 4. A story about RT appearing over a C-SPAN broadcast, which appears not to be a hack. The NYT's story does not assert that the feed was hacked, and contains C-SPAN's explanation of likely technical difficulties. 5. An NYT story about Russian interference in social media. This one isn't even about the Russiagate investigation at all. Once again, I do not deny that the media establishment was breathlessly eager for Mueller to confirm their most extreme suspicions. I don't deny that US media relies on evil Russian tropes to push stories. But you are evading my direct questions and requests for information, and gesturing at the tone of Russia-related coverage, instead of backing up your false assertion that the New York Times willfully propagandized the public with disinformation about Russiagate.

raxxorrax 6y ago

Sometimes exaggeration must be an understatement...

jaccarmac 6y ago
Give me some links to mainstream news stories which go beyond exaggeration, then.