Octopus Overlords

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Tue Mar 26, 2019 5:05 pm edit: Doesn't matter. It's bugging me, that's all.

Holman wrote: ↑Tue Mar 26, 2019 12:11 pm It's equivalent to "They accused me of killing the mailman. That's a felony. That gets you life in prison."

See, this annoys me. We already know that accusations aren't a felony, but that killing people is. We automatically know what is being referred to in the second sentence.

What if someone said this:

"They slandered me when they said I killed the mailman. That's a travesty. That's against the law".

What is the "that's" referring to in the second sentence? Or the third?

Yeah. The problem is that while syntax has rules, it is as much rhetorical as logical. This is why AI language is so much more difficult than AI math.

In your example, it's easy to assume that "that" refers to the slander simply because we expect that the speaker ("they slandered ME!") would feel that way.

It gets even harder if the example is this:

"They slandered Jane when they said she killed the mailman. That's a crime. That's against the law".

We can't with certainty know which way it tilts here without knowing how the speaker feels about Jane. There's no way to "do the grammatical math" and determine it logically. (But note that I changed your "travesty" to "crime" to make it even harder. Rhetorically, we're more likely to use "travesty" to refer to slander than to actual murder.)

The Sarah Sanders quote is hard for us because (a) we know Sanders worships Trump, and (b) it is no longer unthinkable for the Press Secretary to call POTUS critics traitors. Trump's destruction of norms has ruined context for us.

(Imagine the Sanders quote in the mouth of a Barack Obama Press Secretary: we wouldn't be having this conversation at all because it would be simply absurd to believe that an Obama official would suggest that critics were traitors.)

Business Insider

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham said Tuesday that Attorney General William Barr told him he will send the special counsel Robert Mueller's final report on the Russia investigation to the White House before the public sees it, in case they want to make executive privilege claims over any parts of it.

Graham, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, also said Barr told him it will likely take "weeks, not months" to get a version of Mueller's final report out to the public.

Only Congress may charge the president with a crime.

The president will edit the special counsel's investigation of the president before Congress sees it.

This is our justice system.

Holman wrote: ↑Tue Mar 26, 2019 5:56 pm Only Congress may charge the president with a crime.

The president will edit the special counsel's investigation of the president before Congress sees it.

This is our justice system.

This mainly serves to set up a subpoena battle.

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Tue Mar 26, 2019 5:31 pm

Details are being explored.

Amazing: "In the same article cited by the FBI, the bureau wrote that (Marla) Maples brought the singer Michael Bolton “back to her room” after Trump left Manhattan for a trip."

Maples was cheating on Trump with Michael Bolton.

Everything makes sense if Bolton is Tiffany's father...

Holman wrote: ↑Tue Mar 26, 2019 5:56 pm Only Congress may charge the president with a crime.

The president will edit the special counsel's investigation of the president before Congress sees it.

This is our justice system.f

Before the public sees it.
Not before Congress.
I assume congress (or parts of it) can see it uncensored? No?

Only if they issue a subpoena for it. And only if the WH honors the subpoena without asserting executive privilege.

Unagi wrote: ↑Tue Mar 26, 2019 11:30 pm

Holman wrote: ↑Tue Mar 26, 2019 5:56 pm Only Congress may charge the president with a crime.

The president will edit the special counsel's investigation of the president before Congress sees it.

This is our justice system.f

Before the public sees it.
Not before Congress.
I assume congress (or parts of it) can see it uncensored? No?

Barr says that he'll be sending the report to the WH for executive-privilege review before it goes to Congress.

Congress will have to fight to see the full report.

Yeah we'll never see anything of value until a democrat president sits on the chair.

I'm just not reading it like the Congress wouldn't get to see it unredacted (specifically, a bipartisan subcommittee of a few members of Congress).

They say "to get a version of the report viewable by the public". In this context, you guys are saying that the Congress is part of that 'public' that isn't allowed to see certain things. That doesn't make sense to me.

Vorret wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 8:28 am Yeah we'll never see anything of value until a democrat president sits on the chair.

So you are saying that subsequent presidents can lift redacted executive privilege, but that a sitting Congress can't even privately review a executive-privileged redacted document?

I also don't think that's right.

The coverup is always the bigger scandal.

Unagi wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 8:59 am

Vorret wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 8:28 am Yeah we'll never see anything of value until a democrat president sits on the chair.

So you are saying that subsequent presidents can lift redacted executive privilege, but that a sitting Congress can't even privately review a executive-privileged redacted document?

I also don't think that's right.

Would you really be surprised if the current admin stalled until the election the full release of the report?

It’s under routine audit.

Unagi wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 8:57 am I'm just not reading it like the Congress wouldn't get to see it unredacted (specifically, a bipartisan subcommittee of a few members of Congress).

They say "to get a version of the report viewable by the public". In this context, you guys are saying that the Congress is part of that 'public' that isn't allowed to see certain things. That doesn't make sense to me.

Barr is now promising to send a second summary to Congress in lieu of the full report. The GOP is all-in on keeping the report secret.

This is what Barr was hired to do. He did it with Iran-Contra, he promised it in his memo to the president, and he coyly refused to rule it out during his confirmation hearing.

If the report fully exonerated Trump, you'd be able to download it from whitehouse.gov by now.

Our only hope is that some principled leaker saw this coming and has made arrangements to get the text out.

Holman wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 10:00 am

Unagi wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 8:57 am I'm just not reading it like the Congress wouldn't get to see it unredacted (specifically, a bipartisan subcommittee of a few members of Congress).

They say "to get a version of the report viewable by the public". In this context, you guys are saying that the Congress is part of that 'public' that isn't allowed to see certain things. That doesn't make sense to me.

Barr is now promising to send a second summary to Congress in lieu of the full report. The GOP is all-in on keeping the report secret.

This is what Barr was hired to do. He did it with Iran-Contra, he promised it in his memo to the president, and he coyly refused to rule it out during his confirmation hearing.

If the report fully exonerated Trump, you'd be able to download it from whitehouse.gov by now.

Our only hope is that some principled leaker saw this coming and has made arrangements to get the text out.

Trent Steel wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 10:45 am

Holman wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 10:00 am

Unagi wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 8:57 am I'm just not reading it like the Congress wouldn't get to see it unredacted (specifically, a bipartisan subcommittee of a few members of Congress).

They say "to get a version of the report viewable by the public". In this context, you guys are saying that the Congress is part of that 'public' that isn't allowed to see certain things. That doesn't make sense to me.

Barr is now promising to send a second summary to Congress in lieu of the full report. The GOP is all-in on keeping the report secret.

This is what Barr was hired to do. He did it with Iran-Contra, he promised it in his memo to the president, and he coyly refused to rule it out during his confirmation hearing.

If the report fully exonerated Trump, you'd be able to download it from whitehouse.gov by now.

Our only hope is that some principled leaker saw this coming and has made arrangements to get the text out.

FTFY

Holman wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 10:00 am

Unagi wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 8:57 am I'm just not reading it like the Congress wouldn't get to see it unredacted (specifically, a bipartisan subcommittee of a few members of Congress).

They say "to get a version of the report viewable by the public". In this context, you guys are saying that the Congress is part of that 'public' that isn't allowed to see certain things. That doesn't make sense to me.

Barr is now promising to send a second summary to Congress in lieu of the full report. The GOP is all-in on keeping the report secret.

This is what Barr was hired to do. He did it with Iran-Contra, he promised it in his memo to the president, and he coyly refused to rule it out during his confirmation hearing.

If the report fully exonerated Trump, you'd be able to download it from whitehouse.gov by now.

Our only hope is that some principled leaker saw this coming and has made arrangements to get the text out.

I wouldn't say that's the only hope. There's going to be a legal battle over this if the report isn't released before that point.

I do wonder how many people had access to the full report, as that impacts the risk of leaking.

Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 10:48 am

Trent Steel wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 10:45 am

Holman wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 10:00 am

Unagi wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 8:57 am I'm just not reading it like the Congress wouldn't get to see it unredacted (specifically, a bipartisan subcommittee of a few members of Congress).

They say "to get a version of the report viewable by the public". In this context, you guys are saying that the Congress is part of that 'public' that isn't allowed to see certain things. That doesn't make sense to me.

Barr is now promising to send a second summary to Congress in lieu of the full report. The GOP is all-in on keeping the report secret.

This is what Barr was hired to do. He did it with Iran-Contra, he promised it in his memo to the president, and he coyly refused to rule it out during his confirmation hearing.

If the report fully exonerated Trump, you'd be able to download it from whitehouse.gov by now.

Our only hope is that some principled leaker saw this coming and has made arrangements to get the text out.

FTFY

We all know this will be the end result.

Trent Steel wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:16 am

Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 10:48 am

Trent Steel wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 10:45 am

Holman wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 10:00 am

Unagi wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 8:57 am I'm just not reading it like the Congress wouldn't get to see it unredacted (specifically, a bipartisan subcommittee of a few members of Congress).

They say "to get a version of the report viewable by the public". In this context, you guys are saying that the Congress is part of that 'public' that isn't allowed to see certain things. That doesn't make sense to me.

Barr is now promising to send a second summary to Congress in lieu of the full report. The GOP is all-in on keeping the report secret.

This is what Barr was hired to do. He did it with Iran-Contra, he promised it in his memo to the president, and he coyly refused to rule it out during his confirmation hearing.

If the report fully exonerated Trump, you'd be able to download it from whitehouse.gov by now.

Our only hope is that some principled leaker saw this coming and has made arrangements to get the text out.

FTFY

We all know this will be the end result.

Internet: won.

Who elected her?

I'm kinda back to hoping he dies soon. Not because of the report, but because of his (and everyone else's) response to the report.

No one learned a damn thing from the investigation. Everyone is doubling down on their rhetoric and propaganda, everyone is using this for the maximum amount of political gain, despite it not being inherently political. The fbi, one of the main pillars of the rule of law in the US, is being pilloried. That's so unfair as to be anti-America. There are at least 2 committees vowing to open investigations into the FBI based on the report. They got what they wanted and STILL want to sacrifice peoples' careers for daring to investigate. Geezus.

I despise every single talking head (this includes some on the left) and most of this administration. Sanders in particular is deserving of scorn, as the willing mouthpiece of this shitgoblin (hat tip to Lawbeef).

Alefroth wrote:Who elected her?

Sarah Huckabee Sanders may be the alien leader from V.

Zarathud wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2019 12:01 am

Alefroth wrote:Who elected her?

Sarah Huckabee Sanders may be the alien leader from V.

That's an insult to lizard people!

Zaxxon wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 6:45 pmInternet: won.

Have to agree. That was nails.

Just one bit from Trump's bonkers interview with Hannity last night.

Daniel Dale wrote:Trump has moved from calling the investigation a failed "illegal takedown" to calling it a failed "Illegal takeover," suggesting that his enemies were trying to perpetrate a literal coup.

He starting to overplay his hand, I think.

Meanwhile, Rand Paul says he will do everything he can to block the release of the report until there are investigations of Obama.

So weird that they're doing everything they can to hide a document that completely 100% exonerates Trump.

100% Exonerated wrote:Congressman Adam Schiff, who spent two years knowingly and unlawfully lying and leaking, should be forced to resign from Congress!

That's the ticket -- convince Trump the only way to prove his innocence and victimization by Mueller is to release the report.

Or just dare Trump that he's too adraid to release it.

The NYT is now reporting that the Mueller report is over 300 pages long (Andrew Napolitano on Fox said it was 700 pages long). Amazing that Barr was able to summarize everything completely in just four pages!

Holman wrote:

100% Exonerated wrote:Congressman Adam Schiff, who spent two years knowingly and unlawfully lying and leaking, should be forced to resign from Congress!

And Rep. Nunez says "We should not be used as a platform to spread false information and bizarre conspiracies."

The audacity of stupid. Brought to you by the guy who is suing Twitter for hosting mean tweets.

Holman wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2019 10:45 am

100% Exonerated wrote:Congressman Adam Schiff, who spent two years knowingly and unlawfully lying and leaking, should be forced to resign from Congress!

Wow. If that's in the investigation, I'm having a hard time believing McConnell would so protective of it.

I wonder how many pages this thread is going to get to. Is there any kind of page limit for a singular thread under the software we use? I guess we'll find out.

Randomness is at 769 pages.

Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2019 1:18 pm Randomness is at 769 pages.

Mueller probably has fewer meme GIFs, though.

Zaxxon wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2019 11:47 pm

Don't know whether to laugh or cry.

This is important to remember:

After all, criminal culpability is not the standard by which someone’s fitness to be elected to the office of president of the United States, or in this case to remain in that office, should be judged. As some observers have correctly explained in recent days, this distinction goes to the heart of the difference between a criminal investigation, on the one hand, and a counterintelligence investigation, on the other. Barr’s summary speaks only to the former and omits any facts, findings or conclusions from the latter. Counterintelligence is always where the action was going to be.