Jump to content

The Robert Mueller Investigation

Hugo Stiglitz

By Hugo Stiglitz
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 34.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Hugo Stiglitz

    3238

  • Anastasis

    2088

  • David Dennison

    1559

  • triplehorn

    1384

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Goredho
Goredho

Just to make sure I have the alternative facts straight...  Our government -- but I'm guessing only the deep state part of it --- is now guilty of torturing a poor, naive Russian exchange student who

Incredulity
Incredulity

liberals suddenly being terrified of Russia and manic for election integrity is just pure comedy gold.

Chooky
Chooky

I don't believe for a moment that any of this is entertaining to you.  I think it gives you a bit of anxiety knowing that your best weapon against a group who you despise is a bumbling fraud as a busi

Posted Images

suddenly shaggy

suddenly shaggy 929

Posted
Posted
20 hours ago, Anastasis said:

This is rich. Yes, it has been several years. For over two years this thread and its predecessors have been filled to the rim with straight up fantasy horseshit.  Flynn is wearing a wire. US Attorney in charge of passport prosecutions dead on beach in Florida, NO FOUL PLAY AT ALL! Sealed indictments to support impeachment have been filed. Trump on tape with the Russians, first mormon president by Easter.  Sessions is manning the wall. English Knight who served on Dean's Advisory Board At Harvard Business School is the lynch pin. Also, dipshit Carter Page. Two pins per axle.  It would be the longcat of the decade if I were to even attempt a comprehensive summary of the nonsense that has been peddled here. And yet I don't recall one word from you calling any of that shit out. Not a single peep. Probably cause you were on the front lines shoveling it. 

But potential surveillance state abuses, something that use to be a bipartisan topic of broad agreement among the shagsters with more than two brain cells left, well fucking habitual liars are the only people who care about that sort of stuff anymore.  Yes, I have been a consistent critic of political opposition research being inserted into the surveillance process.  And yes, the dossier you love and cherish is probably Russian disinformation packaged up as work product of a western intelligence operative. Not sure that I have articulated a strong position on Mifsud's intelligence alignment, a text search doesn't register many hits to refresh my memory, much less repeated statements as you suggest.  I do think it curious that he hasn't been rung with with charges for lying to the FBI.  Maybe his is one of the 14 in the appendix. I don't watch cable news with rare exception.  I get most of my exposure to current events from surly DT and CR and NPR.  If I do want to steep my brain in the septic tank of cable news, it is usually CNN. I do like to laugh at Don Lemon. The most likely event leading me to read a Breitbart article would be following a link from here. As far as you punting, once again, when asked to prove up one of your silly accusations, I don't blame you.    

1485138073049.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
triplehorn

triplehorn 2664

Posted
Posted (edited)

^^ 

- Rep briefed on the timing, not content, of the report.

- "I don't expect any of us are going to see it real soon."  --> Who is "any of us"?  The public, or Congress?  He cites classification as the reason for not seeing it.  Seems that would be more of a limitation for the public seeing the report as opposed to GOP Congress who would likely leak relevant parts immediately if it served their ambitions.  I get the feeling it's already internally known to be a dud for GOP spin, and if so, this could be a signal that it's going to be given time to be forgotten over the next 2 months after months of rancor and build-up. 

 

Edited by triplehorn
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
zork

zork 629

Posted
Posted (edited)

@Anastasis :  care to comment on this:

https://amp.dailycaller.com/2019/07/01/john-ratcliffe-horowitz-fisa-abuse-complete

Quote

Texas Republican Rep. John Ratcliffe said Monday that the Justice Department inspector general has finished his investigation into whether the FBI abused the surveillance court system during its investigation of the Trump campaign.

In an interview on Fox News, Ratcliffe said that he met in June with the inspector general, Michael Horowitz, to discuss the timing, but not the content, of the release of the report.

 

“He related that his team’s investigative work is complete,” said Ratcliffe, a Republican member of the House Intelligence and House Judiciary Committees.

“They are now in the process of drafting the report. I would expect that it will be a draft that will be completed in short order.”

Ratcliffe said that he does not expect that the report will be made public “any time real soon,” though he is hopeful it will be released before Congress breaks for its August recess.

...

any scuttlebutt?

Edited by zork
added ...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bolverk

bolverk 29687

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, zork said:

Is this what one of the ongoing investigations is about:

 

Posting bullshit by Vdare the other day was contemptible. Now, you're peddling garbage from an organization known for:

pseudoscience including but not limited to UFOs and[62] chemtrails,[63] in a section titled "Beyond Science".[64] The section includes such articles as "12 Million-Year-Old Vehicle Tracks",[65] Sumerian spaceships,[66] hype over meditation,[67] and near-death experience.[68]

The paper has published articles questioning the validity of widely accepted scientific results such as evolution,[69] climate change,[70] and the safety of vaccines. [71][72][73][74]

Link to comment
Share on other sites
suddenly shaggy

suddenly shaggy 929

Posted
Posted

In news that will shock no-one, except the right wing gaslighters, Russia's interference had a measurable and statistically significant effect on the election. Russian trolls working for the GRU raised public opinion of Trump and shaped the narratives for him. Russian GRU troll posts had a stronger influence on Donald Trump's poll numbers than Trump's own tweets had. 

This should finally put to rest the lie that Russian interference was just a few facebook posts and pictures of Jesus arm wrestling Satan, but I'm sure Anastasis will find some way to both sides it. 

"Our results show that the weeks when Russian trolls were accumulating likes and retweets on Twitter, that activity reliably foreshadowed gains for Trump in the opinion polls," wrote Damian Ruck, the study's lead researcher, in an article explaining his findings.

The study found that every 25,000 re-tweets by accounts connected to the IRA predicted a 1 percent increase in opinion polls for Trump...

Ruck said the correlation between troll activity and Trump's popularity remained true even when controlling for Trump's own Twitter activity and other variables.

"It turns out that the activity of Russian Twitter trolls was a better predictor of Donald Trump's polling numbers than his own Twitter activity," he wrote.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23475

Posted
Posted (edited)
55 minutes ago, suddenly shaggy said:

 I'm sure Anastasis will find some way to both sides it. 

Gonna have to give me a few days. I’m celebrating the founding of an United States that wasn’t full of a bunch of surveillance state cocksuckers like you. In the mean time you can read the wapo rebuttal. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/07/01/no-russian-twitter-trolls-didnt-demonstrably-push-trumps-poll-numbers-higher 

You do peer reviews right. I am not familiar witth the the online “journal” related to this. But I tell you what.  Provide your critical review of their analysis on this thread and I will do the same. 

Edited by Anastasis
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23475

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, zork said:

@Anastasis :  care to comment on this:

https://amp.dailycaller.com/2019/07/01/john-ratcliffe-horowitz-fisa-abuse-complete

any scuttlebutt?

Investigation wrapping up. Behind schedule. Reporting that  Steele engaged with the OIG. Taking a long time to write up that executive summary concluding that everything was by the book. 

Edited by Anastasis
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Poolflood

Poolflood 845

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, suddenly shaggy said:

In news that will shock no-one, except the right wing gaslighters, Russia's interference had a measurable and statistically significant effect on the election. Russian trolls working for the GRU raised public opinion of Trump and shaped the narratives for him. Russian GRU troll posts had a stronger influence on Donald Trump's poll numbers than Trump's own tweets had. 

This should finally put to rest the lie that Russian interference was just a few facebook posts and pictures of Jesus arm wrestling Satan, but I'm sure Anastasis will find some way to both sides it. 

 

 

Here we have tested prediction, not causality

Prediction worked for Trump but not Hillary.  So Twitter activity increased toward election day and Trump gained more of the late breaking voters.  Hillary was essentially the incumbent.  Undecideds go mostly to the challenger.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45976

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Reporting that  Steele engaged with the OIG. Taking a long time to write up that executive summary concluding that everything was by the book. 

Both of these statements are lies.  You can't even accurately sum up an uncharacteristically benign story in a trash publication.  #bothsides

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23475

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Both of these statements are lies.  You can't even accurately sum up an uncharacteristically benign story in a trash publication.  #bothsides

Totally normal brain,

Just because you do not like what somebody else posts, that does not make it a lie. 

The first statement isbased on a story from the Times that Steele agreed to meet with the OIG after earlier refusals. It was discussed on this thread at the time, and more widely, including the following discussion on the lemon party show.  

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/christopher-steele-mi6-agent-to-face-questions-on-trump-russia-dossier-qkxk5p06c

 

 

 

 

 

The latter, based on Barr's testimony that OIG would wrap in May/June time frame, as reported in the NYT. Note that it is now July, dipshit. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/09/us/politics/russia-investigation-barr.html

 

You guys are amazingly lazy. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
suddenly shaggy

suddenly shaggy 929

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Gonna have to give me a few days. I’m celebrating the founding of an United States that wasn’t full of a bunch of surveillance state cocksuckers like you. In the mean time you can read the wapo rebuttal. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/07/01/no-russian-twitter-trolls-didnt-demonstrably-push-trumps-poll-numbers-higher 

You do peer reviews right. I am not familiar witth the the online “journal” related to this. But I tell you what.  Provide your critical review of their analysis on this thread and I will do the same. 

Awww, someone seems awfully butthurt now that his favorite lie has been exposed. I think I'll pass on your "analysis", since you've shown yourself to be an intellectually dishonest piece of shit on this thread repeatedly. I have zero interest in your "analysis" of this article and I doubt anyone besides Zavala, Onboard and Chrispy is interested in it either. 

How about this, if you think the study is flawed, write a rebuttal and send it to the journal for peer review like the authors of this article did. Or, since you're also criticizing the journal, maybe send it to one you like. I bet the Journal of CVS Pharmacists That Like To Pretend They Are Scientists is accepting articles. Make sure to include your obligatory Jesus arm wrestling Satan image so they know you are super cereal. Otherwise, go fuck yourself and enjoy watching Trump turn the 4th of July into a mockery of everything the United States stands for, just like he's done for everything else. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45976

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Totally normal brain,

Just because you do not like what somebody else posts, that does not make it a lie. 

The first statement isbased on a story from the Times that Steele agreed to meet with the OIG after earlier refusals. It was discussed on this thread at the time, and more widely, including the following discussion on the lemon party show.  

.

.

.

The latter, based on Barr's testimony that OIG would wrap in May/June time frame, as reported in the NYT. Note that it is now July, dipshit. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/09/us/politics/russia-investigation-barr.html

 

You guys are amazingly lazy. 

 

 

 

 

Fuck you.  You were purporting to summarize the linked story.  You made statements that were not in said story.  That's on you, "dipshit".

"Agreed to meet" doesn't equal "met".  I assume you can suss the difference.  I don't even know where to begin when someone cites Barr as a reference.  That's not lazy, that's just flat fucking stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45976

Posted
Posted
34 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I was asked to comment on the statements from Ratcliffe, not to summarize them.  You guys are so fucking knee jerk and lazy. I bet suddenly didn't even read the washington post piece either. 

Another lie.  He called you out and specifically asked you to comment on a link.  I mean, it's right there in the fucking post you quoted, clear as day.

Do you always struggle with the truth to this degree?  Your Trumpkinism comes naturally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23475

Posted
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Another lie.  He called you out and specifically asked you to comment on a link.  I mean, it's right there in the fucking post you quoted, clear as day.

Jaguarfan.gif

Edited by Anastasis
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23475

Posted
Posted

Z: A, care to comment on this article titled "Rep. John Ratcliffe Says FISA Abuse Investigation Is Complete"

A: Sure investigation is wrapping up. Behind schedule. Reporting that Steele engaged with the OIG. Taking a long time to write up that executive summary concluding that everything was by the book.

Jimmy Dip Shit: These are all lies!

A: Links CNN video and NYT article to support statements that were called lies.

Jimmy Dip Shit: Fuck you, you said you were summarizing the story.

A: I was asked to comment on Ratcliffe's statements and I did.

Jimmy Dip Shit: More fucking lies, look at this post asking you to comment on Ratcliffe's statements Trumpkin!

A: tenor.gif

Jimmy Dip Shit: Is this confusing for you.

A: No. 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
retread

retread 2951

Posted
Posted

I hope you're right. Nothing has moved fast so far with any of the players in this game. Not the House, the AG, or the WH.

If they start it in Jan or Feb, I think Trump wins the public opinion battle based on 'look at the Ds using impeachment in an election year.'

This fall we'll have the debt battle and whatever else is looming. Then, it's Thanksgiving and Christmas. I'm skeptical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18922

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, retread said:

I hope you're right. Nothing has moved fast so far with any of the players in this game. Not the House, the AG, or the WH.

If they start it in Jan or Feb, I think Trump wins the public opinion battle based on 'look at the Ds using impeachment in an election year.'

This fall we'll have the debt battle and whatever else is looming. Then, it's Thanksgiving and Christmas. I'm skeptical.

On days I don't think they are going to impeach him, it's because I'm quite sure they don't want to impeach a president and then have him get re-elected. That would be terrible.

Then I remember that he's going to lose badly and think it really doesn't matter when they start the proceedings. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FondrenRoad

FondrenRoad 4378

Posted
Posted
46 minutes ago, retread said:

I hope you're right. Nothing has moved fast so far with any of the players in this game. Not the House, the AG, or the WH.

If they start it in Jan or Feb, I think Trump wins the public opinion battle based on 'look at the Ds using impeachment in an election year.'

This fall we'll have the debt battle and whatever else is looming. Then, it's Thanksgiving and Christmas. I'm skeptical.

The House is filled with sheep and the Senate is filled with crooks. Nothing will happen. 

Mueller is the only person in this who has played their role properly and with integrity. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45976

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

Z: A, care to comment on this article titled "Rep. John Ratcliffe Says FISA Abuse Investigation Is Complete"

A: Sure investigation is wrapping up. Behind schedule. Reporting that Steele engaged with the OIG. Taking a long time to write up that executive summary concluding that everything was by the book.

Jimmy Dip Shit: These are all lies!

A: Links CNN video and NYT article to support statements that were called lies.

Jimmy Dip Shit: Fuck you, you said you were summarizing the story.

A: I was asked to comment on Ratcliffe's statements and I did.

Jimmy Dip Shit: More fucking lies, look at this post asking you to comment on Ratcliffe's statements Trumpkin!

A: tenor.gif

Jimmy Dip Shit: Is this confusing for you.

A: No. 

 

You can't even make your case AGAIN without lying.  Why is this so hard for you?  Are you a pathological liar or are you just day-drinking?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45976

Posted
Posted
56 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Your projection is showing. 

Please show where I have lied.  You lied right here:

Quote

A: Sure investigation is wrapping up. Behind schedule. Reporting that Steele engaged with the OIG. Taking a long time to write up that executive summary concluding that everything was by the book.

Jimmy Dip Shit: These are all lies!

This is way too easy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
suddenly shaggy

suddenly shaggy 929

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Anastasis said:

I was asked to comment on the statements from Ratcliffe, not to summarize them.  You guys are so fucking knee jerk and lazy. I bet suddenly didn't even read the washington post piece either. 

Actually I did and a few minutes on google show that the washington post article you posted is full of shit. Maybe it's just everyone else except you and the rest of the Trumpkin Dumbkins, but a peer-reviewed article written by 4 academics from the University of Tennessee, including a postdoc and a Department chair has a wee bit more credibility than Phillip Bump and his undergrad philosophy degree from Ohio State. Like you, Bump has attempted to minimize the impact of Russian GRU interference in the election in the past and is looking only for data that confirms what he already believes. 

Bump's article is a lot of words, but is actually garbage. For instance, Bump never even mentions the main method the authors used in the paper, vector autoregression. He also doesn't mention ANY of the significance tests the authors used in the study. The authors calculate statistical significance using a Granger causality test and their results were statistically significant. It's clear Bump doesn't even know vector autoregression, or Granger causality are. That's cool, I didn't either, until I googled it. Bump didn't even bother to do that before writing an article about statistics he doesn't understand. 

Bump does try to make a big deal out of an R-squared value he claims is 0.27. This is interesting for 2 reasons.

1) The authors never report an R-squared value anywhere in either the paper, or the article in The Conversation that Bump also mentions. Since he doesn't understand vector autoregression or Granger causality, Bump appears to have attempted to calculate an R-squared value himself from one of the graphs in the Conversation article. 

https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/zmNad/3/

Note that the graph he's pulling the numbers from isn't precise enough to get exact numbers, but that doesn't seem to have stopped him. 

2) Bump is incorrect when he says a value of 0.27 means the correlation isn't that strong. Again, I learned that from google and if he'd bothered to google the phrase "R squared good value", he'd have found that R-squared is the amount of total variation that is accounted for and explained by their model. He would also have found on the first page of google search results that for social sciences, explaining 27% of all the variation is actually pretty good. Given that you claim to do so much peer-review, I would have thought you would have known these things and picked it up as odd from his article. Since you don't appear to know it either, I'll google that for both of you.

First, the quote from Bump's article.

Quote

It has an r-squared value of 0.27, according to the data used for the above graph. The closer an r-squared value is to 1, the more robust the correlation. In other words, the correlation here isn’t that strong.

Now the google results which show that he is completely full of shit. 

https://lmgtfy.com/?q=good+r+squared+value

Here's a quote from the first result, a page made by a statistics program company called minitab. The entire first page of results essentially repeats this in different wordings. 

 

Quote

 R-squared does not indicate whether a regression model is adequate. You can have a low R-squared value for a good model, or a high R-squared value for a model that does not fit the data!"

Are Low R-squared Values Inherently Bad?No! There are two major reasons why it can be just fine to have low R-squared values.

In some fields, it is entirely expected that your R-squared values will be low. For example, any field that attempts to predict human behavior, such as psychology, typically has R-squared values lower than 50%. Humans are simply harder to predict than, say, physical processes.

Furthermore, if your R-squared value is low but you have statistically significant predictors, you can still draw important conclusions about how changes in the predictor values are associated with changes in the response value. Regardless of the R-squared, the significant coefficients still represent the mean change in the response for one unit of change in the predictor while holding other predictors in the model constant. Obviously, this type of information can be extremely valuable.

Here's a Duke Business School faculty page. 

 

The question is often asked: "what's a good value for R-squared?" or “how big does R-squared need to be for the regression model to be valid?” 

 Sometimes the claim is even made: "a model is not useful unless its R-squared is at least x", where x may be some fraction greater than 50%.  The correct response to this question is polite laughter followed by: "That depends!"  A former student of mine landed a job at a top consulting firm by being the only candidate who gave that answer during his interview.

I think that's probably enough statistics talk for the day on this thread. Next time you try to obfuscate, try to find an article by someone that can identify which hole is their ass and which one is a hole in the ground, or at least someone that knows how to use google. 

 

 

 

Edited by suddenly shaggy
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23475

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, suddenly shaggy said:

Actually I did and a few minutes on google show that the washington post article you posted is full of shit. Maybe it's just everyone else except you and the rest of the Trumpkin Dumbkins, but a peer-reviewed article written by 4 academics from the University of Tennessee, including a postdoc and a Department chair has a wee bit more credibility than Phillip Bump and his undergrad philosophy degree from Ohio State. Like you, Bump has attempted to minimize the impact of Russian GRU interference in the election in the past and is looking only for data that confirms what he already believes. 

Bump's article is a lot of words, but is actually garbage. For instance, Bump never even mentions the main method the authors used in the paper, vector autoregression. He also doesn't mention ANY of the significance tests the authors used in the study. The authors calculate statistical significance using a Granger causality test and their results were statistically significant. It's clear Bump doesn't even know vector autoregression, or Granger causality are. That's cool, I didn't either, until I googled it. Bump didn't even bother to do that before writing an article about statistics he doesn't understand. 

Bump does try to make a big deal out of an R-squared value he claims is 0.27. This is interesting for 2 reasons.

1) The authors never report an R-squared value anywhere in either the paper, or the article in The Conversation that Bump also mentions. Since he doesn't understand vector autoregression or Granger causality, Bump appears to have attempted to calculate an R-squared value himself from one of the graphs in the Conversation article. 

https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/zmNad/3/

Note that the graph he's pulling the numbers from isn't precise enough to get exact numbers, but that doesn't seem to have stopped him. 

2) Bump is incorrect when he says a value of 0.27 means the correlation isn't that strong. Again, I learned that from google and if he'd bothered to google the phrase "R squared good value", he'd have found that R-squared is the amount of total variation that is accounted for and explained by their model. He would also have found on the first page of google search results that for social sciences, explaining 27% of all the variation is actually pretty good. Given that you claim to do so much peer-review, I would have thought you would have known these things and picked it up as odd from his article. Since you don't appear to know it either, I'll google that for both of you.

First, the quote from Bump's article.

Now the google results which show that he is completely full of shit. 

https://lmgtfy.com/?q=good+r+squared+value

Here's a quote from the first result, a page made by a statistics program company called minitab. The entire first page of results essentially repeats this in different wordings. 

 

 

After you get done with your banana pudding, google "model misspecification" and "unmeasured confounding". 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23475

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Poolflood said:

You're a better man than I

Nah, man, it's all good. I have no doubt that Jimmy is a good man and wish him the best on this day. In meantime I am going to follow up on the notifications while I watch the kids in the back yard engaging in total water balloon warfare.  And will try not to run out of ice.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...