The Robert Mueller Investigation

[suddenly shaggy 929]

32 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

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

 

 

Ohhhhh burn. You have wounded me to the quick. You are the one trying to pull the banana in the tailpipe trick on the rest of the board by trying to pass off a piece of shit opinion piece written by a philosophy graduate from Ohio State. I'll trust his opinions on the Tau of burning couches. That's more than I'd trust your gaslighting ass on. 

If you think their study is flawed, there's nothing stopping you from writing a rebuttal. I'm sure the editors could use a good laugh. Such a revolutionary idea you have that there might be confounding variables. Oh wait, they actually talk about it and control for the most likely confounding variable in the paper you must not have read. 

[Anastasis 23475]

14 minutes ago, suddenly shaggy said:

Oh wait, they actually talk about it and control for the most likely confounding variable in the paper you must not have read. 

Tell me what their sensitivity analysis considering the influence of us news media exposure on the study outcomes found. 

Lol. Boy just got blasted in the face with the last water balloon. Crying ensued. Think that we will move on to kubb. 

Edited July 5, 2019 by Anastasis

[JimmyJames 12271]

4 hours ago, Anastasis said:

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.  

Just got back from from the lake. 

For someone claiming to not give a shit because you are having a good time otherwise on the 4th, you do seem to be spending a whole lot of time posting here about how you don’t give a shit because you’re having a good time on the 4th.

Maybe if your gonna bother spending time posting on the 4th, you should actually attempt to engage and answer legitimate questions posed to you, instead of spending time posting how you don’t give a shit because you’re posting on the 4th. 

Merry Christmas. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

Here comes a gif. I can feel it. 

[Anastasis 23475]

51 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Just got back from from the lake. 

[Anastasis 23475]

Holy shit.  That was 7777. Better get right with Jesus.

 

 

Edited July 5, 2019 by Anastasis

[Anastasis 23475]

fuck this editor.

Edited July 6, 2019 by Anastasis

[Anastasis 23475]

Quote tags suck, try this one.

So first to the WaPo piece...

I agree with your assessment of the interpretation of the R-square.  One correction, the data used to calculate that R2 are published in the article that you linked. He didn't need to calculate them from the chart, he could do so directly from the data file that was available on the website (There is a "get this data" link under the chart). So your criticism to point #1 is not valid, but your second point has merit. That kind of R2 is not bad at all for social science research. It also means virtually nothing when evaluating the study or it's findings. The more salient points that were made in the WaPo article are related to correlation/causation interpretations, how the variables were defined, the magnitude of IRA tweets in the context of election related tweets, etc. Running out a R2 was frivolous, and as you rightly point out, misinterpreted.  

So to the actual study...

The primary problem with the analysis, imo, is that there is no consideration for a strong potential confounder at play, i.e. domestic media reporting and engagement influencing the study outcomes during the period under examination. Note for example the timing of the 5 or 6 data points where the retweeting activity is the highest. They correspond generally to the GOP convention and Comey various election influencing activities, i.e. times when overall media engagement, of which social media engagement is only a small part and IRA activity and even smaller part, is likely to be high.  Broad media reporting related to the election during these time periods was consumed with coverage of these events, which could be correlated to polling results. You have both legs of a confounding triangle. This is imo a major limitation of study. The authors acknowledge this briefly in the discussion.

Any correlation established by an observational study could be spurious. Though our main finding has proved robust and our time series analysis excludes reverse causation, there could still be a third variable driving the relationship between IRA Twitter success and U.S. election opinion polls. We controlled for one of these — the success of Donald Trump’s personal Twitter account — but there are others that are more difficult to measure; including exposure to the U.S domestic media.

 

On 7/4/2019 at 7:08 PM, suddenly shaggy said:

Such a revolutionary idea you have that there might be confounding variables. Oh wait, they actually talk about it and control for the most likely confounding variable in the paper you must not have read. 

 

Now you say that the authors identified and controlled for the most likely confounding variable, but that is just not true, as they stated in their discussion section.  They did run a sensitivity analysis that controlled for Trump's twitter "success", measured as average weekly re-tweets from Trumps twitter account. This is a very erratic measure, obviously, and doesn't account for anything coming close to broad influence of the election related media coverage on the study outcomes. But let's run with it.  What did their sensitivity analysis show?  It found that the effect was no longer statistically significant. This only bolsters my criticism that unmeasured confounding such as exposure and engagement to broader election related media coverage is at play.  

Now controlling for this confounder would not be easy, but I sure that there are data sets that could provide information to hack together a reasonable measure.  Maybe something as simple as retweets of MSM sources, or percent of total media coverage devoted to the election. There are probably multiple variables that really need to be considered. Lots of options here that should be available from existing data sets.

Now this is all fine and well, and sussing out the associations as play here is very challenging. Such research is necessary and useful, even with significant limitations. Where we get into problems is when people run with the results and extrapolate to an interpretation that is not supported by the data or the analysis, and then push it out to their social media feeds and message boards.

On 7/3/2019 at 9:14 PM, 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.

So back to this.  The quoted statement is not an accurate reflection of the study findings.  One, you use cause/effect language. Two, the study did not examine the impact on the election, it examined the impact on a basket of polls. The Axios piece on the study made the same mistake initially in reporting the study findings. They went back and changed the title of their article to correct their statement.  I don't imagine that you will be as honest. 

Edited July 6, 2019 by Anastasis

[suddenly shaggy 929]

Lulz, okay Professor CVS, keep up the good work. You can link the pdf for us when the editors fast track it through and publish it. 

[Thetexashammer 1062]

On 7/4/2019 at 10:51 PM, JimmyJames said:

Here comes a gif. I can feel it. 

We need a final solution for gif posters.

[David Dennison 18922]

[retread 2951]

Perfect.

[Poolflood 845]

4 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Quote tags suck, try this one.

So first to the WaPo piece...

I agree with your assessment of the interpretation of the R-square.  One correction, the data used to calculate that R2 are published in the article that you linked. He didn't need to calculate them from the chart, he could do so directly from the data file that was available on the website (There is a "get this data" link under the chart). So your criticism to point #1 is not valid, but your second point has merit. That kind of R2 is not bad at all for social science research. It also means virtually nothing when evaluating the study or it's findings. The more salient points that were made in the WaPo article are related to correlation/causation interpretations, how the variables were defined, the magnitude of IRA tweets in the context of election related tweets, etc. Running out a R2 was frivolous, and as you rightly point out, misinterpreted.  

So to the actual study...

The primary problem with the analysis, imo, is that there is no consideration for a strong potential confounder at play, i.e. domestic media reporting and engagement influencing the study outcomes during the period under examination. Note for example the timing of the 5 or 6 data points where the retweeting activity is the highest. They correspond generally to the GOP convention and Comey various election influencing activities, i.e. times when overall media engagement, of which social media engagement is only a small part and IRA activity and even smaller part, is likely to be high.  Broad media reporting related to the election during these time periods was consumed with coverage of these events, which could be correlated to polling results. You have both legs of a confounding triangle. This is imo a major limitation of study. The authors acknowledge this briefly in the discussion.

Any correlation established by an observational study could be spurious. Though our main finding has proved robust and our time series analysis excludes reverse causation, there could still be a third variable driving the relationship between IRA Twitter success and U.S. election opinion polls. We controlled for one of these — the success of Donald Trump’s personal Twitter account — but there are others that are more difficult to measure; including exposure to the U.S domestic media.

 

 

Now you say that the authors identified and controlled for the most likely confounding variable, but that is just not true, as they stated in their discussion section.  They did run a sensitivity analysis that controlled for Trump's twitter "success", measured as average weekly re-tweets from Trumps twitter account. This is a very erratic measure, obviously, and doesn't account for anything coming close to broad influence of the election related media coverage on the study outcomes. But let's run with it.  What did their sensitivity analysis show?  It found that the effect was no longer statistically significant. This only bolsters my criticism that unmeasured confounding such as exposure and engagement to broader election related media coverage is at play.  

Now controlling for this confounder would not be easy, but I sure that there are data sets that could provide information to hack together a reasonable measure.  Maybe something as simple as retweets of MSM sources, or percent of total media coverage devoted to the election. There are probably multiple variables that really need to be considered. Lots of options here that should be available from existing data sets.

Now this is all fine and well, and sussing out the associations as play here is very challenging. Such research is necessary and useful, even with significant limitations. Where we get into problems is when people run with the results and extrapolate to an interpretation that is not supported by the data or the analysis, and then push it out to their social media feeds and message boards.

So back to this.  The quoted statement is not an accurate reflection of the study findings.  One, you use cause/effect language. Two, the study did not examine the impact on the election, it examined the impact on a basket of polls. The Axios piece on the study made the same mistake initially in reporting the study findings. They went back and changed the title of their article to correct their statement.  I don't imagine that you will be as honest. 

To:Dr   I'm assuming lies, damn lies and statistics.

And DD is too busy feeding the dozen of undocumented workers in his house to rebut with any articulation.

[suddenly shaggy 929]

2 minutes ago, Poolflood said:

I'm assuming lies, damn lies and statistics.

You just summed up every Anastasis post on this thread. 

[Anastasis 23475]

35 minutes ago, Poolflood said:

To:Dr   I'm assuming lies, damn lies and statistics.

 And DD is too busy feeding the dozen of undocumented workers in his house to rebut with any articulation.

To be honest, the piece strikes me as an exercise in determining what conclusion you want to drive, and making sure the data you publish give you an acceptable answer with only minimal torture. I am sure that the results will be useful next time the researchers are bellying up to the DOD grant funding trough.   

Edited July 6, 2019 by Anastasis

[Poolflood 845]

30 minutes ago, suddenly shaggy said:

You just summed up every Anastasis post on this thread. 

So you didn't read the garbage from the study.  Anastasis did a much deeper explanation than I.  Authors are a joke.

[Anastasis 23475]

1 minute ago, Poolflood said:

So you didn't read the garbage from the study.  Anastasis did a much deeper explanation than I.  Authors are a joke.

I think calling it a joke may go a bit too far. I think that the analysis has limitations. I think that the authors do not do discussion of those limitations the justice they deserve, and move to lay press and social media platforms to extend the interpretation of their finding in a setting out side the peer review umbrella. They do this to stoke media interest and tweeter dissemination that often misrepresent the findings. Maybe it is actually performance art, illustrating the susceptibility of social media to poor critical thinking and confirmation bias.

[Poolflood 845]

Just now, Anastasis said:

I think calling it a joke may go a bit too far. I think that the analysis has limitations. I think that the authors do not do discussion of those limitations the justice they deserve, and move to lay press and social media platforms to extend the interpretation of their finding in a setting out side the peer review umbrella. They do this to stoke media interest and tweeter dissemination that often misrepresent the findings. Maybe it is actually performance art, illustrating the susceptibility of social media to poor critical thinking and confirmation bias.

One man's performance art is another's mathematical masturbation.

[Anastasis 23475]

4 hours ago, suddenly shaggy said:

Lulz, okay Professor CVS, keep up the good work. You can link the pdf for us when the editors fast track it through and publish it. 

It's ok. I know that you are out of your element once the discussion requires more than googling a stats 101 term. 

[Thetexashammer 1062]

38 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

It's ok. I know that you are out of your element once the discussion requires more than googling a stats 101 term. 

He googled "what is a good r^2". I mean, wow. The question wasn't even meaningful. 

You know how people just post "did you see this study" so I win the argument? It's almost like people don't know that a study is, at best, an unconfirmed hypothesis which "proves" nothing. Other people look at the data and develop their own version of the outcome, then they debate it, and after a time a consensus might be developed, which could easily still be wrong. In any case there are lots of issues that "studies" can never prove anything and people prance around quoting them as if it shows they're educated, when it actually shows the exact opposite.

More than half of published, peer reviewed clinical research is invalid. Not broad, epidiemiologic studies trying to merely show some sort of correlation, but hard clinical experimentation is mostly wrong. 

People saying well I have a study so you're wrong are just so misinformed, on substance as well as process.

Edited July 6, 2019 by Thetexashammer

[Pescado_Rojo 19423]

17 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

He googled "what is a good r^2". I mean, wow. The question wasn't even meaningful. 

You know how people just post "did you see this study" so I win the argument? It's almost like people don't know that a study is, at best, an unconfirmed hypothesis which "proves" nothing. Other people look at the data and develop their own version of the outcome, then they debate it, and after a time a consensus might be developed, which could easily still be wrong. In any case there are lots of issues that "studies" can never prove anything and people prance around quoting them as if it shows they're educated, when it actually shows the exact opposite.

More than half of published, peer reviewed clinical research is invalid. Not broad, epidiemiologic studies trying to merely show some sort of correlation, but hard clinical experimentation is mostly wrong. 

People saying well I have a study so you're wrong are just so misinformed, on substance as well as process.

Did you just post stats to reinforce your argument that you can’t trust stats? 

Bold

[Thetexashammer 1062]

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13585]

23 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

He googled "what is a good r^2". I mean, wow. The question wasn't even meaningful. 

You know how people just post "did you see this study" so I win the argument? It's almost like people don't know that a study is, at best, an unconfirmed hypothesis which "proves" nothing. Other people look at the data and develop their own version of the outcome, then they debate it, and after a time a consensus might be developed, which could easily still be wrong. In any case there are lots of issues that "studies" can never prove anything and people prance around quoting them as if it shows they're educated, when it actually shows the exact opposite.

More than half of published, peer reviewed clinical research is invalid. Not broad, epidiemiologic studies trying to merely show some sort of correlation, but hard clinical experimentation is mostly wrong. 

People saying well I have a study so you're wrong are just so misinformed, on substance as well as process.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Bill Barr is almost like having McConnell as AG

[Anastasis 23475]

On 7/4/2019 at 7:34 AM, Anastasis said:

The first statement is based 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.  

 

On 7/4/2019 at 7:59 AM, jimmyjazz said:

Fuck you....

"Agreed to meet" doesn't equal "met".  I assume you can suss the difference. 

 

From the "Fuck You Anastasis, You Lying Fucking Liar" file, dateline 07/09/2019:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia/trump-dossier-author-grilled-by-justice-department-watchdogs-sources-idUSKCN1U410I

Trump 'dossier' author grilled by Justice Department watchdogs: sources

(Reuters) - Federal lawyers probing the origins of the investigation of ties between Russia and President Donald Trump’s campaign have interviewed the author of a “dossier” that alleged misconduct between Trump and Moscow, prompting the lawyers to extend their inquiry.

Three attorneys from the Inspector General’s office of the U.S. Department of Justice met in person in early June with dossier author Christopher Steele in Britain, said two sources with direct knowledge of the lawyers’ travels.

 

Quote

Trump 'dossier' author grilled by Justice Department watchdogs: sources

Mark Hosenball

4 MIN READ

(Reuters) - Federal lawyers probing the origins of the investigation of ties between Russia and President Donald Trump’s campaign have interviewed the author of a “dossier” that alleged misconduct between Trump and Moscow, prompting the lawyers to extend their inquiry.

Three attorneys from the Inspector General’s office of the U.S. Department of Justice met in person in early June with dossier author Christopher Steele in Britain, said two sources with direct knowledge of the lawyers’ travels.

The interview with Steele, a former top spy on Russia for Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service, or MI6, took place while Trump was in London for a formal state visit with Queen Elizabeth and a meeting with UK Prime Minister Theresa May.

Steele’s dossier, made public in 2017, alleged that Moscow attempted to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and that there was potential collusion between Russia and Trump’s campaign, along with other unverified and salacious claims about the president.

The Justice Department’s inspector general has been examining the earliest stages of an FBI investigation of Trump, his former 2016 presidential campaign rival Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, Russia and former Trump adviser Carter Page.

Inspector General Michael Horowitz, whose office is an internal Justice Department watchdog, launched his probe in March 2018 amid allegations by Republican lawmakers that the FBI erred in seeking a warrant to monitor Page.

Trump has described the Steele dossier as “bogus” and Republicans have long sought to discredit the FBI’s investigation, which was later taken over by U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller. His final report on Russia and the Trump campaign was released in redacted form in mid-April.

In that same month, Attorney General William Barr, who now heads the Justice Department, told a congressional committee that the Horowitz probe would be completed by May or June.

One of the two sources said Horowitz’s investigators appear to have found Steele’s information sufficiently credible to have to extend the investigation. Its completion date is now unclear.

A key focus of the Horowitz probe is whether the FBI followed proper procedures when it applied for a warrant with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) to secretly conduct surveillance on Page and his ties to Russia.

Declassified documents show that the FBI cited information in Steele’s dossier when it asked the secretive FISA court in late 2016 for a warrant to eavesdrop electronically on Page, a U.S. businessman with interests in Russia.

Horowitz’s office in Washington declined to comment.

A spokesman for Orbis Business Intelligence, Steele’s London investigations firm, declined to comment.

UK government agencies declined to disclose whether they were in contact with Horowitz’s team in London.

Moscow repeatedly rejected accusations of interfering in the election.

Mueller’s report, released on April 18, said that Russia did meddle in the election in an attempt to boost Trump’s candidacy. It said Trump campaign officials had multiple contacts with Russian officials. But it found insufficient evidence to establish a criminal conspiracy between the campaign and Moscow.

The report also described numerous attempts by Trump to impede Mueller’s inquiry, but it stopped short of declaring that he committed a crime. Mueller during his inquiry brought charges against 34 people, including Russian agents and ex-Trump aides.

Page, a foreign policy adviser during Trump’s campaign, drew scrutiny from the FBI, which said in legal filings in 2016 that it believed he had been “collaborating and conspiring” with the Kremlin. But he was not charged.

Investigators working for Mueller in September 2017 twice interviewed Steele, who also gave written testimony to the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee in August 2018. That panel and other committees of Congress have taken up where Mueller left off after his investigation ended.

Reporting by Mark Hosenball; Editing by Kevin Drawbaugh and Dan Grebler

Our Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Edited July 9, 2019 by Anastasis

[NaTeWHO 852]

 

Edited July 9, 2019 by NaTeWHO

[jimmyjazz 45976]

14 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

From the "Fuck You Anastasis, You Lying Fucking Liar" file, dateline 07/09/2019:

I'm simply astonished that your feelings were hurt by somebody saying "fuck you" after you called them a dipshit and lazy.

You have problems, not the least of which is that you are intellectually dishonest and often mischaracterize what other people are saying in order to score a specious "win".  Good for you, I guess.  Hope your kid stopped crying.

[Hornius Emeritus 12471]

On 7/6/2019 at 6:21 PM, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

 

 

 

That's gonna leave a mark. 

[Anastasis 23475]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

I'm simply astonished that your feelings were hurt by somebody saying "fuck you" after you called them a dipshit and lazy.

 You have problems, not the least of which is that you are intellectually dishonest and often mischaracterize what other people are saying in order to score a specious "win".  Good for you, I guess.  Hope your kid stopped crying.

You started that exchange by telling me that two truthful statements were lies. The basis of your conclusion appears to be that you misread the exchange between zork and myself. And you can't even muster an "OK, you were right on that one." at this point, huh?  But I am the one mischaracterizing and being intellectually dishonest.  Sure dude. 

[Thrawn 538]

It appears that Aaron Mate attended the Bob Barr school of summarization.

[jimmyjazz 45976]

6 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

You started that exchange by telling me that two truthful statements were lies. The basis of your conclusion appears to be that you misread the exchange between zork and myself. And you can't even muster an "OK, you were right on that one." at this point, huh?  But I am the one mischaracterizing and being intellectually dishonest.  Sure dude. 

You were asked to comment on an article.  Your comments were not consistent with what the article said.  This is the truth.  When called on it, you started calling people lazy dipshits. 

I'm out.

[SmokeyTheBear 5562]

19 minutes ago, NaTeWHO said:

 

Aaron fundamentally misunderstands how business is done in Russia. All business flows through Moscow. I used to do work internationally, and just to move a server from one location to another took approval from some Deputy in Moscow. We had to hire a middle man just to meander through the red tape of it all and even pay "fees" (bribes) to make it happen. This is missing the forest for the trees territory. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

26 minutes ago, NaTeWHO said:

 

[Anastasis 23475]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

You were asked to comment on an article.  Your comments were not consistent with what the article said.  This is the truth.  When called on it, you started calling people lazy dipshits. 

 I'm out.

You mischaracterize the clear nature and intent of the exchange so that you could puff yourself up and drop a hashtag. I am not sure that you should be judging anyone else's intellectual honesty on this thread.  

[Biff Tannen 45691]

Morons,  your bus is leaving. 

[Anastasis 23475]

34 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

You were asked to comment on an article.  Your comments were not consistent with what the article said.  This is the truth.  When called on it, you started calling people lazy dipshits. 

I'm out.

Oh and the best part was when you quoted zork's inquiry to support your cause, and left the last part off where he frames the intent of the post.  Must have been your intellectual honesty showing, right...

On 7/3/2019 at 8:14 PM, zork said:

@Anastasis :  care to comment on this:

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

any scuttlebutt?

 

48 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

often mischaracterize what other people are saying in order to score a specious "win". 

LOL.

Edited July 9, 2019 by Anastasis

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Bad news for Flynn.

 

[David Dennison 18922]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Bad news for Flynn.

 

Someone wants a pardon.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

 

Edited July 9, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Captainant 27680]

Paging @Anastasis, please pick up the courtesy phone. Your crow is ready to eat. And Politico did some followup reporting on the issue as well

Quote

Christopher Steele, the former British spy behind the infamous “dossier” on President Donald Trump’s ties to Russia, was interviewed for 16 hours in June by the Justice Department’s internal watchdog, according to two people familiar with the matter.

The interview is part of an ongoing investigation that the Justice Department’s inspector general, Michael Horowitz, has been conducting for the past year. Specifically, Horowitz has been examining the FBI’s efforts to surveil a one-time Trump campaign adviser based in part on information from Steele, an ex-British MI6 agent who had worked with the bureau as a confidential source since 2010.

Horowitz’s team has been intensely focused on gauging Steele’s credibility as a source for the bureau. But Steele was initially reluctant to speak with the American investigators because of the potential impropriety of his involvement in an internal DOJ probe as a foreign national and retired British intelligence agent.

Steele’s allies have also repeatedly noted that the dossier was not the original basis for the FBI’s probe into Trump and Russia.

The extensive, two-day interview took place in London while Trump was in Britain for a state visit, the sources said, and delved into Steele’s extensive work on Russian interference efforts globally, his intelligence-collection methods and his findings about Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, who the FBI ultimately surveilled. The FBI’s decision to seek a surveillance warrant against Page — a warrant they applied for and obtained after Page had already left the campaign — is the chief focus of the probe by Horowitz.

The interview was contentious at first, the sources added, but investigators ultimately found Steele’s testimony credible and even surprising. The takeaway has irked some U.S. officials interviewed as part of the probe — they argue that it shouldn’t have taken a foreign national to convince the inspector general that the FBI acted properly in 2016. Steele’s American lawyer was present for the conversation.

So unless Reuters and Politico are fake news with shit reporters and zero journalistic integrity, I'm inclined to believe this initial reporting.

[triplehorn 2664]

On 7/2/2019 at 9:13 AM, triplehorn said:

^^ 

- 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. 

 

chicken dinner !  

he totally signaled in advance to fellow GOP attack dogs the Horowitz/FISA abuse findings were a dud for them, and to let it drop before looking extra foolhardy.  

 

[Anastasis 23475]

I’ll eat my crow when the report drops and says it was all by the book. In the meantime, you guys do the same thing y’all did when we had two rounds of McClatchy Prague.

[Anastasis 23475]

BTW @Captainant, you still huffing server logs?

[David Dennison 18922]

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I’ll eat my crow when the report drops and says it was all by the book. In the meantime, you guys do the same thing y’all did when we had two rounds of McClatchy Prague.

There's the wiggle room.

Good job.

[Captainant 27680]

14 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

BTW @Captainant, you still huffing server logs?

ffs, I never said those logs were hard proof of anything. In fact, I explicitly said they weren't. Here's what I said:

Quote

So, all of that to say - I'm not arguing that this is proof of trump and alfa backchanneling, but I am arguing that their explanations and justifications don't make sense in context. That is a good reason to apply more scrutiny to this behavior, especially considering the potential ramifications of such covert behavior with respect to coordination with a hostile foreign power.

But that's cool, you just keep on misrepresenting what I said. I'm happy to correct you when you can't keep up with reality. Your reluctance to actually consider that trump was doing things that any reasonable person would find suspicious and worthy of investigation is duty noted. Again. 

EDIT: also, care to reconsider your previous position on this considering this new reporting?

On 6/25/2019 at 11:53 AM, Anastasis said:

Other than the inappropriate use of uncorroborated political opposition research to bolster a surveillance applications probable cause argument, what other investigative methods have I attacked here? Only other one that immediately comes to mind is the FBI deploying a likely CIA asset to probe a campaign official overseas. I think appropriate skeptical criticism is warranted on both. 

Because it sure as shit isn't looking like an "inappropriate use of uncorroborated political opposition research".

Edited July 9, 2019 by Captainant

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[Anastasis 23475]

27 minutes ago, Captainant said:

IT: also, care to reconsider your previous position on this considering this new reporting?

No. I’ll wait for the report.  But I am curious to hear the brain trust’s thoughts on who the “two sources with direct knowledge of the lawyers travels” might be? My guess, at least one of them is Steele’s lawyer. 

[jimmyjazz 45976]

58 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

There's the wiggle room.

Good job.

Correct.  All law enforcement actions must be 100% by the book; otherwise, the subjects of the investigations are by definition innocent of all charges.  It's the law or something.

[Anastasis 23475]

On 5/14/2019 at 6:18 PM, Captainant said:

Have you actually read that article? There's some pretty damning stuff in there that is evidence of intent and coordination between the trump campaign and "Alfa bank"

"One remarkable aspect of Foer’s story involved the way that the Trump domain had stopped working. On September 21st, he wrote, the Times had delivered potential evidence of communications to B.G.R., a Washington lobbying firm that worked for Alfa Bank. Two days later, the Trump domain vanished from the Internet. (Technically, its “A record,” which translates the domain name to an I.P. address, was deleted. If the D.N.S. is a phone book, the domain name was effectively decoupled from its number.) For four days, the servers at Alfa Bank kept trying to look up the Trump domain. Then, ten minutes after the last attempt, one of them looked up another domain, which had been configured to lead to the same Trump Organization server."

I put Alfa bank in quotes because the article also talks about how Russian firms usually have former Russian Intel officials in senior positions that are capable of co-opting "private" resources for government purposes. They also state they aren't aware of an Intel official in a senior position, but they don't state that they know it to be a fact. 

In addition, the trump campaign offered up an explanation for the DNS lookups that makes zero sense on a technical level, claiming the network activity was being driven by an existing banking customer of their hosting partner. That would be a huge no-no in the tech industry, and a violation of data security and integrity that a customer would be PISSED about. That leads me to believe they're lying, based on my own technical expertise and career. 

So would you rather pick at the edges of an issue and never actually talk about the evidence of malfeasance? Because there's strong evidence of something fucky going on, and the (multiple and varied) explanations provided by Alfa and the trump campaign don't stand up to scrutiny.  

BTW. This was the post that started our exchange on server v2.0. A conspiracy theory that was dismissed by people who actually know wtf they are talking about on the subject. As was explained to you in the exchanges that ensued. Given what you quoted, it is still not clear to me whether you are huffing that angle still or not.