I mean, honestly, you’re bothered by lack of details so because of that…you’re choosing not to read the parts where one would expect to find the details.
Which section do you think is the most powerful? What in the document upsets you?
It is pretty normal in my experience that people pretty quickly walk back from pretending that the report actually contains anything, because they can't point to it and rely on the fact that there is this fake consensus that something evil happened so there is no need to provide any evidence of anything specific. If you want to point at something I'll read it, but I think you're bluffing on a weak hand here - this report is political swill. Nobody cites from it when they have a point to make against Trump or the 2016 election.
PS: And I'll just add - telling people to "go read a 450 page document to convince yourself I'm right" is an unreasonable ask. I read a lot of that report at the time it was released and I'm pretty convinced there was nothing in it.
The entirety of what I’m saying right now is “Both the Mueller and Senate Intel committee reports contain pretty extensive evidence and detailing of a significant interference campaign by the Russians on the 2016 election”. I was responding in regards to “blaming Russians” which was far from a baseless conspiracy theory.
One momentary peak of Russian power that you are struggling to narrow down to an example, despite having a 450 page report that you don't feel like quoting from because, presumably, nobody thinks the issue is important enough to explain to the doubters.
You've got nothing. The Muller report is a high-class version of exactly the same conspiratorial gibber that Jones is pumping out.
[^] And although I don't care on the point, I haven't seen the evidence for this either, I assume all the intelligence agencies have tools to pretend to be other agencies when hacking things. I expect even on this point it isn't clear it was the Russians but if it was I support them for good journalism.
[&] Which is what the Muller report seems to be. Rather steamy, no plot.
You pre-dismissed anything I might have cited. You say things like I’m bluffing on a weak hand, I’ve got nothing, and I’m supposed to say to myself “Yes, this person is worth expending effort on, let’s have a totally real open minded debate.” Get over yourself.
As I said in my reply the report concludes that Trump didn’t collude with Russia to win the election. So the major conspiracy theory is throw out the window. It holds as much weight as Biden stealing the election.
Again, I’m not going to get in the weeds with someone who isn’t arguing in good faith. There’s no good that can come from it. In this case it’s extra pointless because I agree with this person. Nothing in the Mueller report is going to convince them of anything.
> As I said in my reply the report concludes that Trump didn’t collude with Russia to win the election. So the major conspiracy theory is throw out the window. It holds as much weight as Biden stealing the election.
The report doesn’t do anything of the sort. The report is entirely focused on assessing evidence of criminal liability. Since collusion isn’t an actual crime the report nothing directly to say on the matter, much less actually coming right out and concluding that it didn’t happen. That’s just ridiculous.
There is evidence that is presented in the context of other matters of potential criminal liability that would be relevant to any discussion of “collusion”. One example would be Manafort and Gates sharing internal polling data with the Russians. You would have to contort yourself pretty hard to rationalize this as something other than coordinating with Russias’s campaign of interference/assistance.
The only reason you think you can anticipate my response is because I've correctly anticipated that you don't have an argument. If something comes up that is outside my predictions neither of us knows what I'd do. But I'm predicting a bluff and it has been a long thread of posts now.
> One example would be Manafort and Gates sharing internal polling data with the Russians.
The Russians could hire a polling company at any time. American's don't keep their opinions quiet. How do you want to spin that in to something interesting? Since Manafort's team won the election, it was probably a "hey, we're serious candidates, you should be ready to negotiate with us if we win" thing. Since one of the president's official duties is negotiating with Russians to try and prevent escalations.
Care to reference a page number for this one so I can make sure I'm dealing with the same topic?
Which bits of evidence in it do you think are compelling, actionable and importat? Bearing in mind that the evidence is so uncompelling that right-wing advocates bring up the Muller report more than left-wing ones and you're probably going to get some resistance whatever you pick out.
The introduction and summary are mostly fluff and allusion, so I'm not bothering reading the whole thing unless you want to point to something specific.
[0] https://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/04/18/mueller-report-sea...