Food and hospitality businesses are struggling to retain workers. This is an added incentive. He’s already lowed income taxes, and The Tax Cuts and Jobs act hasn’t expired yet. Biden is trying to eliminate it. — NOS4A2

So - you support the government intervening to help ailing business sectors. You consider taxes to be "theft". So do you propose eliminating all the "theft", or do you accept some degree of it?

The Paul Ryan tax plan will expire next year (the personal income tax side of it), so the "do nothing" option will result in higher taxes for all individuals. Biden has committed to keeping current tax rates for everyone making under $400K, while raising taxes on higher earners and corporations. Trump has promised to keep taxes at current levels and suggested lowering corporate taxes further.

I don't consider taxation to be theft; rather, it's the cost of doing business in this country (and it's pretty profitable to do business in this country). My view on tax and spending is that Democrats are too free to spend money while GOP is always over-eager to cut taxes. Trump is both a free-spender and a tax cutter: both lunacies in a single package. To be fair, Trump does propose raising revenue with import tarriffs, but this will result in trade wars and increase inflation. I truly wish GOP had nominated a rational person who could work with both sides to try and reduce the insanity. Biden is a better bet for some level of sanity on taxes, as compromise with GOP will be needed to pass anything.

I was wondering what the take away should be with more younger people being boss to older people? Less reliance on experience or wisdom? Direct management training that doesn't specifically teach the main drivers of the industries, just HR and general management skills? Or are these younger people actually more ambitious somehow? What's going on? — TiredThinker

I can give you my narrow perspective, as a 70-year-old retiree of a big oil company.

Salaries were based on "classification level" (CL) irrespective of whether they were in management or were individual contributors (IC) Staff with strong skills at their jobs but lack management skills, can advance to higher CLs by remaining ICs. Good managers need management skills, not the skills to be the best ICs.

Finally, most people don't want to be managers in an environment where the title and responsibility doesn't result in higher salaries.

Do the logicians here think that these sorts of claims are logically possible? — Leontiskos

Yes. The payment to Stormy was made before the election, and it was made to kill the story (interfering with the election). The payment amounted to a loan to Trump, which he repaid after the election.

The bloated government and its base is scared of Trump’s idea of ending taxes on tips, likely because it will affect their own meal ticket. We can’t have service workers keeping their own money. — NOS4A2

Reducing tax revenue does not result in decreased government spending- it actually increases it, by increasing national debt and the interest paid to service that debt.

My question is: why focus specifically on tips? Why not simply lower taxes (or increase the earned income tax credit) for low incomes? This seems fairer.

And of course, a goblet of Screaming Eagle Wine to wash it all down — punos

Only a goblet?

This inspires my choice of meal: a vertical of 10 vintages of Domaine Romanee Conti, to wash down some thin slices of comte cheese.

Relativist: "The point is simply this: at the point we make a decision, there is a set of determining factors: beliefs, genetic dispositions, environmentally introduced dispositions, one's desires and aversions, the presence or absence of empathy, jealousy, anger, passion, love, and hatred. These factors are processed by the computer that is our mind to make a choice."
So there is no convincing, no reasoning, no weighing different alternatives, no initiating action – it’s all billiard ball cause-and-effect. — Thales

That's not what I'm saying. You omitted the part in bold when you quoted me. We indeed reason, weighing alternatives; we can convince and be convinced. That we do these things seems obvious. Determinism is consistent with it- that's what I was arguing.

Fate implies intent- that past, present, and future events were planned (e.g. by the "fates", "the gods").
Determinism entails the unplanned, but inevitable, sequence of events from past to future

This hush money conviction is no big deal, — Hanover

Is it? I've long thought so, but now I'm not so sure. Sure, the charged crime is minor, but the actions behind the crimes are not.

Trump conspired with others to perform unscrupulous acts that helped him get elected. Few of those acts are actually violations of statutes, but they are still unscrupulous. The Mueller investigation exposed some of these acts, and this trial exposed others.

Trump isn't constrained by any moral code. The only constraint on his behavior is the legal code, and then - only if a solid case can be made. Prosecuting Trump for this minor crime reminds me of the prosecution of Al Capone, for tax evasion.

If war crimes are justifiable, then what's the point of labelling any actions "war crimes"?

Is there an implicit "except as a last resort" attached to each proscribed action? In that case, any warring entity that is at a strategic disadvantage are justified.

If there's an implicit "unless the opponent is truly evil" - how is this to be judged objectively, in general? Couldn't any warring entity claim the other side is evil?

I don’t really care about case text and legalism, — NOS4A2

You've previously said you don't care if your hero breaks the law or does anything immoral, so I knew you wouldn't care about the law. Of course, this makes your position self-defeating.

Sad that Trump helped make the lunatic fringe mainstream.

I'm appalled that so many liberals, good liberals whose side I've been on all my life, are so gleeful today. Do you not understand what you've done? The hush money case is a chickenshit case. Bragg's office already looked at it and decided it was a loser. They didn't bring the case. Then the Biden administration actively worked with Bragg's office to revive and prosecute the case. — fishfry

I agree it was a chickenshit case, in that it entailed a low level felony that rarely results in prison time, and that it probably leads some to consider his more serious crimes equally chickenshit (they aren't).

But you said some things that are just wrong.
"Do you not understand what you've done? "
What do YOU think we did? We didn't take the case to the grand jury, indict, and try Trump. If I had my way, the federal indictments would have been the only indictments, and they would have been tried by now.

"the Biden administration actively worked with Bragg's office to revive and prosecute the case"
Pure bullshit. If the Biden Administration wanted to prosecute Trump for these crimes they wouldn't have dropped the federal case. Secondly, there's no evidence of involvement by Biden or Garland. Third, it would be stupid, given the truly serious crimes Trump has committed. Bragg had local political motivations that may have led him to go out on a limb on this, but nevertheless it was in his discretion to do so*. That's why a "chickenshit case" was brought.

But even so, that doesn't mean Trump was innocent. The evidence was real, not manufactured. Trump received a fair trial, and a reasonable verdict was reached per the evidence. Trump behaved like a jackass throughout, and his cult parrotted all his childish accusations.

And yes, I'm delighted he was found guilty, because that's what the evidence showed, and because Trump was such a jackass about it all- undermining the rule of law and judicial system needlessly. There are statesmanlike ways to deal with a "chickenshit" trial, and when dealt with that way - emotions are kept in check, while respect is maintained for the rule of law and the judicial system.

Another aspect of this is the fact the trial exposed some pretty damnable behavior, irrespective of legality. He and Pecker cheated by killing negative stories and publishing false ones about opponents. Most immoral behavior is not a punishable crime, so there's some satisfaction when it is at least exposed. Interestingly, I haven't seen a single Republican make a negative comment about it. Instead, they just say "it's legal" - implying it's perfectly fine since it's legal.

* Will Republican DAs retaliate by going after Dems? Maybe, but as long as they are simply looking at real crimes, I don't care. I support holding politicians accountable.

Manhattan voted 85% for Joe Biden, and registered Democrats outnumber Republicans eight to one in New York. The Biden/Harris campaign and a whole host of anti-Trump Democrats pay the judge's daughter an obscene amount of money to work for them. A simple change of venue would have been an appropriate fix. How would you go about finding an impartial court and jury? — NOS4A2

In answer the question in bold: through voir dire. Statistics are not a valid basis for requiring a change of venue:

https://casetext.com/case/people-v-boudin

...no court has articulated a bright-line test whereby a fixed percentage of veniremen [individuals selected either to be screened as potential jurors or to actually be jurors in a case] expressing a preconceived opinion, standing alone, requires a change of venue.

...as recently noted by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, "detection of actual prejudice is not accomplished through juggling statistics

Whenever Trump loses, he always claims it was due to unfairness (and of course, his cult members uncritically accept everything he says). His accussations ought to convince no rational person. Hurling ad hominems at judge, DA, and jury is childish and inappropriate.

The jury reached a reasonable verdict based on the case presented and per the jury instructions they were given. The case involves some legal techicalities that depended on the legal judgement of the judge. Each such judgement that the defense appeals will be reviewed by appellate courts. Their assessment will not be based on analyzing Merchan's character. Instead, they will determine if he made errors that could have affected the verdict. That's the way the system works, and it's a pretty good system. It's too bad that Trump supporters refuse to accept that. But of course, they let Trump tell them what to think.

Yet for Donald Trump, he upgraded charges from misdemeanor to felony to convict Trump THIRTY FOUR TIMES. — Moses

Actually, it was Trump who upgraded his 34 misdemeanors to 34 felonies, by committing these offenses with the intent of committing additional crimes.

Let's say Trump got prison time, even if it's just one year.

If he were to win the election anyway, what would this mean for the spirit of the US population as a whole? The rest of the world would surely look upon the US as a broken democracy that has lost its ability to function through the framework of a healthy democracy, but what would the people do?

It's not like there's a Mandela at the helm of the party, someone who's been fighting for a good cause and for democracy who is put in jail because of a corrupt state. No, it's a narcissist who's on the brink of being a dictator and who's a convicted criminal for actual crimes in a democratic state.

So, how would the people react? Both short term and long term? — Christoffer

First of all, the chance of Trump spending even a day in prison is zero. But if we assume it occurs, I'm not sure it makes much difference. It won't change anyone's mind, domestically or in other countries.

Proof?

What irregularities with choosing jury members have been established?
The judge doesn't establish guilt, even if he were partial (and they all are in the US because it's a political position), what did he do specifically that tanked Trump's defence?
The crime is defined in the law, how is it made up? If his actions met the definition, it's a crime.
Who bought who for what for what money?

You've got nothing except that you're apparently a sore loser like Trump. — Benkei

It must be true because a lot of people (all Republicans) are saying it. And they'd better!

Former two-term Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, whose decision to run for Senate was seen as giving Republicans a real shot at flipping a blue-state seat, reacted to Donald Trump’s guilty verdict Thursday by calling for respect for the rule of law and urging people not to “pour fuel on the fire with more toxic partisanship.”

Trump’s senior campaign adviser, Chris LaCivita, responded on X, formerly Twitter, with a blowtorch: “You just ended your campaign."

https://rollcall.com/2024/05/30/republicans-whose-races-will-decide-control-of-congress-rally-to-trump/

It's encouraging how many times the electoral system and the judicial system have stood up to Trump's attacks. — Wayfarer

I will feel encouraged only if he loses the election. Right now, this looks like a nation where only about 50% of the population respects the rule of law. A loss won't cure that problem overnight, but perhaps it will loosen Trump's hold on the GOP, who's sycophant leaders feel compelled to echo the convicted felon's attacks on the justice system.

It's possible that men are naturally polyamorous while women are naturally monogamous. Silverback gorillas, traditional Mormons, and lions display this.

Am I correctly understanding what he's saying? — Patterner

I think so. Great analogy. (And your quote was hilarious!)

Cool way of describing it!

I found this diagram from Tse's book helpful in understanding criterial causation (which entails mental causation):



The prototypical sequence of criterial causation among neurons is represented in terms of the setting and resetting of physical criteria for neuronal firing. The triple arrow here represents physical criterial causation, where some proportion of the criteria C1, C2, . . . Cj, must be met before P2 is released. In this case P11, P12, . . . P1i at t1 are the dynamic neuronal inputs from multiple neurons to a second neuron that fires at t2 only if these criteria C1, C2, . . . Cj, which that neuron imposes on P11, P12, . . . P1i, are met beyond a certain threshold. The firing of this second neuron is P2, and information M2 [the mental state realized by physical state P2] is realized in this firing. The firing of this neuron at t2 can in turn change the criteria for the firing of multiple neurons at and after t3. For example, a neuron k that takes input from the neuron that fires at t2 might have criteria C3k for firing at t2, but will have criteria C3k' after t3. The double arrows represent noncriterial physical causation. The single arrow represents the supervenience relationship of the mental on the physical.

Tse, Peter Ulric. The Neural Basis of Free Will: Criterial Causation (pp. 48-49). MIT Press. Kindle Edition.

Yes, he's laying out the problem at that point, and then proposes a solution in Chapter 3:

The impossibility of self-causation has been at the root of the strongest criticisms of the possibility of mental causation (§§A2.2–A2.5) or free will (§§7.1–7.5); criterial causation gets around this problem.

.... The criteria for what makes a neuron fire can change. For example, a given physically realized mental event can set up new criterial triggers for future input by changing the code for future neuronal firing, either in the neuron(s) realizing that mental event, or other neurons, presumably using the physical mechanisms summarized in §§4.54–4.60. Any future input that satisfies these new criteria will lead to a response that will in turn either lead to a physical action or a change in how information even further in the future will occur by again changing criteria for neuronal firing. Thus, even though mental events are realized in physical events, they (i.e., their physical realization) can cause subsequent physical and mental events by preparing new decoders, or changing the criteria for firing on already existing decoders. This kind of online and continual resetting of the criteria, or code, whereby decoders decode input, and thereby realize information, is crucial to all aspects of mental life, including volition and mental-on-physical causation. Thus, mental events are not epiphenomenal. They are informational states realized in neural decoders that play a role in determining how future information will be decoded by future neural activity and therefore in determining how the physical/informational system will behave in the immediate and more distant future. Of course, the information realized in a decoder cannot change the present physical system in which it itself is realized (there can be no causa sui). But it can lead to subsequent physical changes, such as the resetting of criteria for neuronal firing, in which future information will be realized upon the satisfaction of those neuronally realized criteria. Thus, we can talk about causation that operates at the level of information processing in the brain, rather than simply of causation at the level of energy transfer among elementary particles (see appendix 1).


Tse, Peter Ulric. The Neural Basis of Free Will: Criterial Causation (p. 47-49). MIT Press. Kindle Edition.

In what way is this robot less a casual agent, affecting the world less, less of a "self" than we are? — Patterner

It is a causal agent, but lacks a mind. Our minds mediate our actions, and provides our sense of self.

what if the mental if merely the post hoc idea of what are really neuronal processes? It is obvious, as I said, that if anything is causal, chemical reactions, all and any events of any kind, then neuronal events will also be causal. What is the gist of nay purported substantive, as opposed to merely phenomenological, epistemological, conceptual or perspectival, differences between neuronal and mantal events? — Janus

I expect neuronal events ARE causal - the brain controls the autonomic nervous system, for example.

Are you you suggesting that all mental activities are just neuronal events and that mental causation is illusory? That's what Jaegwon Kim has said (he says mental causation would imply overdetermination). This is possible, of course, since theories in philosophy of mind are all conjectural. I'd just say that I consider Tse's theory more compelling because it jives with the intuition that mental causation is real.

IMO Tse's overall theory is flawed - he tries to make a case for free will by assuming quantum indeterminacy plays a role. I never bought into that, and more recently, Robert Sapolsky ("Determined") has shown it to be problematic. But Tse does make a case for "criterial causation" that I find compelling. If you still have the book, it's described in Chapter 3.

I don't think "you" exist apart from your physical body, but you do have a mental life. IMO, agential control is not an illusion if mental causation exists. It certainly seems like we have it, and it can be accounted for with purely physical processes (Peter Tse provides such an account in his book, "The Neural Basis of Free Will").

If there are actual alternative future possibilities, why would we not have been able to do otherwise than we did in the past? By alternative future possibilities do you mean alternative ontological possibilities or merely alternative epistemological possibilities on account of the fact that we cannot know what the future will be? — Janus

Assuming there's no quantum indeterminacy in the mix, then there is only one possible future. But you nevertheless contribute to what that future will be.

But is there any free 'self' that causes those mental processes or are they the result of neural processes of which we are completely unaware, and thus have no control over — Janus

Even though mental states are the product of neural processes, it's still the case that there is mental causation. So your thoughts and feelings actually do affect the world in a unique way. The 'self' is your consciousness; a "machine" that develops intentions and acts upon them. You are caused to be what you are, but you were not caused through prior intent (not entirely).

So even if you say these are determining factors, they are not factors that threaten free will. — Ludwig V

I agree.

I was just suggesting the modern presence of certain factors that truly cannot be determined (random computer generation or glitches in technology), similar but NOT like the flipping of a coin (I had a debate earlier which a person asserted a coin flip is in fact not random as, much like your rock example, could in theory be measured by force, friction, etc.) whereas a true random event such as random number generation or a glitch cannot. I think? — Outlander

Generally, computers don't really generate random numbers - they generate pseudo-random numbers. And computer glitches are also predictable, in principle (they aren't magic: they're consistent with laws of nature; you can't produce indeterminacy from deterministic processes). So these are still fully deteministic.

The only truly unpredictable thing is an event that is a consequence of quantum indeterminacy. But this still doesn't entail complete indeterminism- it implies probabilistic determinism. In principle, all possible quantum outcomes could be predicted - but it's impossible to predict which series of outcomes would be actualized.

Proponents of Libertarian Free Will seem to freak out about the fact that determinism implies that each choice is pre-determined. This sounds worse than it is. It ignores the fact that individually, we are causal agents - we cause things to happen that would otherwise not happen. And those things that we cause were the product of our mental processes, influenced by our genetic and psychological make-up.

I have no idea what this topic is about. If I go to my refrigerator and take out the ham and cheese for a sandwich, then put it back and make pb&j, have I changed the future? Is that the idea? — Patterner

No, because the future hasn't happened. My point is that your choices establish the future.

No alternative decision could have been made given that specific set of factors. — Relativist


What about playing the lottery and having one's life changed by a random computer algorithm? Or a computer glitch that affects a streetlight causing a collision or death? — Outlander

I'm not sure I understand your point. We have the potential to be changed by everything we experience, and this can impact the choices we make in the future.

It's based on something I read in the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, but I can't find it now. It may have been based on a paper by Brady and DeBrigard (
"The principle of alternative future possibilities in moral judgments" published by the Society for Philosophy and Psychology.

The point is simply this: at the point we make a decision, there is a set of determining factors: beliefs, genetic dispositions, environmentally introduced dispositions, one's desires and aversions, the presence or absence of empathy, jealousy, anger, passion, love, and hatred. These factors are processed by the computer that is our mind to make a choice. No alternative decision could have been made given that specific set of factors. But future decisions will be based on an altered set of factors: one might learn more about the risks of a particular course of action, or become more risk-averse, aware of better alternatives, more empathetic, etc. Those are the future possibilities, and it is because such future possibilities exist, it can be reasonable to hold people morally accountable for their actions. Knowledge that one will be held accountable may very well result in better behavior than would be the case if no accountability were expected.

I have proven I can change the future indirectly by interrupting the flow of the present. — Barkon

Your description of free will is consistent with compatibilism. The alternative is Libertarian Free Will (LFW) which most people treat as entailing the Principle of Alternative Possibilities (PAP). According to the PAP, when we make a freely-willed choice, we could have made a different choice. (I happen to think that's absurd). On the other hand, compatibilism is consistent with PAFP: the principle of alternative FUTURE possibilities - and that's what you describe. Mental causation is all that's required to account for the PAFP and compatibilism.

So what will the GOP (gang of pinheads)-MAGA (my ass got arrested) party-line be when Orange Turd-1 is found guilty in NYC (again!) this week or next of most or all of the 34 felonies he's been charged with? — 180 Proof

The truth. Biden’s SS Stasi at work. — NOS4A2

ROFL!! This applies:

We’ve come to expect not a single original thought is possible. Listen for the propaganda, repeat it like a mantra until it’s true by sheer repetition. Rinse and repeat. — NOS4A2

I have been wondering how Trump could be held criminally liable for falsely reporting the Stormy-payoff as a legal expense. As Trump says, it was the job of the accountant to report it correctly, not Trump's job.

So I did some research and learned how it works. If the prosecution proves Trump was involved in a conspiracy, then he is criminally liable for all the crimes committed through that conspiracy.

This was referred to in this MSNBC article.

MSNBC is a biased source, but they linked to an appeals court ruling that stated this (here). That case referenced an earlier one (here) that dealt with a stolen election.

I agree the prosecution has not tied the falsification to Trump, at least so far. I imagine their case relies on Cohen for this.

for the reasons I stated, which you refuse to address, the idea that this was to prevent damage to his election is blown out of the water, no matter what the porn star says. — NOS4A2

The story would be damaging even if it were made up. The doorman made up a story, and they still wanted to keep him quiet. McDougal was also paid off.

What would you like me to address? I didn't notice a question.

She did indeed lie. — NOS4A2

You're as evasive as a politician. Did she lie about having the sexual encounter?

The reasons I already stated, which you have not addressed, has all the bearing needed to contradict the allegations.

I didn't address that because it was a tangent. I had specifically asked you how Stormy's testimony helped the defense. It may very well be that Stormy lied about being victimized and about how aggressively she went after a payment. That doesn't imply there was no sexual encounter. For that matter even if she lied about the sexual encounter (which I don't think she did lie about the encounter; she's been talking about it at least since 2011 -see this article
and there's another interviewer who has said she told him about it in 2007) , the only thing that matters in the trial is whether or not she was paid to keep silent, and that this was to prevent damage to his election.

Are you suggesting she lied about Trump f**king her? Stormy being money-grubbing doesn't have any bearing on Trump's alleged desire to keep her quiet before the election- which is central the the prosecution.

Name-calling is entirely appropriate. — NOS4A2

ROFL!

What does undermine the theory regarding Trump’s motivation before the election is the testimony of the witnesses. Pecker noted that he killed stories for Trump and other celebrities numerous times, even when they weren’t running for election. Hope Hicks testified she believed Trump wanted to kill the story to protect his wife and family. Stormy's lawyer Keith Davidson testified it wasn't a payoff or hush money. Jeffry McConney, the former Trump Organization controller, testified that it was him who recorded the expenses as "legal expenses", and Trump never directed him to do so. The Stormy Daniels testimony was just the icing on the proverbial shit-cake that is this trial. — NOS4A2

You didn't answer my question: how did Stormy's testimony help the defense?

the more serious press noted the disaster of Horse Face’s testimony yesterday. The defense played a recording of her lawyer trying to shake down Cohen, letting him know how much Stormy wanted the money before the election. Plus we learn of the schizophrenic differences between her story today and her story yesterday. And to top it all off, we also learn that she is a medium who speaks to dead people. — NOS4A2

I'm guessing you're implying this undermines her credibility. This is consistent with Fox News (here), but it's unclear to me how this hurts the prosecution's case. Her self-serving motivation doesn't undermine Trump and Cohen's motivation to keep her silent prior to the election. It almost seems like the desire of Trumpists is to throw mud back at those throwing mud at Trump (e.g. name-calling, in Trumpian fashion), but that juvenile behavior seems irrelevant to the case.

A more serious concern for the prosecution would be that her testimony could be deemed prejudicial - painting Trump in such a bad light that it would prejudice them against him. That's the issue raised in WSJ articles (here, and here). This could be dealt with by the Judge through jury instructions, but he hasn't provided them yet.

No, but Tony Bobulinski testifying in front of congress does. — NOS4A2

I was referring to your response to this:

I said: "So as I said, there's no evidence Biden was involved with Colangelo's taking the position to prosecute Trump. Biased speculation is not evidence."

You responded: "Plausible deniability. Works every time, according to the Biden’s".

Then you indicated it was based on "Congressional testimony". I thought you were claiming there was testimony about Colangelo (there wasn't, but Jim Jordan posted an accusation to that effect). Now it seems you were actually implying that Bobulinski's allegation would also apply to your theory that Biden was behind Colangelo's move. That's quite a stretch. It's not evidence of Biden's involvement with Colangelo's move, it's only suggestive that IF he was, then he MIGHT HAVE done it in such a way that he had plausible deniability.

A set of facts consistent to the theory. That’s right. And you have a set of statements and denials consistent with your theory. I have entertained that theory and find it completely lacking in all respects. — NOS4A2

The set of facts is consistent with any number of theories- that's the problem. There is no evidence of Biden's involvement with Colangelo's move; the "circumstantial evidence" consists of the fact he'd been appointed assistant attorney general (serving 11 months), and then he left to join the Bragg's team - and he had previously worked with Bragg. Your theory seems fueled either by Trump's claims that Biden is behind all his indictments, or by your own personal bias against Biden.

Regarding my theory, I didn't at all rely on statements and denials- I noted facts that you ignored: Colangelo had his own motivation to pursue Trump; Biden could have simply let the federal case proceed. So your theory lacks plausibility.

It has plenty of bearing on the Mueller report because the report is missing facts regarding Russian interference, which they were tasked with investigating. — NOS4A2

Mueller's team was not focused on the problems with the Steele memos, they were focused on examining actual Russian interference. Dolan was not a Russian, he was an American who gave false information to Steele.

Thus, these facts do not show up in your loose conspiracy theory. Nowhere does it mention FusionGPS, for instance, which we now know was looking for dirt on Clinton's political opponents. Much of this dirt contained Russian misinformation, possibly sourced from Charles Dolan, a Russia-connected Dem operative.

You misunderstand if you think I'm pushing a conspiracy theory. I listed a set of facts uncovered by Mueller during his investigation, and those are not Russian disinformation.

Yes, I know (and we've previously discussed) the fact that Fusion was hired to do opposition research - an activity that is common in major elections. Fusion hired Steele to dig into Trump's Russian connections (Fusion had already established that there were quite a few such connections). And I also know that some of the information Steele provided was false, apparently including some information from Dolan.

The Mueller investigation was not taking the Steele information at face value. They had moved well beyond what Steele had provided - and obtained their own information. The Fusion connection was moot to Mueller, and Dolan's disinformation considered low priority. The Mueller team was under constant pressure to complete their work in a timely fashion (partly because Trump repeatedly threatened to fire them), which means it was virtually impossible to follow every lead.

It seems you do not care that this misinformation made it into the highest echelons of the intelligence community, leading the crooked or incompetent stooges in those agencies to spy on Americans, unmask them, entrap them in process crimes, and embroiling the whole country in turmoil with frivolous and expensive investigations, leaking classified information the whole time.

Wrong again. I think the errors involved with the 2 Carter Page FISA warrants were terrible and I'm very glad IG Horowitz identified the problems and that leadership addressed the issues. As you know, Durham had nothing additional to suggest.

The Mueller team had to fire a couple of its members. That's how incompetent they were. — NOS4A2

Wrong again. Strzok and Page weren't fired for being incompetent investigators. They were fired because of their texts showed they had animosity toward Trump, and this would give the perception of bias in the investigation. The IG found no basis to conclude they actually took any improper actions, although Durham opines that their animosity toward Trump would predispose them to investigate. His opinion is supported only by the text messages (which he lists in his report), not from testimony or other evidence. Regardless, the Mueller investigation is not tainted, because they were taken off it.

...leading the crooked or incompetent stooges in those agencies to spy on Americans, unmask them, entrap them in process crimes, and embroiling the whole country in turmoil with frivolous and expensive investigations, leaking classified information the whole time.

Who, besides Carter Page, was inappropriately spied upon? Threatening prosecution for other crimes is a tool investigators employ to get cooperation. For example, Manafort had a history of financial crimes that they tried to use to get his cooperation. He agreed to cooperate, but was caught lying - after Trump had essentially promised him a pardon for staying loyal. He was then prosecuted and convicted on a number of counts - then Trump fulfilled his promise to pardon him. Who knows what we might have learned had Manafort cooperated honestly? It was Manafort who received the request for Trump to endorse the Crimea annexation. Maybe it would prove to be a dead, but it shows there's a clear possibility of conspiracy - although far short of enough to indict.

The Russia investigation was hardly "frivolous". A foreign government illegally interfered in an election. Imagine if this HADN'T been investigated! You seem sensitive (alleged) election interference when Trump is the alleged victim, but when Trump benefits- all you care about are the errors made when that interference was investigated!

I absolutely give a single straw about what he allegedly exposed. It was a garbage investigation from the very beginning and will go down in history as such. — NOS4A2

It was your claim of a "Russia Hoax" then sent us off on this discussion. These facts that you don't care about prove the Russia Investigation was not a hoax.

Mueller's report along with the Senate Investigation led by Rubio, establish the historical record on Russian interference, and Trump's welcoming of it.

The IG report was relevant for showing abuses of the FISA process, while vindicating the opening of Russia investigation.

Durham's report highlights differences of opinion regarding a variety of judgement calls that history can study, but it also confirms there was no widespread conspiracy to get Trump- as so many Trumpists had anticipated.

Members of the Trump campaign worked with Russians, and with Wikileaks. And it's a very big deal that Russia asked Trump for support regarding their annexation of Crimea. These results show that the investigation was worthwhile; Durham never suggests otherwise. Durham tried in vain to show there was an anti-Trump conspiracy, but he did not find one. The only thing he added to the findings of the IG was his questioning some of the decisions that were made - particularly, and as you noted, the opening of a full investigation rather than a preliminary one. Durham didn't develop this opinion as a result of his investigation- that was the view he expressed after reviewing the IG report. The results of the Mueller investigation suggest the instincts of the decision makers were generally correct- in spite of the fact that they can be second-guessed.

That's inaccurate. Read the sub-section "Mueller Supervisory Special Agent-I and Mueller Analyst-I push to open a case on Charles Dolan". — NOS4A2

Two had thought it worthwhile to follow-up with Dolan, but after they were advised from highers-up that was outside scope, Durham states only that "Mueller Analyst-I disagreed with the contention that Dolan fell outside of the Mueller mandate." That's what I was refering to.

"This directive given by the Mueller investigation leadership is somewhat surprising given that Director Mueller's broad mandate was to investigate, among other things, Russian election interference in the 2016 presidential election - parameters that clearly would seem to include the Steele Reports." — NOS4A2

Fair enough, he did express surprise. However, he does not explain what we would have gained from pursuing this - other than clarifying what disinformation Dolan conveyed, and perhaps charging him with lying to the FBI. I wonder why Durham didn't seek to pursue this - he never successfully identified and prosecuted any related crimes (Kevin Clinesmith plead guilty to an immaterial [but illegal] document alteration during Durham's tenure, but that crime was identified by Horowitz).

My claim was based on congressional testimony. — NOS4A2

An accusation by Jim Jordan does not constitute congressional testimony.

Circumstantial evidence is evidence, as far as I'm concerned — NOS4A2

OK, there is no direct evidence of Biden's involvement. Broadly speaking, all related facts constitute evidence. Circumstantial evidence can justify a judgement if the totality of evidence shows it to be more likely than not (at minimum). That is not the case here. All you have is a set of facts that are consistent with your theory. You've ignored other relevant facts, and haven't entertained alternative theories that also explain these (and other) facts. Rather, you are applying bias against Biden and jumping to an unwarranted conclusion.

That's inaccurate. Durham said a preliminary investigation was warranted. There was no preliminary investigation. It immediately kicked into a full-on probe, which was not warranted. — NOS4A2

Durham judged that only a preliminary investigation was initially warranted (although that is a matter of opinion), but this would have made no difference because it would have escalated to a full investigation once they obtained the initial Steele materials. The Steele memos accurately noted that Russia wanted to assist Trump and hurt Clinton , and that Russia was responsible for the DNC hacks, and forwarded them to Wikileaks. These were subsequently proven true, despite there also being more spurious information. The point is that a full investigation would have become warranted at that time.

As Durham points out, agents on the Mueller team were told to stop investigating Democrat operative Charles Dolan, a source for one of the allegations, even though he was one of the few Americans tied to Russian government. One agent speculated whether it was politically motivated, because it "ran counter to the narrative that the Mueller Special Counsel investigators were cultivating given that Dolan was a former Democratic political operative". — NOS4A2

They were told not to investigate Dolan because it wasn't deemed pertinent. The speculation that it may have been politically motivated is just that- speculation by one analyst, with no "definitive evidence to support her belief". Dolan is believed to have invented the "golden showers" story, but none of this has bearing on the findings of the Mueller report that I cited, nor does it imply there was a broad "hoax". Presumably, Dolan lied, and this made into the Steele memos, the FBI dropped the ball in that respect - but it remains the case that Russia hacked DNC servers, gave the emails to Wikileaks, and there's testimony that Stone worked with Assange on strategically releasing them. Further, it's established that Manafort shared polling data with Russia, Russia asked Manafort to get Trump to support their "annexation" of Crimea. Manafort denied discussing this with Trump, but we know Trump actually did support the annexation. This is clearly circumstantial evidence of an illegal conspiracy, although clearly not sufficient evidence to indict. (But clearly a stronger circumstantal case than your Biden allegation. The difference: your bias).

Does it surprise you, as it did Durham, that an investigation tasked with investigating Russian influence in the 2016 election refused to interview or investigate one of the three Americans named by Steele to have Russian ties, despite the instinct of some agents to do so? — NOS4A2

Durham does not express "surprise", he just indicates that he sees no "objectively sound reason for the decision that was made not to interview him." So this sounds more like criticizing their judgement, and it's a legitimate criticism.

"Some" agents? I believe it was exactly ONE agent, and she also indicated she saw no indications of political bias by the team.

It's not surprising that the Mueller team would deem it irrelevant, since Dolan's lies only pertained to some allegations in the Steele memos, which Mueller's investigation was not relying on. It's another matter during Crossfire Hurricane and relevant to their inappropriate reliance on Steele's memos to support the Carter Page FISA warrants. The FBIs failure to interview Dolan was definitely poor judgement. But again, such errors have no bearing on the activities exposed by Mueller. Errors by the FBI do not negate the fact that a Russia Investigation was warranted - and that Trump and members of his campaign behaved inappropriately and possibly illegally: there was insufficient evidence to indict, but there was some evidence of crimes - not to mention Trump's obstruction of justice that actually could have led to indictment had Barr not stopped it.