PseudoSABR

This makes a lot of sense, and explains why it's even an issue, because Fox et al. says everyone else has been obsessed with it.

When I was at work, since I wasn't logged into either google or youtube, it showed "Related Channels" on the side bar, the first one was Fox News, the second was Mr. Reagan, and the third Fox Business, if you look at the subjects of their videos, the channel is peddling left-hate (but really doesn't seem to be advocating anything). Oh here it is, if you click on the channel icon: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCd-n6wFyjm-nvpq2d9c9cLQ Ironically enough, CNN is fourth related channel. Well, I'm not suggesting the media was accurate, but rather that it was pressing a story, the Mueller report, impeachment, Trump's wrong doing; and in talking heads media, you're going to get a lot of quips that guess the outcome, which we still do not know, unless we trust Barr's summary and the 48 words he quoted. Glenn Greenwald is a joke. Since Snowden went to Russia; he like Assange has seemingly been shirking to the right (my guess is these guys were always righties, who shared free speech issues/privacy with the left and used that to rally support to their side). For instance Josh Marshall's (of Talking Points Memo) take: Sorry but Greenwald hasn't been left wing for years, and has been shouting against lefties and major media for what I can tell is the better part of five years, if not longer. He also has a horse in this race with the Wikileaks role in the supposed scheme, so his bias need not be political. (He may be anti-trump, but I follow his twitter and I haven't seen him mention it; I'll also note that ewen uses his own non-vote for Trump as some sort as meaningful of his centrism, which has yet to present itself). If you want to present evidence that Greenwald has been a liberal recently, I'll listen, but as I've said he's been pretty self-serving on twitter for as long as my recent memory extends. Here's his recent articles: https://theintercept.com/staff/glenn-greenwald/ he has an antitorture article which seems to implore Dems to do something, and he interviews AOC when she was a primary candidate, but the lion share is criticism of Dems, not Trump (beyond torture and foreign dictator support). Take a look, because, obviously you haven't. And again, Greenwald, is a freaking ANECDOTE, a really poor one, but proof of nothing. One ego's opinion. If you point to say, Dan Rather, saying it was hoax, maybe I'll put some stock in his anecdotal account, but even then not much. Let's see the report. My guess is still that it was a matter of sufficient evidence as opposed to no evidence. (Would you like anecdotes of Republicans or supposed right-leaning people who also think that Trump may have committed impeachable wrongs? I'm sure you don't because you know that there are many such people.) You seem pretty reasonable. I'm not sure why there's this insistence that the investigation was a sham from the beginning, when we KNOW that there was a Trump tower metting, a plan for 100s of million of dollar Trump Tower, a policy shift more positive towards Russia, and a President who was a Russian apologist, etc. Not to mention the actual meddling in the election. The media wasn't unreasonable, it was following the known evidence. So shame on them? And look, no one's confident in the major media, but that's far cry from CNN running nothing but "Impeach Trump" all the time. I'm simply countering ewen's poorly supported and exaggerated claims, that is all. And point to me where any of the Democratic candidates are running on Trump colluded or impeachment. They are not. Pelosi has put impeachment off the table, but still you characterize there main platform as a fallback. And the report hasn't been released, yet people have the gall to ask others to eat crow. How smug and also glib at the same time. I'm sorry but you're simply being disingenuous, not to mention, typically, patronizing and sardonic. You're a valuable poster, but your tone sucks. I can't weigh in if you're out of your depth, or just rude/arrogant, but there you have it.

On MLB tonight, both Reynolds and Plesac picked the Twins to win the Central. They also showed OOTP simulation which has us second. Plesac went on to pick Rocco as MOY and Berrios as breakout player.

He gets more likable.

The youtube channel you cited to, if you look at their videos, clearly is keyed on taking down liberals/libtards, so I wasn't interested at all interested the content of the video. I don't care whether you like Fox or not, but that you cited to a youtube channel with a similar sort of bias seems problematic to me. For instance, there's a video of AOC saying "like" a bunch; that's worse than major media. So give me a break if I don't indulge this 'source.'

It's proof of nothing. You still don't understand the problem with anecdotal evidence, do you? I'm sure a similar video could be made of every media installation that's on air for 24 hours; what the heck would you have them talk about? Mueller's investigation was serious news. Trump's impeach liability is an actual thing.

I binged a couple weeks ago, when I signed up for HBO to watch True Detective. I'll probably rewatch the most reason season again, before the new season emerges.

The first "Related Channel" is Fox News. ::eyeroll And I imagine it's a serious of anecdotal evidence to show "the entire thrust" of CNN. And there's plenty of reasons to impeach Trump that have nothing to do with the Mueller report.

I'd make it Campaign finance/corruption. Taxes is also up there for me. Need revenue to pay for things.

Boo.

For such a cynical bunch, Twins Daily is pretty optimistic in the aggregate.

The most exciting teams, players and themes of the 2019 MLB season Filed under Most exciting minor leaguers not including Vladimir Guerrero Jr:

1) As the article above suggests being average at everything means the team will be pretty good. 2) Improvement will have to come from internally, i.e. Kelper/Polanco/Buxton/Sano and others continue to develop.

Post it, if your data is amendable to this forum's software. Try the code tags if it's spreadsheet like (perhaps an obvious tip).

fyi http://partofspeech.org/what-part-of-speech-is-this/

That's super heartening to hear! Good on each of you, the tribes and the state!

I think it means that there's no long leash to stick with the club; not in terms of staying out on the mound. But ash will be here to correct both of us in short order.

THAT BENCH! that bullpen

As Smerf said. Russia interfered with our election, that deserved to be investigated in its own right. And Trump had every reason to obstruct on that front to preserve his Trump Tower/Russia deal, regardless of collusion. What is embarrassing is that people are using a summary written by Trump nominated AG, who said before hand he believe the President can't commit obstruction, as proof of what the Mueller report says. What is embarrassing is the assumption that the inquiry is over and there is nothing left learn. What is embarrassing is that whether or not the President criminally conspired, people dismiss the possibility that his behavior was wrong, self-interested, and at opposition with American interests and democracy.

I'll continue to hold out that there might be evidence of collusion until Mueller's actual report says otherwise, whether it was enough to convict/indict of course is an open question. But I will accept the results of the Mueller's and hopefully the House's investigations.

They'll like have to start in extended spring training or the minor leagues at this point.

Or permanently move him to first base.

Right. Here's the quote that Barr uses from the report: "[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." The use of word "establish" is a bit unusual in terms of a legal document, when I see it used in terms of a criminal proceeding it is often in the form of "establish beyond a reasonable doubt." If there was language that indicated there was "no evidence" of collusion, you better believe Barr would have used that language. Conspiracy was always going to be difficult to prove in that there needs to be an affirmative agreement, and then steps taken in concert with that agreement. Parallel conduct is insufficient, even if it looks like quid-pro-quo. All that said, we need to see the report to see if there is evidence that warrants consideration as "high crimes and misdemeanors."

Here's Barr's summary.

There's a whole lot of gray area of potentially valuable information of wrongdoing which may very well amount to "high crimes and misdemeanors" enabling Congress to impeach. (And just because you can't convict doesn't mean the person is innocent...)