Which - I think we should all keep in mind - began in 1978, some 16 years prior to Fiske’s appointment as Special Prosecutor(much less Starr’s).
So, just to recap:
Agree. There are so many things wrong with this administration and their campaign, it’s good to have even some of it laid out like this so we don’t forget…I’d completely forgotten about Jared running a “secure” server to Russia amongst the many other criminal or near-criminal things this klan has done.
Is Rebekah Mercer being investigated? Wasn’t the data analytics firm hers (the one that Jared bragged about working w/ during the election)? and/or didn’t she fund this?
Fixated? How about terrified and looking for any possible way to stop this.
Looks like it just got a bit bigger.
I knew it! I knew it the second the little shit took a question from Franken that wasn’t about him and blurted out his pre-rehearsed coverup perjury as if it was.
Yeah, yeah, we have to take into account the possibility that the Russians say shit just to stir shit up because they know they’re bugged. But we also have to take into account that the tell the truth just to stir shit up because they’re bugged.
And because I’m middle aged, I had to go back and look at what I said back in what turned out to be March before touting my own precognition, just to make sure I wasn’t making it up and patting myself on the back for nothing and was, as usual, surprised at how much I’d forgotten. Forgotten, specifically, about how the answer at his confirmation hearing that led directly to the recusal that led to Mueller’s appointment unfolded. Here’s the money:
He told two lies he need not have told, two lies he could have avoided telling, simply by answering the question that was asked rather than answering one that had not been asked. And that, my friends, is the thing that people who are guilty, guilty, guilty do when a question hits closer to the mark than the questioner intended. That’s the kind of thing that people who who have a Big, Big Thing they’re consciously trying to conceal because they fear consequences do.
It’s interesting to observe what things about this investigation seem most likely to cause Trump Twitter Freakouts (TTF). Surely no one, and definitely not experienced investigators, would consider that to be a prime indication of where it would be most valuable to dig further…
I haven’t bothered to read the Breitbart article, but there actuallty is quite a lot of fake peer reviews (and also ‘Predatory Science Publishers’) around.
I can recommend http://retractionwatch.com/ , which keeps track on retractions, retraction-handling (often done very badly, with no cause given ) and the causes for retractions (and often it IS fabricated results (e.g.image manipulation), but it can also be for privacy reasons, copyright violation, duplication of own results, plagiarizing (others or oneself)). The comments are often very good.
Just a random example (image manipulation) http://retractionwatch.com/2017/05/25/journal-retracts-nine-papers-one-day-author-investigation-weizmann-institute/
And another re fake peer reviw http://retractionwatch.com/2017/04/20/new-record-major-publisher-retracting-100-studies-cancer-journal-fake-peer-reviews/ (Springer is a major scientific publishing house based in Germany, not related to Axel Springer, if anybody remembers him)
Wow. There’s an awful lot in that ‘nothing-burger’
Real peer reviewed science papers aren’t meant to be consumed by lay people. If you don’t know how to read the work and identify CoI then you probably aren’t the target.
There is a theory emerging, that this was leaked by the WH, in a further effort to get Sessions to resign, or if he still refuses to get the hint, to provide a fig leave for Trump firing him.
The theory being that they want Sessions gone pronto, so Trump can use a recess appointment to replace him and this avoid having to go through the Senate and a confirmation hearing. Replace him, with someone who is not recused and thus can pull the trigger on Mueller.
There are however a couple of problems with that theory. First, Mueller can only be fired for cause. Secondly, any attempt to remove him for cause can immediately be appealed to the Federal court system.
This is kind of a key part of the special counsel law; it was set up that way to make it as difficult as possible for the WH to remove any special counsel appointed to investigate him.
So while Trump and the idiots surrounding him may think they just need to reestablish control over the DoJ, the reality is that once the special counsel trigger was pulled, its pretty much entirely out of the Executive Branch’s control.
“If you don’t know how to read the work and identify CoI then you probably aren’t the target.”
What does “identify Col” mean ?
Conflicts of interest. Like seeing that a paper funded by Bayer will most likely be positive to their position.
It’s one of the first things they teach in journal clubs / science publication courses.
It takes work to read science papers correctly and institutions spend lots of time teaching this to prospectives.
Some of the reasons for these “fake” papers are industry trying to promote their products and requirements for students to get published in many programs. The industry has motivation to talk up / down certain science whilst young scientists who just want to finish school will get lazy.
You should take a look at the links I provided, it is much worse than simple “Conflicts of Interests” ( I read the I as a l, btw )
So, just to recap:
- 16 years is within scope of precedent
- initial cause for investigation of precedent was very far afield from a blue dress, topically
- political affiliation and partisanship, per precedent, is really kind of irrelevant
Totally reasonable observation. Two problems arise:
There are signals that even the GOP Congress is growing weary and appalled. Their dawning recognition of the scope of his corruption is our only hope until 2018 elections.
I checked them out. Some shady stuff- there are shitty people in any field. Those sites just show the drive for integrity in science is real.
Anti- science people will jump on any example of bad work and make the fallacious conclusion that it’s either all bad or use it for sowing doubt.
This is not a new thing. Science has been faked forever.
true, but the only answer is to be open about it, so this world’s Breitbarts and WNDs don’t get to frame the discussion.
I have read in a couple places(don’t recall where, or how well substantiated it was) that Mueller’s investigation will be looking into data analytics, social media, botnets. I believe one of the big players(Parscale) for the Trump campaign is scheduled to testify before Senate SCI in August.
Gee, that would be unfortunate. And interesting to watch realization slowly(very slowly) dawn.
Insofar as political affiliation/partisanship is concerned, I believe it’s unimportant whether he pays attention or believes it matters. Sure he’ll squawk and foam, but there are facts that have relevance and which rebut criticism in the press and in Congress.
