HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » "And Roger Stone", that's...

Fri Apr 19, 2019, 06:41 AM

"And Roger Stone", that's one redacted line of the Mueller Report revealed!

Look for quotes and context!

Page 128, where Trump says it was brave that Manafort did not flip.

“But I had three people: Manafort, Corsi — I don’t know Corsi, but he refuses to say what they demanded. Manafort, Corsi and Roger Stone.”

- That's the full quote in the media, the bold part is redacted in the Mueller report.

I wonder if we can do this elsewhere?

3 replies, 698 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 3 replies Author Time Post
Reply "And Roger Stone", that's one redacted line of the Mueller Report revealed! (Original post)
ck4829 Apr 2019 OP
CincyDem Apr 2019 #1
dalton99a Apr 2019 #2
Igel Apr 2019 #3

Response to ck4829 (Original post)

Fri Apr 19, 2019, 07:54 AM

1. I believe there are several Din Jr redactions.

Have to back and find them. On my phone now.

The logic is that there are several places where the redaction is clearly a single person and it continues on the next line where only the first two characters are redacted.

The context of the sentence doesn’t lead to any two letter word...except “Jr”.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ck4829 (Original post)

Fri Apr 19, 2019, 07:57 AM

2. Kick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ck4829 (Original post)

Sun Apr 28, 2019, 09:29 AM

3. Perhaps.

But do minimal due diligence and source the quote.

Did somebody just fill in what they think should be there?

Was it the same quote in a court filing--because I wouldn't expect Barr or anybody to go through every court filing or public statement to make sure that what's there wasn't already released somewhere?

Note that in one instance a court filing was "redacted" with the beginner's mistake of highlighting redactions in black and then leaving the redactions as a separate "layer"--something that could be searched under or undone. Very soon after the filing this was caught and the layers "flattened" so the redactions/highlighting replaced the underlying text, but not before the mistake-copy was downloaded and had escaped into the wild.

In other words, in some cases the quotes are true quotes due to prosecutor-staff incompetence (or intentional malfeasance), and in other cases they're guesses and need to be evaluated as guesses.

You use the quote, you own the quote and it's your reputation on the line. (Had a boss who'd quote gibberish and say, "Well, I'm not the source of the quote." "No, you're not, but you're using it, and the assumption is that you've evaluated it and think it's true. If it's not, you've been duped and are being used as a tool for somebody else to dupe us, or you've quoted something that's been shown to be incorrect and haven't bothered to catch up with the truth because you prefer to believe in the error." My boss and I weren't always on the best of terms, needless to say--if you don't have true facts, you have bias and delusion, and if one doesn't care about the difference one shouldn't be trusted to even opine on the current weather outside.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread