*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[Poopadoop]

And what is Trump's campaign message going to be? I mean I'm sure he'll come up with a nickname for his opponent, but other than that what's his brag? The economy hasn't tanked yet?

[Poopadoop]

Oh I know "Trump in 2020 - No collusion!"

[TheSpoonald]

Anyone really.

Not an answer

[Poopadoop]

Not an answer

Anyone but Hillary.

[TheSpoonald]

Anyone but Hillary.

You proud of that answer?

[Poopadoop]

Even Biden could beat him I think. President Touchy Feely.

And Warren too, though I get a bad feeling about her for some reason; that probably means she'll be the one they pick.

[Poopadoop]

You proud of that answer?

Sure.

[TheSpoonald]

Even Biden could beat him I think. President Touchy Feely.

You think the country is up for another Obama term? After 8 years of that, the country was mad enough to elect Trump. Does not compute.

And Warren too, though I get a bad feeling about her for some reason; that probably means she'll be the one they pick

I might vote in the Democrat primary just to do my part to make Warren the nominee. Her against Trump would be a slaughter that would be almost pornographic to watch.

Also, on a serious note....her plan to break up the tech companies is by far the best single idea that any current democrat has put forward.

[MadMojoMonkey]

At the end of the day, the most relentless investigation ever conducted could not find any evidence of even a single criminal action.

You're not putting enough weight on the fact that Mueller holds the opinion that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Under NO circumstances could he say the president had committed any crime, given that premise.
You get that, right?
Without addressing anything else, you do understand that is a judicial philosophy that Mueller holds as a constitutional fact, right?
I'm not asking whether or not it's a constitutional fact... only whether you understand that Mueller believes it is.
You get that, right?

[TheSpoonald]

You're not putting enough weight on the fact that Mueller holds the opinion that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Under NO circumstances could he say the president had committed any crime, given that premise.
You get that, right?
Without addressing anything else, you do understand that is a judicial philosophy that Mueller holds as a constitutional fact, right?
I'm not asking whether or not it's a constitutional fact... only whether you understand that Mueller believes it is.
You get that, right?

Spare me the legalese nuances please. It doesn't matter. The guy was the subject of the most relentless investigation of all time, and he came out ahead!

If Trump did something bad, bad enough to endanger his presidency, or challenge his authority as president, then Mueller had every ability to spell it out in his report. If something happened, Mueller could just say that it happened and provide the evidence in support.

You and everyone else talking about this seems to conflate this with the same standards of trial law that you see on TV. Mueller doesn't have to prove a crime. He doesn't have to meet any legal standard. He can just say what happened.

Maybe he can't do anything about it. Maybe he can't file charges on anything. Maybe he can't indict a sitting president. None of that matters. None of that prevents him from reporting on any evidence-based truth about improper activity by the President.

The 25th amendment gives congress the power to impeach the president if they don't like his necktie. There doesn't need to be a crime. His actions don't have to meet any legal standard. If Congress votes the President out, that's it. There's no complicated DOJ rules. If 67 Senators read the MR and decide that Trump is toast, then he's toast. But right now there aren't anywhere close to that, and the ones that are for impeachment have all declared unabated hatred for Trump, so their opinion might be biased.

This was a very simple exercise. We hired Mueller to find out if the president is a traitor. We found out that he's not. Any interpretation beyond that is truly stupid. It's loser talk.

[oskar]

This was a very simple exercise. We hired Mueller to find out if the president is a traitor. We found out that he's not. Any interpretation beyond that is truly stupid. It's loser talk.

Can you tell me without sarcasm what the Mueller investigation was about?

[MadMojoMonkey]

Spare me the legalese nuances please. It doesn't matter. The guy was the subject of the most relentless investigation of all time, and he came out ahead!

If Trump did something bad, bad enough to endanger his presidency, or challenge his authority as president, then Mueller had every ability to spell it out in his report. If something happened, Mueller could just say that it happened and provide the evidence in support.

You and everyone else talking about this seems to conflate this with the same standards of trial law that you see on TV. Mueller doesn't have to prove a crime. He doesn't have to meet any legal standard. He can just say what happened.

Maybe he can't do anything about it. Maybe he can't file charges on anything. Maybe he can't indict a sitting president. None of that matters. None of that prevents him from reporting on any evidence-based truth about improper activity by the President.

The 25th amendment gives congress the power to impeach the president if they don't like his necktie. There doesn't need to be a crime. His actions don't have to meet any legal standard. If Congress votes the President out, that's it. There's no complicated DOJ rules. If 67 Senators read the MR and decide that Trump is toast, then he's toast. But right now there aren't anywhere close to that, and the ones that are for impeachment have all declared unabated hatred for Trump, so their opinion might be biased.

This was a very simple exercise. We hired Mueller to find out if the president is a traitor. We found out that he's not. Any interpretation beyond that is truly stupid. It's loser talk.

So you have so much cognitive dissonance about the implications of the answer to my question that you can't even answer the question?

C'mon. You respect logic and words. Put your own ego aside and try to understand Mueller's.


Do you understand his position that it is unconstitutional to indict a sitting president?
Is this a thing you understand about Mueller?

If you claim to respect facts, then this is a big one. Ignoring the weight of this fact is causing you to fail to understand what Mueller could say, given his beliefs.
Under no circumstances could Mueller say "guilty." It's against his core philosophy of the power of his position.
Let that sink in.

In Mueller's own mind, if he were to say "guilty" about a sitting president, Mueller would be committing treason.
You get that right?
This isn't spin. This is a fact on the ground that we can all agree on.

If it's not a fact to you, then you are in no position to evaluate the Mueller report. The nuances of his position will be lost on you. Nothing you are claiming the report didn't say was even possible to be said. If Mueller had said that, he would be a traitor in his own mind.

You are doing yourself a disservice by not acknowledging this is Mueller's professional opinion of the authority and restrictions to his position.

[Poopadoop]

Mueller DID say what happened, he just didn't express an opinion about the guilt of the POTUS in regards to it. That's not the same as an exoneration for reasons that myself, Mojo Oskar, and probably everyone who isn't on Fox News have tried to explain to you.

So I don't understand why you think Trump has 'won' here. He's probably going to be facing impeachment for OOJ. If that's a victory to you because it's a lesser crime than high treason, then you have a strange idea of what winning is.

[MadMojoMonkey]

He's probably going to be facing impeachment for OOJ.

Lol.
No.

Not gonna happen.

[Poopadoop]

Lol.
No.

Not gonna happen.

It could. They won't get it through the senate but that didn't stop them from impeaching Clinton.

https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/42...-impeach-trump

[MadMojoMonkey]

"I guarantee you [impeachment] is not the first item on anybody's agenda that would be chairing these committees." is the final word in the article.

[Poopadoop]

Well, their main focus is on beating him in 2020. If they think impeachment will help them do that then they will.

Maybe they don't think it's a good move right now, but saying lolz it'll never happen seems a bit strong.

[TheSpoonald]

Do you understand his position that it is unconstitutional to indict a sitting president?
Is this a thing you understand about Mueller?

First of all, I want to point out that Republicans have been screaming that it's unconstitutional to induct a sitting president for two years now. And in response, every leftist mouthpiece trotted out a legal expert who claimed "au contraire mon frere....you totally can"

Where are those "experts" now?

Anyway, to answer your question. Yes. Yes I understand that about Mueller. I understand his point of view. I'm just not seeing how it's relevant.

Mueller told us that when the president found out about the special counsel appointment, he slumped in his chair and said "I'm fucked". Mueller told us that, because that's what happened, and he has solid evidence convincing him that is what happened. But what if something else happened? What if instead of saying "Im fucked" Trump decided to put on a mumu and a pink wig, arm himself with a fly swatter, and threw watermelons off the roof of the whitehouse while screaming warnings about alien lizard people infiltrating the FBI. If that happened, Mueller would have told you. And then after he told you (us), then Congress could say that the president has lost his marbles, and invoke the 25th Amendment.

Similarly, Mueller could have told us that Trump had an explicit quid pro quo arrangement with the Kremlin that gave him an unfair advantage in the election. Yes, Mueller could have told us that. Because another republican talking point that's been ignored for the last two years is this: THAT'S NOT A CRIME!! So Mueller would have no restriction governing his discussion of that type of event.

No one asked Mueller to file charges. No one is asking Mueller to indict. That would be superbly dumb given the known policy that the DOJ won't indict a sitting president. All we asked Mueller to do was to tell us what happened. And he has.

[TheSpoonald]

MMM explain to me why Mueller gave us so much info....including kinda shameless innuendos.....on obstruction of justice. If anyone wanted to accuse Trump of OOJ, they have all the evidence they're ever gonna get.

Yet, when it comes to treason, Mueller's hands are tied.

WTF???

[TheSpoonald]

Just so we are clear, I want to reiterate that if a presidential candidate had an explicit quid pro quo arrangement with the Russian government, that is *not* at crime.

How do I know this? Because neither Hillary, nor anyone connected to her, is indicted for the provable act of buying opposition research from the Russian government.

So if it's not a crime...why can't Mueller talk about it?

[Poopadoop]

Wow you're really talking yourself in circles here.

First, you ackowledge that Mueller can't indict Trump but somehow that becomes: the fact that he didn't indict him means Trump wins.

Second, since Mueller provided all kinds of information on OOJ and not on treason, the information he gave on OOJ is meaningless somehow.

Then, collusion isn't a crime, so you question why didn't Mueller talk about a non-crime in his criminal investigation. Makes no sense at all.

It's almost like listening to Guiliani.

[TheSpoonald]

Wow you're really talking yourself in circles here.

Your inability to grasp straight-line logic doesn't mean it's circular.

First, you ackowledge that Mueller can't indict Trump

For the record, I acknowledged this way before it was cool.

but somehow that becomes: the fact that he didn't indict him means Trump wins.

Just because Mueller couldn't indict doesn't mean he couldn't disclose improper activity. Trump wins because Mueller found no evidence to corroborate any allegation of treasonous or collusive activity. No indictment just seems like a neato bonus.

Second, since Mueller provided all kinds of information on OOJ and not on treason, the information he gave on OOJ is meaningless somehow.

How are you drawing that conclusion from what I said? The information on OOJ is meaningless because it's not convincing enough to compel any meaningful action in response.

Then, collusion isn't a crime, so you question why didn't Mueller talk about a non-crime in his criminal investigation. Makes no sense at all.

Then entire report is about non-crime. You CNN'd yourself.

[Poopadoop]

I'm afraid you don't actually understand anything about what the Mueller Investigation's purpose was. It wasn't to try to frame Trump for treason, despite what Tucker Carlson might want you to think. It was to investigate Russian interference.

So...not finding evidence the POTUS was a traitor is not a win for POTUS, except inasmuch as he won't have to face a firing squad anytime soon. Reporting hundreds of pages of evidence of OOJ by POTUS is a loss for POTUS, inasmuch as he could potentially be impeached and/or be tried for OOJ once he's no longer POTUS.

[Poopadoop]

The information on OOJ is meaningless because it's not convincing enough to compel any meaningful action in response.

He tried to fire Mueller.

You Fox'd yourself.

[Poopadoop]

Don't forget that Trump tried to obstruct an investigation that was going to clear him of treason. You can draw two possible conclusions from this:

1.He was guilty and was afraid of what Mueller might find out about his dealings with Putin.

2.He really is innocent of treason/collusion/whatever with Putin but was so dumb that he broke the law to try to end the bad press he was getting over it.

So take your pick: Is Trump either 1) a criminal; or 2) a criminal retard?

[oskar]

Lol.
No.

Not gonna happen.

I wouldn't be so sure. Not going to happen immediately. Not going to go through the senate, but it would be a good idea politically. I think a lot of people don't really understand how serious the Mueller report is. Understandably because William Barr repeatedly lied about it.

[TheSpoonald]

I'm afraid you don't actually understand anything about what the Mueller Investigation's purpose was. It wasn't to try to frame Trump for treason, despite what Tucker Carlson might want you to think. It was to investigate Russian interference..

Wrong.

According to its authorizing document, which was signed by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein on May 17, 2017, the investigation's scope included allegations that there were links or coordination between Donald Trump's presidential campaign and the Russian government

So...not finding evidence the POTUS was a traitor is not a win for POTUS,

Huh? It's not only a win for POTUS, it's a win for America.

he could potentially be impeached and/or be tried for OOJ once he's no longer POTUS

A) He won't be. And B) he probably won't live that long.

[oskar]

Banana, I'd still love for you to tell me in your own words what you think the Mueller investigation investigated.

[TheSpoonald]

He tried to fire Mueller.

100% false.

if he "Tried", then why didn't he succeed?

[oskar]

Same reason he didn't get Mexico to pay for the wall he's not building.

[Poopadoop]

.

The key word in your little quote there is 'included allegations that there were links...'. That's a big difference from 'a witch hunt' or 'frame job' or whatever.

[MadMojoMonkey]

First of all, I want to point out that Republicans have been screaming that it's unconstitutional to induct a sitting president for two years now. And in response, every leftist mouthpiece trotted out a legal expert who claimed "au contraire mon frere....you totally can"

Where are those "experts" now?

Non-sequitur.
It's an open constitutional question which has never been tested against SCOTUS. Whatever so-called "Experts" you're referring to can have any opinion they like about it. The bottom line is that THEY are NOT experts. The SCOTUS Justices are the experts in this matter, and they haven't ruled.

All non-SCOTUS opinions are speculation, no matter how expert the mind that thought them.

Anyway, to answer your question. Yes. Yes I understand that about Mueller. I understand his point of view. I'm just not seeing how it's relevant.

OK. Good. There's a fact that we both agree on.
I'm getting to how it's relevant.

[...]

IDK who you're talking to. I'm not interested in any of that hand-waving shit-fest.

lol.
Did you seriously just devote a paragraph to some mental fantasy of DJT in a dress with pink hair?
There was literally no reason to go to any of those places, but you just loaded up, and fired that out into the world, huh?
(Hey, if that's your kink, good on you for figuring it out. I don't actually care.)



Next question:
Do you understand that while Mueller would be committing treason (in his own mind) to say the sitting POTUS is "guilty," that Mueller has no similar reason to prevent him from openly saying the president is "not guilty?"
I.e. do you understand that Mueller does not think it's beyond the authority of his position to exonerate the sitting POTUS of alleged crimes?

Is this also something you understand about how Mueller sees his authority and position?

[Poopadoop]

100% false.

if he "Tried", then why didn't he succeed?

We've been through this; go back and read it again if you like.

Did he also 'try' to order McGahn to lie about 'trying' to fire Mueller?

And, because McGahn wouldn't lie, do you believe that makes Trump innocent of ordering him to lie?

[TheSpoonald]

Banana, I'd still love for you to tell me in your own words what you think the Mueller investigation investigated.

The authorizing document for the special counsel investigation lists three purposes of the investigation.

1) Links between Trump and Russia
2) Whatever else the find while investigating links between Trump and Russia
3) Whatever other shit they can think of later.


Notice it doesn't say "prosecute". It doesn't say "indict". It doesn't even say "identify a crime" or anything like that. It just says "tell us what happened please"

[TheSpoonald]

Is this also something you understand about how Mueller sees his authority and position?

Yes. I get it. You can stop trying to walk me through this like I'm a 3 year old. I understand that Mueller found Trump to be "not not guilty" or whatever bullshit legalese term just got invented this week.

Do you get that I don't care, and it doesn't matter at all?? You keep talking to me like I don't understand something. I'm trying to tell you that I understand completely, and flat out don't give a fuck.

If Trump had said "Hey Putin, I really wanna see Podesta's email. Send them over to wikileaks, and when I'm president, I'll deny arms sales to the Ukraine", then we would have read about it in the Mueller report.

That's my point. There's nothing like that in there. And that was the whole purpose of the investigation. That was item #1 on the list of things Mueller was supposed to do. The other two things on the list were boilerplate bullshit, so you could effectively say that this was Muellers ONLY job.

[TheSpoonald]

We've been through this; go back and read it again if you like.

Did he also 'try' to order McGahn to lie about 'trying' to fire Mueller?

And, because McGahn wouldn't lie, do you believe that makes Trump innocent of ordering him to lie?

Lie to who?

[oskar]

1) Links between Trump and Russia

*campaign
They did find plenty of links between the Trump campaign and russia. Right? Pretty much every NYT WAPO and Buzzfeed story that Trumples have been calling fake news was confirmed. They also outlined russian election interference, which Trump to this day is denying, stating that he takes Putins word over everything. That's kind of important don't you think? If a foreign nation is interfering into the election with the expressed purpose of helping one candidate, and that one candidate flatout denies that it's happening.

[Poopadoop]

As fun as it would be to see Trump testifying before Congress, it's probably too close to election time for an impeachment. I do hope they televise his trials after the new president gets inaugurated though.

[Poopadoop]

Lie to who?

Well, if i understand it correctly, Trump ordered McGahn to release a statement claiming Trump never told him to fire Mueller.

But according to you, this isn't a problem because McGahn didn't obey him.

[TheSpoonald]

*campaign
They did find plenty of links between the Trump campaign and russia. Right?

Care to elaborate? Because it's not unreasonable for a Presidential campaign, a transition team, or an incoming administration to have contacts with all sorts of foreign dignitaries. Did they find any links between the Trump campaign and Canada? What about Mexico? What about Poland? What about Japan? Was Trump colluding with all of those countries too?

Pretty much every NYT WAPO and Buzzfeed story that Trumples have been calling fake news was confirmed.

here's 51 that weren't. And I will bet that you still believe at least 30 of them.
https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/...ad-russiagate/

They also outlined russian election interference, which Trump to this day is denying,

Wrong.

stating that he takes Putins word over everything.

So wrong.

That's kind of important don't you think?

Not if it's wrong.

a foreign nation is interfering into the election with the expressed purpose of helping one candidate

I wonder if any other countries do that? Honestly, they spent $4k on google ads. I can't believe you think this even matters.

and that one candidate flatout denies that it's happening

I assume you're referring to Trump's Helsinki press conference. Yeah, a shithole reporter tried to bait Trump into suggesting that there might be collusion and basically accuse Putin of an act of war right to his face. That would be great for diplomatic relations right? Do you get why Trump wouldn't do that? Do you understand why it's ok to lie to a reporter in that case?

When asked for clarification later, Trump said all the nice things about US intelligence that you want him to.


BTW when US intelligence told us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.....were you so supportive of their conclusions??

[TheSpoonald]

Well, if i understand it correctly, Trump ordered McGahn to release a statement claiming Trump never told him to fire Mueller.

But according to you, this isn't a problem because McGahn didn't obey him.

It's also not a problem because lying to the press isn't obstruction of justice. Where the hell did you even get that idea?

[Poopadoop]

It's also not a problem because lying to the press isn't obstruction of justice. Where the hell did you even get that idea?

Wait, so Trump's expectation in saying that was that McGahn would lie to the American public but not to the special counsel? In what universe does that work?

[oskar]

Ok can you show me when Trump acknowledged that election interference happened?
The Breitbart link is really grasping at straws. Cohen never said Trump told him to lie by saying "Please Mr Michael Cohen, lie for me" they told him to "stay on course". They didn't correct his lie. After he lied to congress, why didn't they correct it if they didn't want him to lie?

Manafort handing information to the kremlin. He handed information to someone with ties to the kremlin. They couldn't prove that that person then handed the information over to the kremlin. And so on. I wouldn't say that makes the report false. Inaccurate maybe.

[TheSpoonald]

Wait, so Trump's expectation in saying that was that McGahn would lie to the American public but not to the special counsel? In what universe does that work?

Fuck this game. What exactly are you even talking about?

Are you telling me that Trump ordered McGahn to commit perjury?

[oskar]

Oh, your breitbart article links back to itself. They cite old breitbart articles as proof that those allegations were false, when they have been corroborated by the mueller report.

[TheSpoonald]

Ok can you show me when Trump acknowledged that election interference happened?

It was the next goddamn day!! Don't you think the fake news should have told you that??

https://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...could-be-other

BTW, only some of our intelligence agencies have expressed "high confidence" that Russia is the perpetrator. At least one has expressed a less confident opinion. So don't act like this is a slam dunk conclusive fact.

[TheSpoonald]

I'm glad we got to the bottom of two major hoaxes that poop and Oskar believe.

1) Trump did not equate white supremacists with counter-protesters in charllotesville

2) Trump believes the US intelligence community, he just chose not to spit in a foreign leaders face on in front of the whole world.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Yes. I get it. You can stop trying to walk me through this like I'm a 3 year old. I understand that Mueller found Trump to be "not not guilty" or whatever bullshit legalese term just got invented this week.

"invented this week"
lol
Just 'cause you only started thinking about it this week doesn't mean it's an idea that is any younger than the concepts of "guilt" and "innocence."

Do you get that I don't care, and it doesn't matter at all?? You keep talking to me like I don't understand something. I'm trying to tell you that I understand completely, and flat out don't give a fuck.

Ahh. So you know you're talking loads of shit that is intentionally ignoring the reality of the situation and still you get your undies all in a bind when people don't agree with you?

Because it does matter. It matters a monumental deal w.r.t to the conclusions you are drawing about the report.

If Trump had said "Hey Putin, I really wanna see Podesta's email. Send them over to wikileaks, and when I'm president, I'll deny arms sales to the Ukraine", then we would have read about it in the Mueller report.

This is so far from consequential, man. It's couldn't be less relevant.

Just because Mueller didn't post that specific quote doesn't mean there isn't a wealth of evidence he's accumulated.
The notion that he's put every single piece of evidence on the table is simply absurd. You're not for real on that, right?

That's my point. There's nothing like that in there. And that was the whole purpose of the investigation. That was item #1 on the list of things Mueller was supposed to do. The other two things on the list were boilerplate bullshit, so you could effectively say that this was Muellers ONLY job.

More of you telling other people what their jobs are and what they're "supposed" to do. The real world doesn't operate on your whimsy, spoon.


Back to the actual point, you puerile purveyor of fine fermented flatus.
(See, if you're going to call someone names, do it with style... bitches)


Now... since Mueller CAN say "not guilty" and CAN'T say "guilty. Maybe he just decided to play it fair and take neither stance on anything, and simply to lay out what he feels are pertinent evidence and let someone else decide on each matter? Is that hypothesis backed up by the Mueller report?

(spoiler, you 3-year-old poo slinger) No, that hypothesis is disproved in the report, as Mueller clearly indicates on some, but not all, matters that there is no evidence of any crime committed.

So, then. How shall we understand the other things?
How shall we understand the many times in which he did not directly and clearly state "not guilty?"

Oh right. You don't care.
Convenient for you, huh?

Convenient that while you understand all these facts, you can't put 2 and 2 together and come out with 4.

Convenient that on one hand you like to point out that Trump is no more slimey than any other politician. Convenient that you point out how slimey other politicians are. Convenient that every single hint at the sliminess of Trump is met with outrage and opposition from you.

You can rage all you like at the ignorance of your opposition, but for you to simply embrace equal amounts of ignorance just places you firmly in the "people who like to get all ragey about politics, but whom don't actually care enough to be right, just enough to be ragey."

Fine. Join the lower classes of political discourse. Just stop pretending that you're trying to sit at the big kids table.

[Poopadoop]

Fuck this game. What exactly are you even talking about?

Are you telling me that Trump ordered McGahn to commit perjury?

Are you telling me he ordered him to release a public statement containing a lie, but not to repeat that lie to Mueller?

[oskar]

Saying you have “full faith and support for America's intelligence agencies" is not the same as saying you understand that russia interfered in the election to help you and hurt your opponent.

[Poopadoop]

Trump also said, in Finland, that Putin strongly denied it and he (Trump) believed him (in so many words).

[oskar]

... and I don't think he ever walked it back. His press team put out that ridiculous statement that Trump meant to double negate, but that was about it.

[Poopadoop]

Ya, but Trump's only being picked on by all the orangemanbad people when he gets criticism for saying whacko shit like that, don't forget. They should be more understanding.

[TheSpoonald]

Just 'cause you only started thinking about it this week doesn't mean it's an idea that is any younger than the concepts of "guilt" and "innocence."

Great. Show me one time that term appears anywhere else before this week. I've heard "guilty" and "innocent" a billion times. This is the first time I've ever heard "not not guilty"

Ahh. So you know you're talking loads of shit that is intentionally ignoring the reality of the situation and still you get your undies all in a bind when people don't agree with you?

The only things I'm intentionally ignoring, are the irrelavant hair splittings of butt hurt losers. The MR doesn't say what you wanted it to say about Trump. Go cry in your fucking cheerios.

Because it does matter. It matters a monumental deal w.r.t to the conclusions you are drawing about the report.

No it doesn't matter. In backwards-world where prosecutors are charged with exonerating people, it might matter. But here on earth, it doesn't.

Just because Mueller didn't post that specific quote doesn't mean there isn't a wealth of evidence he's accumulated.

Great. If that evidence implicates the president in any meaningful way, then I hope congress does the right thing. But even the democrats can't agree on what this "wealth of evidence" means, so get right the fuck out.

The notion that he's put every single piece of evidence on the table is simply absurd. You're not for real on that, right?

Are you trying to say that Mueller still has cards to play? That he knows something that's not in the report?? You're not for real on that right?

More of you telling other people what their jobs are and what they're "supposed" to do. The real world doesn't operate on your whimsy, spoon.

That's not me telling anybody what they're supposed to do. The document that authorized the investigation said exactly that. I'm merely paraphrasing the facts sir.

Now... since Mueller CAN say "not guilty" and CAN'T say "guilty. ..... Mueller clearly indicates on some, but not all, matters that there is no evidence of any crime committed.

here's where you fail. Just because he doesn't say "not guilty" doesn't mean that he's implicitly saying "guilty", or even "probably guilty" or even "maybe guilty". He's just saying "I can't conclude innocence", which is exactly how he would rule if he were charged to investigate your involvement in 9/11. The idea that you think that's meaningful at all is what I find completely laughable.

So, then. How shall we understand the other things?

By evaluating them independently and not measuring them against other things in the report. That's totally fallacious logic that a scientist should be ashamed of.

How shall we understand the many times in which he did not directly and clearly state "not guilty?"

Where were you on the night of September 10th, 2001?

Convenient that while you understand all these facts, you can't put 2 and 2 together and come out with 4.

Uhhh, check your paper bro. You didn't write "4"

Convenient that on one hand you like to point out that Trump is no more slimey than any other politician. Convenient that you point out how slimey other politicians are.

Those are true statements. I'm not sure how "convenient" they are.

Convenient that every single hint at the sliminess of Trump is met with outrage and opposition from you.

Source?

You can rage all you like at the ignorance of your opposition,

How exactly would you define "my opposition"? It sounds like you believe that I am opposed to differing points of view. When in actuality it's the stupidity and false premises that those points of view are built on that I rage against. If you want to say Trump is a racist because he doesn't want a hispanic judge ruling on his case, I get that. I dont' agree, that makes him racist, but I get the argument. On the other hand if you want to say that Trump is racist because he said there were good people on both sides of Charlottesville, then you're a fucking idiot hoax victim, and should expect to be met with rage.

[TheSpoonald]

Are you telling me he ordered him to release a public statement containing a lie, but not to repeat that lie to Mueller?

Cite your source please so I know what the fuck you're talking about.

[Poopadoop]

Cite your source please so I know what the fuck you're talking about.

The Mueller Report. Don't know the page number, sorry.

[Poopadoop]

^^
Trust me , it's in there.

Now tell me, if Mueller, who is presumably a bit more up on the law than you, believed this information (by which I mean McGahn both being ordered to fire Mueller, and McGahn being ordered to lie about previous said order) was of no consequence, why would he include it in his report?

[TheSpoonald]

The Mueller Report. Don't know the page number, sorry.

Are you saying that Mueller found evidence that Trump ordered McGahn to commit perjury? Or are you not saying that?

Pick one. If it's the latter...fuck off.

[Poopadoop]

Are you saying that Mueller found evidence that Trump ordered McGahn to commit perjury? Or are you not saying that?

Pick one. If it's the latter...fuck off.

Read the next post and answer the question please. Why would this be reported in the context of items of obstruction of justice. Do you think this means Mueller is trying to convince the reader that Trump didn't try to OJ?

[Poopadoop]

In case that's still too complicated for you, let me explain it a different way.

In your view, this information I'm referring to about orders given to McGahn is irrelevant. The question is why an experienced prosecutor would include irrelevant information in a report. Presumably he knows better than you or I whether or not it's relevant?

[oskar]

So can you concede that:

Russia interfered in the 2016 election.
The Mueller report shows evidence that they did.
Trump does not acknowledge that it happened.

?

[TheSpoonald]

So can you concede that:

Russia interfered in the 2016 election.

No. First, define "interfered". If you mean "bought facebook ads" I'm just not there with ya man.

The Mueller report shows evidence that they did.

Sure, I guess. Maybe. Define "Interfered". And define "shows"

Trump does not acknowledge that it happened.

I believe he's stated that he respects the assessment of the US intelligence agencies, and heeds their advice as likely true, but still harbors some skepticism that Russia acted alone.

[TheSpoonald]

In case that's still too complicated for you, let me explain it a different way.

In your view, this information I'm referring to about orders given to McGahn is irrelevant. The question is why an experienced prosecutor would include irrelevant information in a report. Presumably he knows better than you or I whether or not it's relevant?

I'm wondering why you presume to read the mind of an experienced prosecutor.

There are really two theories on your question. Either A) Mueller is either a leftwing or never-trump partisan hack simply seeking to complicate this administration. B) Mueller is a rightwing partisan hack throwing chum in the water for simple-minded DNC sharks to waste their energy on a fake feeding frenzy.

More likely than either of those though is that Mueller was just trying to do a job that was a sham anyway. He had to write something, so he wrote that, because it's something, and something is more than nothing and he couldn't write nothing.

[OngBonga]

I do find it piss funny that people are outraged at the mere idea that Russia "interfered" with the USA election, considering it's what USA has been doing to other nations for as long as USA has been a country.

When Russia overthrow a democratically elected USA president and replace him with a puppet, give me a shout.

[MadMojoMonkey]

@spoon
who are you talking to when you quote me? You're going off on all these weird tangents that have nothing to do with me or what I think.
Like the comment, "The MR doesn't say what you wanted it to say about Trump."

All I wanted from it was an honest report from a person with integrity. I actually believe I did get what I wanted from it. Time will tell, but for where we are today, I do think Mueller has acted with integrity and patriotism, as he understands it. That's exactly what I want.

Are you trying to say that Mueller still has cards to play? That he knows something that's not in the report?? You're not for real on that right?"

Yes.
I can't even image why you'd believe that it would be in any prosecuter's interest to disclose 100% of their findings prior to them making an official indictment... which, we agree, was never even the slightest hint of an option from Mueller.
It doesn't mean there necessarily are more cards to play, but it certainly indicates why the assumption that there are no more cards to play doesn't make sense in this case.
Again... you're not fully taking the weight of Mueller's position into account. In his mind, that would be treason. In his mind, he has a patriotic duty to NOT disclose any information that would force his hand into indictment when the accused is sitting POTUS.

here's where you fail. Just because he doesn't say "not guilty" doesn't mean that he's implicitly saying "guilty", or even "probably guilty" or even "maybe guilty".

I've never suggested anything of the sort. You're jumping to conclusions which I have given you no reason to think I hold.
You're assigning media fanaticism to me. I stopped consuming American news media years ago. It's all crap. If you think any ANY of the American news outlets are more interested in facts than ratings, then we really can't ever see eye to eye on any of these issues.
Both sides of the political media aisle are 100% more interested in spin and outrage than they are in Truth, adult discourse, or an educated populace.
Please stop attributing their stupid notions to me. I'm not saying any of the things you seem to think I am in this quote.
All I'm saying is that in addition to all those things you just told me I think, but which I don't think, the MR also doesn't say "innocent" or "not guilty" on most of the issues it discusses.

It does say "innocent" or "not guilty" on other things. That's interesting. That's my point. For you to assume that I'm drawing any other conclusions is just you missing the point and inventing a villain to argue with. I'm probably a villain, but not that villain.

By evaluating them independently and not measuring them against other things in the report. That's totally fallacious logic that a scientist should be ashamed of.

This is a weak troll that you should really, really know by now will never work on me.

You don't understand the Sun by not comparing it to other stars. You put it in the context of similar things and you compare and contrast those things.
You don't understand one part of the MR without taking it in the context of the entire MR.

How exactly would you define "my opposition"? It sounds like you believe that I am opposed to differing points of view. When in actuality it's the stupidity and false premises that those points of view are built on that I rage against. If you want to say Trump is a racist because he doesn't want a hispanic judge ruling on his case, I get that. I dont' agree, that makes him racist, but I get the argument. On the other hand if you want to say that Trump is racist because he said there were good people on both sides of Charlottesville, then you're a fucking idiot hoax victim, and should expect to be met with rage.

I'd say you're angry about paper tigers, but you are too caught up in the myopic view of hysterical media that you have lost touch with the ability to have an intelligent conversation with a non-hysterical human being.

I don't want to say that about Trump. If I did, I'd have said it. The fact that I've never said it, indeed said the opposite, and you're accusing me of having said it or of wanting to say it...just WTF, man? IDK why you think you're so smart on these topics when you can't even listen to the person you're talking to and respond to their points. IDK who you think you're talking to. Your responses frequently have nothing to do with me or anything I think.


Talking with you is like,
Me: Hey, nice day, eh?
Spoon: OMFG! You think thunderstorms are great? Huh? Tornados? Hurricanes? Yeah... Seeing people's homes washed out to sea after a Tsunami really gets you going, huh?
Me: What? No. It's 70 degrees and partly cloudy, and it's nice, man.
Spoon: So you think Trump is a racist because of the syrup he put on his pancakes in 1963?


Seriously. You're on a soapbox and that's probably really fun for you, but it's not a conversation.

[TheSpoonald]

I do find it piss funny that people are outraged at the mere idea that Russia "interfered" with the USA election

Yeah. Like, imagine if Obama ever came across a tape showing Putin getting peed on by Ukranian prostitutes. What do you think he would do with it?

Would he be an evil manipulator committing an act of war if he said "let's leak this to the Russian media"

[OngBonga]

Let's not call him "spoon". He's not spoon, that's the misogynist with two girlfriends (so he says).

I propose "banana", it seems fitting.

[Poopadoop]

Yeah they should be outraged about other things.

As far as America getting its comeuppance for past deeds well fair enough. But that doesn't mean you should expect them to hold that attitude themselves, realistically.

[Poopadoop]

Let's not call him "spoon". He's not spoon, that's the misogynist with two girlfriends (so he says).

I propose "banana", it seems fitting.

Misogynist, misanthrope - why split hairs?

[Poopadoop]

Also, someone should dig up that picture of spoon with his fat ugly harem. That was pretty funny.

[Poopadoop]

I'm wondering why you presume to read the mind of an experienced prosecutor.

I'm wondering why you wonder that when you're perfectly willing to presume to understand him better than I do.

There are really two theories on your question. Either A) Mueller is either a leftwing or never-trump partisan hack simply seeking to complicate this administration. B) Mueller is a rightwing partisan hack throwing chum in the water for simple-minded DNC sharks to waste their energy on a fake feeding frenzy.

More likely than either of those though is that Mueller was just trying to do a job that was a sham anyway. He had to write something, so he wrote that, because it's something, and something is more than nothing and he couldn't write nothing.

These are all quite unlikely scenarios, as opposed to the idea that he actually took his job seriously and laid out evidence relating to the questions at hand.

Occam's Razor.

[TheSpoonald]

MMM. I'm not going to respond in snippets anymore, it's too long now. Let me just see if I can rephrase your argument exactly as I understand it, and demonstrate to you how silly it is. Instead of legalese, we will use scientific terms that I'm sure you understand.

Mueller, because of his patriotic interpretation of the constitution, has the legal ability to investigate the physical properties of any substance and declare it either solid...or not a solid.

So Mueller looks at some ice. He sees that it has firm surfaces, holds its shape, resists penetration, etc. So he reports that it's solid.

then he looks at some water and sees that it doesn't have a firm surface, and it takes the shape of it's container, so he says it's not solid.

Then he looks at some steam. And for whatever reason he can't collect it, he can't look at it under a microscope, he can't determine if the vapor in the air is tiny solid particles like dust or if it's actually a vapor. So reports no finding on steam.

By your logic, that means that steam is not not solid.

[oskar]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/23/u...es-of-war.html
https://www.military.com/daily-news/...ar-crimes.html

Making america great by openly supporting war criminals who execute kids! No, but wait, it's ok! The girl wore a hijab!

[TheSpoonald]

IDK who you think you're talking to. Your responses frequently have nothing to do with me or anything I think.

You'll have to be more specific. I'm not saying I don't do this. I'm sure it happens alot so I need to know what exactly you're referring to. I frequently use "you" when I'm not actually addressing you, MMM, specifically.

Like when I asked you about my opposition and I said "If you think Trump is racist...." the "you" in that sentence is the hypothetical, vague, nebulous "opposition" that you referenced. It's more like I'm addressing the world, and anyone in it that might present themselves as my "opposition". Not just you.

[oskar]

No. First, define "interfered". If you mean "bought facebook ads" I'm just not there with ya man.


Sure, I guess. Maybe. Define "Interfered". And define "shows"


I believe he's stated that he respects the assessment of the US intelligence agencies, and heeds their advice as likely true, but still harbors some skepticism that Russia acted alone.

This is a waste of time.