*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[TheSpoonald]

Allegation 7: Trump continued to pressure Sessions to unrecuse himself.

Question: Why is it obstruction if you ask someone you like to do the job that you hired them to do? Mueller even quotes Trump on this:

“I’m not going to do anything or direct you to do anything. I just want to be treated fairly”

Where is the obstruction?

[TheSpoonald]

Allegation 8: Trump didn’t want the public to know he had “directed McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed in June 2017 and that McGahn had threatened to resign rather than carry out the order. “

Question: Why is lying to the press the same as obstructing justice?

[Poopadoop]

flaccid opposition.

He's his own best opposition.

Anyone > Hillary will beat him imo. The only question is whether the Ds will put that up.

[TheSpoonald]

Allegation 9: Trump praised former campaign manager Paul Manafort and Flynn when they held strong and criticized them when they rolled over

Question: who commits a crime in front of 50 million twitter followers?

[TheSpoonald]

He's his own best opposition.

Anyone > Hillary will beat him imo. The only question is whether the Ds will put that up.

You already know who they have. Name someone

[Poopadoop]

Allegation 9: Trump praised former campaign manager Paul Manafort and Flynn when they held strong and criticized them when they rolled over

Question: who commits a crime in front of 50 million twitter followers?

You're right, only a criminal retard would do that.

[TheSpoonald]

Allegation 10: Trump praised his former personal lawyer Michael Cohen when he held strong and criticized him after he rolled over.

Question: Why are Flynn and Manafort grouped together in one line item, but Cohen gets his own?

[Poopadoop]

You already know who they have. Name someone

All of them, with the possible exception of Warren.

Ask me the same question a few more times.

[Poopadoop]

Allegation 10: Trump praised his former personal lawyer Michael Cohen when he held strong and criticized him after he rolled over.

Question: Why are Flynn and Manafort grouped together in one line item, but Cohen gets his own?

Is this a legal question or a clerical one?

[TheSpoonald]

All of them, with the possible exception of Warren.

Ask me the same question a few more times.

Explain to me what thought process might have led a person to vote for Trump in 2016, but not in 2020?

[TheSpoonald]

Is this a legal question or a clerical one?

What you're saying here is that you don't have an answer to any of the questions. Which means that there is nowhere near enough evidence for any of those things to constitute a crime.

Tell me....how the fuck does a prosecutor accumulate ten pieces of evidence...but no charges. WTF!!??

[Poopadoop]

What you're saying here is that you don't have an answer to any of the questions. Which means that there is nowhere near enough evidence for any of those things to constitute a crime.

Tell me....how the fuck does a prosecutor accumulate ten pieces of evidence...but no charges. WTF!!??

Haha. You want another lesson on the consititution? Maybe with sock puppets this time?

[TheSpoonald]

If Trump had the legal and constitutional authority to end the investigation....
If Trump had the authority to issue instructions about where the investigation could or could not go....
If Trump could have fired Mueller at any time......
If Trump could have claimed executive privilege......


Then why in the world would he obstruct justice? Why would he even try to commit a crime if he could just solve his problems legally. WTF??

[Poopadoop]

Explain to me what thought process might have led a person to vote for Trump in 2016, but not in 2020?

Hmm, interesting question. What are the thought processes that might lead a person who watched Trump be president for four years think he's actually qualified for the job?

[Poopadoop]

If Trump had the legal and constitutional authority to end the investigation....
If Trump had the authority to issue instructions about where the investigation could or could not go....
If Trump could have fired Mueller at any time......
If Trump could have claimed executive privilege......


Then why in the world would he obstruct justice? Why would he even try to commit a crime if he could just solve his problems legally. WTF??

Two words: Criminal Retard.

[TheSpoonald]

Haha. You want another lesson on the consititution? Maybe with sock puppets this time?

What, is this where you give me a lecture about not being able to indict a sitting president? Funny how you're suddenly an expert on something you only started agreeing with this week. But anyway...even if Mueller's hands are tied with Trump, he names other people in those allegations. Lewandowski, Sessions, McGahn. Don Jr. Trump can't lie to the press by himself. If obstruction happened, and those people are involved....why aren't they arrested? Surely there is no constitutional restriction against indicting Corey Lewandowski.

[Poopadoop]

What, is this where you give me a lecture about not being able to indict a sitting president? Funny how you're suddenly an expert on something you only started agreeing with this week. But anyway...even if Mueller's hands are tied with Trump, he names other people in those allegations. Lewandowski, Sessions, McGahn. Don Jr. Trump can't lie to the press by himself. If obstruction happened, and those people are involved....why aren't they arrested? Surely there is no constitutional restriction against indicting Corey Lewandowski.

Because none of them followed his orders. You can't get in trouble for refusing an order to break the law. That's pretty much the opposite of breaking the law.

[TheSpoonald]

Hmm, interesting question. What are the thought processes that might lead a person who watched Trump be president for four years think he's actually qualified for the job?

One one side there are raging leftists who want to eliminate your private health insurance, take over private industry, tax 70%, and tell you that men are women.

On the other side is a vulgarian who isn't doing any of those things.

No contest.

[TheSpoonald]

Because none of them followed his orders. You can't get in trouble for refusing an order to break the law. That's pretty much the opposite of breaking the law.

Sarah Sanders followed his orders and lied to the press. Don Jr was at least complicit in the Trump tower cover up. Lewandowski did talk to Sessions. It was Sessions that refused. But Lewandowski followed orders.

Why aren't these people in jail for obstructing justice??

[Poopadoop]

What, is this where you give me a lecture about not being able to indict a sitting president? Funny how you're suddenly an expert on something you only started agreeing with this week.

I never gave an opinion on whether it was legally possible to indict a sitting president. I don't even have one. I wish they could but I can see why they wouldn't want to. You're just trying to reductio ad bananum me here into another argument that exists only in your imagination.

Further, the reference to the constitution is only relevant insofar as how Mueller sees it, not me or you or Rudy Guiliani, which makes arguing about it even more pointless.

[Poopadoop]

Sarah Sanders followed his orders and lied to the press. Don Jr was at least complicit in the Trump tower cover up. Lewandowski did talk to Sessions. It was Sessions that refused. But Lewandowski followed orders.

Why aren't these people in jail for obstructing justice??

Was Sarah Sanders obstructing justice? I don't recall that allegation.

[Poopadoop]

One one side there are raging leftists who want to eliminate your private health insurance, take over private industry, tax 70%, and tell you that men are women.

On the other side is a vulgarian who isn't doing any of those things.

No contest.

Amazing the Ds won the midterms isn't it?

[TheSpoonald]

Was Sarah Sanders obstructing justice? I don't recall that allegation.

She told Mueller that she didn't exactly know why Trump fired Comey after she told the press that it was because Trump had lost faith in the FBI director.

And you can't keep dodging the question. Mueller names people other than DJT as complicit or cooperative in these efforts to obstruct justice.. Why aren't those people in jail?

[TheSpoonald]

Amazing the Ds won the midterms isn't it?

It's kind of amazing that they're going to blow it. Trump should actually be pretty easy to beat. But the D's are stuck with a raging social justice fringe that pretty much OWNS the party.

Nobody actually wants a green new deal

[Poopadoop]

She told Mueller that she didn't exactly know why Trump fired Comey after she told the press that it was because Trump had lost faith in the FBI director.

And you can't keep dodging the question. Mueller names people other than DJT as complicit or cooperative in these efforts to obstruct justice.. Why aren't those people in jail?

You have to show they were intending to OJ when they did their thing. SHS was just talking shit on a podium which is pretty much her job. They aren't even her own words lol. She wasn't actively complicit in some effort to obstruct the MI.

[TheSpoonald]

You have to show they were intending to OJ when they did their thing.

I do? Mueller does? Funny, he didn't seem to provide a single shred of evidence demonstrating DJT's intent on any of those 10 allegations. Why is Trump held to a different standard? Why are Trump's intentions suspect?

SHS was just talking shit on a podium

See Allegation 4. Trump was just talking shit on Twitter. What's the difference??

She wasn't actively complicit in some effort to obstruct the MI

How do you know? Sounds like shes not-not-guilty to me.

[Poopadoop]

I do? Mueller does? Funny, he didn't seem to provide a single shred of evidence demonstrating DJT's intent on any of those 10 allegations.

Intention is impossible to prove conclusively, it can only be inferred from a behaviour or pattern of behaviour.

SHS's intention was most likely to be a lying shill for the POTUS. Her behaviour was entirely consistent with her role in the WH. That doesn't mean she deliberately sought to OJ of her own accord.

Why is Trump held to a different standard?

He isn't.

Why are Trump's intentions suspect?

Because he's the one who stands to gain. Because it's less important if the PS lies to do her job of being a liar than if the POTUS lies to OJ of an investigation into his possible traitorous activities.

[TheSpoonald]

Because he's the one who stands to gain. Because it's less important if the PS lies to do her job of being a liar than if the POTUS lies to OJ of an investigation into his possible traitorous activities.

So the press secretary's job is to be a liar, but the POTUS's job isn't.

Are you 5 years old?

[Poopadoop]

Here's some questions for you:

Is it worse to lie to OJ into a criminal investigation about you or to lie to your auntie that you like her new hairdo? Why is one worse than the other?

If someone tells you something and you repeat it, then later it's proven to be false, does that mean you've obstructed justice by lying?

If you're given a choice of voting in a criminal retard for four more years and a less-criminal, more intelligent person, who would you choose and why?

If someone believes they aren't allowed to conclude A, and they conclude nothing instead, does that mean that A is false?

What do you think the 2nd amendment means? Should you be allowed to carry a hand grenade on your person?

Is it possible to build an impregnable barrier along a country's border?

[Poopadoop]

So the press secretary's job is to be a liar, but the POTUS's job isn't.

Are you 5 years old?

yes I am, you're losing an argument to a five year old.

[oskar]

"Shut up" he explained....

If you don't think that russia interfered in the 2016 election because it doesn't meet your standards of proof, but you think that Clinton (I don't know which one) is a rapist... that is something pathological. You can't at the same time have insane standards of proof against your position but then hop on every kind of conspiracy theory against who you perceive as the other side. Same with language. Trump can say whatever he wants and you'll defend it, but if Obama and Clinton say "easter worshippers," that is somehow sign of a grand conspiracy and a very bad thing.

Do you really think you're being consistent here?

[TheSpoonald]

Intention is impossible to prove conclusively, it can only be inferred from a behaviour or pattern of behaviour.

So politicians have been lying to the press since the press was invented. Is that a pattern of behavior? What should we do with all the people who fit that pattern of behavior?

Is there any reason to single one of them out for special prosecution for OOJ for doing the same thing every other politician has ever done?

Help me understand why lying to the press, 3 of Mueller's 10 accusations, is an impeachable offense?

[Poopadoop]

And if you don't stop being a tool, I'll call in my big sister who is eight and she'll really clean your clock.

[Poopadoop]

So politicians have been lying to the press since the press was invented. Is that a pattern of behavior? What should we do with all the people who fit that pattern of behavior?

Is there any reason to single one of them out for special prosecution for OOJ for doing the same thing every other politician has ever done?

Help me understand why lying to the press, 3 of Mueller's 10 accusations, is an impeachable offense?

Answer my questions first. All of them.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Ok....you really need to let go of the idea that Mueller was exclusively limited to some kind of law-enforcement function. He wasn't. His job was to tell us what happened. For the fifth time now....go look up his exact instructions. Tell me where it specifies "crimes" or "illegal activity"

Oh, FFS.
"What Does an Attorney General Do?



The attorney general holds the power of attorney in representing a government in all legal matters."
https://people.howstuffworks.com/gov...y-general1.htm

law, law, law, legal, legal, legal, law, law, law, legal, legal, legal....
What do you think that means?

You seem to think that collusion is a diversion. It isn't. It's a real concern that people really had for real reasons other than just ratings. It doesn't have to be a crime to matter.

Yes. How silly of me to believe what every lawyer who understands this corner of law agrees with.
You're the one who swallowed the media pabulum into believing that collusion is anything but a diversion and distraction.
Your assertion that a law agency was tasked to investigate legal activities is not a very smart position to hold.

Conspiracy is a crime. Any evidence that Trump colluded is inconsequential. If whatever he did falls below the threshold of criminal behavior, then there shouldn't be any bearing on this presidency. If he committed acts of conspiracy, then that's the opposite.

The MR cleared him of all counts of conspiracy, so fine. dead end.
However, during the course of the investigation, there's a lot of appearances of OoJ going on... and the MR plainly does not clear him of those apparent crimes.
Whether or not his polling is affected is a political matter, not a legal one. Whether or not he gets re-elected is a political matter, not a legal one.

You can talk political prognostication all you like, but it's just hot air. If we're talking legal facts on the ground, then that's another matter.

Even I can admit that Trump should not be president if he made discreet deals with foreign leaders to win an election. It might not be a crime, but it would be so supremely dumb that it disqualifies him from having the job. You seem to think that the legal standards matter here, or that Mueller's job was to find something criminal, or impeachable, or whatever. You're wrong. Collusion was a real concern. And if the MR uncovered such behavior, even if it wasn't a crime, it would be devastating for Trump, and rightly so.

Funny how all those people being all ragey about collusion never once accused him of conspiracy... which bears similarities to collusion, but which, importantly, is a crime.

Spoiler: Show

Conspiracy is a crime. Collusion is not.

You want to be all ragey at people who play the ragey game, then that's your real angle, IMO.

This whole thing was born because people some mouth-frothing idiots with a wide audience truly believed blew smoke up that audience's asses that Trump made an illicit (but legal) deal with the Russians, not necessarily because anyone cared that he committed a crime (they just cared about selling a narrative that would increase their ratings).

An accusation of conspiracy... that holds weight... has legal ramifications... could be considered defamation of character if it's wrong.

An accusation of collusion? a legal activity? They can dress that up as if they're really talking about conspiracy without ever saying conspiracy and watch that audience work themselves up into a ratings-building froth.


For someone who seems to be aware of bias, you're missing a huge point.
Sometimes the same lie benefits both sides' ratings. Just because there's overlap doesn't mean there's truth.

If Trump was throwing watermelons off the white house roof, you'd wanna know that too. It's not a crime. But it does mean he can't be president.

Again... how can you be so, so bad at getting me. I mean... I'd wanna know... 'cause that sounds hella fun, and I'd be stoked to see Trump's old ass tossing a watermelon off the roof of any building... especially if he had a big, dumb smile on his face and his hair was all fucked and he just didn't care 'cause he was having fun doing something silly.

That I can relate to.

[TheSpoonald]

If you don't think that russia interfered in the 2016 election because it doesn't meet your standards of proof,

I didn't say this. I asked you to define "interfered"

but you think that Clinton (I don't know which one) is a rapist..

Juanita Broderick has a credible story, and no reason to lie. I'm not saying that Clinton should be charged with anything. I probably only brought this up to point out the hypocrisy being demonstrated by people who don't even know Broderick's name, but think that saying "grab her by the pussy" is a confession of sexual assault.

You can't at the same time have insane standards of proof against your position but then hop on every kind of conspiracy theory against who you perceive as the other side

Citation please? This is extremely vague.

Same with language. Trump can say whatever he wants and you'll defend it

Provably false

but if Obama and Clinton say "easter worshippers," that is somehow signs of a grand conspiracy and a very bad thing.

Dude...come back to the real world. If you think that that political operatives don't work to distribute talking points to prominent democrats in order to homogenize the message and promote party unity....you're living in outer space. The RNC does the same thing. And it's actually not a very bad thing. Just acknowledge that it happens ok? No one is asking you to wear a foil hat.

But....to use MMM's phrasing.....I think it's "interesting" that the coordinate effort (which most definitely does exist) chose to exclude the word "Christian" or "catholic" and replace it with "Easter Worshipers". That's actually really fucking weird.

Do you really think you're being consistent here?

I'll consider that question if you can show an inconsistency. So far, they only exist in your imagination.

[oskar]

Since we're talking about the Mueller report, it is safe to assume I use it to describe russian election interference as it is described in the Mueller report.
Why would I define words for you? I'm not a dictionary.

[TheSpoonald]

Oh, FFS.
"What Does an Attorney General Do?

Mueller is not the Attorney General. He is a special counsel.

law, law, law, legal, legal, legal, law, law, law, legal, legal, legal....
What do you think that means?

I think its probably good if the Attorney General goes to law school. What's relevant about this? Mueller is not the attorney general, he is special counsel.

Your assertion that a law agency was tasked to investigate legal activities is not a very smart position to hold.

A "law agency"? What's that? And you can just google the document man. I keep telling you. Mueller was never limited to investigating only illegal activities. Everything Trump did with the Russians, legal or not, was fair game.

Conspiracy is a crime.

Alight....I'll humor this for a bit. What's the difference counselor?

If whatever he did falls below the threshold of criminal behavior, then there shouldn't be any bearing on this presidency.

THIS IS WRONG

Even I know this. If Trump put his own interests above the country's while making an illicit agreement with the Russian government, then that should have a bearing on his presidency. If he said "No, I won't arm Ukraine if you give me Podesta's emails" it's a problem. It's not illegal to do that. It's not a crime. It's just a fucking problem. If you don't get that....don't vote anymore please.

Collusion is relevant. And it was exactly the focus of the MR. Any assertion to the contrary is positively insane. If Trump sold his country out to get a building permit in Moscow...Mueller would have told us, even if the "collusion" was not criminal. That was his job. We wanted him to find out if Trump was secretly in debt, financially or diplomatically, to the Russians, if he was vulnerable to blackmail by the Russians, if any of his policies were coerced or prompted by the Russians, etc.

None of those things would be crimes. But they would be in the MR if they happened. And if they happened, Trump would not be president for much longer.

I mean... I'd wanna know... 'cause that sounds hella fun, and I'd be stoked to see Trump's old ass tossing a watermelon off the roof of any building... especially if he had a big, dumb smile on his face and his hair was all fucked and he just didn't care 'cause he was having fun doing something silly.

I can't take you seriously anymore. If the POTUS suffered from acute onset dementia, that would be a tragedy for the country. And if it occurred as the result of a partisan hoax.....it's a tragedy for democracy.

[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!

I'll repost this because I think it's important. That's the type of story that gets buried under the impeachment talks.

[TheSpoonald]

Since we're talking about the Mueller report, it is safe to assume I use it to describe russian election interference as it is described in the Mueller report.
Why would I define words for you? I'm not a dictionary.

Fine...I'll ask a different way. What specific acts of interference are you talking about?

Fake news facebook ads?? The largest estimate I've ever heard on this is $130K in ad-buys. I know the CEO of google testified to congress that they sold $4k worth of ads. Almost $2B was spent between teh two candidates on the 2016 election. It doesn't count as interference if it's ineffective.

If you're talking about Podesta and DNC emails.....so what?

[oskar]

You think foreign countries should be allowed to buy ads for US political campaigns secretly as long as it doesn't exceed a certain value? How much do you think is reasonable?

[TheSpoonald]

I'll repost this because I think it's important.

It's not. You have no fucking idea what happens in a warzone so you're actually way out of line criticizing anything anyone does on active duty unless you've been there.

The military has a court martial process and it's own way of enforcing justice. That seems to be working as intended.

What exactly is your beef?

[TheSpoonald]

You think foreign countries should be allowed to buy ads for US political campaigns secretly as long as it doesn't exceed a value of... how much do you think is reasonable?

No I don't think that. I'm just saying if it happens and has no effect, I'm not going to shit my pants over it.

The tech companies and FEC should get on top of that. I don't see what it has to do with Trump

[oskar]

The president is asking for leniency for someone who executed a kid. Given his history with muslims it sure looks like he doesn't think it's a big deal to execute kids as long as "these aren't people, these are animals"

[TheSpoonald]

The president is asking for leniency for someone who executed a kid.

Until you've been to war, shut up. Let the people who have been to war judge him.

[oskar]

It's not. You have no fucking idea what happens in a warzone so you're actually way out of line criticizing anything anyone does on active duty unless you've been there.

The military has a court martial process and it's own way of enforcing justice. That seems to be working as intended.

What exactly is your beef?

So you didn't read the story, or you think burying the case and threatening everyone who knows about it not to talk about it is "working as intended"

[oskar]

Until you've been to war, shut up. Let the people who have been to war judge him.

Do you think it's ok to kill the children of your enemy in a war?

[TheSpoonald]

Do you think it's ok to kill the children of your enemy in a war?

Not enough information to make a determination

[Poopadoop]

It's not. You have no fucking idea what happens in a warzone so you're actually way out of line criticizing anything anyone does on active duty unless you've been there.

Being in a warzone doesn't mean you get to indiscriminately shoot anyone walking around, little girls and old men included.

If his own men reported him, why do you think that is? They were democrats?

What exactly is your beef?

Did you see the Trump tweet?

[Poopadoop]

Not enough information to make a determination

What a sad pussy of an answer.

[TheSpoonald]

Is it worse to lie to OJ into a criminal investigation about you or to lie to your auntie that you like her new hairdo? Why is one worse than the other?

Because if you're lying to obstruct justice, then it means you're talking to a sworn law enforcement agent investigating a crime. That's worse than lying to your auntie. In Trump's case, he wasn't lying to an officer. He was lying to Twitter. Lying to your Auntie is worse.

If someone tells you something and you repeat it, then later it's proven to be false, does that mean you've obstructed justice by lying?

It depends. Were you talking to a sworn law enforcement officer? If so, he's probably trained to ask questions like "did you see that happen? Or did someone just tell you about it"? So I don't see how that situation could possibly result in OOJ.

If you're given a choice of voting in a criminal retard for four more years and a less-criminal, more intelligent person, who would you choose and why?

Ivanka. Because she's a fucking goddess.

If someone believes they aren't allowed to conclude A, and they conclude nothing instead, does that mean that A is false?

It definitely does not mean it's true. Apparently the word we use for that is "interesting"

What do you think the 2nd amendment means? Should you be allowed to carry a hand grenade on your person?

I'm actually not the person you wanna talk to about this. I think 12 year olds should be allowed to buy bazookas.

Is it possible to build an impregnable barrier along a country's border?

Ask Israel

[TheSpoonald]

What a sad pussy of an answer.

ok, how about this:

Sometimes yes

[oskar]

What a sad pussy of an answer.

It's ok if they're brown. Family separation is ok. Black people are the only one to blame for their socioeconomic position, there is none and never has been systemic racism in the US, and Gavin "It's not racist to yell 'nigger' in a black man's face" McInnes is a real kneeslapper of a comedian. BUT HOW DARE YOU CALL ME A RACIST I WILL PUNCH YOU SO HARD WITH MY INTERNET FISTS.

[Poopadoop]

It definitely does not mean it's true. Apparently the word we use for that is "interesting"

Yes or no answer please. Does it mean A is false?

And a follow-up:

If the answer is 'no' then are you an idiot if you argue that it does mean A is false?

[oskar]

https://www.aljazeera.com/programmes...081014660.html

This is not a new position by Trump. Children can be killed if they're children of the enemy.

[Poopadoop]

https://www.aljazeera.com/programmes...081014660.html

This is not a new position by Trump. Children can be killed if they're children of the enemy.

Yup, because "brown children bad"

[TheSpoonald]

Yes or no answer please. Does it mean A is false?

And a follow-up:

If the answer is 'no' then are you an idiot if you argue that it does mean A is false?

Imagine there is a lake called "Lake Trump Campaign"

All of the water in that lake represents stuff the campaign did

If any of the water is frozen, it means someone did something bad.

We want to find out if any of the water in Lake Trump Campaign is frozen. So we dispatch the SS Mueller to investigate. But Mueller can't say something is "frozen". He can only say if it's "not frozen".

So he sails around, checks out all the water and says it's "not frozen".

Then off in the distance he sees a mist. It looks like fog. It looks like water that is "not frozen". But he can't be sure that it isn't drifting snow. It technically could be drifting snow, there is just no way to tell for sure. But it's probably, in fact overwhelmingly likely, that it's just fog.

So Mueller makes no conclusion on the mist.

Is that the same as finding ice?

[TheSpoonald]

Hey Oskar....

1) Of the 10 possible instances of obstruction cited in the MR, which do you think presents the strongest case for criminal activity?

2) What evidence of the act do you find compelling?

3) What evidence of intent do you find compelling?

4) In the instance you chose, how does Trump's behavior differ from the behavior that you would reasonably expect from someone who is frustrated at being framed for treason by partisan operatives within his own executive branch

I asked Poop earlier, and in case you missed it, he made up an 11th choice that Mueller didn't even mention and cited that as the strongest case for criminal activity.

I'm wondering if you and your 113 IQ can be just a bit smarter

[TheSpoonald]

BUT HOW DARE YOU CALL ME A RACIST I WILL PUNCH YOU SO HARD WITH MY INTERNET FISTS.

Why don't you direct your anger to the one person on this forum who is actually openly promoting white supremacy

Spoiler: Show

Look at his hand! "W" and "P". That means "WHITE POWER" What a Nazi!!

Can Ong please ban this monster??

[oskar]

If you don't think election interference happened, something that is stated explicitly in the report, then I think it's pointless to talk about more nuanced matters.

[TheSpoonald]

If you don't think election interference happened, something that is stated explicitly in the report, then I think it's pointless to talk about more nuanced matters.

When did I say that I think that?

I think it happened. I just don't think it matters very much. And I don't think Trump had any part in it

[TheSpoonald]

If Trump is smart....which he is.....he'll tell all of his underlings to start taking the 5th and not cooperate with any congressional investigations.

They're not independent fact finding bodies. They're partisan weapons for witch hunting.

Remain silent

[TheSpoonald]

House Judiciary Chairman's statement about the subpoena for McGahn

"The Committee has served a valid subpoena to Mr. McGahn. We have asked him to supply documents to the Committee by May 7 and to testify here on May 21. Our request covers the subjects described by Mr. McGahn to the Special Counsel, and described by Special Counsel Mueller to the American public in his report. As such, the moment for the White House to assert some privilege to prevent this testimony from being heard has long since passed,"

See bolded. Translation: We are going to keep asking the same question over and over again until we can trip you up and get you to contradict yourself somehow. Then we are going to charge you with perjury and then offer you a plea bargain if you can tell us some really juicy gossip about Trump

[Poopadoop]

Imagine there is a lake called "Lake Trump Campaign"

All of the water in that lake represents stuff the campaign did

If any of the water is frozen, it means someone did something bad.

We want to find out if any of the water in Lake Trump Campaign is frozen. So we dispatch the SS Mueller to investigate. But Mueller can't say something is "frozen". He can only say if it's "not frozen".

So he sails around, checks out all the water and says it's "not frozen".

Then off in the distance he sees a mist. It looks like fog. It looks like water that is "not frozen". But he can't be sure that it isn't drifting snow. It technically could be drifting snow, there is just no way to tell for sure. But it's probably, in fact overwhelmingly likely, that it's just fog.

So Mueller makes no conclusion on the mist.

Is that the same as finding ice?

You don't need complicated analogies unless you're trying to obfuscate things.

It's really really really simple.

Either A or B is possible. You're allowed to answer either A or not answer the question.

Q1 you say A.
Q2 you give no answer.

End of story.

The question was not: 'what do you do if you see mist?'.

The question was: given the above restrictions, can you conclude that the answer to Q2 is A?

I'll give you a hint: the correct response is 'no'.

The follow-up question was: if you insist on answering 'yes' to the above, are you an idiot?
(the answer is 'yes, you are')

We'll make it even more interesting and fun for kids now. If you insist on refusing to answer 'no' to the above, what does that make you?

[Poopadoop]

If Trump is smart....which he is.....he'll tell all of his underlings to start taking the 5th and not cooperate with any congressional investigations.

They're not independent fact finding bodies. They're partisan weapons for witch hunting.

Remain silent

How did that work with McGahn, Cohen, Manafort, etc. -Not so good.

[TheSpoonald]

Either A or B is possible. You're allowed to answer either A or not answer the question.

Q1 you say A.
Q2 you give no answer.

The question was: given the above restrictions, can you conclude that the answer to Q2 is A?

That's not the question. The question is why do you think the answer to Q2 is B. It could just be not A. Just like fog is not ice.

[Poopadoop]

House Judiciary Chairman's statement about the subpoena for McGahn



See bolded. Translation: We are going to keep asking the same question over and over again until we can trip you up and get you to contradict yourself somehow. Then we are going to charge you with perjury and then offer you a plea bargain if you can tell us some really juicy gossip about Trump

I think the actual translation is "Easter Worshippers Unite!"

[TheSpoonald]

How did that work with McGahn, Cohen, Manafort, etc. -Not so good.

So far McGahn hasn't testified, so what are you talking about.

And it actually went great for Cohen. He was facing like 15-30 years for tax fraud and some kind of taxi medallion scam. Instead he told some gossip about Trump and got it all knocked down to 3.

And Manafort probably would have rolled if he had any gossip about Trump. But in actuality....they were only friends for like 5 minutes.

[Poopadoop]

That's not the question. The question is why do you think the answer to Q2 is B. It could just be not A. Just like fog is not ice.

No, we're still trying to get you to accept that the conclusion isn't A.

[TheSpoonald]

No, we're still trying to get you to accept that the answer isn't A.

I don't accept that because the answer still could be A

[Poopadoop]

So far McGahn hasn't testified, so what are you talking about.

if you think McGahn is going to put loyalty to Trump ahead of his own common sense, you are very optimistic.

[Poopadoop]

I don't accept that because the answer still could be A

See this is where you're struggling with the workings of logic.

The conclusion is most definitely not A. If it was, the answer given would have been A.

[TheSpoonald]

Basically Mueller said.."This could be obstruction if he had bad intent. I can't determine his intent, so I can't conclude that he's not guilty"

That's not the same as saying he can't possibly be not guilty.

[Poopadoop]

Try reading this, see if it helps.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens

[TheSpoonald]

The conclusion is most definitely not A.

no, you don't know that. The conclusion could be A. We don't know the conclusion because there is no conclusion.