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?
Printable View
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?
Oh I know "Trump in 2020 - No collusion!"
Not an answerQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Anyone but Hillary.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
You proud of that answer?Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
Sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
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.Quote:
And Warren too, though I get a bad feeling about her for some reason; that probably means she'll be the one they pick
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
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!Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
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.
Can you tell me without sarcasm what the Mueller investigation was about?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
So you have so much cognitive dissonance about the implications of the answer to my question that you can't even answer the question?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
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.
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.
Lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
No.
Not gonna happen.
It could. They won't get it through the senate but that didn't stop them from impeaching Clinton.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/42...-impeach-trump
"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.
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.
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"Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
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.
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???
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?
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.
Your inability to grasp straight-line logic doesn't mean it's circular.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
For the record, I acknowledged this way before it was cool.Quote:
First, you ackowledge that Mueller can't indict Trump
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.Quote:
but somehow that becomes: the fact that he didn't indict him means Trump wins.
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.Quote:
Second, since Mueller provided all kinds of information on OOJ and not on treason, the information he gave on OOJ is meaningless somehow.
Then entire report is about non-crime. You CNN'd yourself.Quote:
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.
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.
He tried to fire Mueller.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
You Fox'd yourself.
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Quote:
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
Huh? It's not only a win for POTUS, it's a win for America.Quote:
So...not finding evidence the POTUS was a traitor is not a win for POTUS,
A) He won't be. And B) he probably won't live that long.Quote:
he could potentially be impeached and/or be tried for OOJ once he's no longer POTUS
Banana, I'd still love for you to tell me in your own words what you think the Mueller investigation investigated.
100% false.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
if he "Tried", then why didn't he succeed?
Same reason he didn't get Mexico to pay for the wall he's not building.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Non-sequitur.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
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.
OK. Good. There's a fact that we both agree on.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
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?
We've been through this; go back and read it again if you like.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
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?
The authorizing document for the special counsel investigation lists three purposes of the investigation.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
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"
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
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.
Lie to who?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
*campaignQuote:
1) Links between Trump and Russia
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.
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.
Well, if i understand it correctly, Trump ordered McGahn to release a statement claiming Trump never told him to fire Mueller.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
But according to you, this isn't a problem because McGahn didn't obey him.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
here's 51 that weren't. And I will bet that you still believe at least 30 of them.Quote:
Pretty much every NYT WAPO and Buzzfeed story that Trumples have been calling fake news was confirmed.
https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/...ad-russiagate/
Wrong.Quote:
They also outlined russian election interference, which Trump to this day is denying,
So wrong.Quote:
stating that he takes Putins word over everything.
Not if it's wrong.Quote:
That's kind of important don't you think?
I wonder if any other countries do that? Honestly, they spent $4k on google ads. I can't believe you think this even matters.Quote:
a foreign nation is interfering into the election with the expressed purpose of helping one candidate
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?Quote:
and that one candidate flatout denies that it's happening
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??
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
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.
Fuck this game. What exactly are you even talking about?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Are you telling me that Trump ordered McGahn to commit perjury?
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.
It was the next goddamn day!! Don't you think the fake news should have told you that??Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
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.
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.
"invented this week"Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
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."
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Because it does matter. It matters a monumental deal w.r.t to the conclusions you are drawing about the report.
This is so far from consequential, man. It's couldn't be less relevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
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.
Are you telling me he ordered him to release a public statement containing a lie, but not to repeat that lie to Mueller?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
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.
Trump also said, in Finland, that Putin strongly denied it and he (Trump) believed him (in so many words).
... 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.
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.
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"Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
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.Quote:
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?
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.Quote:
Because it does matter. It matters a monumental deal w.r.t to the conclusions you are drawing about the report.
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.Quote:
Just because Mueller didn't post that specific quote doesn't mean there isn't a wealth of evidence he's accumulated.
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?Quote:
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 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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
So, then. How shall we understand the other things?
Where were you on the night of September 10th, 2001?Quote:
How shall we understand the many times in which he did not directly and clearly state "not guilty?"
Uhhh, check your paper bro. You didn't write "4"Quote:
Convenient that while you understand all these facts, you can't put 2 and 2 together and come out with 4.
Those are true statements. I'm not sure how "convenient" they are.Quote:
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.
Source?Quote:
Convenient that every single hint at the sliminess of Trump is met with outrage and opposition from you.
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.Quote:
You can rage all you like at the ignorance of your opposition,
Cite your source please so I know what the fuck you're talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
The Mueller Report. Don't know the page number, sorry.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
^^
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?
Are you saying that Mueller found evidence that Trump ordered McGahn to commit perjury? Or are you not saying that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by 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?
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.
?
No. First, define "interfered". If you mean "bought facebook ads" I'm just not there with ya man.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Sure, I guess. Maybe. Define "Interfered". And define "shows"Quote:
The Mueller report shows evidence that they did.
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.Quote:
Trump does not acknowledge that it happened.
I'm wondering why you presume to read the mind of an experienced prosecutor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
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.
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.
@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.
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoon
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.
I've never suggested anything of the sort. You're jumping to conclusions which I have given you no reason to think I hold.Quote:
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".
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.
This is a weak troll that you should really, really know by now will never work on me.Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
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 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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Would he be an evil manipulator committing an act of war if he said "let's leak this to the Russian media"
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.
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.
Misogynist, misanthrope - why split hairs?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Also, someone should dig up that picture of spoon with his fat ugly harem. That was pretty funny.
I'm wondering why you wonder that when you're perfectly willing to presume to understand him better than I do.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Occam's Razor.
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.
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!
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
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.
This is a waste of time.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
"Shut up" he explained....Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
I think I finally understand Oskar's point of view. This lays it out beautifully
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_j5C_XoK3Y
I know you want 5 more minutes of Miles.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUuMUWvqN0w
Mueller has the power to say something is not solid, but adheres to DOJ policy against declaring something to be a solid.
He looks at ice and says "no finding" because he knows its a solid but can't say so.
He looks at water and says "not a solid" because he knows water is a liquid.
He can't determine if steam is a vapor or suspended solid particles, so he makes no finding.
By MMM logic steam = ice.
Or alternatively...
He rules that water is not a solid, makes no finding on steam, and by MMM logic that automatically means that steam is solid.
Oh thank god.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Please, lets do this.
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
By my logic, he hasn't drawn a conclusion about steam, and that's interesting. It doesn't mean solid or not solid. The false dichotomy is exposed for what it is. There is more to this than black and white.
Funny, 'cause that's your argument, not mine. Where he drew no conclusion, you're saying there is a conclusion drawn.
Back from the metaphor:
The fact that he has openly cleared the pres of some, but not all accusations is interesting.
You're the one who's claiming that since he didn't nail the pres to a wall, then there's no evidence to do so. That's simply not in the report.
IF in the report, he'd cleared the pres of each accusation under investigaion, then you'd be correct in your position. However, that's simply not what he wrote. I find the fact that Mueller clearly was willing to clear the president on some, but not all, charges, in no uncertain terms is noteworthy. Where he drew no conclusion is interesting.
I'm not the one saying there's a conclusion where there is none. You're the one who doesn't seem to really understand that Mueller literally could not say anything, in the report or otherwise, that would indicate the sitting POTUS committed a crime. That's a fact that is also interesting.
The obvious implication is that he can't report anything that would tie his hands into drawing the conclusion that a crime was committed by the sitting POTUS. Because to do so would be treason.
Do you agree that this is an obvious implication of his belief?
I'm not drawing any conclusions beyond this. Just asking if you agree with this.
Assuming so,
I'm still not saying that there are conclusions to be drawn where the MR draws none. I'm just saying there are these 2 interesting facts sitting here. They raise more questions than they provide answers.
OK, cool. I'll try to parse it better, but geez... you're not making it easy.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
For the record, I've never said, nor do I believe Trump is really, really racist. If anything, he talks off the cuff, and says some offensive shit sometimes. So what. Almost everyone I know is like that. Mostly legit, but sometimes just need to vent and weird shit comes out when your guard is down. It happens. If there's no pattern of disrespect to people, then I'm not worried.
Besides Trump is old AF. He grew up in a time where racism, sexism, xenophobia, were all more common and less frowned upon in mainstream society. Just because he learned to talk like that doesn't mean it represents his deeper beliefs.
I say "thank god" and "god bless" all the stupid time. I've actively tried to stop saying that at times in my life, and it just doesn't go away. It doesn't mean I believe in God.
lolQuote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
At least let me reply before you choke on your own foot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
This falls flat because there aren't 3 options in Mueller's case.
His task is asymmetrical, based on two possible outcomes, only one of which he is allowed to state as a conclusion. In case 1, he states Option A (the allowed conclusion). In case 2, he states that the conclusion must be drawn by others (the Congress). He does NOT state Option A.
Fine here's a binary exampleQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Let's say that water represents Russian contacts. Liquid water is fine. But if any of that water is ice, it represents criminal collusion. So we send in Robert Mueller to "investigate the water", but really what we're asking him to do is "see if there is any ice"
And ice is being defined as "solid water"
Mueller, is unable to declare something solid. He can only declare something not solid if the evidence is definitive.
Mueller investigates some water, finds that it's all liquid, and declares that "not solid". Then he finds some mist in the air. But he can't observe it enough to determine if it really is steam (or 'not solid water'), or if it is some other substance in the air like smoke or dust, which would be suspended solids. So he makes no finding on that.
In Poop/MMM world, that means that Mueller found water that was not not solid and that means ZOMG COLLUSION, when really all it means is that Mueller found "not liquid", which isn't a designation that exists in his lexicon.
That's a hell of an understatement. The year Trump was born....black people weren't allowed to play baseball.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Let's try this in a way bananaspoon might understand:
You go to work and your boss asks you to evaluate some products and determine whether they're a solid investment for your company. But, he's a wanker and tells you "I don't want you to say 'yes' to any of these products 'cause my wife Mrs. Constitution will be upset if I let my accountant tell me to spend money."
Your report on product 1 says "no, don't invest."
Your report on product 2 says "here's the math i did. I'm not going to say 'no', but since by your rules I can't say 'yes', then you should ask someone else."
Edit: But before the report gets to him, it goes through your supervisor who tells everyone 'it's no all the way!'
Lol, all you've done is change the analogy so there's the three states of water are liquid, solid, or mist.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Poop's on top of this.
Does it mean "guilty" on anything? No. Certainly not.
It's just a really... deeply... interesting pair of facts.
I haven't read everything in the past 3 pages, but I assume that poop's never said collusion 'cause poop knows that collusion is a red herring, since it's not a crime on any level of US law. Cooperation to deceive is not illegal. Neither part of it is illegal, either.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Anyone talking about collusion is either ignorant of this fact or is chasing ratings. They can be ignored from the adult talk.
This blows my mind. After everything you've posted today, you're telling me you get this?Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Ok...follow me now.......
if Mueller is handcuffed against saying Trump committed a crime......and collusion is not a crime.....then why can't Mueller say "Trump colluded"
The point here is that the left was so sure....and I mean SOOOOO sure that Mueller was going to report something on Trump that got him booted out of office. It was just the precursor to inevitable impeachment.
The fact that didn't happen and even a half-impeachment (house only) is triple digit odds at best... means that Trump wins.
His poll numbers dipped for like 3 days, and then rebounded. This didn't put a scratch on him.
If you wanna talk about what's interesting or what might happen after he's out of office, go ahead. It's loser talk.
And if every media outlet and 2020 candidate is spouting loser talk....what does that make them?
That's my only point. regardless of what you want to think...I'm not a Trump sycophant, I have plenty of not great stuff to say about the guy. But I won't say he's a traitor. I won't say he's not a patriot. I won't say he's dumb. And I wont' say he obstructed justice just because he was pissed off about the fact he was surrounded by a cabal of illegal leakers seeking to frame him for treason.
if you see any of that in the Mueller report, then you were never going to see anything else.
Dems wanted a clear cut case for impeachment that they could ride into 2020. they didn't get it.
Everything they have to say about the subject now is a losers temper tantrum
Because Mueller was never investigating collusion, a legal activity.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Because Mueller knows that his job isn't to investigate people doing perfectly legal things.
Because Mueller isn't a stupid baby who think he needs to grandstand and say anyone did or didn't do a thing that is legal, so not his purview to comment on, anyway.
C'mon, man.
Nothing in the Mueller report has anything to do with collusion.
The MR talks about conspiracy, and (correct me if I'm wrong), those are the charges that the MR directly clears him on.
Anyone who mentions collusion is either ignorant or chasing ratings. I can forgive the ignorance once, but if it persists, then go back to the kiddie pool.
We're not talking about conspiracy, here, in FTR.
We're talking about the accusations of Obstruction of Justice that were not clearly and plainly stated in the MR as "not guilty."
We're talking about how you opened this conversation by saying the MR is a huge win for Trump, and how that's really not clear at all.
Yes he fucking was man. And I'm getting tired of repeating myself. Just go find the one-page document that outlines the purpose and scope of Mueller's investigation and tell me what it says. Show me where it says that Mueller is only allowed to investigate illegal activity.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
WrongQuote:
Because Mueller knows that his job isn't to investigate people doing perfectly legal things.
It's exactly his purview. Again, please refer to Mueller's own instruction manual.Quote:
Because Mueller isn't a stupid baby who think he needs to grandstand and say anyone did or didn't do a thing that is legal, so not his purview to comment on, anyway.
And that's not a win for Trump, how?Quote:
The MR talks about conspiracy, and (correct me if I'm wrong), those are the charges that the MR directly clears him on.
This is that trick where you try to pretend you're smarter than everyone else. Not falling for it. Fucking everybody knew this whole thing was about collusion.Quote:
Anyone who mentions collusion is either ignorant or chasing ratings. I can forgive the ignorance once, but if it persists, then go back to the kiddie pool.
Why do those matter? Do they make a compelling case for impeachment? You realize that was the whole point of this right? You realize that anything short of that is a loss for dems, and a win for Trump. For fuck's sake man, we already knew about all of those things. If all Mueller's report says is "yeah, Trump asked McGahn to fire me, the news isn't all fake", how is that worth a drop of Trump's sweat?Quote:
We're talking about the accusations of Obstruction of Justice that were not clearly and plainly stated in the MR as "not guilty."
We knew that Trump asked McGahn to fire Mueller almost a year ago I think. Tell me why it suddenly matters more now because Mueller said "dunno"
Explain to me what is in this report that was not previously public knowledge, that would turn off an independent voter who might otherwise vote for Trump. Clear win.Quote:
We're talking about how you opened this conversation by saying the MR is a huge win for Trump, and how that's really not clear at all.
LolQuote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
What are you mentally trapped at the age of 11?
"loser talk"
lol
dude
Seriously... go back to your carpentry hobby. The grown ups are talking.
Run along, now.
You're not listening. You're trying to make this into some huge grand thing where we're against you or something.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Not the case.
We're against stupidity. To the extent that you're behaving stupidly, then yes, we are against you.
For the record, I'm not saying he obstructed justice. I'm saying that your claim that the MR says he didn't obstruct justice is pure fantasy.
Your ambition to push other views upon me is just painting you into a corner with a dunce cap.
I'm not trying to guess any political future.
I'm pointing out that you're pretending to have deep, adult understanding of these issues, but all you got is spoon-fed nonsense from popular ratings whores.
You seriously went back to the wall issue? You seriously pulled out that nonsense article that we debunked years ago AGAIN?!
Grow up. Your mental position on this is stuck in a rut and you can't see it.
That stupid article says "only 1 of the men managed to throw a grapple over the wall to scale it" or some fucking nonsense. Like as if it takes more than 1 failure to show that the idea is really, really stupid.
You like to bring up science. Wake up to that one. It only takes 1 verified data point to destroy all the prior assumptions and assurances.
They tried for three weeks with that grappling hook man. And the only part of that story that was debunked was that it was Navy Seals. It was actually just some regular infantry unit. Important distinction, but it's not like it was tested by incompetent boobs.
It's funny that you accuse me of missing the point of things alot, but you think a viable argument against the wall is that it doesn't work.
that's not a viable argument.
Look, if the proposal was to put a shower curtain along the border, that's what we should do. Personally, I prefer a barrier that actually works, like fucking land mines. But if there was a nationwide election, and one candidate ran on a platform of a shower curtain, and won, then he has mandate to build that fucking shower curtain. You don't get to say it's dumb. You don't get to say it's ineffective. You don't get to say it costs too much. No one gets to say that except the American people. And they said they want the fucking wall. So build it. To do anything else is corrupt.
By the same token, I think single payer healthcare should be implemented tomorrow. Personally I think it would be horrible idea. I can think of a dozen completely sound arguments against it. But those are just my opinions, and that's all they'll ever be. America decided that single payer healthcare was a good idea in 2008, so that's what should happen.
Well, you can keep saying stupid, inconsequential things all day, but no one intelligent is going to agree with them.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Don't know or care. I don't like the guy, and I believe he's not done a remotely good job of supporting American interests on the world stage. I'm also sure that I'd be just as critical, but of different issues if Clinton had won.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
The fact that you keep trying to paint me as having partisan interests is just folly. That's not me.
How is someone who's so good at poker so bad at reading me?
Not everyone. Just you, on the question of whether the MR clears DJT of OoJ.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
No, the media ratings-whores figured out that they could get a lot of ratings by throwing the word collusion around, and you and whatever meat heads you roll with bought a 12-pack of mouth-froth and went out looking for another idiot to argue with.
Go find other idiots who want to play the "ZOMG you said a thing that's on my list of things I get mad about" game.
It's fucking boring and it leads nowhere, but if you're still into it, then go for it.
*yawn*Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Why are you telling me this?
Why are you assuming that I care in the slightest about any of this.
All I care about is you said a stupid thing, and you're generally pretty smart. All I cared about was showing you that the thing you thought the MR said is not what you thought it said.
So which is it? You here to engage in adult conversation about complex topics, or just spouting the same nonsense you heard from some mouth-frothing ratings whore as if you're educated about issues because you watched a TV person say politics things that you already thought were true?
I didn't tell you anything. I asked you questions.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Quote:
Tell me why it suddenly matters more now because Mueller said "dunno"
Explain to me what is in this report that was not previously public knowledge, that would turn off an independent voter who might otherwise vote for Trump