*** Official Politics Shitposting Thread ***

[Poopadoop]

Still not sure you have all the facts here. The question to K was "did you speak to anyone at X, X & X, the law firm that is Trump's personal lawyer, about Mueller?"

It's not inappropriate for POTUS to himself speak to someone he's considering for the job, or to have the WH counsel and/or WH staff interview that person. Nothing at all wrong with that.

What's inappropriate is to have his PERSONAL lawyer speak to Kavanaugh. K is potentially being hired to work for the USA, not for Trump. Now, why in the great big world would his PERSONAL lawyer talk to K about Mueller? Does that not look a tad suspicious to you?

Now, lets say K never spoke to those guys about Trump and Mueller and she's just trying to trick him. All he had to do was say 'fuck no' to her question and move on. The fact he's trying to dodge the question is suspicious.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Still not sure you have all the facts here.

Oh, I definitely don't. That's fair criticism.

What's inappropriate is to have his PERSONAL lawyer speak to Kavanaugh. K is potentially being hired to work for the USA, not for Trump. Now, why in the great big world would his PERSONAL lawyer talk to K about Mueller? Does that not look a tad suspicious to you?

OK. I see your point vis-a-vis working for America, not Trump.

As to why they would talk, it could be any reason at all.
Whether or not you and I could imagine a tame scenario is not proof of anything aside from the efficacy of our imaginations.

It looks a tad suspicious, but my standard for being suspicious is pretty low, and that tad isn't really anything but a reflection of my ignorance to the content of the alleged conversation. It doesn't help me that her tone is openly combative and invites other reasons to not answer her directly and off-the-cuff.

Now, lets say K never spoke to those guys about Trump and Mueller and she's just trying to trick him. All he had to do was say 'fuck no' to her question and move on. The fact he's trying to dodge the question is suspicious.

Except that she's made it clear that she's asking a "gotcha" question and he doesn't know what she's trying to get him on.
Is it a yes? a no? She's clearly baiting him into something she wants to pounce on. His dithering could be nothing more than self-preservation against someone whom is clearly not playing nice.

If that was an honest question she'd lead with what she thinks she knows and ask him to affirm or refute that.

[BananaStand]

In other news, I'm looking for a word that can be used as a shortcut for saying the following:

The way for you to achieve maximum utility and meaning for your life, is for you to be set on fire. Not for as punishment, not as revenge, not as a deterrent, not as a public spectacle, not as an example, not as anything other than the barely consequential purpose of expediently helping something larger to catch fire.

I used to have something for this, but I lost it.....

[Poopadoop]

In other news, I'm looking for a word that can be used as a shortcut for saying the following:

The way for you to achieve maximum utility and meaning for your life, is for you to be set on fire. Not for as punishment, not as revenge, not as a deterrent, not as a public spectacle, not as an example, not as anything other than the barely consequential purpose of expediently helping something larger to catch fire.

I used to have something for this, but I lost it.....

Dunno. Maybe your angry cunt counsellor can help you with that problem.

[Poopadoop]

It looks a tad suspicious, but my standard for being suspicious is pretty low, and that tad isn't really anything but a reflection of my ignorance to the content of the alleged conversation. It doesn't help me that her tone is openly combative and invites other reasons to not answer her directly and off-the-cuff.

I believe it has something to do with the appearance of impropriety being nearly as bad as impropriety itself.

It's the kind of thing that keeps judges from being friends with mobsters, for example. Or having closed-chamber meetings alone with opposite-sex defendants. Yes, it's possible there's an innocent explanation. But that's not what people are going to think. And knowing that, as a judge, is why you don't let yourself get caught talking the president's personal lawyer team.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I believe it has something to do with the appearance of impropriety being nearly as bad as impropriety itself.

We both agree that's stupid, illogical reasoning, though, right?

... and that if that is her underlying reason for asking that question in that tone, then she's being childish...

... right?

[Poopadoop]

We both agree that's stupid, illogical reasoning, though, right?

... and that if that is her underlying reason for asking that question in that tone, then she's being childish...

... right?

Why is it stupid and illogical?

If someone puts themselves in an ambiguous situation, where they could either be up to no good or it could be nothing, they're the unwise one, not the person who asks them about it. Even I know not to have a closed-door meeting with a female student in my office. That's not because every time I do, I'm offering them an A for a blowjob, it's because it opens me up to false allegations. And to the outside, objective observer it's difficult to prove my innocence since it would just be my word against someone else's. So, to avoid such a situation arising, I don't allow that to happen.

And of course, it's not fair to assume that because he talked to someone on Trump's personal law team about Mueller that it necessarily was for unethical purposes, but it is fair to ask if they met and if so, what the contents of that meeting were.

[BananaStand]

And of course, it's not fair to assume that because he talked to someone on Trump's personal law team about Mueller that it necessarily was for unethical purposes, but it is fair to ask if they met and if so, what the contents of that meeting were.

WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THE BOLDED INFORMATION??????????????????????????????????????? ??????

[Poopadoop]

WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THE BOLDED INFORMATION??????????????????????????????????????? ??????

Dude, take a xanax.

I got it from Harris' question, the same place as you.

If you like, we can say 'a lawyer on the firm formerly employed by Trump as his personal attorney'. Feel better now?

[MadMojoMonkey]

Why is it stupid and illogical?

Because blaming and/or punishing someone for something they didn't do is injustice.

If someone puts themselves in an ambiguous situation, where they could either be up to no good or it could be nothing, they're the unwise one, not the person who asks them about it. Even I know not to have a closed-door meeting with a female student in my office. That's not because every time I do, I'm offering them an A for a blowjob, it's because it opens me up to false allegations. And to the outside, objective observer it's difficult to prove my innocence since it would just be my word against someone else's. So, to avoid such a situation arising, I don't allow that to happen.

C'mon, man.

You were at home alone. It's possible you were watching kiddie-porn on the internets. Therefore, you should be treated like a pedophile.

I work on a college campus as well, and that rule is, of course, in place here. It's the reality that any student can accuse any member of the faculty or staff of assault and that's probably the end of that person's career. That is understandable from the administration's point of view, but still a miscarriage of justice. That staff or faculty member hasn't been found guilty of anything but breaking the company policy, but the result is that they will never work in academia again.

It's perverse and unjust. It's the reality of the college world, but it's no way for adults to treat each other.

And of course, it's not fair to assume that because he talked to someone on Trump's personal law team about Mueller that it necessarily was for unethical purposes, but it is fair to ask if they met and if so, what the contents of that meeting were.

That's my whole point. It's fair to ask, but her tone was not fair or open-minded.
She said she knows the answer.
She wants to trap him in some way.
How is that anything but childish?

[Poopadoop]

Because blaming and/or punishing someone for something they didn't do is injustice.

Who is blaming and punishing. All she did was ask a question. Try not to go full banana on filling in the blanks yourself here.

You were at home alone. It's possible you were watching kiddie-porn on the internets. Therefore, you should be treated like a pedophile.

Poor example, since it's easy to check my computer and see I was really looking at adult porn.

That's my whole point. It's fair to ask, but her tone was not fair or open-minded.
She said she knows the answer.
She wants to trap him in some way.
How is that anything but childish?

Fine, she's a nasty person by not offering him some milk and cookies and smiling sweetly at him.

FFS, it's a confirmation hearing, not a dinner with your grandma.

And I still want to see him answer the question.

[BananaStand]

Still not sure you have all the facts here.

Neither do you.

She asked "Did you talk about the Mueller probe with someone at XYZ lawfirm?" Slightly paraphrased.

BK has probably talked to 1000 lawyers about the Mueller probe. Is he supposed to recall each one, and then recall which firm each one was working for at the time? He didn't dodge the question. He said he was "happy to be refreshed". In other words, all Harris had to do was ask "did you talk to Mr. X ?" and then BK could give his answer. Instead, she grandstanded.

is it a coincidence that the most headline making lines of questioning came from the two opposing party senators with presidential aspirations?

Did you see Corey "Spartacus" Booker basically BEG to be martyred? This guy is the fucking Nick Cage of the senate. And for some reason, the liberal media keeps giving him a platform to be a complete douchebag.

[Poopadoop]

Neither do you.

Glad your here to fill in the blanks as you and/or Fox News see fit.

BK has probably talked to 1000 lawyers about the Mueller probe.

Based on what? He's going around daily talking to different lawyers about Mueller? It's all he or anyone in the legal profession ever talks about? He has 1000 lawyer friends? He's a judge, he's not the Head of the Lawyers Discussions of Mueller Club.

I'm guessing 1000 is a bit high.

But let's say it is a plausibly high number, like more than a couple of dozen. Go on.

Is he supposed to recall each one, and then recall which firm each one was working for at the time?

No, but he should be able to remember the time he met Trump's legal team (seems like a memorable thing) and if they happened to discuss the question of Mueller (which seems a potentially explosive topic given the job he's up for). He's supposed to be like a smart person.

He didn't dodge the question. He said he was "happy to be refreshed".

"He played it very lawyerly" is I think the wording you're looking for here. Gave himself plausible deniability while admitting to nothing.

Now, if it comes out (and I suspect it will) that he did talk to Trump U's law department, he hasn't lied, he simply 'couldn't remember'. Which of course everyone will know is b.s. but will be enough for Pres. "No flippers" to consider as passing the loyalty test.

[BananaStand]

Glad your here to fill in the blanks as you and/or Fox News see fit.

You can watch the actual hearings and see what happened for yourself. There's no spin here.

But let's say it is a plausibly high number, like more than a couple of dozen. Go on.

Do I need to go on? Isn't that enough??

No, but he should be able to remember the time he met Trump's legal team (seems like a memorable thing)

Please get your facts straight. He never "met with Trump's legal team"

Kamala Harris obviously found some piece of paper that shows BK talking to some lawyer about Mueller. She obviously has reason to believe that lawyer works at XYZ law firm. XYZ law firm was founded by Lawyer X. Lawyer X worked for Trump for about five minutes in 2017, and then resigned.

What Ms Harris is implying....is that there still exists some back-channel connection through this lawyer with which Trump currently has no client-relationship. And that Trump may be using that back channel to vet supreme court candidates.

Real foil hat shit.

[Poopadoop]

There's no spin here.

He never "met with Trump's legal team"

No spin, just the facts according to whatever fits your worldview. LoL.

Kamala Harris obviously found some piece of paper that shows BK talking to some lawyer about Mueller. She obviously has reason to believe that lawyer works at XYZ law firm. XYZ law firm was founded by Lawyer X. Lawyer X used to work for Trump and now does not.

What Ms Harris is implying....is that there is some back-channel connection through this lawyer with which Trump allegedly has no client-relationship. And that Trump may be using that back channel to vet supreme court candidates.

So you filled the rest of that in yourself too eh?

So basically whatever facts are missing you just make up as you see fit.

Let's walk that back: You don't know what Harris does or doesn't know or what Kavanaugh did or didn't do. It isn't public knowledge. But the fact you're blathering on about one specific possible scenario that makes it all seem as innocuous as possible doesn't surprise me.

Real foil hat shit.

It certainly passes the test of being mostly made up.

At least you're not saying it's all part of the plan to ensnare Obama.

[BananaStand]

So basically whatever facts are missing you just make up as you see fit.

No, I did research.

Mark Kasowitz was Trump's attorney for less than 60 days and their engagement ended over a year ago. Since that time, Trump appointed a whole other Supreme Court Justice.

What about that do you think is made up?

[Poopadoop]

No, I did research.

Mark Kasowitz was Trump's attorney for less than 60 days and their engagement ended over a year ago. During that time, Trump appointed a whole other Supreme Court Justice.

What about that do you think is made up?

Haha you sprinkled one "fact" into the rest of your narrative, and it turns out it isn't even close to being correct.

According to a May 23, 2017 article in Forward, Kasowitz, Benson, Torres, and Friedman has been a "go-to source" for Donald Trump for decades.[9] He has represented Donald Trump in his divorce proceedings, bankruptcy cases,[12] Trump University lawsuits,[17] during the 2016 presidential campaign regarding sexual misconduct allegations,[18] and during the Trump presidency in the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections.[4][19][20][21][22]

In Spring 2017, Kasowitz told associates that he had been personally responsible for the abrupt dismissal of U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara on March 11, 2017, having previously warned Trump, "This guy is going to get you".[23]

Kasowitz departed Trump's White House legal team on July 20, 2017.

Sounds like a real darling of a guy too.

Marc E. Kasowitz, President Trump’s longtime attorney representing him in the Russia investigations, reportedly sent angry, threatening and profane emails to a random stranger who criticized him this week, cursing at the man and telling him, “I already know where you live, I’m on you.”

Sorry but you're a shit witness.

[BananaStand]

You don't know what Harris does or doesn't know or what Kavanaugh did or didn't do.

It's completely reasonable to assume that she has a credible reason to believe that BK talked to someone at Kasowitz's law firm.

Otherwise her question would be highly unethical and a completely stupid thing to do if you're considering a Presidential run.

[Poopadoop]

It's completely reasonable to assume that she has a credible reason to believe that BK talked to someone at Kasowitz's law firm.

Otherwise her question would be highly unethical and a completely stupid thing to do if you're considering a Presidential run.

Again, specifics.

You don't know EXACTLY what Harris does or doesn't know or what K did or didn't do. You're filling in the blanks with your own/Fox News' best-case-scenario MadLibs.