The Mueller Investigation

Archive From The 'Tank
Locked
User avatar
TheFallen
Master of Innominate Surquedry
Posts: 3163
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 3:16 pm
Location: Guildford, UK
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 1 time

Post by TheFallen »

Skyweir wrote:And Kudos to you Nano for your reasonable and evenly worded reply 👌👌👌👌

This has been a good page and read 👌
Well we can't be having that going on, can we?

Fuck! Shit! Bollocks to the lot of you!







For info, I have very recently bought myself a diagnosis over the Internet and now have conclusive proof that my behaviour is a very specialised form of Tourette's syndrome helplessly instilled in me solely by Left-leaning media bias. I therefore promptly abrogate entire personal responsibility in this and all other matters.
Newsflash: the word "irony" doesn't mean "a bit like iron" :roll:

Shockingly, some people have claimed that I'm egocentric... but hey, enough about them

"If you strike me down, I shall become far stronger than you can possibly imagine."
_______________________________________________
I occasionally post things here because I am invariably correct on all matters, a thing which is educational for others less fortunate.
User avatar
Skyweir
Lord of Light
Posts: 25977
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2002 6:27 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 20 times

Post by Skyweir »

mmm.. thats a perfect example of a caveat waiver that dont hold no water .. and further is utterly ludicrous and indefensible

Fairly ordinary try ... and not particularly creative 😉

It IS ok to suppress non existent Tourettes in the interests of a healthy exchange of thoughts and ideas ya know 😉

Its all about posture, no?
ImageImageImageImage
keep smiling 😊 :D 😊

'Smoke me a kipper .. I'll be back for breakfast!'
Image

EZBoard SURVIVOR
User avatar
TheFallen
Master of Innominate Surquedry
Posts: 3163
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 3:16 pm
Location: Guildford, UK
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 1 time

Post by TheFallen »

Skyweir wrote:mmm.. thats a perfect example of a caveat waiver that dont hold no water .. and further is utterly ludicrous and indefensible
You think?

Gee, if only I'd absolutely specifically meant it to be taken exactly as that...

But thank God for rigorous and razor-sharp post analysis, eh?

Image
Newsflash: the word "irony" doesn't mean "a bit like iron" :roll:

Shockingly, some people have claimed that I'm egocentric... but hey, enough about them

"If you strike me down, I shall become far stronger than you can possibly imagine."
_______________________________________________
I occasionally post things here because I am invariably correct on all matters, a thing which is educational for others less fortunate.
User avatar
Skyweir
Lord of Light
Posts: 25977
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2002 6:27 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 20 times

Post by Skyweir »

Well thats what the emojis are for smarty pants :P

NB Emoji 😉

But its not as fun if you have to explain it, is it? 😉
ImageImageImageImage
keep smiling 😊 :D 😊

'Smoke me a kipper .. I'll be back for breakfast!'
Image

EZBoard SURVIVOR
User avatar
TheFallen
Master of Innominate Surquedry
Posts: 3163
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 3:16 pm
Location: Guildford, UK
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 1 time

Post by TheFallen »

In my experience, there is rarely any occasion in any internet-based discussion where pulling out a Picard facepalm image is not both entirely apposite and entirely evocative.

:P :P :P
Newsflash: the word "irony" doesn't mean "a bit like iron" :roll:

Shockingly, some people have claimed that I'm egocentric... but hey, enough about them

"If you strike me down, I shall become far stronger than you can possibly imagine."
_______________________________________________
I occasionally post things here because I am invariably correct on all matters, a thing which is educational for others less fortunate.
User avatar
Skyweir
Lord of Light
Posts: 25977
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2002 6:27 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 20 times

Post by Skyweir »

Hahaha 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Cannot argue with that 😂 Indubitably sir, indubitably 😉
ImageImageImageImage
keep smiling 😊 :D 😊

'Smoke me a kipper .. I'll be back for breakfast!'
Image

EZBoard SURVIVOR
User avatar
lucimay
Lord
Posts: 15044
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 5:17 pm
Location: Mott Wood, Genebakis
Contact:

Post by lucimay »

ur-Nanothnir wrote:Fair enough, luci. Yes, I admit the post was hyperbolic. Glad to see that you took it in good spirit.
:D
you're more advanced than a cockroach,
have you ever tried explaining yourself
to one of them?
~ alan bates, the mothman prophecies



i've had this with actors before, on the set,
where they get upset about the [size of my]
trailer, and i'm always like...take my trailer,
cause... i'm from Kentucky
and that's not what we brag about.
~ george clooney, inside the actor's studio



a straight edge for legends at
the fold - searching for our
lost cities of gold. burnt tar,
gravel pits. sixteen gears switch.
Haphazard Lucy strolls by.
~ dennis r wood ~
User avatar
Zarathustra
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19672
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:23 am
Been thanked: 1 time

Post by Zarathustra »

Vraith wrote:
It's not circular, itls pretty linear. I'm "assuming" he fired him because of the investigations because he SAID he fired him because of the investigations. I'm assuming there are crimes to uncover because crimes HAVE been uncovered. It may be wrong, but it isn't unreasonable or circular.
Trump did not say that he fired Comey because of the investigations. This is one of those Leftist myths that you guys like to tell each other, similar to, "Trump said all Mexicans are rapists."

If you'd provided the quote with a link we could have debated exactly what he said. But, as always, that burden falls on me:
He [Rosenstein] made a recommendation, he's highly respected, very good guy, very smart guy. The Democrats like him, the Republicans like him. He made a recommendation. But regardless of [the] recommendation, I was going to fire Comey. Knowing there was no good time to do it!

And in fact when I decided to just do it I said to myself, I said, "You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story, it's an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should've won."

And the reason they should've won it is, the Electoral College is almost impossible for a Republican to win, it's very hard, because you start off at such a disadvantage. So everybody was thinking they should have won the election. This was an excuse for having lost an election.
Just because Trump is verbalizing an internal dialog that the had with himself while he made the decision to fire Comey doesn't mean that's why he fired Comey. For instance, I'm sure lots of you were having thoughts about Cail when you decided to ban him that weren't *the* reasons for your decision to ban him (such as, "fuck him" or "I hate that motherfucker" or "I hope he rots in hell"). "When" does not equal "because."

Later in the article, it says this:
When Holt then pressed Trump on the topic, he maintained that he wanted the investigation "to be absolutely done properly." Since he was concerned the firing would "confuse people," he went on, perhaps he would even "lengthen" the investigation:

Look, let me tell you, as far as I'm concerned I want that thing [the Russia investigation] to be absolutely done properly. When I did this now I said, "I probably, maybe, will confuse people, maybe I'll expand that, you know, I'll lengthen the time" - because it should be over with, in my opinion it should've been over with a long time ago, because all it is is an excuse. But I said to myself, "I might even lengthen out the investigation."
So why would Trump want the investigation to be done properly if he fired Comey because of the investigation? The investigation never stopped, you might have noticed. If firing Comey was a way to stop this investigation, why would Trump let it continue?

Trump thinks in non sequiturs. One thing reminds him of another thing and he just says it. But that's not the same as him saying one is the cause of the other.

For this, and many other reasons, I have no confidence in your ability to determine what is or is not a fact. You once claimed Rasmussen was off by a ridiculously large margin in predicting the last election, and when I checked, they were the only ones accurately predict the exact percentage point spread between Hillary and Trump (in a 4 way race). You brushed off that point as if you were still right! So you don't even have an error-correction instinct in your fact-checking.

Which is why I think this little fable is utter bullshit:
Vraith wrote: Those numbers are pretty easy to see. You could do it yourself. Pick a couple speeches and a day or two worth of twitter. Count the fact-claims. Check how many are true.
When I did it, the total was nearly 100%...HIGHER than what I said, bu there's room for error, so I gave him a break.
I "assume" he's doing it on purpose, because many of them he repeats over, and over, and over, EVEN THOUGH they've been shown to be untrue.


Dude---I fucking almost ALWAYS do the damn math.
When I don't I fucking say "Guestimate" "I suspect" "Seems like about"
You went to all the trouble to check every fact claim in one of Trump's speeches, and then kept that to yourself? You did all that work and then didn't post the results? Right. I don't believe for a second that this occurred. But if it did, I expect that your "facts" you found were very much like "Trump admitted he fired Comey because of the investigation." That's an interpretation, not a fact, and I think you have a hard time telling the difference. You believe what you want to be true, and utterly dismiss any evidence which contradicts this belief.

Now, for circular reasoning: Trump committed a crime because Trump committed a crime. The form of your argument is circular. Yes, you are talking about two different crimes (obstruction of justice vs whatever crime he was trying to hide). But the point is that you think he's guilty because you think he's guilty. Ultimately, your assumption rests on nothing else than that. You can't infer that Trump committed a crime because other people did. There has never been any evidence that he committed a crime himself. But you assume it as your starting point, and build everything else from there, including that he can't fire his own employees without that also being a crime, and then chastising us for not believing it, too.

Why don't we just wait and see before we make up our minds and chastising people for disagreeing? Like I said, the investigation continued. These questions will be answered.
Vraith wrote: You are free to check it. In this case, I just told you how, above.
Thanks for the help, but I've known how to count things for about as long as I can remember, so I'm good. :lol:
Joe Biden … putting the Dem in dementia since (at least) 2020.
User avatar
Ur Dead
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 2295
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 1:17 am

Post by Ur Dead »

Nancy Pelosi just stated that she will not impeach Trump.


https://www.yahoo.com/news/pelosi-not-w ... 22650.html

Saids it's not worth it. Or will but barring overwhelming new evidence
she isn't going forward. Tells me a few things.
Maxine Waters is under the bus.
I suspect that Pelosi knows the main part of Mueller's report and there
doesn't have any evidence of collusion with the Russians.
She CYA her position more against backlash from the Republicans and the
people (See!!! I prefer to be on the side of justice.. :fim: ) than from the
more radical people from her party.
Politics at it's finest...
What's this silver looking ring doing on my finger?
User avatar
Gaius Octavius
American Royalist and Admirer of All Things British
Posts: 3342
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2018 8:32 pm

Post by Gaius Octavius »

Some purple haired women and hipster men will be pissed.
User avatar
aliantha
blueberries on steroids
Posts: 17865
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2002 7:50 pm
Location: NOT opening up a restaurant in Santa Fe

Post by aliantha »

How would Nancy Pelosi know what's in Mueller's report when he hasn't even given it to his boss at the DOJ yet?

This isn't the first time Pelosi has expressed her reluctance to impeach Trump. But I've yet to see her say that the House committees now investigating the Russia affair should stand down.

TBH, I think her biggest concern is that the impeachment process will suck all the air out of the room; once the process starts, the House won't get anything else done. And she doesn't want that as her signature accomplishment in her last go-round as Speaker.
Image
Image

EZ Board Survivor

"Dreaming isn't good for you unless you do the things it tells you to." -- Three Dog Night (via the GI)

https://www.hearth-myth.com/
User avatar
Hashi Lebwohl
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19576
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:38 pm

Post by Hashi Lebwohl »

aliantha wrote:How would Nancy Pelosi know what's in Mueller's report when he hasn't even given it to his boss at the DOJ yet?
She outranks the Attorney General. You don't think she has enough clout to manage to get her hands on Mueller's report?

Ms. Pelosi is in a difficult spot re: impeachment. If she does allow impeachment hearings then the House is completely stalled for a couple of months, nothing else will get done, and the Senate will take a week or two to conclude "no guilty" and leave Trump in office with a fired-up electoral base. If she does not allow impeachment hearings then she upsets all the non-moderate Democrats who now constitute a majority and so her final legacy will be to splinter the Party.
The Tank is gone and now so am I.
User avatar
lucimay
Lord
Posts: 15044
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 5:17 pm
Location: Mott Wood, Genebakis
Contact:

Post by lucimay »

aliantha wrote:
TBH, I think her biggest concern is that the impeachment process will suck all the air out of the room; once the process starts, the House won't get anything else done. And she doesn't want that as her signature accomplishment in her last go-round as Speaker.
yeah that's what she was quoted as saying in the article I read, that they'd get nothing done and that 45 "isn't worth it."
you're more advanced than a cockroach,
have you ever tried explaining yourself
to one of them?
~ alan bates, the mothman prophecies



i've had this with actors before, on the set,
where they get upset about the [size of my]
trailer, and i'm always like...take my trailer,
cause... i'm from Kentucky
and that's not what we brag about.
~ george clooney, inside the actor's studio



a straight edge for legends at
the fold - searching for our
lost cities of gold. burnt tar,
gravel pits. sixteen gears switch.
Haphazard Lucy strolls by.
~ dennis r wood ~
User avatar
Ur Dead
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 2295
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 1:17 am

Post by Ur Dead »

It didn't take long to impeach Clinton..
They expect that to drag out for months...
It would only take a week if they cut out the reps chance at making a
speech. (long winded bastards)
Presents the charges, vote and if impeached, sent it on... (egotistical long winded bastards)
What's this silver looking ring doing on my finger?
User avatar
Hashi Lebwohl
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19576
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:38 pm

Post by Hashi Lebwohl »

Ur Dead wrote:It didn't take long to impeach Clinton..
They expect that to drag out for months...
It would only take a week if they cut out the reps chance at making a
speech. (long winded bastards)
Presents the charges, vote and if impeached, sent it on... (egotistical long winded bastards)
There are too many Members in the House who would use impeachment hearings as their free platform for presenting their 2020 re-election campaign speech. Grandstanding and being in the spotlight are too tempting to ignore.
The Tank is gone and now so am I.
User avatar
Vraith
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 10621
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 8:03 pm
Location: everywhere, all the time

Post by Vraith »

Zarathustra wrote:Leftist myths that you guys like to tell each other, similar to, "Trump said all Mexicans are rapists."

they were the only ones accurately predict the exact percentage point spread between Hillary and Trump (in a 4 way race). You brushed off that point as if you were still right!


You went to all the trouble to check.......You did all that work
I meant to do some of this last time. On the first, it can't be a Leftist myth when none of the Leftists say/believe that. You could probably find a small cult that thinks it. The vast majority think he said what he said, which overstates in the extreme to make them look much, much worse than any decent person. [[otherwise known as lying his ass off---like pretty much all his claims about immigration]]

I am right about Ras. They are almost always an outlier, with a large lean to the right. Read the thing you linked. They were [from memory]---OUTSIDE the margin of error on Clinton, OUTSIDE the margin of error on Trump, and any random pair of number remaining---since there were so few---would have been within the margin. Just cuz Ras guessed 3-1, and the result was 6-4, and were right about the difference [2] doesn't mean they were "most accurate." Many...and almost every major....came much closer to both the real number of votes and the real percentage of the vote, and within the margin of error.
Their claim is not how accuracy works. Not how any of it works.

All the TROUBLE? It took hardly any time. His speeches [hell, almost all speeches, particularly politician's speeches] are 75-80% Marshmallow Fluff, 15 or 20% things that have been said many times before and are already known false [[like, you know, undocumented people are super dangerous, and other countries send us their bad people on purpose]].
That only leaves about 5 things to check...and they're usually such whoppers, it only takes a second.

Somehow I chopped it out, not gonna start over. I think Trump committed crimes because there is probable cause---good reason for suspicion...That's what investigations are for. And anything that interferes with the investigation looks, for perfectly valid and reasonable reasons, like IT could be a crime, too.
There's nothing circular about it AT ALL. I'm not sure he obstructed...but my reasons for suspecting it are as good as your reasons for laughing it off.
I don't know that he, personally, conspired with the Russians to sway the election, either---but I'm nearly 100% convinced there are crimes he is hiding. By him and/or his people. Big ones.

Time will tell.

--------------------IMPEACH-------------------------------------
Impeachment would be dumb until/unless something truly massive/horrid and with rock-solid, easily understandable evidence cuz you need 20 Senate Republicans to convict, and they don't give a flying fuck about guilt, only reelection...and impeachment with no chance of conviction is DUMB.
[spoiler]Sig-man, Libtard, Stupid piece of shit. change your text color to brown. Mr. Reliable, bullshit-slinging liarFucker-user.[/spoiler]
the difference between evidence and sources: whether they come from the horse's mouth or a horse's ass.
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
the hyperbole is a beauty...for we are then allowed to say a little more than the truth...and language is more efficient when it goes beyond reality than when it stops short of it.
User avatar
Zarathustra
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19672
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:23 am
Been thanked: 1 time

Post by Zarathustra »

Vraith wrote: I meant to do some of this last time. On the first, it can't be a Leftist myth when none of the Leftists say/believe that. You could probably find a small cult that thinks it. The vast majority think he said what he said, which overstates in the extreme to make them look much, much worse than any decent person. [[otherwise known as lying his ass off---like pretty much all his claims about immigration]]
No, this doesn't jibe with the idea that Trump is a racist because he called Mexicans murderers and criminals. If the Left concedes the point that he wasn't talking about ALL Mexicans, then they can't also believe that he's a racist. Overstating a fact in order to drive public policy to action doesn't make you a racist. That's called being a politician.
Vraith wrote: I am right about Ras. They are almost always an outlier, with a large lean to the right.
You may be right about them leaning right, or often being an outlier. But your specific claim was this:
Vraith wrote:
Rasmussen has a well-known Rep-leaning bias. I'm pretty sure they were not even in the top 20 accuracy in 2008, 12, 16 [once were in the midterms, don't recall which].
You said they weren't in the top 20 in accuracy, including 2016. And when I checked for 2016, I found that they were the only ones to predict that Hillary would win the popular vote by 2 percentage points. Surely that's the opposite of "not even in the top 20 accuracy." No other poll correctly predicted the spread. While it's true that some others were closer to the actual percentage of the vote for each candidate, the result that matters is which candidate will win and how close they are. Also, Rasmussen's result was very close to the margin of error: 2.5 percentage points was the margin, whereas they were off by 3.
Vraith wrote: There's nothing circular about it AT ALL. I'm not sure he obstructed...but my reasons for suspecting it are as good as your reasons for laughing it off.
I don't know that he, personally, conspired with the Russians to sway the election, either---but I'm nearly 100% convinced there are crimes he is hiding. By him and/or his people. Big ones.

Time will tell.

--------------------IMPEACH-------------------------------------
Impeachment would be dumb until/unless something truly massive/horrid and with rock-solid, easily understandable evidence cuz you need 20 Senate Republicans to convict, and they don't give a flying fuck about guilt, only reelection...and impeachment with no chance of conviction is DUMB.
Ok, now see, that sounds reasonable. But it's a hell of a lot different from saying, "I hope you all suffer the consequences of being wrong." If you'd just said all along that there isn't enough evidence to impeach and that it's possible he didn't obstruct justice, then we would have had very little disagreement.
Joe Biden … putting the Dem in dementia since (at least) 2020.
User avatar
Zarathustra
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19672
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:23 am
Been thanked: 1 time

Post by Zarathustra »

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:

Ms. Pelosi is in a difficult spot re: impeachment. If she does allow impeachment hearings then the House is completely stalled for a couple of months, nothing else will get done, and the Senate will take a week or two to conclude "no guilty" and leave Trump in office with a fired-up electoral base. If she does not allow impeachment hearings then she upsets all the non-moderate Democrats who now constitute a majority and so her final legacy will be to splinter the Party.
Impeachment talk was just a short-term tactic to win the 2018 midterms. I'm not sure it was worth it, given than it was a bluff that will backfire in 2020.
Joe Biden … putting the Dem in dementia since (at least) 2020.
User avatar
Vraith
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 10621
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 8:03 pm
Location: everywhere, all the time

Post by Vraith »

Zarathustra wrote:Impeachment talk was just a short-term tactic to win the 2018 midterms.
Ummm....that memo must have gone missing....close to no Dem's campaigned on impeachment that I recall. Wasn't in campaign adverts, wasn't on their web-pages, not in their speeches...and the one Billionaire Club Funder who was REALLY into it---Tom Steyer---kept getting told to shut the hell up. [[Or, more politely, "we do not support his position on this issue."
[spoiler]Sig-man, Libtard, Stupid piece of shit. change your text color to brown. Mr. Reliable, bullshit-slinging liarFucker-user.[/spoiler]
the difference between evidence and sources: whether they come from the horse's mouth or a horse's ass.
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
the hyperbole is a beauty...for we are then allowed to say a little more than the truth...and language is more efficient when it goes beyond reality than when it stops short of it.
User avatar
Zarathustra
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19672
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:23 am
Been thanked: 1 time

Post by Zarathustra »

Vraith wrote:
Zarathustra wrote:Impeachment talk was just a short-term tactic to win the 2018 midterms.
Ummm....that memo must have gone missing....close to no Dem's campaigned on impeachment that I recall. Wasn't in campaign adverts, wasn't on their web-pages, not in their speeches...and the one Billionaire Club Funder who was REALLY into it---Tom Steyer---kept getting told to shut the hell up. [[Or, more politely, "we do not support his position on this issue."
Sometimes you don't need a memo. Sometimes you just need a useful idiot, like Maxine Waters. She said it enough for the whole party. And there was also the mainstream media, which has been salivating over the idea since Trump took office.
WASHINGTON - Most Americans think Democrats will try to impeach President Donald Trump if they retake the House, but the issue, which once seem destined to play a starring role in the midterm elections, has been surprisingly absent from the campaign trail.
Link

They got the idea somewhere. It's kind of like how libs just assumed that the Democratic Party was the party for gay rights, even while Obama and Hillary and just about every other major party leader was saying they were against gay marriage, 10 years ago. Dems are masters of these kinds of Jedi mind tricks.
Joe Biden … putting the Dem in dementia since (at least) 2020.
Locked

Return to “Coercri”