International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   USA Politics (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Mueller Investigation pt5 (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=334804)

varwoche 14th February 2019 11:07 AM

Mueller Investigation pt5
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B (Post 12598858)
A gross display of willful ignorance.

Someone here may have pointed me to it, but this New York Times article and graphic tell a convincing story of over 100 contacts with Russians during the Trump campaign. To anyone with eyes to see.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...wikileaks.html

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7886/...b250514f_c.jpg

On the site, it’s an interactive chart where you can click on each contact or denial to see specifics.

Trump must be counting on plausible deniability. But the big question is whether it’s plausible that he knew nothing of any of this Russian involvement. Seems like a mountain of at least circumstancial evidence that he knew. We’ll see what Mueller has soon enough.

Simple yet highly effective way to view a complex timeline. I've been wanting to develop something like that for years.



Mod InfoContinued from here. You can quote or reply to any (on topic) posts from that thread here.
Posted By:zooterkin

BobTheCoward 14th February 2019 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crossbow (Post 12600554)
It sure amazing at how you can constantly make such inane assertions that are constantly based on a clear lack the most basic data ...

In this case, when Trump made his famous request to Russia for their help in obtaining the Clinton e-mails, there were already quite a few things going on.

First: Trump had already done several million dollars worth of business with Russia.
Second: Trump made it well known to quite a few highly placed Russians that he wanted to build one of his Trump hotels in Moscow, Russia.
Third: there were already several key Trump officials who were working/in contact with various Russians.
Fourth: Trump made it publicly clear several times just how much he loved Putin.
Fifth: only a few days after Trump made his request to Russia, then Trump became the Republican Presidential nominee as opposed to simply being some random person on an Internet Forum.

None of that alters anything. He is pro russian. The country he petitioned was Russia because he would like them to do it.

Crossbow 14th February 2019 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12600586)
None of that alters anything. He is pro russian. The country he petitioned was Russia because he would like them to do it.

You are wrong again because of course it does alter everything!

That is one of the reasons why the Mueller investigation has been going on for about the last two years.

jimbob 14th February 2019 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crossbow (Post 12600299)
Quote:

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey (Post 12600208)
Was listening to "All the President's Lawyers" podcast this morning and Ken White said something I found very interesting.

It is very possible that individual examples of corrupt behavior will not lead to Trump. In the example of Manafort, it is very possible that he was conniving with his Ukrainian/Russian benefactors for corrupt purposes totally without Trump's knowledge or approval.

This is not to say that Trump has not committed crimes, nor that he does not engage in corrupt actions for his own benefit that would be impeachable.

I think it's becoming increasingly clear that the Trump white house is a rudderless ship with an absentee leader. The white house is awash in unprincipled, power hungry people, each with their own constellation of conflicts of interest, often in direct opposition with each other. I could easily people like Kushner, Manafort, and others taking advantage of the total chaos and lack of oversight to run their own personal grifts and cons.

Of all the many, many crimes that have been committed, is think it's very likely that many don't reach Trump personally, simply for the fact that he's such a crappy leader that his subordinates are running side-cons when they should be working to advance the Trump org's own cons.

The trump org is a criminal enterprise, but a badly run one where the employees are regularly stealing company time for their own ends.

Thanks much! This is well said indeed.

From what I can understand about Trump is that he has always been the sort of supervisor who allows his subordinates a great deal of latitude in just how they carry out their various job duties provided that the subordinates do their job duties well and that the subordinates do not do anything which could actually hurt Trump himself.

And considering that Trump has spent his entire life being a lying, double-dealing, swindling POS in order to get what he wants, then one should not be surprised to learn that his subordinates are also a group of a lying, double-dealing, swindling POSs in order to get what they want.

Therefore, even if Trump himself is not actually guilty of Russian collusion but several members of his key staff are guilty of Russian collusion, then such an eventuality does not automatically exonerate Trump of this crime since Trump is morally and legally responsible for everything that his staff does in his name.

Indeed, why would Trump care as long as his ego is massaged and he gets some payback?

Having a load of amoral idiots around him means that they're not going to have any loyalty to anyone but themselves. Of course they'll be independently grifting as well as the crimes they commit with Trump's knowledge.

plague311 14th February 2019 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbob (Post 12600748)
Indeed, why would Trump care as long as his ego is massaged and he gets some payback?

Having a load of amoral idiots around him means that they're not going to have any loyalty to anyone but themselves. Of course they'll be independently grifting as well as the crimes they commit with Trump's knowledge.

So we had it wrong all along. He is playing 72D Chess. If everyone around you are constantly being looked at that means you have a force field of suck around you. No one truly notices how bad he sucks because of how bad everyone else around him sucks.

Delphic Oracle 14th February 2019 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slyjoe
Nope. Only federal crimes. Rape is prosecuted by the state.

Minor quibble: the example was beating to death, not rape.

Major quibble: what state is the Oval Office located in?

BobTheCoward 14th February 2019 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crossbow (Post 12600618)
You are wrong again because of course it does alter everything!

That is one of the reasons why the Mueller investigation has been going on for about the last two years.

We can bet on what we think the report will say about trump's comment at the rally.

carlitos 14th February 2019 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle (Post 12601061)

Major quibble: what state is the Oval Office located in?

I was thinking the same thing. The District prosecutes that type of felony, right? What if the victim was the navy person who brings the coffee - would that make it federal? Do they call in Mark Harmon and NCIS?

dudalb 14th February 2019 04:46 PM

Although it is not a state, the District of Columbia pretty functions in everything but having voting members of congress as a state does.

slyjoe 14th February 2019 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle (Post 12601061)
Minor quibble: the example was beating to death, not rape.

Major quibble: what state is the Oval Office located in?

You are correct - I read the post too quickly and misunderstood. My fault.

However, I believe most murders are also prosecuted at the state level.

Interesting article on 10 ways murder becomes a federal crime.

https://www.wklaw.com/10-ways-murder...federal-crime/

I think the "what state is the Oval Office in" has already been answered.

CapelDodger 14th February 2019 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbob (Post 12600748)
Indeed, why would Trump care as long as his ego is massaged and he gets some payback?

Having a load of amoral idiots around him means that they're not going to have any loyalty to anyone but themselves. Of course they'll be independently grifting as well as the crimes they commit with Trump's knowledge.

I commented at the start of the investigation that the kind of crooks and sharpies that populate his business and social cricle are exactly the sort of sketchy lawyers, money-movers and political hustlers that decended on Eastern Europe in the 90's for Grand Theft Soviet. It's inevitable that short-chain connections between Trump and very questionable Russian characters will be found, even if he wasn't aware of them. Unfair, but there it is.


Of course, the Trump Tower Moscow project, and Trump Tower New York meeting, demonstrate that Trump was completely aware of many of them.

Roger Ramjets 15th February 2019 01:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12600586)
He is pro quid pro quo russian. The country he petitioned was Russia because he would like them they would like him to do it.

ftfy

Captain_Swoop 15th February 2019 02:46 AM

Trump tweeted

“Trying to use the 25th Amendment to try and circumvent the Election is a despicable act of unconstitutional power grabbing...which happens in third world countries. You have to obey the law. This is an attack on our system & Constitution.” Alan Dershowitz. @TuckerCarlson

Squeegee Beckenheim 15th February 2019 03:40 AM

https://twitter.com/mschlapp/status/1096180928420950017

Quote:

Tomorrow will be the first day that President Trump will have a fully operational confirmed Attorney General. Let that sink in. Mueller will be gone soon.
Matt Schlapp is Mercedes Schlapp's husband. Mercedes Schlapp is the current White House Director of Strategic Communications, a job Trump created for Hope Hicks.

The Great Zaganza 15th February 2019 03:49 AM

I'm still deluding myself that Barr is actually a Mueller plant, a double agent who will work to surgically remove Trump in a way that leaves the GOP unscathed.

P.J. Denyer 15th February 2019 04:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop (Post 12601608)
Trump tweeted

“Trying to use the 25th Amendment to try and circumvent the Election is a despicable act of unconstitutional power grabbing...which happens in third world countries. You have to obey the law. This is an attack on our system & Constitution.” Alan Dershowitz. @TuckerCarlson

Only Trump would think that using an amendment to the Constitution for exactly it's intended purpose was unconstitutional.

dasmiller 15th February 2019 05:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop (Post 12601608)
Trump tweeted

“Trying to use the 25th Amendment to try and circumvent the Election is a despicable act of unconstitutional power grabbing...which happens in third world countries. You have to obey the law. This is an attack on our system & Constitution.” Alan Dershowitz. @TuckerCarlson

Clearly, McCabe (a Republican) and Rosenstein (a Republican) were so upset by a Republican winning the election that they sought to enlist Trump's Cabinet members (Republicans) to try to get Trump removed from office, making Pence (a Republican) the new President, as part of a Democrat power grab.

Yes, that makes perfect sense.

Ziggurat 15th February 2019 05:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dasmiller (Post 12601703)
Clearly, McCabe (a Republican) and Rosenstein (a Republican) were so upset by a Republican winning the election that they sought to enlist Trump's Cabinet members (Republicans) to try to get Trump removed from office, making Pence (a Republican) the new President, as part of a Democrat power grab.

Yes, that makes perfect sense.

You say that like intraparty disputes are impossible. Or that power struggles have to be about parties at all. Neither of these assumptions are correct.

The Great Zaganza 15th February 2019 06:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 12601706)
You say that like intraparty disputes are impossible. Or that power struggles have to be about parties at all. Neither of these assumptions are correct.

what is correct is that Republicans display far greater party unity than Democrats.
When many of them don't it means something big is up, something where members have to decide between the well-being of the party and that of the president.

WilliamSeger 15th February 2019 06:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza (Post 12601720)
what is correct is that Republicans display far greater party unity than Democrats.
When many of them don't it means something big is up, something where members have to decide between the well-being of the party and that of the president.

I think their decisions are always based on what's in their own best political interests first, not the party or the country. Previously, they calculated more damage from abandoning Trump than sticking with him. Now, the calculus has been changed by Trump's failed power grab. He's a Loser.

Stacko 15th February 2019 06:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza (Post 12601650)
I'm still deluding myself that Barr is actually a Mueller plant, a double agent who will work to surgically remove Trump in a way that leaves the GOP unscathed.

He helped Bush the Greater pardon himself out of Iran-Contra. He's a party over country toady.

The Great Zaganza 15th February 2019 06:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger (Post 12601727)
I think their decisions are always based on what's in their own best political interests first, not the party or the country. Previously, they calculated more damage from abandoning Trump than sticking with him. Now, the calculus has been changed by Trump's failed power grab. He's a Loser.

occasionally, the interests of the Country and personal political interests might align.
total loyalty to an effing moron can't really be in anyone's long-term political interest.

Ziggurat 15th February 2019 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza (Post 12601720)
what is correct is that Republicans display far greater party unity than Democrats.
When many of them don't it means something big is up, something where members have to decide between the well-being of the party and that of the president.

What makes you think party affiliation is more important than institutional affiliation here?

The Great Zaganza 15th February 2019 06:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 12601736)
What makes you think party affiliation is more important than institutional affiliation here?

empirical data.

Ziggurat 15th February 2019 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza (Post 12601737)
empirical data.

Show me.

Crossbow 15th February 2019 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12601138)
We can bet on what we think the report will say about trump's comment at the rally.

A bet is fine with provided that you can stay actually manage to stay on point for a small period of time.

What you were originally stating that is your request for action now from the US government (in regards to the arrest of a Forum member) is equivalent to the request that Trump made to Russian government back in July 2016 (in regard to the Clinton e-mails).

If you can show such equivalence, then I will give you $50.00.

If you cannot show such equivalence, then you give me $1.00.

Those are 50:1 odds in your favor, so that should be a fair bet.

phiwum 15th February 2019 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer (Post 12601671)
Only Trump would think that using an amendment to the Constitution for exactly it's intended purpose was unconstitutional.

That's a quote from Dershowitz, so not only Trump.

Yes, I know that lots of folk think Dershowitz is off the rails on all things Trump. I'm just pointing out that it's not only Trump who thinks thus.

carlitos 15th February 2019 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slyjoe (Post 12601252)

I think the "what state is the Oval Office in" has already been answered.

A sorry state.

dasmiller 15th February 2019 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 12601706)
You say that like intraparty disputes are impossible. Or that power struggles have to be about parties at all. Neither of these assumptions are correct.

I really, really don't see how you're getting that from what I said.

Ziggurat 15th February 2019 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dasmiller (Post 12601867)
I really, really don't see how you're getting that from what I said.

"as part of a Democrat power grab" isn't in any part of what you quoted, it isn't any part of their claim, you inserted it yourself. What's the justification for that insertion? If you assume intraparty disputes never happen, then that insertion makes sense. If you don't assume that, then your insertion doesn't make sense. You can't get that from what they said.

Ironic.

dasmiller 15th February 2019 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 12601939)
"as part of a Democrat power grab" isn't in any part of what you quoted, it isn't any part of their claim, you inserted it yourself.

I think it was exactly what Trump was implying. My use of it was sarcastic. Perhaps I was too subtle.

Ziggurat 15th February 2019 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dasmiller (Post 12601986)
It was sarcastic. Perhaps it was too subtle.

I know it was sarcasm. But sarcasm still requires a kind of logic, which was missing here.

wareyin 15th February 2019 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 12601992)
I know it was sarcasm. But sarcasm still requires a kind of logic, which was missing here.

No. Most, if not all, of what Trump says has no logic behind it, yet sarcasm is an entirely valid way to respond.

Ziggurat 15th February 2019 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 12602015)
No. Most, if not all, of what Trump says has no logic behind it, yet sarcasm is an entirely valid way to respond.

The problem isn't responding to Trump with sarcasm. The problem is that what was said in response still makes no sense. That post was invalid. Nothing in anyone's response makes it any more valid. And Trump wasn't even the original source of what it was trying to criticize.

wareyin 15th February 2019 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 12602028)
The problem isn't responding to Trump with sarcasm. The problem is that what was said in response still makes no sense. That post was invalid. Nothing in anyone's response makes it any more valid. And Trump wasn't even the original source of what it was trying to criticize.

I will grant that you seem to lack the ability to make sense of what dasmiller wrote, but I can assure you that not everyone shares your failing.

Ziggurat 15th February 2019 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 12602042)
I will grant that you seem to lack the ability to make sense of what dasmiller wrote, but I can assure you that not everyone shares your failing.

I understand what it means perfectly well. It's just wrong.

wareyin 15th February 2019 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 12602045)
I understand what it means perfectly well. It's just wrong.

It does not make sense but you understand it perfectly well? Sure.

Segnosaur 15th February 2019 03:04 PM

Sarah Huckabee Sanders was interviewed as part of the Mueller investigation...

From: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/15/spec...e-sanders.html
Special counsel Robert Mueller's team has interviewed President Donald Trump's press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders...That interview reportedly occurred in early fall of 2018.

I do wonder in the value of interviewing someone like her, whether Mueller expects to get any valuable information on her, or whether she was interviewed as a way to send a message to Trump.

Iamafalser 15th February 2019 04:04 PM

I mostly just lurk here for entertainment purposes but I can't figure something out:

On the one hand, Trump is an out of control idiot/crazy person who acts solely on impulse without thinking things through, right?

Yet at the same time he's also some sort of criminal mastermind who's been engaged in all sorts of criminal activity like money laundering or whatever for decades and being Putin's bitch without ever leaving a shred of legally incriminating evidence behind.

I'm sorry but these two scenarios simply do not seem at all congruous to me.

Trebuchet 15th February 2019 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iamafalser (Post 12602486)
I mostly just lurk here for entertainment purposes but I can't figure something out:

On the one hand, Trump is an out of control idiot/crazy person who acts solely on impulse without thinking things through, right?

Yet at the same time he's also some sort of criminal mastermind who's been engaged in all sorts of criminal activity like money laundering or whatever for decades and being Putin's bitch without ever leaving a shred of legally incriminating evidence behind.

I'm sorry but these two scenarios simply do not seem at all congruous to me.

Yeah, that lack of a shred of evidence is sure interesting when his henchmen have already been convicted with it.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:38 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.