Ed Breaking: Mueller Grand Jury charges filed, arrests as soon as Monday

Status
Not open for further replies.
Skeptic Ginger said:
Maybe if you would stop wasting post after post imagining you weren't heard and instead just say what it is you think I missed, I could stop thinking I didn't miss a thing.
Click to expand...

You claim to have read all the relevant posts and not seen an explanation.

I don't know where to go from there.

I believe you did read all the posts, and I believe that you believe there was no explanation within them.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Fox News contributor Mike Huckabee went on air to push Trump and the GOP to use police against the FBI — knowing full well Trump takes his governing cues from their network.

In the latest installment of Fox News’ war on the FBI, contributor Mike Huckabee suggested on air that Republicans use the Capitol police against the FBI as the agency conducts its ongoing investigation of the Trump administration.

“Maybe [GOP congressmen] should have gotten the Capitol police to go over to the FBI and conducted the same kind of raid on the FBI that the FBI went and conducted on Michael Cohen, the president’s private attorney.”

https://shareblue.com/mike-huckabee-capitol-police-fbi-investigation/
Click to expand...
I was never fond of Huckabee, but that's beyond the pale.
 
LTC8K6 said:
You claim to have read all the relevant posts and not seen an explanation.

I don't know where to go from there.

I believe you did read all the posts, and I believe that you believe there was no explanation within them.
Click to expand...
So what are we up to now? Four posts of you telling me I should know something but you refuse to simply repeat what it is you think I should know.

BTW, your definition of "all the relevant posts" is not my definition of "I read the entire post I quoted when replying to you."
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
So what are we up to now? Four posts of you telling me I should know something but you refuse to simply repeat what it is you think I should know.

BTW, your definition of "all the relevant posts" is not my definition of "I read the entire post I quoted when replying to you."
Click to expand...

#2207

LT - You should read all of the posts
SG - I did

"posts"

"I did"

...
 
LTC8K6 said:
#2207

LT - You should read all of the posts
SG - I did

"posts"

"I did"

...
Click to expand...
Using the multi-quote feature to correct for your cherry-picked quotes and quote editing:
LTC8K6 said:
You really should read all the posts before you respond.
Click to expand...
Skeptic Ginger said:
I did.

Here it is again in its entirety just like I quoted it:
Raiding the lawyer would then seem to me like a last resort sort of thing, where you haven't found anything you can use, so figure out a way to take the drastic step of raiding the lawyer's office.
Click to expand...
I fail to see any point you are making claiming I should have read it.
Click to expand...
So, did you miss "here it is again"?


But even if you were referring to posts going back pages, I don't see anything that makes your snark 'I should read [X] before responding' make any sense.


Perhaps if we review and I highlight the salient points:
LTC8K6 said:
Raiding the lawyer would then seem to me like a last resort sort of thing, where you haven't found anything you can use, so figure out a way to take the drastic step of raiding the lawyer's office.
Click to expand...
Skeptic Ginger said:
You guys have interesting filter-glasses on.

Is this really the only reason you can see for the Cohen subpoenas?

Because there have been dozens of other reasons cited in this thread alone.

And last resort was not one of them until your post.

There were however, lots of reasons one had to have some serious incriminating evidence to get a warrant to search any attorney's office.
Click to expand...


Nothing going back in the exchange gave me reason to change what I said. It really was a simple thing, surely not worth all this subsequent game playing on your part suggesting I missed something you posted earlier.
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Not if he wanted to gather as much information on Trump as possible before explicitly moving against him.
Click to expand...

LTC8K6 said:
Wouldn't Mueller raid both Trump and Cohen if he had something on Trump?

Is it common to raid a target's lawyer first?

Or is a raid on the President seen as too far?
Click to expand...

Nope, don't see a thing. You said raiding Cohen's office must be a last resort because Mueller hadn't found anything. I said nonsense, there are plenty of reasons besides not having found anything.


There are more than a few of you in this thread claiming repeatedly Mueller must not have anything on Trump because Mueller did/is doing [X]. It ignores the evidence we know Mueller has on Trump. Evidence that has been listed multiple times in multiple posts. It keeps disappearing from certain forum member's minds. Too complicated to keep past evidence in the forefront in addition to new evidence piling up on top of it maybe?
 
“Maybe [GOP congressmen] should have gotten the Capitol police to go over to the FBI and conducted the same kind of raid on the FBI that the FBI went and conducted on Michael Cohen, the president’s private attorney.”
Click to expand...

Meaning with a search warrant authorized by a DA and signed by a federal judge?
 
It's coming down to a basic question:are we to be governed by the Law or by the whims of a single individual?

I am disgusted beyond saying the COnservatives, who should be strongly about preserving the idea of rule by law are throwing it to the wolves in pursuit of power,forgetting that the wolves are likely to turn on them very quickly when no other prey is left.
 
dudalb said:
It's coming down to a basic question:are we to be governed by the Law or by the whims of a single individual?

I am disgusted beyond saying the COnservatives, who should be strongly about preserving the idea of rule by law are throwing it to the wolves in pursuit of power,forgetting that the wolves are likely to turn on them very quickly when no other prey is left.
Click to expand...

The US isn't really a "rule of law" system. The Constitution explicitly vests all executive power in the president. That is generally counter to rule of law systems that would consider limiting, distributing, or delineating executive power.
 
BobTheCoward said:
The US isn't really a "rule of law" system. The Constitution explicitly vests all executive power in the president. That is generally counter to rule of law systems that would consider limiting, distributing, or delineating executive power.
Click to expand...

Sorry, you DONT know what you are talking about.
 
Dragon said:
I'm a retired cop so perhaps a bit cynical sometimes. That said, I've just Googled Mr Broidy - he's had quite the career in the recent past it seems. His ethical standards are as high as we've come to expect from anyone associated with Trump and the GOP.
Click to expand...

According to the Washington Post (I don't have a link since it's on my tablet): "The deal also allowed the woman to keep the baby, determine paternity and seek child support if she chose to do so."

If that's the case, then it sounds like he overpaid.
 
acbytesla said:
Sorry, you DONT know what you are talking about.
Click to expand...


This particular spiel is one of BTC's favorite honey traps. Don't let yourself get sucked in. The only hope of escape is to disengage, and any dialogue in the interim won't be (dialogue, that is), and won't enlighten anyone else, either.

So get it over with quickly and disengage while you're ahead.
 
Dragon said:
I'm a retired cop so perhaps a bit cynical sometimes. That said, I've just Googled Mr Broidy - he's had quite the career in the recent past it seems. His ethical standards are as high as we've come to expect from anyone associated with Trump and the GOP.
Click to expand...


Wow. That low!!! :jaw-dropp

It's really kinda impressive how far someone has to dig themselves down these days to reach that level. Not the work of an incautious minute or two. It takes real industry and dedication.

"Lower than a snake's belly." just doesn't do it justice any more.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Fox News contributor Mike Huckabee went on air to push Trump and the GOP to use police against the FBI — knowing full well Trump takes his governing cues from their network.

In the latest installment of Fox News’ war on the FBI, contributor Mike Huckabee suggested on air that Republicans use the Capitol police against the FBI as the agency conducts its ongoing investigation of the Trump administration.

“Maybe [GOP congressmen] should have gotten the Capitol police to go over to the FBI and conducted the same kind of raid on the FBI that the FBI went and conducted on Michael Cohen, the president’s private attorney.”

https://shareblue.com/mike-huckabee-capitol-police-fbi-investigation/
Click to expand...

He's dumber than his daughter. And as a legal analyst, he makes a pretty good preacher.
 
Now that we're at war, think the public will rally behind Cheetolini to stop the investigation?
 
The Big Dog said:
Devastating.

I wonder if all the people who thought it was unfair that he got fired before his entire pension are going to walk that back, particularly given the fact he is lucky not to have his ass indicted.

Man, the fbi under comey was a complete cluster ****.
Click to expand...

Yep, pretty much. The president called him a drama queen from the beginning, looks like he was correct.

And he may still be indicted, he is a known leaker.
 
acbytesla said:
Both
Click to expand...

To address the standard for rule of law, Wikipedia has a concise description

The functional interpretation of the term "rule of law", consistent with the traditional English meaning, contrasts the "rule of law" with the "rule of man."[36] According to the functional view, a society in which government officers have a great deal of discretion has a low degree of "rule of law", whereas a society in which government officers have little discretion has a high degree of "rule of law".[36] Upholding the rule of law can sometimes require the punishment of those who commit offenses that are justifiable under natural law but not statutory law.[37] The rule of law is thus somewhat at odds with flexibility, even when flexibility may be preferable.[36]
Click to expand...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law
 
acbytesla said:
OK
Click to expand...

Now, I will admit, it is the more esoteric definition compared to something like "access to courts." But it is very useful for examining government with Europeans. Some are surprised to learn that no treaty ties the hands of future Congress and that any new law overrides it. That is higher discretion.
 
The Big Dog said:
Devastating.

I wonder if all the people who thought it was unfair that he got fired before his entire pension are going to walk that back, particularly given the fact he is lucky not to have his ass indicted.

Man, the fbi under comey was a complete cluster ****.
Click to expand...

I wonder if you can find anyone who said it was unfair that he was fired. The complaint was that if you are going to fire someone you do it, not wait till the last day just to make them sweat so you can enjoy being a sadist.
 
a_unique_person said:
I wonder if you can find anyone who said it was unfair that he was fired.
Click to expand...

Fairly certainly. You can generally find someone to claim all kinds of stuff, including things that are really crazy sounding. This is actually one of the not crazy things to say, though, which should make it much easier.

a_unique_person said:
The complaint was that if you are going to fire someone you do it, not wait till the last day just to make them sweat so you can enjoy being a sadist.
Click to expand...

Well, firing people in incredibly distasteful ways and for untrustworthy reasons is a signature of Trump's administration, it seems. Given this, I'm honestly not convinced that the basis for firing McCabe actually was fair or acceptable, even if there may also have been good reason to do so available, and I certainly think that the way that he was fired was quite objectionable. Rather like Comey, who I was not sorry to see gone, however much I found the claimed reasoning and method to be objectionable.
 
Last edited:
The Big Dog said:
Devastating.

I wonder if all the people who thought it was unfair that he got fired before his entire pension are going to walk that back, particularly given the fact he is lucky not to have his ass indicted.

Man, the fbi under comey was a complete cluster ****.
Click to expand...

LOL, still waiting for you to explain this conspiracy theory. I note that conservativetreehouse studiously avoids mentioning that the things Comey and McCabe did that arguably justified being fired were things that hurt Clinton, not Trump. It's almost like they realize how idiotic the conspiracy theory is but hope you don't, and it looks like it's working.
 
Despite theconservativetreehouse and Trump TV's best efforts...

Majorities back investigations of Trump from Russia to alleged hush money (POLL)
ABC News said:
Special counsel Robert Mueller has majority support in a new ABC News/Washington Post poll for extending his investigation into both Donald Trump’s business dealings and the alleged payment of hush money to women who say they’ve had affairs with the president in the past.

The public by a broad 69-25 percent supports Mueller’s initial thrust, to investigate possible collusion between Trump campaign officials and Russian government attempts to influence the 2016 election. Support extends to half of conservatives and more than four in 10 Republicans.

Backing for Mueller’s work goes further: Americans by 2-1, 64-32 percent, also support his investigating Trump’s business activities. And by 58-35 percent, a 23-point margin, they support investigators’ latest apparent direction, looking at allegations that Trump’s associates paid hush money to women who say they had affairs with him.
Click to expand...
 
WilliamSeger said:
LOL, still waiting for you to explain this conspiracy theory. I note that conservativetreehouse studiously avoids mentioning that the things Comey and McCabe did that arguably justified being fired were things that hurt Clinton, not Trump. It's almost like they realize how idiotic the conspiracy theory is but hope you don't, and it looks like it's working.
Click to expand...

Highlighted the key word
 
dudalb said:
And then Mattis says this is an one time only strike. WTF is going on?

Look, I am not a pacifist, and do not share the total mistaste for military action that some have. But this looks like another pinprick to Assad. And Assad has shown his is not impressed by pinpricks.
Click to expand...

I've only briefly browsed one story on this so far this morning, but AIUI the three places destroyed were a chemical weapons manufacturing lab and the two places where chemical weapons were stored.

Whether that intel is accurate, and whether Trump's advance warning allowed time for the important material in those sites to be moved elsewhere I don't know, but if it's accurate that that's what the three sites were, and that they were the only places where chemical weapons could be made or were stored, then it doesn't seem that further strikes would necessarily be needed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom