Mueller Investigation pt 6

Status
Not open for further replies.
Xabre said:
However Mueller proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was from day one looking to destroy Trump in that his little mention that as far as Obstruction he couldn't prove it nor could he disprove it...basically he restoked the fire for the Traitorous Demonrats to go for impeachment. THIS IS NOT a prosecutors job, his opinion is Non-Sequitor and he has no business giving an opinion PERIOD!
Click to expand...
What did he say that was opinion? He reiterated what was in the report. Maybe he felt it was necessary to emphasize that he views his task as complete. But in any case, why do you think prosecutors are not supposed to have opinions? They do it all the time; for example in sentencing memos. It's part of their job to rely on their judgment, and they spell out the factors that led them to that judgment (IOW, that opinion).
 
The PDJT says "Impeachment is for 'high crimes and misdemeanors'. Not 'with', not 'or', but 'and'."

What that implies -- "I didn't commit any misdemeanors, so I can't be impeached!"
 
JoeMorgue said:
What stupid people think "Opinions are like buttholes, everybody has one."

What smart people understand "Opinions are like buttholes, you should have yours checked by an expert regularly and if they tell you something is wrong with it, you should take that seriously."
Click to expand...

:D

I swear I'm gonna use that next chance I get!
 
The Shrike said:
It doesn't matter, as they're using that narrative already. You're right in that the best way to combat Trump is to bury him through the voting booth, but those Trumpistas are coming out to vote no matter what. What are they going to do with a knife-in-the-back narrative, vote harder?

Democrats need to forget about polling, stop worrying about what the Senate will do, and defend the Constitution as is their sworn duty. The whole argument for impeachment is that the POTUS has acted outside the bounds of the Constitution. With ample evidence to indicate his transgressions, Congress is shirking their duty if they fail to impeach. Plus, once impeachment hearings are opened, I assume it will be easier to get key players, e.g., Mueller, to testify before Congress. That will create an environment in which more Senate Republicans will be pressured into defecting back into reality.
Click to expand...

Best-case scenario is that Pelosi is biding her time and waiting for the correct moment to strike. That correct moment could depend on a lot of things.

It appears that many pro-impeachment folk don't realize that not impeaching today does not preclude impeaching tomorrow, especially if one actually does intend to (eventually) impeach. Admittedly, we don't know that of Pelosi, but it's possible; she doesn't appear to be one to play checkers when the 3-D chessboard is available.
 
Paul2 said:
Best-case scenario is that Pelosi is biding her time and waiting for the correct moment to strike. That correct moment could depend on a lot of things.

It appears that many pro-impeachment folk don't realize that not impeaching today does not preclude impeaching tomorrow, especially if one actually does intend to (eventually) impeach. Admittedly, we don't know that of Pelosi, but it's possible; she doesn't appear to be one to play checkers when the 3-D chessboard is available.
Click to expand...

Furthermore, when is the best time to impeach? One square on the 3-D chessboard is to end the impeachment hearings in the House in, say, October of 2020.
 
61303701_10156901883751677_8414781973083455488_o.png


The man is an idiot.
 
The Shrike said:
Democrats need to forget about polling, stop worrying about what the Senate will do, and defend the Constitution as is their sworn duty. The whole argument for impeachment is that the POTUS has acted outside the bounds of the Constitution. With ample evidence to indicate his transgressions, Congress is shirking their duty if they fail to impeach. Plus, once impeachment hearings are opened, I assume it will be easier to get key players, e.g., Mueller, to testify before Congress. That will create an environment in which more Senate Republicans will be pressured into defecting back into reality.
Click to expand...

All presidents break the law. It comes with the job. In terms of getting rid of Trump, we have another mechanism in place: next year's election.
 
Paul2 said:
It appears that many pro-impeachment folk don't realize that not impeaching today does not preclude impeaching tomorrow, . . .
Click to expand...
We realize this. But as Mueller's investigation has ended, it's not likely that there will be any more bombshells between now and Nov. 2020.
 
Cain said:
All presidents break the law. It comes with the job. In terms of getting rid of Trump, we have another mechanism in place: next year's election.
Click to expand...

There's a lot of truth in this, and I think voting him out would be best.

Impeachment now would be useless if we can just let him bluster, boast, and use his crimes (and the silence of the GOP) as campaign slogans. I don't want Pence in charge either, or anyone else in that chain of stupidity.

I vote for letting him talk himself into a corner and then voting him out. In the interim, the Dems should be doing nothing but focusing on passing bills and laws that help the American people. Nothing else. Stop acknowledging this fool (Trump, not Cain).
 
Cain said:
Yeah, there were some Facebook ads, but can we please just admit this was blown way out of proportion? The Koch Brothers have spent HUNDREDS of millions of dollars, and, unlike Putin, they don't have America's best interests at heart.
Click to expand...

Good point.
 
Paul2 said:
Furthermore, when is the best time to impeach? One square on the 3-D chessboard is to end the impeachment hearings in the House in, say, October of 2020.
Click to expand...

Timing will be critical. Don't give the GOP time to reject the impeachment until after the election when it will be meaningless.

Also Trump will be preoccupied crying witch hunt and trying to attack the Democrats and the impeachment committee.
 
Last edited:
IsThisTheLife said:
My opinion is that, like marxism/leftism generally, anyone who still cleaves to such a demonstrably destructive, so-called ideology into adulthood is simply weak-minded.
Click to expand...

Your opinion tells a lot about you.

Assuming that you are from the USA you should know that the line between left and right politics is shifted real far to the right in the USA.

In all (or at least all that I can think of) western democracies the Democrats in the USA would be considered centre right leaning conservatives.

In the USA over the past 40 odd years socialism, liberalism and leftism have become dirty words. The subject of a long running smear campaign to equate those words, in the minds of the public, with extreme left wing views (i.e communism)

Communism is bad, we all agree on that, but "socialism" outside of the USA has a totally different meaning. You can't even have a discussion in the US about socialised healthcare without the connotations of Americans perceived meaning of "socialism" completely poisoning the well.

Recently (I think it started around the time Obama got into office) US politics has got hyper partisan. The GOP decided back then to oppose everything Obama did on general principle. The Tea Party wing got more vocal and more powerful and because politics in America is all about winning votes to the detriment of all else, hyper partisan is the new normal. The same is happening elsewhere in the world to a lesser degree too.
Xenophobic, tribal, fear stoked politics gets headlines and media coverage and votes. (It's all about the votes) This emboldens previously disenfranchised racists and bigots and more extreme right wingers, who now also have the ability to spread their style of message further and wider thanks to social media and here we are today. The USA has Trump, the UK has Farage, France has le Pen etc etc

This is a site for critical thinking and skepticism. Generally we should not believe a thing because we are told that it is so. We should think critically about a thing and question it and weigh up evidence.

Life is rarely black and white. I'd suggest that instead of thinking along with the tribe, evaluate individual policies and ideas. Critically examine policies suggested by the "other" party. How would you feel about them if they'd been proposed by "your" party instead. Do the same with ideas from "your" party.

Going along with your tribe, only getting information from sources that support your tribe, and repeating their talking points without thinking about them first. I'd suggest that that is weak minded.
 
JoeMorgue said:
I must say IsThisTheLife it is truly lucky for all of us that you just amazingly appeared, with full knowledge of this board and all its posters history already available to you, to fill in the blank left the by the flouncing and banning of so many unjustly persecuted conservative posters.

It truly is a miracle.
Click to expand...

I was thinking the same thing about tanabear!
 
The Shrike said:
:rolleyes: We normalize Trump's crimes and other transgressions at our own peril.
Click to expand...

A case can be made that Trump's crimes are unusually serious and merit removal, but that's not exactly what you argued ("The whole argument for impeachment is that the POTUS has acted outside the bounds of the Constitution").

Skeptic Ginger said:
Not mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...

If Trump were removed from office by Congress, then he cannot be removed from office by the people. Of course, there's virtually no chance the Republican controlled Senate would ever vote to convict. You couldn't get a majority, let alone two-thirds. The main problem with a failure to convict is -- of course -- that it probably improves Trump's chances of winning re-election, which is why Pelosi doesn't want to pull the trigger on impeachment.

Comey said all of this almost a year ago (around the time I was saying it). He said don't expect Mueller to save you from the Orange Menace.
 
Paul2 said:
Best-case scenario is that Pelosi is biding her time and waiting for the correct moment to strike. That correct moment could depend on a lot of things.

It appears that many pro-impeachment folk don't realize that not impeaching today does not preclude impeaching tomorrow, especially if one actually does intend to (eventually) impeach. Admittedly, we don't know that of Pelosi, but it's possible; she doesn't appear to be one to play checkers when the 3-D chessboard is available.
Click to expand...

Begin the Impeachment Inquiry three to four months out from election day, and keep it going almost up to the elections, so that.

a. the inquiry, including all the "Live on primetime TV" testimony against Trump is all going on during the campaigning, and is fresh in the minds of the electorate when they are getting ready to vote, and

b. the inquiry is ongoing and has not been completed by the time of the election, so that Trump can't use the "they tried to impeach me and failed" meme in his campaigning

c. if something really ******-up happens, like Trump gets re-elected but both houses end up with Dems, they are ready to turf him out almost straight away.
 
Cavemonster said:
Are you actually unfamiliar with the wealth of disinformation that was spread leading up to the 2016 election? If so, a Google search will enlighten you more quickly and thoroughly than another poster can.
Click to expand...

So can you provide an example? What was the disinformation that Russia was spreading and how many Americans believed it?

TellyKNeasuss said:
An example of a false belief is that 46.09 percent of voters believed the Trump would be a competent president.
Click to expand...

This is an opinion. I believe Soros and others believed the economy would crash if Trump was elected. That didn't happen and unemployment rates are low and the economy is growing.

But I asked about a disinformation campaign from Russia. What was this disinformation?

Belz... said:
So you understand why it's irrelevant but you want an example anyway?
Read the Mueller report. Look up various opinions of intelligence communities around the world. Stop acting like a fool and asking people to prove to you that water is wet.
Click to expand...

Maybe I have read the Mueller report. But I am asking about a disinformation campaign from Russia. What was the disinformation and what percentage of Americans believed it.

Lurch said:
Probably a Sysiphean task because it appears you've already bought into the memes the Russkies have been pushing and amplifying. Anything one might point to you would claim is honest home-grown bilge, not imported.
Click to expand...

So was the disinformation that the Ruskies were pushing?
 
Cain said:
A case can be made that Trump's crimes are unusually serious and merit removal, but that's not exactly what you argued ("The whole argument for impeachment is that the POTUS has acted outside the bounds of the Constitution").

If Trump were removed from office by Congress, then he cannot be removed from office by the people. Of course, there's virtually no chance the Republican controlled Senate would ever vote to convict. You couldn't get a majority, let alone two-thirds. The main problem with a failure to convict is -- of course -- that it probably improves Trump's chances of winning re-election, which is why Pelosi doesn't want to pull the trigger on impeachment.

Comey said all of this almost a year ago (around the time I was saying it). He said don't expect Mueller to save you from the Orange Menace.
Click to expand...
You are making the same mistake Pelosi has been making (I have hope she'll change). That is, assuming the impeachment and conviction have to both occur.

Expose Trump via impeachment, and trigger him to become absurdly preoccupied with it (because he will be) all during the campaign. People in the case of Clinton thought the impeachment was petty, there was voter backlash.

Impeaching Trump is far from petty, especially if it is done right showing him so dangerously close to being a dictator that his staff had to disobey his orders to keep him from shutting Mueller down.

And while the House is at it, they can expose the Russian attack on our election that Trump and sadly much of the press is ignoring.

There will be an additional bonus, the press will be just as occupied with the impeachment and Trump's replies there will be much less time for Trump TV showing 100% of his rallies live.
 
Last edited:
TellyKNeasuss said:
Out of those 44 percent, exactly how many came to the erroneous belief due to one or more disinformation campaigns? Please list specific individuals who came to this erroneous belief and the exact piece or pieces of disinformation that they used to come to their belief.
Click to expand...

Polling data show that right after Sept. 11, 2001, when Americans were asked open-ended questions about who was behind the attacks, only 3 percent mentioned Iraq or Hussein. But by January of this year, attitudes had been transformed. In a Knight Ridder poll, 44 percent of Americans reported that either "most" or "some" of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens. The answer is zero.

In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.

In Selma, Ala., firefighter Thomas Wilson supports going to war with Iraq, and brings up Sept. 11 himself, saying we don't know who's already here in the US waiting to attack. When asked what that has to do with Iraq, he replies: "They're all in it together - all of them hate this country." The reason: "prosperity."

- https://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html

Your turn...
 
smartcooky said:
Begin the Impeachment Inquiry three to four months out from election day, and keep it going almost up to the elections, so that.

a. the inquiry, including all the "Live on primetime TV" testimony against Trump is all going on during the campaigning, and is fresh in the minds of the electorate when they are getting ready to vote, and

b. the inquiry is ongoing and has not been completed by the time of the election, so that Trump can't use the "they tried to impeach me and failed" meme in his campaigning

c. if something really ******-up happens, like Trump gets re-elected but both houses end up with Dems, they are ready to turf him out almost straight away.
Click to expand...
Yes except I don't agree with waiting to start. Starting too early will cause voter attention burnout. But the House can keep that interest up depending on who they call to testify publicly. There are more than a few months of testimony that will certainly go over better than 11 Benghazi hearings.

In addition, some voters make up their minds early and don't sway.

And Trump fighting subpoenas to testify will force the SCOTUS or lower down judges to rule against the Constitution (balance of powers) or rule against Trump.
 
Last edited:
Captain_Swoop said:
Trump Tweets

... And now Russia has disappeared because I had nothing to do with Russia helping me to get elected. It was a crime that didn’t exist.
Click to expand...
Did Trump just admit Russia helped him get elected?

ETA: Ninja'd by Matthew Best
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
How is that a conflict of interest?
Click to expand...
Because Trump can't imagine anyone reacting to rejection with something other than a thirst for vengeance.

If that tale of rejection is even true.

ETA: And of course that points the finger right at Rob Rosenstein.
 
Last edited:
tanabear said:
So can you provide an example? What was the disinformation that Russia was spreading and how many Americans believed it?

This is an opinion. I believe Soros and others believed the economy would crash if Trump was elected.
Click to expand...
Do you have a quote from Soros saying that?

tanabear said:
But I asked about a disinformation campaign from Russia. What was this disinformation?

Maybe I have read the Mueller report. But I am asking about a disinformation campaign from Russia. What was the disinformation and what percentage of Americans believed it.

So was the disinformation that the Ruskies were pushing?
Click to expand...
Have you ever asked yourself why candidates spend billions on their campaigns? Are they influencing voters or wasting their money?

It's not hard to find one or more sources that explain the Russian campaign. You've already ignored the influence of leaking the DNC and Podesta's emails. And you keep asking this question which is easily discovered online if you were actually interested. You're just avoiding the truth.


Here, I'll get you started:

538 Nate Silver: How Much Did Russian Interference Affect The 2016 Election?

FactCheck: In His Own Words: Trump on Russian Meddling


Keep in mind Clinton lost because of multiple reasons, the Russian interference was only one.
 
tanabear said:
So can you provide an example? What was the disinformation that Russia was spreading and how many Americans believed it?
Click to expand...

From the Dallas Observer:
Russian Trolls Successfully Peddled Texas Pride in 2016, Senate Reports Say

People troll anonymously for different reasons. It would be hard to separate the Russian trolls from any other. But it's been established that one thing Russians did is try to rile up general discord. I heard a caller to conservative talk radio say that a boy in an ambulance had died because the ambulance was stuck in traffic during a Black Lives Matter protest. Asked where she got this story she said, "It's right there on my Facebook," whatever that means. The host said something diplomatic and cut her off. He did not suggest the story was fake but I think he suspected that.

In an election that close it's easy to find multiple causes. It's like saying a basketball game was lost by a missed free throw in overtime. Though technically it might be true, every error that led up to the missed free throw is also the cause. I'm pretty sure you know this. Also as you can see in a tweet above, Trump seems to admit that Russia helped him win. It could just be clumsy wording, as is he is not very articulate. But I think he accidentally told the truth.
 
tanabear said:
Polling data show that right after Sept. 11, 2001, when Americans were asked open-ended questions about who was behind the attacks, only 3 percent mentioned Iraq or Hussein. But by January of this year, attitudes had been transformed. In a Knight Ridder poll, 44 percent of Americans reported that either "most" or "some" of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens. The answer is zero.

In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.
Click to expand...
Are you counting George W. Bush as a member of the media?

tanabear said:
In Selma, Ala., firefighter Thomas Wilson supports going to war with Iraq, and brings up Sept. 11 himself, saying we don't know who's already here in the US waiting to attack. When asked what that has to do with Iraq, he replies: "They're all in it together - all of them hate this country." The reason: "prosperity."
Click to expand...
How much Fox News did he watch?
 
The Shrike said:
We realize this. But as Mueller's investigation has ended, it's not likely that there will be any more bombshells between now and Nov. 2020.
Click to expand...
Understood. Perhaps Pelosi is waiting on political considerations or timing. Just a perhaps.
 
tanabear said:
So can you provide an example? What was the disinformation that Russia was spreading and how many Americans believed it?
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter how many Americans believed it, because you have to establish the principle that no foreign interference is ever allowed in order to account for the case in which foreign interference might be influential.

Agreed?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Here, I'll get you started:

538 Nate Silver: How Much Did Russian Interference Affect The 2016 Election?

FactCheck: In His Own Words: Trump on Russian Meddling


Keep in mind Clinton lost because of multiple reasons, the Russian interference was only one.
Click to expand...

Interesting that they estimate the swing towards Trump attributable to the Russian Troll Farm was 0.8%, and they said that isn't much.

Well, overall, that might not be much, but the Russians concentrated their efforts in the swing states. Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida, Wisconsin and Minnesota. Its no coincidence that the polling data Paul Manafort shared with Konstantin Kilimnik were from these very states, and that Trump won three of those states (Wisconsin, Michigan and Florida) with a combined margin of 107,000 voters. That is 0.09 percent of all votes cast in the election, and these wins gave Trump the election by 306 EC votes to 232.

If you remove the 0.8% swing attributable Russian interference, then Clinton could have won those three states, in which case, a whole bunch of EC votes flip to Clinton, and she wins the election by 278 EC votes to 260.

That is how close the 2016 election was.
 
Last edited:
tanabear said:
But I asked about a disinformation campaign from Russia. What was this disinformation?
Click to expand...
Here is a single example based on about minute of scanning Mueller's report:

"By early 2015, the IRA began to create larger social media groups or public social media pages that claimed (falsely) to be affiliate with U.S. political and grassroots organizations. . . . More commonly, the IRA created accounts in the names of fictitious U.S. organizations and grassroots groups and used these accounts to pose as anti-immigration groups, Tea Party activities, Black Lives Matter protestors, and other U.S. social and political activists." Vol. 1, page 80.
 
Paul2 said:
Here is a single example based on about minute of scanning Mueller's report:

"By early 2015, the IRA began to create larger social media g... Vol. 1, page 80.
Click to expand...
Wait, are you suggesting that reading Mueller's report would provide answers allegedly sought by the trollspeople in this thread?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom