Gagging for it (SCO Thread v. 29) Update Mueller Report Released

Status
Not open for further replies.
waiguoren said:
You can't produce posts showing that I have changed my position.

I've been consistent from the start: Trump is extremely unlikely to have conspired with Putin to hack the DNC/Podesta e-mails, and Mueller won't find Trump did so. People who believe otherwise are wacko.
Click to expand...
lol at you dick tucking now and trying to deny what you prior just admitted.

The reason why the original Mueller Mandate was being cited over and over by Trumptards (as you admitted you did) was because none of the early charges referred specifically to either 'links' or 'coordination' with Russia and the Trump campaign. So it was posted over and over with the question 'where is the proof'.

But lately, and only lately, we have had serious leaks about the Trump Campaigns direct 'links' and 'coordination' with Russia. The 'conspiracy' is unfolding slowly before our eyes.

Since that time there has been a very deliberate (not just here but on any Trumptard forum or talking points site) desire and need to spin this argument EXACTLY as you are attempting to do so now.

it is abundantly clear that you got your marching orders (or simply parrot) to start to spin it as if somehow when the Mueller report drops if it clearly shows, even further, 'links' and 'coordination' to Russia then Trumpbots are to proclaim that as a failure of the investigation. TO pretend that was not in fact the goal despite the words on paper showing factually it was.

you are dong your job now, you just are not doing a good job. You need to go re-read the talking points as you are no where near as good at the spin as others are.
 
And guess who just might've violated his gag order?

Just one guess...

BBUkk9q.img

The man just can't sit down, shut up, and color.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...-violate-gag-order/ar-BBUkxza?ocid=spartandhp
 
waiguoren said:
lol at the notion that I am a "Trumpster"

lol at the notion that my arguments have changed at all over the 2 years over which I've been calling you bots out for your inanity

lol at you for writing pointless paragraphs of nonsense
Click to expand...

Aren't you the guy who started asking about Dred Scott when bitched slapped by like 6 people in a thread, then disappeared for months?
 
hillelslovak87 said:
Aren't you the guy who started asking about Dred Scott when bitched slapped by like 6 people in a thread, then disappeared for months?
Click to expand...
No.

I'm the guy who relentlessly exposed all of you bots for months at a time for your hopeless delusional paranoia, then took a break to make a baby. I will be sure to make many more to help ensure that bots like you will continue to be outnumbered.

Once, I presented an originalist/textualist attack on Taney's opinion in Dred Scott in a conversation with @BKMMAFAN. My argument demonstrated that Taney was not applying textualist originalism at all when he wrote that abominable decision. Subsequently, the mindless bots in this thread (of which @BKMMAFAN is not one) were too dumb to realize my argument on Dred Scott was separate from my responses to their lunatic "muhh collusion" ramblings.


Also, Frusciante is and always will be superior to Slovak (RIP). Indeed, Frusciante is one of the greatest musicians in human history.

Good day to you!
 
Professor Dershowitz demolishes the feeble Dan Abrams with pure logic and common sense (starts at 7:10):




Professor Dershowitz: Remember, we're going to see a rebuttal report from the Trump team. So I think the public should withhold final judgment until they see both reports: the Mueller report and the response from the Trump team.

Dan Abrams: (chortles with disgust) This would be the first time in history of America in which a defendant or someone who is accused of something gets to write a response report to what an indictment is. Every defendant in America would love to be able to write their own report about what they say happened. Um...but that's not the way the system works.

Professor Dershowitz: You're contradicting yourself.

Dan Abrams: How?

Professor Dershowitz: Because this is not just a 'yes' or 'no'. You're saying [earlier in the broadcast--waiguoren] that special counsels have special obligations to release everything. If they have a special obligation to release everything, then there is an obligation to allow a response.

Dan Abrams: (shrugging shoulders and rapidly blinking eyes)..yeah you can allow a resp....that's fine! Let them respond!

Professor Dershowitz: If it were just 'yes or no', then you wouldn't need a response. But if you get a long long narrative, then fairness requires a response...

Dan Abrams: (shaking head, rapidly blinking eyes) That's fine, let them respond.

Professor Dershowitz:... and simultaneous release of both.

Dan Abrams: Whoah, simultaneous release of both too? So now basically....

Professor Dershowitz: Right.

Dan Abrams: That that that's just...sss.. that's ridiculous. The idea that you have to allow the other side in something like this the opportunity to file a long report in response to a prosecutor.

Professor Dershowitz: You don't have to do that if you just limit yourself to indictment or not indictment. But if you go beyond it and you start telling a story, the other side of the narrative has to be produced as well. That's required by fairness and due process.

Dan Abrams: Bill Clinton would have loved that.

==================

This is akin to some "black lives matter" advocates opposing the use of police body cams. Only our side should be heard!
 
Jimmy Dore: Corporate Journalists Backpeddling on Russiagate Like Cowards

 
waiguoren said:
No.

I'm the guy who relentlessly exposed all of you bots for months at a time for your hopeless delusional paranoia, then took a break to make a baby. I will be sure to make many more to help ensure that bots like you will continue to be outnumbered.

Once, I presented an originalist/textualist attack on Taney's opinion in Dred Scott in a conversation with @BKMMAFAN. My argument demonstrated that Taney was not applying textualist originalism at all when he wrote that abominable decision. Subsequently, the mindless bots in this thread (of which @BKMMAFAN is not one) were too dumb to realize my argument on Dred Scott was separate from my responses to their lunatic "muhh collusion" ramblings.


Also, Frusciante is and always will be superior to Slovak (RIP). Indeed, Frusciante is one of the greatest musicians in human history.

Good day to you!
Click to expand...

That break just so happened to coincide with you losing a sig bet didn't it?

Isn't that a bit disingenuous to bet your sig for a period of time where you don't have an intention on posting?

Or do you expect us to believe you can't both post here and have sex within the same day?

Be less of a weasel.
 
Jimmy Dore: Cohen Kills Collusion Conspiracy Theory

 
ScottE said:
That break just so happened to coincide with you losing a sig bet didn't it?

Isn't that a bit disingenuous to bet your sig for a period of time where you don't have an intention on posting?

Or do you expect us to believe you can't both post her and have sex within the same day?

Be less of a weasel.
Click to expand...
Heh. Part the post you're responding to is trolling, which I thought was obvious (?).

I didn't like what was in the sig very much, true, but I was also in the process of moving. You are correct I would have posted more if my sig had been in its original, pristine form.
 
waiguoren said:
Heh. Part the post you're responding to is trolling, which I thought was obvious (?).

I didn't like what was in the sig very much, true, but I was also in the process of moving. You are correct I would have posted more if my sig had been in its original, pristine form.
Click to expand...

So you make bets in bad faith?
 
Hunter Simpson said:
LOL @ you unironically posting a tweet about "toxic tribalistic blindness".
Click to expand...
Greenwald is one of those leftist who falls into the Russia had nothing to do with trump winning but if they did so what cause we've done bad stuff too category. guys like greenwald would have laughed two years ago at the thought of trump running for president at the same time trying to make business deals with russia. but here we are. Trump lied and it doesn't matter cause its been normalized.
 
Question for the "Party of Personal Responsibility":
Let's say we concede that Trump Jr. and others took care of all the Russian stuff and Trump Sr. was an unwitting beneficiary. So, for example, he says, "Sure, sounds good whatever it is. Handle it, I'm busy making this Margarita."


Now, as President, Commander in Chief, where the buck is supposed to stop, isn't he ultimately responsible whether he was fully in the know or not? Isn't he fully responsible for filling his staff and cabinet positions with crooks? It seems very apparent there was inappropriate coordination, regardless. The only real question left is how much Trump (and his inner circle) knew. So, even if the Mueller report shows Trump was just too fucking stupid to be involved directly, do you think he should be blameless?
 
Hunter Simpson said:
Question for the "Party of Personal Responsibility":
Let's say we concede that Trump Jr. and others took care of all the Russian stuff and Trump Sr. was an unwitting beneficiary. So, for example, he says, "Sure, sounds good whatever it is. Handle it, I'm busy making this Margarita."


Now, as President, Commander in Chief, where the buck is supposed to stop, isn't he ultimately responsible whether he was fully in the know or not? Isn't he fully responsible for filling his staff and cabinet positions with crooks? It seems very apparent there was inappropriate coordination, regardless. The only real question left is how much Trump (and his inner circle) knew. So, even if the Mueller report shows Trump was just too fucking stupid to be involved directly, do you think he should be blameless?
Click to expand...

While i agree, I also think this question is kind of moot.

Trump is a part of the Trump Campaign. There is no separating Trump from 'The Campaign' and suggesting he is not responsible for things that happen in the campaign. So if the Trump Campaign is guilty, Trump is guilty. I guess if it makes someone feel better to try and split a hair and say 'ya but it was not Trump specifically' then knock yourself out. To me that is like taking pleasure in the fact that Gotti rarely committed the murders but was still guilty of many of them.
 
MikeMcMann said:
While i agree, I also think this question is kind of moot.

Trump is a part of the Trump Campaign. There is no separating Trump from 'The Campaign' and suggesting he is not responsible for things that happen in the campaign. So if the Trump Campaign is guilty, Trump is guilty. I guess if it makes someone feel better to try and split a hair and say 'ya but it was not Trump specifically' then knock yourself out. To me that is like taking pleasure in the fact that Gotti rarely committed the murders but was still guilty of many of them.
Click to expand...
Er. I believe that was my point. I know you and I agree on that score. I want the entertainment of seeing Trump supporters try to defend him in this regard.

The No Collusion people appear to think that unless there's a recording of Trump himself Mwahahaha-ing over his relationship with Putin that he's not responsible for any coordination with the Russians.
 
waiguoren said:
Professor Dershowitz demolishes the feeble Dan Abrams with pure logic and common sense (starts at 7:10):




Professor Dershowitz: Remember, we're going to see a rebuttal report from the Trump team. So I think the public should withhold final judgment until they see both reports: the Mueller report and the response from the Trump team.

Dan Abrams: (chortles with disgust) This would be the first time in history of America in which a defendant or someone who is accused of something gets to write a response report to what an indictment is. Every defendant in America would love to be able to write their own report about what they say happened. Um...but that's not the way the system works.

Professor Dershowitz: You're contradicting yourself.

Dan Abrams: How?

Professor Dershowitz: Because this is not just a 'yes' or 'no'. You're saying [earlier in the broadcast--waiguoren] that special counsels have special obligations to release everything. If they have a special obligation to release everything, then there is an obligation to allow a response.

Dan Abrams: (shrugging shoulders and rapidly blinking eyes)..yeah you can allow a resp....that's fine! Let them respond!

Professor Dershowitz: If it were just 'yes or no', then you wouldn't need a response. But if you get a long long narrative, then fairness requires a response...

Dan Abrams: (shaking head, rapidly blinking eyes) That's fine, let them respond.

Professor Dershowitz:... and simultaneous release of both.

Dan Abrams: Whoah, simultaneous release of both too? So now basically....

Professor Dershowitz: Right.

Dan Abrams: That that that's just...sss.. that's ridiculous. The idea that you have to allow the other side in something like this the opportunity to file a long report in response to a prosecutor.

Professor Dershowitz: You don't have to do that if you just limit yourself to indictment or not indictment. But if you go beyond it and you start telling a story, the other side of the narrative has to be produced as well. That's required by fairness and due process.

Dan Abrams: Bill Clinton would have loved that.

==================

This is akin to some "black lives matter" advocates opposing the use of police body cams. Only our side should be heard!
Click to expand...


A response from a known group of pathological liars? Should we really expect anything from Trump that isn’t a diversion and a pack of lies?
 
Ophydian said:
A response from a known group of pathological liars? Should we really expect anything from Trump that isn’t a diversion and a pack of lies?
Click to expand...
Someone should ask Dersh if prior precedent (ya you know that thing that more legal actions follow) shows the Subject of the report and his legal team being given the Report so that they can also respond with a report at the same time. We had reports from Special Counsel on both Nixon and Clinton and in neither case was the accused given the reports so they could provide a full rebuttal upon release. so is Dershowitz suggesting Trump should get special consideration?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,280,949
Messages
58,330,202
Members
176,001
Latest member
batty

Share this page

Back
Top