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

[hillelslovak87]

Could you be any more dramatic and over the top with your analogies. We've had Bush prior to Trump. And Obama was a foreign policy disaster. Settle down, please.

You see, Obama never really said much, but was a pretty good orator. Bush was an idiot, but when he had gaffes, like the "It's hard to put food on your family" line, he laughed it off, and that was it. He also didn't make an absolute ass of himself on literally a daily basis saying either unethical, immoral, ignorant or just plain baffling statements.

We're in the weeds with this fuckin weirdo, and it's easy to get used to the pure insanity that is Trump, his cabinet and his base, but hey, better than to be an utter lickspittle ho like you, providing nothing but equivocation, false equivalence and bullshit to defend him. Also, you're not fooling anyone with your apathy, nobody mistakes it for intelligence....

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Trump knows Paul is not a good guy, he wouldn't have hired him if he were, and the evidence against Paul being a good guy was so overwhelming that even a MAGA hat wearing juror had to sag to concession under the weight of the evidence team Mueller crushed Manafort with. He is clearly a criminal, why does Trump feel bad for a criminal being punished for his crimes?

Trump could have thrown Manafort under the bus a long time ago and distanced himself with a part of his overall message, about how Manafort worked for a lot of other republicans, and how what he is going to prison for was from before when he took over the campaign. Instead though, he has allowed the narrative I stated earlier, the one that has Manafort's lawyers dancing like monkeys claiming the judge said the exact opposite of what she actually said. And, the judge eviscerated that whole narrative in court stating, that he and his lawyers are scumbags for saying that this case doesn't prove collusion when Manafort will not even fucking cooperate with Mueller on the Russia investigation.

Trump can fiat out state he colluded with Putin and @bobgeese would come up with an excuse for him.

 

[waiguoren]

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

Trump can fiat out state he colluded with Putin and @bobgeese would come up with an excuse for him.

 

[waiguoren]

He’s batting zero percent FFS.

Manafort, a known piece of shit, got far less than the recommendation. This alone shows just how fucked out “Justice” system is.

GP got a literal 12 day vacation.

13 Russian shitposters who will never set foot in court.

Flynn still hasn’t been sentenced, and likely won’t. The entire investigation into him was based on him conversating with a ginger Russian bitch.



The entire debacle is an embarrassment. As are you, and every other brainlet who thought/prayed this would finally be the end of drumpphhhuuuucccvkkk.

This is pretty much my position. Adam Schiff, Rachael Maddow, Bill Maher and many other people popular among Democratic voters promoted a 'Trump/Russia collusion' narrative relentlessly for over two years. My guess is that 100,000s of people, probably more, believed that Mueller would take Trump down. I think Maher in particular is evil for deliberately inflating expectations for the purpose of getting cheap laughs. I am actually concerned for some of the people who believed it. It's going to be a huge letdown for them.

 

[waiguoren]

RE your first point you're right I guess? Seems like a technicality though. If they hadn't of filed the charges I guess he would be at 1.000 but probably needed to to support the other cases where the defendants were within the jurisdiction. At the very least information has come out about the attacks on the democratic process so that's always good.

In economics, we learn about cost/benefit analysis. Prosecutors/investigators cannot go after every potential crime, and even the bigger crimes aren't necessarily worth going after because the cost of investigating/prosecuting can be extremely high. The mandate in the Mueller probe was very vague by normal standards (look into any 'links', and anything else that comes up in the process). The end result will be two years of fishing and some very minor indictments/convictions unrelated to the aforementioned 'links'.

Two years ago I posted here that the best venue for the investigation would have been a nonpartisan commission, similar to the 9/11 commission. I got this idea from Alan Dershowitz. I still believe, strongly, that this would have been the right way to perform the investigation. If any potential criminal wrongdoing were uncovered, the commission could refer the matter to prosecutors. The advantages of that system are many-fold.

I will grant that there is a benefit in this probe that extends beyond direct cost savings and deterrent effects. Namely, there is a significant portion of the US population who was absolutely convinced that Trump committed 'collusion' and who trust Robert Mueller. If the Mueller investigation had not occurred, many of these people would live forever in conspiracy land. As @Jack V Savage has stated, widespread belief in vague conspiracy theories is a danger to society and human progress. The primary benefit of the Mueller probe is to assuage the concerns of these people. I don't think the non-partisan commission could have achieved that. No doubt, some will still insist that Mueller was biased because he is, after all, a Republican. By and large, however, I think the Russia collusion conspiracy theory will die off and the anti-Trump people will mostly shift their attention to SDNY.

Your position seems to be what I can only term as pro-swamp.

I plead innocent. I am anti-corruption. I favor multiple constitutional amendments to expose lobbying to the public.

It seems like you don't want those who commit fraudulent and other pernicious acts to be prosecuted

I do want them to be prosecuted, so long as the investigation/prosecution passes a cost-benefit analysis.

This, coupled within your blathering about 'process crimes (As though these aren't worthy of prosecution)

President Clinton "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"...process crime, not worthy of prosecution.

Roger Stone saying he wasn't aware that he was in possession of any "e-mails/texts/documents concerning the allegations of hacked documents or discussions about Assange"...process crime, not worthy of prosecution. Maybe not even a crime.

 

[waiguoren]

So if someone gets indicted and dies before the trial that counts as a fail?

Very fair question. Exclude those who die before trial, then.

 

[waiguoren]

It's funny how you guys throw around terms like "process crimes" as to obfuscate this issue. You consistently act like this rampant fraud is akin to jawalking or something.

Is this a throwaway comment, or a serious response?

 

[FIMN]

Very fair question. Exclude those who die before trial, then.

Why?

 

[waiguoren]

yeah, cause libs have long been saying that the system is too harsh on white collar criminals.

I think the emphasis was on "non-violent".

Manafort and fuckers like him need to be made an example of. That shouldn't be controversial unless you are a troll, a political hack, or a moron.

Disagree, strongly. Manafort is small-scale. He exposed himself by getting involved with a controversial political campaign. There are many, many people evading taxes on a much larger scale who will never be prosecuted and who are not at all deterred by Manafort's convictions.

 

[waiguoren]

Why?

I thought the goal of this enterprise was to measure the effectiveness of the prosecution? Maybe don't indict someone who is deathly ill. Maybe weight those indictments by a factor of 0.5. Give full credit for a conviction but only count 1/2 in the denominator.

 

[FIMN]

In economics, we learn about cost/benefit analysis. Prosecutors/investigators cannot go after every potential crime, and even the bigger crimes aren't necessarily worth going after because the cost of investigating/prosecuting can be extremely high. The mandate in the Mueller probe was very vague by normal standards (look into any 'links', and anything else that comes up in the process). The end result will be two years of fishing and some very minor indictments/convictions unrelated to the aforementioned 'links'.

Two years ago I posted here that the best venue for the investigation would have been a nonpartisan commission, similar to the 9/11 commission. I got this idea from Alan Dershowitz. I still believe, strongly, that this would have been the right way to perform the investigation. If any potential criminal wrongdoing were uncovered, the commission could refer the matter to prosecutors. The advantages of that system are many-fold.

I will grant that there is a benefit in this probe that extends beyond direct cost savings and deterrent effects. Namely, there is a significant portion of the US population who was absolutely convinced that Trump committed 'collusion' and who trust Robert Mueller. If the Mueller investigation had not occurred, many of these people would live forever in conspiracy land. As @Jack V Savage has stated, widespread belief in vague conspiracy theories is a danger to society and human progress. The primary benefit of the Mueller probe is to assuage the concerns of these people. I don't think the non-partisan commission could have achieved that. No doubt, some will still insist that Mueller was biased because he is, after all, a Republican. By and large, however, I think the Russia collusion conspiracy theory will die off and the anti-Trump people will mostly shift their attention to SDNY.



I plead innocent. I am anti-corruption. I favor multiple constitutional amendments to expose lobbying to the public.


I do want them to be prosecuted, so long as the investigation/prosecution passes a cost-benefit analysis.



President Clinton "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"...process crime, not worthy of prosecution.

Roger Stone saying he wasn't aware that he was in possession of any "e-mails/texts/documents concerning the allegations of hacked documents or discussions about Assange"...process crime, not worthy of prosecution. Maybe not even a crime.

Multiple indictments and guilty pleas based on lies about contacts with Russians on the campaign trail and a perfect record this far in the courtroom seems like a success. Perhaps Dershowitz' suggest may have been better but that is neither here nor there.

You seem to be disingenuously claiming you are anti corruption while simultaneously defending corrupt individuals who have been either proven guilty in court or are likely to be.

Thou doth complain too much.

 

[FIMN]

I thought the goal of this enterprise was to measure the effectiveness of the prosecution? Maybe don't indict someone who is deathly ill. Maybe weight those indictments by a factor of 0.5. Give full credit for a conviction but only count 1/2 in the denominator.

I'm guessing you are being flippant but I hope you at least now realise that indicting individuals who may not ever see the courtroom due to health, location, jurisdiction etc is not an indication of the quality of the prosecution like you originally claimed, unless it goes to trial.

 

[waiguoren]

perfect record this far in the courtroom seems like a success

But this just isn't true. Many of Manafort's charges were thrown out, for example.

Multiple indictments and guilty pleas based on lies about contacts with Russians on the campaign trail

Very few of the charges relate to that. None of Manafort's do, for example.

Perhaps Dershowitz' suggest may have been better but that is neither here nor there.

How is it 'neither here nor there'? This type of thing is going to come up again. It would be better for us to be aware that there could be an alternative method.

defending corrupt individuals who have been either proven guilty in court or are likely to be.

I tend to defend the accused. Doesn't really matter who they are (and I don't agree that e.g., Stone or PapadopoIous are necessarily corrupt). I was one of the people defending Hillary Clinton around here as well. The deck is usually stacked against the accused, in my estimation.

 

[waiguoren]

I'm guessing you are being flippant but I hope you at least now realise that indicting individuals who may not ever see the courtroom due to health, location, jurisdiction etc is not an indication of the quality of the prosecution like you originally claimed, unless it goes to trial.

I'm not being flippant. I think if we're going to say "the prosecutor was successful!" then we should have something quantitative to pin that to. Anyway, everyone's idea of "successful" is going to be slightly different in this situation.

 

[bobgeese]

Trump can fiat out state he colluded with Putin and @bobgeese would come up with an excuse for him.

I would still vote for him over and democrat except Tulsi if that were the case.

Don’t blame me for the left moving so far they no longer mesh with reality (women have penises, Green new deal, etc).

 

[Jack V Savage]

As @Jack V Savage has stated, widespread belief in vague conspiracy theories is a danger to society and human progress. The primary benefit of the Mueller probe is to assuage the concerns of these people. I don't think the non-partisan commission could have achieved that. No doubt, some will still insist that Mueller was biased because he is, after all, a Republican. By and large, however, I think the Russia collusion conspiracy theory will die off and the anti-Trump people will mostly shift their attention to SDNY.

The CTers here are the ones still--impossibly--denying that Trump's campaign colluded with Russia and positing some kind of conspiracy to produce the vast evidence supporting that fact.

 

[waiguoren]

The CTers here are the ones still--impossibly--denying that Trump's campaign colluded with Russia and positing some kind of conspiracy to produce the vast evidence supporting that fact.

What do you mean by "Trump's campaign colluded with Russia"?

 

[PolishHeadlock]

 

[LangfordBarrow]

I would still vote for him over and democrat except Tulsi if that were the case.

Don’t blame me for the left moving so far they no longer mesh with reality (women have penises, Green new deal, etc).

Well I think Trump was a knee jerk reaction to Obama so let's hope we don't get a too radical Democrat in response to him.