Mueller's Patton the back (investigation thread v. 22)

[TheComebackKid]

Leftists have been propogandized into a living death, holy crap

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

Is the investigation over, or is it closing in on Trump?

Seems like neither are true to me. Closing in on what exactly fogie?

 

[waiguoren]

Nobody will win it moron, you ensured that with your stupid stipulations.

Let's have a meta-bet on that. Make it a three-year name bet.

 

[waiguoren]

@HomerThompson its_happening.gif

I don't have an opinion on whether Mattis and Kelly actually said those things about Trump.

I posted Mattis's and Kelly's statements because no one else had.

This thread used to be very unbalanced. I am making it great again.

 

[waiguoren]

And we know that Cohen didn't commit bank fraud and start a phony LLC in repose to Stormy's accusations circa 2011, he just threatened to sue In Touch weekly if it printed the story, and (according to Stormy) sent out a goon to threaten bodily harm to her. In 2016 though (and yes, it does appear that through her shady ex-lawyer she came forward again), team Trump payed her $130,000.

I think you just demonstrated that Trump was interested in hushing Stephanie Clifford long before the campaign started. Again, politically, none of this matters. Morally, it's pretty meh. Legally, your account weakens the case that Trump's payment to Clifford was a "campaign contribution".

Beyond that though, we are not talking about a slippery slope to "see how far we can stretch this", with anything being a potential campaign contribution, that is a counterfactual foil to try to move the debate away from the fact that voters knowing that Trump was out humping porn stars (that reminded him of his daughters), while his new wife was home breastfeeding their new son, would have cost Trump votes, and therefore keeping that information private had a clear benefit to his campaign. Let's cross that counterfactual bridge of massages being considered campaign related if we come to it.

Dodge noted. No candidate has ever been convicted of a campaign finance violation in a similar case. It's important to lay out the limits of what constitutes a "campaign contribution". What is Trump whacked off to relieve stress, which allowed him to perform much better at one of his campaign rallies? Would that constitute a massive "in-kind campaign contribution" from himself to his campaign?

And, I think it is safe to assume that Melania didn't ever believe that Trump loved her for her mind.

....Trump is praying that you will be the prosecutor in this case.

To reiterate, I of course believe that Trump paid Clifford primarily or entirely to prevent her from damaging his electoral success. Proving that beyond a reasonable doubt in court would be a daunting task.

We disagree if this will come down to a he said verses he said situation, as I assume there will be other corroborating evidence, and you seem to be sticking with the null hypothesis on that.

Correct.

But, Trump has lied his ass off about this whole situation from before the election: "The media is trying to rig the election by giving credence — and this is so true — by giving credence to false stories that have no validity and make it the front page"

Erm...did you just copy-paste that from Washington Post? He read the statement off a teleprompter, and it was clearly in response to the allegations of four women ---none of whom were Stephanie Clifford---who spoke out publicly a few weeks before the Nov 2016 election. Here's a time-stamped video link for you to confirm: https://www.c-span.org/video/?417019-1/donald-trump-campaigns-green-bay-wisconsin&start=856

and his "You’ll have to ask Michael Cohen, Michael is my attorney. You’ll have to ask Michael” when questioned by reporters on Air Force One.

What's wrong with that?

Mueller is tasked with looking into Russian interference in the 2016 election, in which the question of if any Americans conspired with any Russians is subsumed.

No....


The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James 8. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:
(i)

any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals
associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump

(ii)
any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation
---------

You can argue that part (ii) would allow him to investigate anyone connected with Russia, but the primary focus is obviously the Russia-Trump connection.

You saying Trump is their "target," and that "implicating their target" is their "primary goal" is you repeating the tribalistic views of the Trump faction

Are you familiar with Andrew Weissman?

Robert Mueller's 'pit bull' is coming under intense scrutiny over perceived anti-Trump bias

Not only does this guy have it out for Trump, but he's famous for trying mafia families (Genovese, Colombo, Gambino). He is an expert at squeezing the little guys to hit the big fish.

The reports about the written questions may or may not be true

I thought Giuliani already confirmed it?

they may or may not put Trump in a tight spot regarding the "Russia thing

Why would that put Trump in a tight spot? It seems like a pretty clear surrender by the Mueller people on the "Russia collusion" aspect of the investigation, i.e., the primary purpose of the investigation, i.e., the only part of the investigation that people really care about.

 

[waiguoren]

Pretty sad that Trump has put Mattis & Kelly in a position where their only viable political option is to lie.

Tribalism rears its ugly head....

 

[waiguoren]

So you doubt the unanimous consensus of our intelligence agencies?

Ouch, you just reposted fake news. Worse, it's a Hillary Clinton talking point.

We have 17 intelligence agencies, and

New York Times: The assessment was made by four intelligence agencies — the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/29/pageoneplus/corrections-june-29-2017.html?_r=0


Also, if you're one of those MURICA! guys that believes everything the intelligence agencies tell you, you're part of the problem. Please read up on the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

Is the investigation over, or is it closing in on Trump?

Ooh!
I know! Pick me!!
I know this one!

 

[waiguoren]

Until it's it of course. At which point you and everyone like you will vaporize and re enter the ether. It'll be fun talking with and about you guys until then though!

How will the Trump presidency end?

 

[waiguoren]

Professor Elizabeth Foley: There's a million and one layers why this is not technically obstruction of justice either as a statutory matter or a constitutional matter. But this point in particular about a "corrupt intent" is even worse. Think about it: the president also has the authority under Article II of the Constitution to pardon people. We don't say, for example, that president can't pardon a certain person because he has a "corrupt intent". For example, he likes the guy or he's known him for a long time, therefore the president can't pardon him. The pardon power, like the power to head the investigative or the rest of the executive branch like the FBI, like the DOJ is a plenary, discretionary authority of the president. He can pardon anybody for any reason he wants to, corrupt purpose or not. He can direct the investigation or non-investigations of any person, corrupt motive or no. You don't put discretionary limits on plenary constitutional authority, and if you do, you are inviting Article III---non-elected, politically non-accountable judges to second-guess the president's authority. You never want to have a constitutional regime that's set up that way. We the people can either vote the president out in the next election, or we can impeach him. Those are our political pushback mechanisms.

 

[andnowweknow]

How will the Trump presidency end?

You tell us. Everyone paying attention can see where this is all headed but there are several obvious scenarios. See, there is this election coming up and a report on the horizon. Neither seem like they are gonna be good news for Trump.

 

[waiguoren]

Everyone paying attention can see where this is all headed

Where is this all headed?

 

[Bobby 3 Sticks]

I don't have an opinion on whether Mattis and Kelly actually said those things about Trump.

I posted Mattis's and Kelly's statements because no one else had.

This thread used to be very unbalanced. I am making it great again.

Posting propaganda =/= balancing a thread

 

[waiguoren]

Posting propaganda =/= balancing a thread

Mattis's and Kelly's statements denying the claims of Woodward's anonymous sources are...propaganda?

 

[Bobby 3 Sticks]

Mattis's and Kelly's statements denying the claims of Woodward's anonymous sources are...propaganda?

Those are not. But you know exactly what I'm talking about when I say you post propaganda

 

[waiguoren]

Those are not. But you know exactly what I'm talking about when I say you post propaganda

Professor Alan Dershowitz?

 

[Bobby 3 Sticks]

Professor Alan Dershowitz?

Among others yes.

When someone holds a legal belief that isn't accepted by others in the field it's pretty certain that he or she is simply pushing propaganda and paid to do so.

We already know tRUmp watches a ton of Fox, even using Fox and Friends as launching points for twitter ramblings (you can match up timestamps on posts with Fox and Friends talking points). That indicates that Fox (at least portions of it) are nothing more than a propaganda network.

Hell Roger Ailes even admitted he wanted a pro GOP network.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog.../01/AG1W7XtH_blog.html?utm_term=.b501f904875d
A memo entitled “A Plan for Putting the GOP on TV News,” buried in the the Nixon library details a plan between Ailes and the White House to bring pro-administration stories to television networks around the country. It reads: “Today television news is watched more often than people read newspapers, than people listen to the radio, than people read or gather any other form of communication. The reason: People are lazy. With television you just sit—watch—listen. The thinking is done for you.”

Politco did a good piece with John Dean:

Although he’s never stopped reliving the Watergate years, Dean seems surprised at how what he went through 45 years ago remains relevant today. Not that everything is the same—for one, he thinks that in today’s media and political environment, Nixon might have finished his term.

“There’s social media, there’s the internet; the news cycles are faster. I think Watergate would have occurred at a much more accelerated speed than the 928 days it took to go from the arrest at the Watergate to the conviction of Haldeman and Ehrlichman and [John] Mitchell, et al.,” Dean said. “There’s more likelihood he might have survived if there’d been a Fox News.”

https://www.politico.com/magazine/s...ave-survived-if-thered-been-a-fox-news-216207

Imagine, Nixon who committed the most known despicable act a POTUS has thus far might have survived with a propaganda network

 

[waiguoren]

When someone holds a legal belief that isn't accepted by others in the field it's pretty certain that he or she is simply pushing propaganda and paid to do so.

This is absurd on multiple levels.

First, Dershowitz is saying the same things now that he has been saying since before you or I were even born. This is a Jew who stands up for the rights of Neo Nazis to march in the streets. His 60 years in the profession have been focused almost exclusively on protecting the rights of the accused, including US presidents. He defended President Clinton just as vocally.

Second, the man is 80 years old and very wealthy. He has no incentive to sacrifice his integrity to take money. I will grant that your claim isn't quite as absurd as that of @Jack V Savage (who claimed Dershowitz is auditioning for a job).

As for your diatribe on "propaganda"---that term is pretty meaningless. CNN is anti-Trump, and FOX is mostly pro-Trump. Sometimes CNN makes good arguments and sometimes FOX makes good arguments. Bringing up "propaganda" just distracts from the validity of the arguments presented.

Most of the people in this thread who have tried to refute the legal arguments of Dershowitz, Foley, Goldberg, Sekulow and even Giuliani have failed miserably. Resorting to name-calling ("propaganda!") would seem to be the last resort of those unable to win an argument on the merits.

 

[Bobby 3 Sticks]

This is absurd on multiple levels.

First, Dershowitz is saying the same things now that he has been saying since before you or I were even born. This is a Jew who stands up for the rights of Neo Nazis to march in the streets. His 60 years in the profession have been focused almost exclusively on protecting the rights of the accused, including US presidents. He defended President Clinton just as vocally.

Second, the man is 80 years old and very wealthy. He has no incentive to sacrifice his integrity to take money. I will grant that your claim isn't quite as absurd as that of @Jack V Savage (who claimed Dershowitz is auditioning for a job).

As for your diatribe on "propaganda"---that term is pretty meaningless. CNN is anti-Trump, and FOX is mostly pro-Trump. Sometimes CNN makes good arguments and sometimes FOX makes good arguments. Bringing up "propaganda" just distracts from the validity of the arguments presented.

Most of the people in this thread who have tried to refute the legal arguments of Dershowitz, Foley, Goldberg, Sekulow and even Giuliani have failed miserably. Resorting to name-calling ("propaganda!") would seem to be the last resort of those unable to win an argument on the merits.

Funny cause most of the responses I gave to your Derschowitz shit you stopped responding to. Derschowitz legal arguments regarding tRUmp are mostly trash.

And no, the propaganda I talked about is actually true backed by facts from history.

 

[waiguoren]

Funny cause most of the responses I gave to your Derschowitz shit you stopped responding to. Derschowitz legal arguments regarding tRUmp are mostly trash.

I don't think this is accurate. I responded to every actual argument that I saw.

Derschowitz legal arguments regarding tRUmp are mostly trash.

Give an example.