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

Status
Not open for further replies.
If you're asking about Jordan/Meadows interview, it helps to balance out the wild anti-Trumpers in this thread who are ignoring possible impropriety at DOJ/FBI in the name of taking down their target.
Does this help too?
DmbObx6XoAA_Ner.jpg:large


Which one of these is you:
hzCf9w9.jpg
 
You guys referring to this Dred Scott?
"The Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford is unanimously denounced by modern scholars. Many contemporary lawyers, and most modern legal scholars, consider the ruling regarding slavery in the territories to be obiter dictum and not a binding precedent. Bernard Schwartz says it "stands first in any list of the worst Supreme Court decisions—Chief Justice C. E. Hughes called it the Court's greatest self-inflicted wound".[7] Junius P. Rodriguez says it is "universally condemned as the U.S. Supreme Court's worst decision".[8] Historian David Thomas Konig says it was "unquestionably, our court's worst decision ever".[5][9][10]"
 
I agree with this (though not as it relates to Dersch, who I think is arguing in bad faith). Who are some writers from the opposing side that you regularly read?

The opposing side of the Mueller issue?

For clarity, my view is that Trump is unlikely to sustain serious political damage from the Mueller probe, and that the likelihood is miniscule that Trump "colluded" with the Russian government to influence the 2016 presidential election. These views put me at odds with almost the entire MSM commentariat.

To get specific: almost the entire WaPo/NY Times editorial team would be a good start.
 
You guys referring to this Dred Scott?
"The Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford is unanimously denounced by modern scholars. Many contemporary lawyers, and most modern legal scholars, consider the ruling regarding slavery in the territories to be obiter dictum and not a binding precedent. Bernard Schwartz says it "stands first in any list of the worst Supreme Court decisions—Chief Justice C. E. Hughes called it the Court's greatest self-inflicted wound".[7] Junius P. Rodriguez says it is "universally condemned as the U.S. Supreme Court's worst decision".[8] Historian David Thomas Konig says it was "unquestionably, our court's worst decision ever".[5][9][10]"

That's the one. Taney's opinion clearly violated the US Constitution. In particular, Taney took a "living constitutionalist" approach to the definition of the term "citizen". If Taney had stuck to a strict, textualist/originalist interpretation of the founding documents, he would have reached the opposite conclusion.

Unlike @Jack V Savage , my definition of "constitutional" is not equivalent to "whatever the Supreme Court has deemed constitutional". The majority opinion in Dred Scott was unconstitutional in 1857, in 1858, now, and in every other time.
 
Last edited:
The opposing side of the Mueller issue?

For clarity, my view is that Trump is unlikely to sustain serious political damage from the Mueller probe, and that the likelihood is miniscule that Trump "colluded" with the Russian government to influence the 2016 presidential election. These views put me at odds with almost the entire MSM commentariat.

To get specific: almost the entire WaPo/NY Times editorial team would be a good start.

I was thinking more generally. I'd legitimately be interested in the answer, as I get the sense that this is something lacking from your intellectual diet. I understand that you're reflexively defensive of Trump, and that almost all non-partisan sources disagree with you on this particular issue, though. I have no doubt you've been exposed to other views on whether the president should be above the law or whether the appearance of collusion is just a result of a series of innocent, unconnected facts that coincidentally point that way.
 
Yo Wagyu,

You ready for another all nighter discrediting this book...
 
I was thinking more generally.

I don't understand.

I get the sense that this is something lacking from your intellectual diet

Funny. I think the same of you.

I understand that you're reflexively defensive of Trump

That's false. I have repeatedly criticized him on these forums for getting played by Ryan/McConnell on the wall, for being too aggressive toward Russia, for increasing military spending and for failing to fact check.

almost all non-partisan sources disagree with you on this particular issue

I think this is wrong. Give a few examples of "non-partisan" sources. I suspect I won't think that many of them are actually "non-partisan". Obviously, that term is subjective.

I have no doubt you've been exposed to other views on whether the president should be above the law

As I have repeatedly argued in these threads, the president is not above the law.

the appearance of collusion is just a result of a series of innocent, unconnected facts that coincidentally point that way.

I firmly believe that a smart person with a lot of time on his hands could spin a narrative that Trump colluded with the Chinese to win the 2016 election that is more convincing than the "Russian collusion" conspiracy theory to which you refer.
 
Not really sure what you're getting at.

Are you trying to paint Meadows as a crazy person?
No, I'm trying to paint him as a duplicitous scumbag you should pay no attention to when he appears on TV. Just like all your other sources.
 
No, I'm trying to paint him as a duplicitous scumbag you should pay no attention to when he appears on TV. Just like all your other sources.
Erm...it seems you aren't very familiar with the dynamics within the Republican Party.

The Freedom Caucus is typified by House members such as Mark Meadows and Jim Jordan. It's no secret to Ryan or anyone else (except you) that these guys don't like Paul Ryan and the "establishment". "Duplicitous" is a huuuuuuuge stretch in this context. Carry on.
 
Erm...it seems you aren't very familiar with the dynamics within the Republican Party.

The Freedom Caucus is typified by House members such as Mark Meadows and Jim Jordan. It's no secret to Ryan or anyone else (except you) that these guys don't like Paul Ryan and the "establishment". "Duplicitous" is a huuuuuuuge stretch in this context. Carry on.
That bunch of shitbags put the "cauc" in caucus.
 
That bunch of shitbags put the cock in caucus.



<{ByeHomer}>


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


John Dowd, former attorney to President Trump:

It was Mueller's suggestion that we ought to engage and that we ought to work together. We said fine, get us the document list and ask for your witnesses. Ty Cobb and Jay and I provided them. He said he wouldn't let any grass grow. In every meeting and communication we had, we stressed how important it was to note that his inquiry was a great burden on the president and interfered with the president's ability to lead this country particularly in foreign affairs. Mueller said he took that very seriously. On and on he gave us his word that he would do it. Late last year, when he had completed the 37 witnesses, I asked him: did you have any problem with those witnesses? They were all well-represented, all well-prepared. He said no. Did anyone lie to you? No. Documents: we gave you 1.4 million, but more importantly we gave you the most intimate notes of the communications and deliberations of the president. No president in history has ever done anything like that. Are we missing anything? Are there any missing documents? No. Are you satisfied with everything you've got? Yes. What's the president's exposure? [Mueller responded:] The president's exposure is as a witness/subject. So he's not a target, correct? Correct. So he's got no exposure. At that point we said, well why don't we just decline? Mueller said well, we'd like to get back to you on that, but we think we need to talk to the president. I raised the **** issue which we had briefed thoroughly. Jay's people did a magnificent job on the briefing on all of those issues. I asked, what do you not know that we haven't given you, that only the president knows? Mueller could never answer that question, Sean. That's when I saw a stall going on, and I just lost complete faith in [the Mueller probe]. We had shaken hands. He's the one that said, "John, we'll engage." We said, we're not going to raise conflicts. We're not going to raise the legality of the order. We're not going to fool with all this nonsense. Let's get the job done. This president wants the job done. By the way, this president gets the credit. He's the one that said, give it to him.

....

 
<{ByeHomer}>


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


John Dowd, former attorney to President Trump:

It was Mueller's suggestion that we ought to engage and that we ought to work together. We said fine, get us the document list and ask for your witnesses. Ty Cobb and Jay and I provided them. He said he wouldn't let any grass grow. In every meeting and communication we had, we stressed how important it was to note that his inquiry was a great burden on the president and interfered with the president's ability to lead this country particularly in foreign affairs. Mueller said he took that very seriously. On and on he gave us his word that he would do it. Late last year, when he had completed the 37 witnesses, I asked him: did you have any problem with those witnesses? They were all well-represented, all well-prepared. He said no. Did anyone lie to you? No. Documents: we gave you 1.4 million, but more importantly we gave you the most intimate notes of the communications and deliberations of the president. No president in history has ever done anything like that. Are we missing anything? Are there any missing documents? No. Are you satisfied with everything you've got? Yes. What's the president's exposure? [Mueller responded:] The president's exposure is as a witness/subject. So he's not a target, correct? Correct. So he's got no exposure. At that point we said, well why don't we just decline? Mueller said well, we'd like to get back to you on that, but we think we need to talk to the president. I raised the **** issue which we had briefed thoroughly. Jay's people did a magnificent job on the briefing on all of those issues. I asked, what do you not know that we haven't given you, that only the president knows? Mueller could never answer that question, Sean. That's when I saw a stall going on, and I just lost complete faith in [the Mueller probe]. We had shaken hands. He's the one that said, "John, we'll engage." We said, we're not going to raise conflicts. We're not going to raise the legality of the order. We're not going to fool with all this nonsense. Let's get the job done. This president wants the job done. By the way, this president gets the credit. He's the one that said, give it to him.

....


Aaaaand again with Faux News. Here's what you don't get. When you use shit sources with shit credibility, they're ignored and your credibility also becomes shit. Your game is plain for all to see and it's tiresome. And I thought it was against forum rules to post copy pasta with no additional input of your own, such as, say, what makes you think any of the content of your post is worth a fraction of a fuck. But you've been getting away with it over and over. Give it a rest, troll.
 
Here's what you don't get. When you use shit sources with shit credibility, they're ignored and your credibility also becomes shit.

Your mistakes are

1) thinking that I am "using" this source to make some broader point.

2) thinking the source is "Fox News". In this case, it's attorney John Dowd. I get that you don't trust him, but he's very relevant to this thread topic. It makes no difference which network he appears on.


And I thought it was against forum rules to post copy pasta with no additional input of your own, such as, say, what makes you think any of the content of your post is worth a fraction of a fuck

Not to my knowledge. Cite the rule.

I learned this approach from @Joe , who posts "copy pasta" from the anti-Trump side in this thread with great regularity.
 
Your mistakes are

1) thinking that I am "using" this source to make some broader point.

2) thinking the source is "Fox News". In this case, it's attorney John Dowd. I get that you don't trust him, but he's very relevant to this thread topic.




Not to my knowledge. Cite the rule.

I learned this approach from @Joe , who typically posts "copy pasta" from the anti-Trump side.
So your copy pasta is pointless ergo trolling. Go "report" yourself.
 
I didn't write that. I guess that's your conclusion. Is @Joe 's posting of "copy pasta" also "pointless trolling"?
I won't say always but he generally includes some small measure of personal input.

You post these shitstain sources with no comment for one reason. I won't elaborate because it's a waste of my time trying to prove a point to the likes of you on this subject but it's enough for me to know you're a full on troll. Saves me time.
<MaryseShutIt>
 
I won't say always but he generally includes some small measure of personal input.

Typically it's less than a sentence. I'll start adding less than a sentence to my "copy pasta "and I'm sure you'll be satisfied.

<BronTroll1>

You post these shitstain sources

Right, the president's attorney is a "shitstain source". You seem like a very balanced guy.



<{ByeHomer}>
 
I don't understand.

Hmm. I'm asking what writers you read regularly and disagree with regularly.

Funny. I think the same of you.

Can't imagine why.

That's false. I have repeatedly criticized him on these forums for getting played by Ryan/McConnell on the wall, for being too aggressive toward Russia, for increasing military spending and for failing to fact check.

Haha.

I firmly believe that a smart person with a lot of time on his hands could spin a narrative that Trump colluded with the Chinese to win the 2016 election that is more convincing than the "Russian collusion" conspiracy theory to which you refer.

I think you're pushing the trolling too far with this kind of thing. Not plausible enough to get a bite.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top