Not Just a Cohencidence (Mueller/Investigation Thread v.20)

[hillelslovak87]

Irony is full of Iron, Mr. Identity Politics.

Ok, I guess you can add the word irony to the list of words you don't understand. I am not some collectivist hyper leftie, nor am I a Trumpbot whinging about my race. Stop hanging around with 6 year olds all the time, and read a vocabulary book. The parents are starting to worry.

 

[Big Nasty Edison]

Third party?

Abstain?

Not an option. Even when there was a candidate I wasn't too thrilled about(on either side), i'd still exercise my RIGHT to vote regardless and I always vote Republican. ALWAYS.

It just so happened that Trump was on the Republican side.

At least you admit to being blindly partisan.

I have to ask :

Do Libs actually sit in front of their computers for hours, coming up with these absurd new names?

1. No one had to come up with lickspittle. It's an old word.

2. How long does Trump spend coming up with all the stupid names he calls people?

 

[Big Nasty Edison]

Shooting In the dark here:

Eventual Trumpbot argument will be reduced to "So xyz happened, what's the big deal? It's not like he committed a murder!"

I'm sure he has committed murder.

 

[hillelslovak87]

Shooting In the dark here:

Eventual Trumpbot argument will be reduced to "So xyz happened, what's the big deal? It's not like he committed a murder!"

Trump could be hurling spittle about blood libel while eating a Jewish baby, and these weirdos would state that he doesn't hate jews or babies, he was just super hungry and thought the kid was KFC.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Shooting In the dark here:

Eventual Trumpbot argument will be reduced to "So xyz happened, what's the big deal? It's not like he committed a murder!"

This is the thing that's annoying. We know these people will never, under any circumstances have the integrity to say, "shit, that's fucked up." We also know that if it were a politician in another party that we're finding out all this about, they'd be screeching for impeachment. So why do they even bother going through the motions on these bad-faith arguments? Someone like @Farmer Br0wn, who just openly says that he sees politics as a war and that integrity and morality are for suckers is in a way (as disgusting as it is to those of us who were raised right) more appealing than the Trumpsters ITT. And at least he has the excuse that he was abused by his father.

 

[PolishHeadlock]

Shooting In the dark here:

Eventual Trumpbot argument will be reduced to "So xyz happened, what's the big deal? It's not like he committed a murder!"

The defense will always be "But Hilary would have been worse."

 

[vengeful]

That's the dodge of the century. You know perfectly well that @Lead adjudicates those bets so it doesn't matter if I "acknowledge it" or not.

As for your other "point", I repeat: defending someone's rights is not the same as defending that person's character or actions. I noticed you passed over that point entirely. So again, if I defend the right of an evil group like Antifa to march (as I have), would you say I'm a "defender of antifa"? No, you wouldn't. But because you are partisan to the bone, anyone who defends the rights of Trump or his associates is a "Trump defender" in your eyes.

The problem with this is that you're not just defending Trump's rights, you're making it as if his rights are being violated when they aren't. I've seen you in here basically claiming that the Mueller investigation is illegal and that Mueller has unlimited power, when both of these things have been proven untrue by several judges thus far including Judge Ellis in Manafort's case that was highly skeptical and critical of the Mueller investigation-even going as far as to claim that Mueller didn't care about Manafort's crimes and was only using him to flip on Trump.

 

[PolishHeadlock]

This is the thing that's annoying. We know these people will never, under any circumstances have the integrity to say, "shit, that's fucked up." We also know that if it were a politician in another party that we're finding out all this about, they'd be screeching for impeachment. So why do they even bother going through the motions on these bad-faith arguments? Someone like @Farmer Br0wn, who just openly says that he sees politics as a war and that integrity and morality are for suckers is in a way (as disgusting as it is to those of us who were raised right) more appealing than the Trumpsters ITT. And at least he has the excuse that he was abused by his father.

Some food for thought for the but Gorsuch crowd.

 

[ShadowRun]

Pretty much.

And I am guilty of being part of that 'cause I'll still vote for him if he makes it to 2020.

But man...he's not helping his cause right now with these absurd tweets. He needs to stop and take a long tweet-break.

100% agree he should stay off Twitter 80% of the time

 

[waiguoren]

You're not defending Trump's right to free speech or something.

I've defended his power to fire Executive Branch staff for any reason. I've defended the novel idea of "innocent until proven guilty" to be applied to his associates. That one in particular is highly controversial among the people in this thread.

You're saying that as more and more of his associates are shown to be criminals and we pile up evidence of inappropriate connections to Russia's attack on our democracy, everything is peachy.

That never happened.

I wrote multiple times that I expected Manafort to be found guilty on tax charges. I also wrote multiple times that Cohen would probably squeal.

Hiding behind "everything is peachy" language is a sign that your argument has no substance.

I can only laugh at the "attack on our democracy" frame. The DNC is a private club. It's not a fundamental part of our democracy. John Podesta made a grandpa mistake and fell for a phishing attempt that a 10-year-old could have pulled off. If that's an "attack on our democracy", I wonder what you would call a real election hacking attempt.

No action should be taken

Action? What action are you referring to, and where did I write that that it shouldn't be taken?

Trump should not be considered to be at fault

At fault for what? Name something specific. Don't obfuscate.

there's no possibility that improper or illegal activity goes further than whatever is currently publicly known

That never happened. Have some self-respect. You used to avoid misrepresenting people, but you're doing it more and more these days.

 

[bobgeese]

He's trying to figure out a way to convince himself (not us, because that's not happening) that he is somehow still right after being proved completely and totally wrong.
Right, @bobgeese ?
How's that "Cohen didn't flip" delusion coming along? Congrats. You may have succeeded in convincing people you're crazy and not just stupid.

Hi, let me know when Trump is removed from office from cohens “flip”.


Oh wait, he won’t be.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

The defense will always be "But Hilary would have been worse."

Exactly what I was thinking.

Trump could be in prison, the policies he passed and people he appointed could be ruining the country (and world in the case of environmental protection), but since the "Hillary would have been worse" line can't be unproven, that's the one they'll stick with.

Plus, he's still triggering the libs so it's all completely worth it. Would vote for again.

 

[waiguoren]

I've seen you in here basically claiming that the Mueller investigation is illegal

That never happened, although there are some legitimate legal questions there and I expect the issue to be addressed by the Supreme Court.

and that Mueller has unlimited power,

The mandate appointing Mueller is infinitely expandable. That's not something I made up. It's in the text of the order.

Judge Ellis in Manafort's case that was highly skeptical and critical of the Mueller investigation-even going as far as to claim that Mueller didn't care about Manafort's crimes and was only using him to flip on Trump.

That's exactly my point. Judge Ellis is a wise man and sees the numerous pitfalls here. But his job was not to adjudicate the issue of the legality of the Mueller investigation, and he can't stop Mueller from investigating your cousin's dog's favorite chew toy if Mueller decides to go down that route.

 

[HomerThompson]

At fault for what? Name something specific. Don't obfuscate.

Felony election fraud, and criminal conspiracy to cover up the crime after the fact.

 

[44nutman]

I have to ask :

Do Libs actually sit in front of their computers for hours, coming up with these absurd new names?

Sure do lil' @glenwo2

 

[PolishHeadlock]

That never happened, although there are some legitimate legal questions there and I expect the issue to be addressed by the Supreme Court.



The mandate appointing Mueller is infinitely expandable. That's not something I made up. It's in the text of the order.



That's exactly my point. Judge Ellis is a wise man and sees the numerous pitfalls here. But his job was not to adjudicate the issue of the legality of the Mueller investigation, and he can't stop Mueller from investigating your cousin's dog's favorite chew toy if Mueller decides to go down that route.

Let us know when Mueller actually expands the mandate

 

[Jack V Savage]

I've defended his power to fire Executive Branch staff for any reason. I've defended the novel idea of "innocent until proven guilty" to be applied to his associates. That one in particular is highly controversial among the people in this thread.

Would you consider this thread to be a court of law?

I can only laugh at the "attack on our democracy" frame. The DNC is a private club. It's not a fundamental part of our democracy. John Podesta made a grandpa mistake and fell for a phishing attempt that a 10-year-old could have pulled off. If that's an "attack on our democracy", I wonder what you would call a real election hacking attempt.

There were real election hacking attempts, too, but if I had more regard for your integrity, I'd be shocked at the defense of the hacking. To be clear: is your view that there's no problem with foreign countries illegally hacking private citizens in order to influence election results and extract policy concessions?

Action? What action are you referring to, and where did I write that that it shouldn't be taken?

Impeachment, prosecution, etc. Sanctions against the country that attacked us.

At fault for what? Name something specific. Don't obfuscate.

For example, directing his personal fixer to violate campaign finance laws.

That never happened. Have some self-respect. You used to avoid misrepresenting people, but you're doing it more and more these days.

You keep using what's known as the absolute stopping point in your analysis and denying that any further investigation will turn up more. For example, in the bet, we know that Russia arranged a meeting with Trump's campaign to discuss "dirt" on Clinton and the Magnitsky Act (which the Russian gov't obviously opposes). But you're expressing certainty that there was no discussion of exchanging policy concessions for dirt in the meeting (apparently the law and the dirt were just two unrelated items on the agenda?).

What's strange, too, is that even if you somehow like Trump's actions in office (drastically increasing borrowing to pay for a giveaway to rich people, making it easier for scam universities to rip people off, allowing more pollution, etc.), surely there's a non-corrupt Republican somewhere who would be willing to do all the same things. Pence, for example. Why debase yourself defending Trump?

 

[kpt018]

@waiguoren I can't take the bet you made in the closed thread (I still don't have confidence Trump will be impeached, and zero confidence he'll voluntarily step down). Not sure how you feel about Tuesday's events with Cohen and Manafort, but it felt like you believe it's not a big deal (you mentioned Manafort was only 4 months and Cohen only sometimes). If that's true, it's fairly crazy. 4 months leading your campaign is a huge deal and many people came out and said how much Manafort helped Trump. And Cohen was his long time personal attorney. I'm not sure how you can get anymore inside the "inner circle" than those two positions quite frankly.

 

[vengeful]

That never happened, although there are some legitimate legal questions there and I expect the issue to be addressed by the Supreme Court.



The mandate appointing Mueller is infinitely expandable. That's not something I made up. It's in the text of the order.



That's exactly my point. Judge Ellis is a wise man and sees the numerous pitfalls here. But his job was not to adjudicate the issue of the legality of the Mueller investigation, and he can't stop Mueller from investigating your cousin's dog's favorite chew toy if Mueller decides to go down that route.

What power does Mueller as special prosecutor have that the FBI doesn't? Is there anything that Mueller has done or could do that say Comey wouldn't have been able to do had he never been fired?

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

This is the thing that's annoying. We know these people will never, under any circumstances have the integrity to say, "shit, that's fucked up."

That's the reason I scroll by most of them, the ones who don't want to argue in good faith.
I'm too old to piss into the wind.