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

[Sketch]

<{cruzshake}>

 

[ocean size]

Remember the BTK Killer? Not necessarily crimes.

can u fill me in what is the deal with btk

 

[Fawlty]

Oh i'm definitely a very silly person
I'll plead guilty to that right away

I do not accept this as Truth. You see how this works now, right, peasant? This is like murder and tax fraud, don't you see? You cannot prove that you are silly. Guilty is not Guilty.

 

[Fawlty]

can u fill me in what is the deal with btk

He pled guilty to about 10 murders, so we can't establish whether he committed crimes. It will always remain a mystery to man and beast.

 

[tonni]

Nobody can be so dumb as to antagonise someone who can potentially testify against them. Can they? Help, tell me this is fake.

It's not fake. I checked. If you click it you can check for yourself/

 

[tonni]

I want to believe that's a parody account.

It's not. I had tears in my eyes reading that tweet.

 

[tonni]

He pled guilty to about 10 murders, so we can't establish whether he committed crimes. It will always remain a mystery to man and beast.

BTK derangement syndrome

 

[pinger]

Free BTK!

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

Well if he murdered and/or raped someone, of course that would be a deal breaker. Then again, he wouldn't be a candidate at all at the point(he or she'd be incarcerated) but I digress....

I predicted this "argument" a few pages ago

As a joke

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

Oh i'm definitely a very silly person
I'll plead guilty to that right away

Silly is good, silly is right

 

[waiguoren]

You would vote "no" based on the totality of what is known about Trump's conduct? I'd say that you'd vote "no" based on the letter next to his name.

Yes, you frequently speculate about other people's motivations.

If the formal process of removal is to have any legitimacy, it must be done in strict compliance with the provisions of the Constitution. Despite frequent claims that the impeachment and removal process is entirely political, that is not the case. Removing a president requires that legal criteria, set out explicitly in the Constitution, must first be satisfied before political considerations can come into play. The impeached president must be found guilty and convicted by two-thirds of the Senate of "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

I don't think the act of paying off a mistress is morally reprehensible. I don't like it when men sleep around on their wives, but that's a different topic.

You were just attacking Strok's morality on the exact grounds. This is just blatant tribalism.

When did Stzrok pay hush money to a mistress? I wrote that I do not find the paying of hush money to a mistress to be morally reprehensible. That has nothing to do with Stzrok.

Right, he didn't even do that. But he had an affair. Or was there some other basis for your insisting that he was highly immoral? I guess the fact that he isn't a Trump loyalist?

Stzrok violated his oath the Constitution by failing to recuse himself from both the Clinton and Trump investigations despite knowing that he had a strong preference for one candidate over the other. There's a bit more to it than that (see some of his texts and the Horowitz's report), but I'll leave it there. That was my reason for criticizing Stzrok in the other thread.

The intelligent response is not to dignify such obvious bad faith arguing by getting into the weeds on it.

I could use that line against multiple of your professed beliefs that I find to be wacky. I often can't believe that a person could hold some of the beliefs you do. Nevertheless, I continue to engage faithfully on the facts. It appears to me that you know you are in a weak position in arguing that Trump has not been tough on Russia, and you therefore prefer to avoid the topic.

Trump is championing your views on immigration, and thus you are willing to sacrifice your honor and reputation to defend his corruption.

Here we have more speculation about motivations. Point me to a post of mine in which I "defended Trump's corruption". That's a smear more befitting of a Sean Hannity broadcast than a Jack V Savage post.

I understand that you grant that it is possible. Your framework precludes it ever being legitimate if you apply it consistently (which surely you would not do).

This is false and totally unjustified by anything I wrote. In fact, I support the drafting of articles of impeachment against President Trump. A significant bloc of the Congress would vote 'yes', and therefore a vote should be held. This is similar to my support of the holding of a vote on the nomination of Merrick Garland, although the case for a vote there was even stronger (I view the action of the Republicans in that case to have been borderline unconstitutional).

 

[waiguoren]

Excellent interview with Jay Goldberg.

 

[ChainFlow]

Wai has tried to sneak in the claim that these campaign contributions were legal unchallenged.

Either they were an illegal contribution from Cohen, or Trump lied on his financial disclosure forms when he didn’t tell the FEC about them. Which I believe is a felony.

 

[Quipling]

I agree with Giuliani. He argued, ineloquently, that a man can be charged with perjury despite telling the truth. That's accurate.

One may as well say that one can be charged with murder despite not being remotely involved in any deaths and having an airtight alibi. It's technically true, but completely meaningless.

One can always be charged for things one hasn't done. So what?

 

[Phisher]

This dude is unreal. 18 months in, and he still doesn't realize that it's a bad idea to keep ranting about how the AG isn't actively working to cover the President's ass?

 

[waiguoren]

One may as well say that one can be charged with murder despite not being remotely involved in any deaths and having an airtight alibi. It's technically true, but completely meaningless.

One can always be charged for things one hasn't done. So what?

That's not meaningless at all. Putting the president's special status aside for a moment, every qualified defense attorney in Giuliani's position would be wary of a perjury trap and a he-said-she-said situation potentially leading to a conviction. At the same time, Giuliani does not want Trump to be granted immunity for obvious reasons. He's walking a tightrope and he's doing it pretty well, out-of-context clips aside.

 

[curryjunkie]

"Never believe that MAGA Hatters are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The MAGA Hatters have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”

-Sartre

Switch in MAGA Hatters for the original word - quote works pretty good.

It's a thing of beauty, hats off to you

 

[Prefect]

I agree with Giuliani. He argued, ineloquently, that a man can be charged with perjury despite telling the truth. That's accurate.

But not profound. Anyone can be charged with anything and being found not guilty of perjury is also not the same as being found to be truthful.

 

[HOLA]

Trump just said on Fox that if we impeach him we're all going to be poor, hahah.

"You know, I guess it says something like high crimes and all -- I don't know how you can impeach somebody who has done a great job...If I ever got impeached, I think everybody would be very poor...You would see numbers that you wouldn't believe."

That's really what he was saying, verbatim.

 

[waiguoren]

Anyone can be charged with anything and being found not guilty of perjury is also not the same as being found to be truthful.

Of course the above is true. It's "profound" because many people in this thread are convinced that Trump's lawyers are restricting a potential Mueller-Trump interview because (they believe) everyone knows Trump would commit perjury. In reality, Trump could be the most honest man in the world (BTW: he isn't) and it would still be inadvisable for him to consent to Mueller's interview.