Ed Breaking: Mueller Grand Jury charges filed, arrests as soon as Monday

[The_Animus]

It must be up to double-digit arrests by now.

How many indictments and guilty pleas are we up to for Benghazi, Clinton emails, and the evil FBI/DOJ run by Trump appointees?

This is like the third time you've popped in to make this same sort of comment and every time it just makes you look incredibly ignorant and partisan.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

It must be up to double-digit arrests by now.

Indictments are up to double figures, yes.

 

[varwoche]

Fixed it for you:

How many indictments and guilty pleas are we up to for Benghazi, Clinton emails, and the evil FBI/DOJ run by Trump appointees?

This is like the third eighth time you've popped in to make this same sort of comment and every time it just makes you look incredibly ignorant and partisan.

But who's counting.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

This is like the third time you've popped in to make this same sort of comment and every time it just makes you look incredibly ignorant and partisan.

It's way more than that. Once or twice a month.

 

[Segnosaur]

Re: charges layed by Mueller...

When one of the perps is the campaign manager, and another perp is the NSA, goofy counting games amount to inept JAQing off.

Campaign manager? I thought his job was just to get coffee. Or Covfefe.

 

[Stacko]

The sheer simple-mindedness of this implied criticism is something to behold.

When one of the perps is the campaign manager, and another perp is the NSA, goofy counting games amount to inept JAQing off.

To be fair previous GOP administrations have conditioned them to expect that level of criminality.

 

[Dr. Keith]

To be fair previous GOP administrations have conditioned them to expect that level of criminality.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1331&pictureid=11295[/qimg]

More proof that Bush the senior was a RINO.

 

[Segnosaur]

To be fair previous GOP administrations have conditioned them to expect that level of criminality.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1331&pictureid=11295[/qimg]

Not that I disagree with that chart (I agree with the general thrust of it... republican administrations are usually more criminally inclined than democratic admits). But how are they counting someone as part of the 'executive branch'? Cabinet level/senior appointees? mid range/lower range appointees? Admin staff?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Trump is such a bad liar. He made a recent comment: "The [Trump Tower] meeting was so unimportant I didn't even know about it, that's how unimportant it was."

 

[Emily's Cat]

It also goes hand in hand with anti-intellectualism and a disdain for experts and expertise.

Why should I take the word of some poindexter in his ivory tower about something when my own gut is a much better reference, after all it's based on real world experience, not the fantasy world those academics live in.

Let me propose an alternative interpretation here.

The experts and academics aren't necessarily disdained, but many of their ideas are. There is a necessary removal from the grime and dirt and complications of reality when you're dealing with academia - it's necessary because you must be able to simplify the scenario in order to model it, in order to form hypotheses. Experts and academics are, most often, not part of the groups affected by their work. And for those who are affected, that removal can be painful. All too often, the human element - the impact on actual real people - is ignored or subsumed by the aggregate effect of the hypothesis or theory in question. So in this sense, it's not a disdain for intelligence or expertise, it's disdain for the lack of care and consideration engendered by the intellectual or expert who proposes actions without thought for the consequence, and often makes those proposals on the presumption that they know what's best for the people being affected.

I'll provide a few anecdotes to illustrate. Obviously, these are anecdotes and don't constitute peer-reviewed research.

Most of my friends fully accept that the globe is warming. Some of them are not decided on how much of that warming is due to humans as opposed to other natural forces. Several of them are opposed to legislation and measures intended to reduce the effect of humans on that warming. A few are opposed on ideological grounds that it's not the government's role. But others are opposed because that legislation has actual real impacts to them. For example, a few years ago one of my friends was pretty angry because the cost of her asthma inhaler skyrocketed - and I mean it went from on the order of $10 per prescription to $150 per prescription. It went up because the government banned CFCs as propellants... and as a result the pharmaceutical companies all had to come up with new propellants for their inhalers... which in turn got them all new patents on a drug that had been generic for decades. The government's decision that CFCs are bad for the environment, in an intellectual and removed fashion, put her in a position where she could no longer afford the medicine that might save her life. As far as she was concerned, some ivory tower academic with no connection to the real world had decided that her life was not important.

Almost all policies have winners and losers. Almost all of the expert opinion and scientific discovery works at an aggregate level. In total, it might make perfect sense that changing the tax code will result in a net 2% improvement... but it's a bit of a different story for Bob and Jim, when Bob sees that Jim's financial security improved by 22% while his own decreased by 20%.

 

[Minoosh]

To be fair previous GOP administrations have conditioned them to expect that level of criminality.

Gerald Ford being the significant outlier.

I really liked Ford.

 

[Minoosh]

For example, a few years ago one of my friends was pretty angry because the cost of her asthma inhaler skyrocketed - and I mean it went from on the order of $10 per prescription to $150 per prescription. It went up because the government banned CFCs as propellants... and as a result the pharmaceutical companies all had to come up with new propellants for their inhalers... which in turn got them all new patents on a drug that had been generic for decades.

I really think the problem there is that it was being marketed (and protected) as a "new" drug when it had the exact same active ingredient. Blaming it on academia is majorly missing the point of pharmaceutical profiteering and laws that enable it. You should know this well, from what I know about your background.

So it's still misguided to blame academia ... a lazy kind of thinking, IMO.

Almost all policies have winners and losers. Almost all of the expert opinion and scientific discovery works at an aggregate level. In total, it might make perfect sense that changing the tax code will result in a net 2% improvement... but it's a bit of a different story for Bob and Jim, when Bob sees that Jim's financial security improved by 22% while his own decreased by 20%.

And that's the fault of academia? The laws are what create winners and losers. Lawmakers make laws, not academics. And whatever influence academia has over lawmakers is probably well offset by those lobbying for bigger profits. Why not blame them for Bob's problem?

However, I seriously have lost the thread of the discussion, as I came here looking for something new about Mueller's investigation. Apologies for going off-topic.

 

[The_Animus]

Fixed it for you:
But who's counting.

It's way more than that. Once or twice a month.

Thanks for the correction

 

[Minoosh]

I presume Mueller will know the answer to all or most of these questions?

How could anyone know in advance what kind of bizzaro answers Trump would give? Fake News! Hillary! Comey! Trump will simply not answer the questions in any coherent way. He'll lie to the special prosecutor because he is incapable of not lying.

I'm sure he'll contradict himself multiple times, and some of those times, if he stands by his answers to the questions, he will inevitably be lying.

ETA: Even the Fox and Friends thing ... he said that "Our Justice Department, which I try to stay away from, but at some point I won't." He is telegraphing his intention to do something about the Justice Department. Though Trump does have the power to fire top appointees, any action he could take would arguably be obstructing justice.

No, the beauty is not knowing Trump's answers in advance. Given enough rope he will hang himself - not politically, necessarily, but legally. This isn't even about whether I like the guy or not. It's just Trump being Trump.

 

[blutoski]

So it's still misguided to blame academia ... a lazy kind of thinking, IMO.

Yeah, I'm thinking the same thing. My jaw dropped when I read that. I sincerely question @Emily's Cat's reasoning capacity now. The anecdote doesn't indict atmosphere chemists anymore than it would Newton's fault if I dropped a hammer on my foot. They didn't make a moral choice about whether to share their findings or not. Facts are facts, there's no ivory tower involved.

Now, the pharmaceutical marketing department that decided not to waive their patent rights and jack up the pricing, they're in my moral bad books. @Emily's Cat: which pharmaceutical did this immoral act that threatened your friend's life, and are you boycotting them?

And that's the fault of academia? The laws are what create winners and losers. Lawmakers make laws, not academics.

Which is where I'd place the blame. Politicians wilfully chose not to make asthma inhalers exceptions to the restrictions. Were pharmaceutical lobbyists pushing back on the inclusion when they identified an opportunity for an exception? Or did they remain silent, recognizing the profit potential?

 

[blutoski]

Which is where I'd place the blame. Politicians wilfully chose not to make asthma inhalers exceptions to the restrictions. Were pharmaceutical lobbyists pushing back on the inclusion when they identified an opportunity for an exception? Or did they remain silent, recognizing the profit potential?

After some research... the Montreal Protocol excluded CFC propellants used for pharmaceutical inhalers from the global ban.

The retirement of this propellant technology was voluntary on the part of the industry.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

No, the beauty is not knowing Trump's answers in advance. Given enough rope he will hang himself - not politically, necessarily, but legally.

Well, there are two things here.

The first is that it's been said many times over the last year or so by many legal experts that when someone like Mueller asks someone like Trump, or Flynn, or Manafort, etc. questions, then they do, indeed, already know the answers. Although, with that, I thing Abramson is probably on to something when he says that the questions about actions would be that kind of a trap whereas the questions about what Trump was thinking in any particular time would be about how to frame his evidence in a case against him once he's got him on official record as to what he was thinking. Although all this should come with the caveat that Mueller must know that there's almost certainly only the slimmest of chances that Trump will ever sit down for an interview.

The second is that it's been reported that the spelling mistakes in the leaked questions probably indicate that they weren't from a list of questions that Mueller gave Trump's team, but rather that they were what Trump's team wrote down when Mueller briefed them about the kinds of topics he'd want to talk to Trump about. So they're not actually "the questions".

 

[varwoche]

Logger, I've arrayed our discussion here so that you can clarify. I'm a bit flabbergasted that you're apparently fundamentally unaware of what a fact even is.

Kudos to Bob Mueller. Thank you sir!

Ah, a right wing opinion piece, with the writer's lips firmly planted on Trump's ass.

The weight I assign to this commentary rounds to nil.

Why not try to address the facts posted?

Specifically, which facts?

Specifically McCabe being charged?

Is it right wing opinion that he should be charged?

This is so fundamentally confused that it's a category error.

 

[blutoski]

After some research... the Montreal Protocol excluded CFC propellants used for pharmaceutical inhalers from the global ban.

The retirement of this propellant technology was voluntary on the part of the industry.

@Minoosh had a good point about the CFC asthma inhaler 'example' being a side topic, but I actually think it's squarely on topic. I don't know how @Emily's Cat got misinformed about the decisions that led to her friend's life threatening circumstances, but notice how the primary beneficiary is a pharmaceutical company, and the primary victims are consumers, and indirectly, trust in reality/science/&c.

People are mostly reasonable, but we can be lied to, and led to make poor decisions in good faith. Why would anybody want us to make poor decisions?


Profit.



About 60ish years ago, the tobacco industry invented a strategy of undermining public trust in science, and corporate lobbying in general has adopted it as taken for granted to be the best way to sell product that is scientifically invalid. The CFC 'story' is just the tip of the iceberg vis a vis healthfraud. Other topics are climate change, and creation science. And now we're at the end game. This administration has put the antiscience lobbyists who once were considered cranks in charge of Departments.

This is why I don't know how it will go. Americans could undergo a steady worsening of their conditions, and decide that they just weren't trying hard enough. Maybe they need more environmental deregulation, more economic isolation, more dismantling of renewable energy programs, more privatization of healthcare, more consolidation of media, more crushing of unions and labour rights. There will come a moment when it is irreversible, is my concern.

 

[Steve]

How could anyone know in advance what kind of bizzaro answers Trump would give? Fake News! Hillary! Comey! Trump will simply not answer the questions in any coherent way. He'll lie to the special prosecutor because he is incapable of not lying[/I].

I'm sure he'll contradict himself multiple times, and some of those times, if he stands by his answers to the questions, he will inevitably be lying.

ETA: Even the Fox and Friends thing ... he said that "Our Justice Department, which I try to stay away from, but at some point I won't." He is telegraphing his intention to do something about the Justice Department. Though Trump does have the power to fire top appointees, any action he could take would arguably be obstructing justice.

No, the beauty is not knowing Trump's answers in advance. Given enough rope he will hang himself - not politically, necessarily, but legally. This isn't even about whether I like the guy or not. It's just Trump being Trump.

The claim was not that Mueller knows Trump's answers to the questions. It Was that he knows the correct answers to the questions.