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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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".
The NYT indicated it had condensed them and included context. I got that it wasn't the actual list.

I think the key phrase is "open-ended" queries. If you asked what Trump was thinking when he said something, he could say "I don't remember." Or perhaps more honestly, "I wasn't thinking."

If he's allowed to answer in writing, lawyers can do that for him.
 
Gerald Ford being the significant outlier.

I really liked Ford.

Pshaw.

At that early stage in the Watergate cover-up, the White House understood that Wright Patman posed more of a threat than The Washington Post and other news media. Patman's thesis was simple: an investigation into the source of the brand-new hundred-dollar bills found on the team of men arrested inside the Watergate office complex, where they were re-installing a wiretap on the telephones in the Democratic National Committee headquarters, would lead directly to Nixon's re-election committee. This illicit financing (it had been arranged by Maurice Stans, finance director of the re-election campaign, and G. Gordon Liddy, a campaign counsel) eventually did lead to the unraveling of Watergate. Nixon's concern about the link between the Watergate break-in and the money was so great that one week after the Watergate burglary, he ordered the CIA to stop the FBI's investigation into the source of the money; his order, recorded in a June 23, 1972, tape that the Supreme Court forced him to release in early August of 1974, was the famed "smoking gun" disclosure that effectively ended his presidency. As of the fall of 1972, it was clear that Nixon had no intention of allowing Patman to subpoena witnesses, such as Stans, and perhaps learn the truth. Gerald Ford's role in stopping Patman was pivotal.

That Ford would cooperate was assumed, in the view of the men close to Nixon. Alexander P. Butterfield, the former Air Force colonel who, as a personal aide to Nixon, spent hundreds of hours in the Oval Office, said in a recent interview, "Nixon had Ford totally under his thumb. He was the tool of the Nixon Administration—like a puppy dog. They used him when they had to—wind him up and he'd go 'Arf, Arf.'" Butterfield was fired by Ford in 1975 as administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, a move that he believes was punishment for his revelation of the existence of the White House tape recordings to the Senate Watergate Committee in July of 1973.

He was Nixon's Nunes.
 
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.

Not in the U.S., according to Reuters. It was the FDA. Which doesn't justify a 1500 percent price increase. Presumably insurance companies - and the government, in cases of Medicare or Medicaid - bear the brunt of this.

According to the article:

Average out-of-pocket cost rose from $13.60 per inhaler prescription in 2004 to $25 in 2008, which declined to $21 by 2010.

That's the average, of course, so maybe someone was paying $150 out of pocket at some point. If not out of pocket, others on the group plan, or taxpayers in general, are footing the bill.

How anyone could think this is science's fault, I don't know. But sure, let's blame science. As you indicate, it's good practice for shunning reality-based reasoning.
 
Perhaps they don't perceive it to be a circus, perhaps they feel that President Trump is pushing forward their agenda to ensure that old white men stay on top, that minorities are oppressed, that Christian values will be to the fore and that the US will look after itself to the exclusion of everyone else :confused:


Trump is a symptom, not a cause IMO


Thanks to Trump & Co. we now know what "Christian values" are really worth.

They've set the new standard. Living down to them will be the hard part.
 
The NYT indicated it had condensed them and included context. I got that it wasn't the actual list.

I think the key phrase is "open-ended" queries. If you asked what Trump was thinking when he said something, he could say "I don't remember." Or perhaps more honestly, "I wasn't thinking."

If he's allowed to answer in writing, lawyers can do that for him.


I think if he is allowed to answer in writing Mueller should put him alone in a room with a pad and pencil, and watch the door until he finishes.
 
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]

Interestingly, if you look at the Legislative branch convictions, it's a much more colorful picture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_federal_politicians_convicted_of_crimes


ETA: This is a good write-up of this topic.
http://memepoliceman.com/are-republicans-more-corrupt-than-democrats/
The conclusion kind of sums it up:
While the statistics cited in these memes appear to be correct, they do not prove in any way that Republicans are more corrupt than Democrats. Using different methodologies, one could just as easily show that Democrats are more corrupt. Instead, what should be illuminating is to peruse those Wikipedia pages and see how many scandals and convictions there are on both sides. That should be enough to make one hesitant to become a cheerleader for either party.
 
Last edited:
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.
This is so fundamentally confused that it's a category error.

The facts of the article. Its such a weak argument to just hand wave the article away, he has good points that need to be addressed.
 
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.

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.

In neither case was I blaming academia. Apologies if that was unclear. They were cases where there was a policy decision made by the "elightened" of whatever flavor you want them to be... that had negative effects on many individuals even if the net effect in aggregate was positive. My point was that it's not necessarily a disdain for academics or experts, so much as disdain for the short-sightedness that many of those academic/expert driven policies exhibit when it comes to the real effects felt by real people... and the willingness of aggregate-level work to overlook the fact that on an individual level people end up suffering. And it shouldn't be surprising that the individual people who end up suffering might be against those policies, and have a bit of resentment toward the people who developed those policies.

It goes back to this: "For the greater good" is a wonderful ideal. Unless you're part of the lesser.

ETA: RE-reading my post, I completely see how you ended up with your inference. I clearly did a poor job of expressing my thoughts on this.
 
Last edited:
@Emily's Cat: which pharmaceutical did this immoral act that threatened your friend's life, and are you boycotting them?

All of them. Every manufacturer that could make it in to the FDA with a new propellant... or even with the same propellant (as another manufacturer) but a slightly different delivery mechanism. There were no more generic manufacturers. None. And the manufacturers that secured the patents ALL jacked their prices up monumentally.
 
Last edited:
All of them. Every manufacturer that could make it in to the FDA with a new propellant... or even with the same propellant (as another manufacturer) but a slightly different delivery mechanism. There were no more generic manufacturers. None. And the manufacturers that secured the patents ALL jacked their prices up monumentally.

So, basically, an indictment of the industry as a whole, which reinforces my mental image of them as sociopaths.

Takeaway point, though, is that the exceptions to CFC restriction for medical devices were provided annually until the pharmaceutical companies confirmed they no longer wanted them.

My (i suspect very reasonable) assumption is that the propaganda campaign falsely claiming that they were 'forced' to move to new propellants (forced by... i'm trying to grasp this... you're saying they want us to believe they were forced by "scientists"?) was funded by their usual approaches. Letters to the editor from 'concerned citizens' are a popular misinformation vector.
 
Last edited:
Those questions, Mueller already has the answers. You'd never ask the Manafort question if you didn't already know the answer. The Russian whore is about to be screwed by the loose lips of his Russian whore.
 
All of them. Every manufacturer that could make it in to the FDA with a new propellant... or even with the same propellant (as another manufacturer) but a slightly different delivery mechanism. There were no more generic manufacturers. None. And the manufacturers that secured the patents ALL jacked their prices up monumentally.

I think I know where the problem is then. CFC pollution is still a big risk for the planet if it is not followed through. Using that as an excuse to exploit those with a chronic illnes is completely immoral.
 
How could anyone know in advance what kind of bizzaro answers Trump would give?...
I think the point is Mueller knows the actual answers. He'll know if Trump lies. And Trump won't know what Mueller knows so he will probably answer, "I don't recall" more times than Sessions.
 
Mom has Fox News on again and they are saying Mueller's questions are a "perjury trap." That means they know Trump can't answer an open-ended question without lying. THAT doesn't bother them, apparently.

I don't know why she is even watching Fox, she's no Trump fan. At least I can go take it out on the treadmill.
 
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.

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.
But do they realllly think that Trump is the man to fight their corner. Apart from acting like a man child, he is definitely NOT a man of the people. He only cares about money, and how much he has. Trump voters appear to respect him for that - at the expense of their own quality of life.

Maybe they do need a person who can upset the status quo apple cart and deliver what they feel they want and need. But from what I can see Trump is definitely not the person they are looking for imo
 
From Jennifer Rubin:

Fifth, if Mueller is bound by the standing Justice Department memo that concludes a sitting president cannot be indicted, Trump’s status as a subject, not a target, makes sense. The facts are already there, one might readily conclude, to make out a case for obstruction, so how could he not be a target? The answer: Trump cannot be a target since he is not (presently) capable of being indicted. If Mueller finds Trump did commit criminal acts, he can suggest in his report that impeachment is appropriate and/or recommend that Trump be indicted after he leaves office.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...estions/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2722ac394091
 
My point was that it's not necessarily a disdain for academics or experts, so much as disdain for the short-sightedness that many of those academic/expert driven policies exhibit when it comes to the real effects felt by real people...

Short-sightedness is a completely wrong descriptor there, though. In your example, it would be short-sighted for things not to change, after all. I'm going to have to join the chorus and say that the "profiteering" under the cover of those academic/expert driven policies is where the problem rather clearly tends to remain. Quite frankly, there's a long and relatively poorly publicized history of "Big Pharma" valuing profits over people and honesty.

and the willingness of aggregate-level work to overlook the fact that on an individual level people end up suffering. And it shouldn't be surprising that the individual people who end up suffering might be against those policies, and have a bit of resentment toward the people who developed those policies.

Easily misdirected as it may be. It's no mystery why unpleasant changes to things make people unhappy. Nor is it unusual for distinctly unhappy people to be notably less rational about who or what they blame.

It goes back to this: "For the greater good" is a wonderful ideal. Unless you're part of the lesser.

Or rather, that you have been convinced that you are losing out, even if you really aren't.

But do they realllly think that Trump is the man to fight their corner. Apart from acting like a man child, he is definitely NOT a man of the people. He only cares about money, and how much he has. Trump voters appear to respect him for that - at the expense of their own quality of life.

As obvious as that may be, have you forgotten how much the rich have been effectively idolized by much of the right, nearly regardless of how they made that money? That being rich is equated with success and intelligence seems to suffer from the distinct oversimplification employed by right-wing media like so much else. The images of the arrogant and nasty kids that rely on their family to get anywhere and who are that way because of excessive pampering by their rich parents seem to be mostly forgotten there.

Maybe they do need a person who can upset the status quo apple cart and deliver what they feel they want and need. But from what I can see Trump is definitely not the person they are looking for imo

I'd say that a number of them do need people to upset the current status quo, given how warped some of the important parts of it have become. Trump is upsetting it, no less, which is something. Unfortunately, it's being upset in ways that are fairly certainly warping it further away from what would actually benefit them.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom