• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Cont: Breaking: Mueller Grand Jury charges filed, arrests as soon as Monday pt 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Big Dog said:
well because eventually people are going to get immune to baseless accusations and want a little more substance than just anti-Trump propaganda.

Like here, Mueller's "achievements" are looking worse with each passing day, a couple of bs plea deals that look like a set up. Like the Flynn deal. The consensus is growing is that there was a ton of monkey business with the FBI 302's and that McCabe (who actually lied repeatedly under oath) had a hand in it.

Here take a look: https://saraacarter.com/what-happened-during-the-michael-flynn-fbi-interview/
Click to expand...

Baseless:

This is well out of date now, but I CBA to update it and it's sufficient


Mar 19| Podesta email hacked
Apr 19| DCLeaks.com registered
May 3| Trump becomes presumptive nominee
June 3| Goldstone contacts Trump Jr. to setup meeting which promises to discuss Clinton June 7 17:16 | Don Jr. confirms meeting w/ Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya June7 21:13 | Trump promises press conf the next week with Clinton dirt
June 8| Trump posts link to DCLeaks
June 9| Trump Jr, Kushner, Manafort meet with Russian operative
June 9 | Trump Jr calls blocked number immediately after meeting claims he can't recall whether his father's number is blocked (others have confirmed it is)
June 12| Assange announces Clinton emails
June 27| Hacked emails posted to DCLeaks
July 11| Trump/Manafort nix pro-Ukranian plank in GOP platform (and lie about it)
Late July | Malware researchers spot unusual server activity between Trump server and Alfa Bank
Aug 21| Roger Stone writes "it will soon be Podesta's time in the barrel"
Oct -7 | Pussygate video released
Oct 7| Wikileaks releases Podesta emails (an hour later)
Dec- 29 | Flynn Consults With Transition Team, Then Calls Kislyak
Dec 30 | Putin Declines to Retaliate
2017 |
Jan 15 | Pence Says He Is Unaware of Flynn’s Discussions
Jan 26| Sally Yates meets White House Counsel and warns that Flynn is lying and the Russians can prove it - making him a blackmail risk
Feb 9| Flynn’s Conversation Is Revealed by WaPo
Feb 13 | Flynn fired
Feb 14 | White House Says Flynn Violated President’s Trust
Feb 14| Trump asks FBI Director Comey to drop investigation into Flynn
May 9| Comey is fired
May| DOJ drops money laundering case against client of Natalia Veselnitskaya
May 11| Trump tells NBC he considered "this Russia thing" before firing Comey
May 12| Democrats ask questions about the DoJ dropping the money lanudering case

Remember the Watergate investigation took far longer.

Do you want more evidence?

Cohen looks to have flipped too.
 
jimbob said:
Baseless:

This is well out of date now, but I CBA to update it and it's sufficient


Mar 19| Podesta email hacked
Apr 19| DCLeaks.com registered
May 3| Trump becomes presumptive nominee
June 3| Goldstone contacts Trump Jr. to setup meeting which promises to discuss Clinton June 7 17:16 | Don Jr. confirms meeting w/ Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya June7 21:13 | Trump promises press conf the next week with Clinton dirt
June 8| Trump posts link to DCLeaks
June 9| Trump Jr, Kushner, Manafort meet with Russian operative
June 9 | Trump Jr calls blocked number immediately after meeting claims he can't recall whether his father's number is blocked (others have confirmed it is)
June 12| Assange announces Clinton emails
June 27| Hacked emails posted to DCLeaks
July 11| Trump/Manafort nix pro-Ukranian plank in GOP platform (and lie about it)
Late July | Malware researchers spot unusual server activity between Trump server and Alfa Bank
Aug 21| Roger Stone writes "it will soon be Podesta's time in the barrel"
Oct -7 | Pussygate video released
Oct 7| Wikileaks releases Podesta emails (an hour later)
Dec- 29 | Flynn Consults With Transition Team, Then Calls Kislyak
Dec 30 | Putin Declines to Retaliate
2017 |
Jan 15 | Pence Says He Is Unaware of Flynn’s Discussions
Jan 26| Sally Yates meets White House Counsel and warns that Flynn is lying and the Russians can prove it - making him a blackmail risk
Feb 9| Flynn’s Conversation Is Revealed by WaPo
Feb 13 | Flynn fired
Feb 14 | White House Says Flynn Violated President’s Trust
Feb 14| Trump asks FBI Director Comey to drop investigation into Flynn
May 9| Comey is fired
May| DOJ drops money laundering case against client of Natalia Veselnitskaya
May 11| Trump tells NBC he considered "this Russia thing" before firing Comey
May 12| Democrats ask questions about the DoJ dropping the money lanudering case

Remember the Watergate investigation took far longer.

Do you want more evidence?

Cohen looks to have flipped too.
Click to expand...

A slight quibble with the timeline. Can we consistently refer to Don Jr. as Don Jr? This uses both Don Jr. and Trump Jr. (but the latter is slightly more confusing).
 
A general comment on the impeach Trump polls:

It is hard to see what they might mean. Regardless of the situation a large part of the opposing party's membership always will favor impeachment.

And a lot of people see it as a serious step that shouldn't be taken unless there are very significant transgressions on the part of the POTUS. And in the current circumstances this group may not have seen enough to justify an impeachment proceeding of the POTUS.

And a large chunk of the party of the POTUS will not favor impeachment under almost all situations.

And then there is a group that thinks that while they might favor impeachment for some of the stuff the president is known to have done the political situation in the country while the president still enjoys significant support makes it such that an impeachment proceeding would not be in the interest of the country.

And some of the people polled might have nuanced views about an impeachment. For these people what does it mean if they are forced to pick a yes or no answer? Until things shake out a bit I don't think that polls on this question make much sense because interpreting the significance of the poll results is not possible.
 
The Big Dog said:
well because eventually people are going to get immune to baseless accusations and want a little more substance than just anti-Trump propaganda.

Like here, Mueller's "achievements" are looking worse with each passing day, a couple of bs plea deals that look like a set up. Like the Flynn deal. The consensus is growing is that there was a ton of monkey business with the FBI 302's and that McCabe (who actually lied repeatedly under oath) had a hand in it.

Here take a look: https://saraacarter.com/what-happened-during-the-michael-flynn-fbi-interview/
Click to expand...
All those coffee boys wheeling and dealing with the Russians, amazing.

BTW, just who were the leaders in Trump's campaign administration? We know who all the itsy-bitsy minor players were apparently. Who were the top guys?
 
davefoc said:
A general comment on the impeach Trump polls:

It is hard to see what they might mean. Regardless of the situation a large part of the opposing party's membership always will favor impeachment.
Click to expand...
So you think a 'large' number of democrats are so blindly partisan that they would call for impeachment no matter what the situation? Even if (for example) Trump fully cooperated with Mueller, the Russia investigation exonerated him and he started acting like a real president? I disagree. I think that most democrats would have a much better opinion of Trump if he showed even a modicum of competence and decency, and then any cries for impeachment would only come from a lunatic fringe.

And a large chunk of the party of the POTUS will not favor impeachment under almost all situations.
Click to expand...
This is a little more plausible, since many republicans have consistently proven that 'winning' is the only thing that matters to them. Nevertheless, polls are not showing anywhere near lock-step support by republicans.

For example, a recent USA TODAY/Suffolk University Poll found that 58% of Americans would support impeachment if Trump were to pardon himself for a criminal charge related to the Russia's investigation, and that includes 31% republicans. According to the poll just 17% of republicans would support him if he pardoned himself, which suggests the partisanship is much lower than you are suggesting.

Until things shake out a bit I don't think that polls on this question make much sense because interpreting the significance of the poll results is not possible.
Click to expand...
A poll that shows only only 17% republican support for what Trump does is not insignificant nor hard to interpret. Clearly there is almost universal bipartisan opposition to Trump pardoning himself, with a large proportion of republicans even considering it grounds for impeachment. No doubt opinions will change as things 'shake out', but this does not mean that current polls are useless.

And some of the people polled might have nuanced views about an impeachment. For these people what does it mean if they are forced to pick a yes or no answer?
Click to expand...
Not sure exactly which polls you are referring too, but most do allow for 'nuanced' answers.

Public opinion polls on impeachment
 
Last edited:
Roger Ramjets said:
So you think a 'large' number of democrats are so blindly partisan that they would call for impeachment no matter what the situation? Even if (for example) Trump fully cooperated with Mueller, the Russia investigation exonerated him and he started acting like a real president? I disagree. I think that most democrats would have a much better opinion of Trump if he showed even a modicum of competence and decency, and then any cries for impeachment would only come from a lunatic fringe.
Click to expand...

Better? Sure. Even so, given the abominable performance that Trump's already given, I doubt that opinions of him would get much less negative, though. If he admitted his wrongs, undid the evils that he's done, and added restitution on top, that would help a fair bit, on the other hand. If it were a more normal Republican President in general, though, the calls would largely be limited to the extreme fringe. To give a different example, though, Bush's invasion that was immersed in his lies, of course, raised support for impeachment, but that support was based on his actions, not his party affliation.
 
Last edited:
The Big Dog said:
The consensus is growing is that there was a ton of monkey business with the FBI 302's and that McCabe (who actually lied repeatedly under oath) had a hand in it.
Click to expand...

I don't see any numbers in the piece you cited. Can you link to the data on which this assertion is based?
 
davefoc said:
It is a problem. Truth is under constant assault. We have entered a new era here. Fox News the National Enquirer and other conservative media outlets are relentlessly propping up Trump without regard to truth. They have created a group of pro-Trump people that have deep unassailable confirmation biases that favor Trump. I don't think the long term consequences of this are knowable right now, but if Trump was younger or healthier he might be around long enough to destroy the American democracy.
Click to expand...
Wait! What did you just say?

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
 
The Big Dog said:
My pleasure

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today 3-m&geo=US&q=Fbi 302
Click to expand...

I don't see anything there that supports the assertion that there is a growing consensus "that there was a ton of monkey business with the FBI 302's and that McCabe (who actually lied repeatedly under oath) had a hand in it." Your link merely shows that the term "Fbi 302" has seen a recent spike in the number of times it has been googled, with 100 searches each on the 20th and 21st of this month before returning to the baseline of 0 on the 22nd.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
I don't see anything there that supports the assertion that there is a growing consensus "that there was a ton of monkey business with the FBI 302's and that McCabe (who actually lied repeatedly under oath) had a hand in it." Your link merely shows that the term "Fbi 302" has seen a recent spike in the number of times it has been googled, with 100 searches each on the 20th and 21st of this month before returning to the baseline of 0 on the 22nd.
Click to expand...

Ok, agree to disagree
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Is that data honestly what you based your assertion on?
Click to expand...

I don’t recall making the claim that was the exclusive evidence. In fact this discussion started with an extraordinarily detailed article, but as is common, one ignores the extraordinarily detailed article to pick nits, which I understand is a strategy that is common. I cherish it, because the towering colossus that is the article goes totally unrebutted while we go and nibble crumbs in the kitchen.

In any event, twas part of the evidence.

How about that article, take the time to make a deep dive into yet? You should do so.
 
The Big Dog said:
I don’t recall making the claim that was the exclusive evidence.
Click to expand...

I asked you to link to the data on which your assertion was based. If you failed to do so, then that's on you, not on me.

Please will you link to the data on which your assertion is based?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom