Cont: Mueller Investigation pt3

[jimbob]

I was wondering the same thng. Let's redefine conspiracy to add in things Trump jokes about on tv. (and, yes, it was a very stupid thiing to say, as much of his statements are)
If that was enough, they had him right then. Pick him up and cart him off!

He "joked" about it, but also promised Clinton dirt within five four hours of his son arranging a meeting with someone who claimed to be a representative of the Russian government, and who promised dirt on Clinton.

That he seemingly joked about it is not a reason to dismiss it.

 

[Cabbage]

Let's redefine conspiracy to add in things Trump jokes about on tv.

Sincere question: Do you think the fact that he joked about it exonerates him from any possible culpability? If not, why even bring it up--How is it relevant? He joked about murder, too, does that give him a "Get Away with Murder" free pass?

You know, it seems to be a strategy of Trump to joke about such things so he can use the excuse, "I was just joking".

And you seem to be falling for it.

 

[carlitos]

You know, it seems to be a strategy of Trump to joke about such things so he can use the excuse, "I was just joking".

Or at least to do things brazenly and out in the open, because some people seem to think that conspiracies have to be secret to be crimes.

 

[Lurch]

When arguing with Trumpettes, notice how they tend to fix on only one element at a time, as though that one little bit exists in isolation? They don't like to expand their view to take in the bigger picture, where the sum of the parts adds up to so much more. While any single thing by itself might not signify a certifiably damnable act, the pattern revealed by many such 'little' things that defy coincidence make for a far more convincing picture in totality.

 

[Lurch]

And to add to my previous...

Whether out of a deluded need to blinker out the bigger picture, or a disingenuous game of arguing trivialities, Trumpettes force their interlocutors to play whack-a-mole, futilely striving to argue the minutiae of isolated elements where a cursory examination of the bigger picture should obviate such thrashing in the weeds. On a shifting ground to boot.

 

[LSSBB]

When arguing with Trumpettes, notice how they tend to fix on only one element at a time, as though that one little bit exists in isolation? They don't like to expand their view to take in the bigger picture, where the sum of the parts adds up to so much more. While any single thing by itself might not signify a certifiably damnable act, the pattern revealed by many such 'little' things that defy coincidence make for a far more convincing picture in totality.

That's the same tactic used by conspiracy theorists, Holocaust deniers, Electric Universe proponents, ad infinitum. It's called dragging out the discussion to avoid the apparent inevitable, or in hopes some cavalry will ride in and save the day: a delaying tactic.

They don't want to face the fact that they are eating an elephant, so they take a bite at a time in case it turns into fillet mignon at some point.

Note the focus of Trump and sycophants on "Collusion", which is not a specific crime in any sense. That way they leave themselves open to plausible deniability - collusion will never be charged, so they can always claim victory.

 

[carlitos]

"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution."
- Forum member JayUtah

 

[Belz...]

Birther claims were total nonsense. Seth Rich conspiracies, likewise.

But in the case of the Mueller probe looking at a legitimate conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government? That is also nonsense. I don't care which newsperson is putting their spin on it. I just sense which basic story is more likely to be true - for this specific case.

If Woodward is right today, as he was then, then the basis for the Mueller probe is 'garbage' and there is no evidence to be found for collusion. He tried really hard to find it and could not.

It is a tool to keep an unpredictable and erratic president in check. It's a nothingburger otherwise. And I think when all is said and done, this method to try and control him will backfire.

Seems like you missed out on all the other evidence. Where were you the last 2 years?

 

[Belz...]

Of course I have. The russian lobbyist Veselnitskaya wanted the meeting to talk about the Magnitsky Act (adoption laws often used as a bargaining chip). It was the final quarter in a game Russian businesses were losing. In fact, the Globalized version of that Act was passed in December 2016. A huge setback for her and her clients.

And who was helping in her efforts? That would be Glenn Simpson of FusionGPS- who she met with before and after that meeting. Also Adam Waldman (another lobbyist) who later represented Steele, Assange, along with his normal Russian oligarch client Deripaska- also tied to Veselnitskaya (and to Mueller as well!).

I'm sure Mueller knows why he can't use that meeting as evidence of anything- other than Veselnitskayas bait-and-switch and Trump Jr's willingness to hear some Clinton dirt from her. I do hope that he includes why and how it happened in his report.

And apparently you completely missed the fact that the Trump team wanted to meet her because they thought they'd get dirt on Clinton for the campaign. That is illegal and a conspiracy!

 

[kellyb]

And apparently you completely missed the fact that the Trump team wanted to meet her because they thought they'd get dirt on Clinton for the campaign. That is illegal and a conspiracy!

Not just get dirt, but get dirt for free, as a gift. An illegal gift. Might not be a "conspiracy", but it's illegal no matter how you slice it.

 

[acbytesla]

Not just get dirt, but get dirt for free, as a gift. An illegal gift. Might not be a "conspiracy", but it's illegal no matter how you slice it.

I don't know if there is a maxim that the worst price for something is free. But there should be.

 

[beren]

Right, because posting an article literally two hours and a few minutes after it was initially published is way too late for this quick group. Let us try to be civil and get back on topic.

Cheers.

No.
Posting it here after it was posted and was being actively discussed is evidence you don't read the thread except to post your thoughts and tell everyone ether they are less than you. This explains why you keep bringing up things that have been discussed previously as if they are new.

 

[smartcooky]

There is someone who was on the news a lot a few weeks ago, who seems who have fallen off the radar recently, and that's Maria Butina. IIRC her alleged business was funnelling money through the NRA to GOP candidates.

I am sure that she is an important line in this game of political "join the dots". I wonder why we're not hearing much about her?

I am expecting that the Special Counsel will be digging into her activities.

 

[thaiboxerken]

where did those goalposts go ?

Trumpers goal posts are on wheels powered by BS.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

What Trump apologists don't get is that Mueller's goal isn't to send Manafort, Gates, the Russian trolls and GRU officers to prison: they are all part of the investigation, not the aim of it.
Mueller is preparing a comprehensive report on the Russian interference in the election and their connection to the campaigns. The fact that Trump and his family haven't been directly implicated is actually a very bad sign for the President. Mueller could have made his life a whole lot easier if he had given Trump a slap on the wrist but blamed everything on Russia.
The fact that he still wants an interview with Trump means that Trump is a key focus of the investigation.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

When arguing with Trumpettes, notice how they tend to fix on only one element at a time, as though that one little bit exists in isolation? ....

That's a 'but her emails' GOP trait. It's not confined to Trump.

It's probably a human nature thing connected to confirmation bias. Pick out the one thing that fits your argument as if that thing existed in isolation.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Re all the excuses and downplaying the evidence that is in the public sphere, why did they all try to hide their meetings with Russians?

Sherkeu, you dismissed the Trump Tower meeting as some benign interest in Russian adoptions. Why did they all pretend they didn't remember it?

 

[acbytesla]

Re all the excuses and downplaying the evidence that is in the public sphere, why did they all try to hide their meetings with Russians?

Sherkeu, you dismissed the Trump Tower meeting as some benign interest in Russian adoptions. Why did they all pretend they didn't remember it?

Does ANYONE believe for a second that it was about adoptions? That was at best a minor point. It was primarily about the Magnitsky Act. People don't lie or hide the truth if they believe the truth to be benign. That they hid it says they know at a minimum that it might look bad or they knew it was illegal. That Manafort attended the meeting tells me they knew was illegal. Manafort had been around the political block long enough to know.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Does ANYONE believe for a second that it was about adoptions? That was at best a minor point. It was primarily about the Magnitsky Act. People don't lie or hide the truth if they believe the truth to be benign. That they hid it says they know at a minimum that it might look bad or they knew it was illegal. That Manafort attended the meeting tells me they knew was illegal. Manafort had been around the political block long enough to know.

Apparently Sherkeu believed it.

Of course I have. The russian lobbyist Veselnitskaya wanted the meeting to talk about the Magnitsky Act (adoption laws often used as a bargaining chip). It was the final quarter in a game Russian businesses were losing. In fact, the Globalized version of that Act was passed in December 2016. A huge setback for her and her clients.

And who was helping in her efforts? That would be Glenn Simpson of FusionGPS- who she met with before and after that meeting. Also Adam Waldman (another lobbyist) who later represented Steele, Assange, along with his normal Russian oligarch client Deripaska- also tied to Veselnitskaya (and to Mueller as well!).

I'm sure Mueller knows why he can't use that meeting as evidence of anything- other than Veselnitskayas bait-and-switch and Trump Jr's willingness to hear some Clinton dirt from her. I do hope that he includes why and how it happened in his report.

 

[acbytesla]

Apparently Sherkeu believed it.

He WANTS to believe it. But I'm always sjeptical when people say the believe unbelievable things. It reminds me so much of church. I have always thought that most people who attend church don't actually believe. They say they do, but I don't buy it. It's the Emperor's clothes being played out, but unlike the fairy tale, they won't let truth and logic burst the bubble. For years I went to church thinking the adults in church were either nuts or were being frauds like me. They don't want to be discovered so they carry on.