Cont: Mueller Investigation pt3

Status
Not open for further replies.
JoeMorgue said:
And the gerrymandering isn't keeping voting turnout below 60%.
Click to expand...

In many Democrat leaning districts there is insufficient polling stations to handle even 60% turnout. That along with pervasive use of other methods mean that just because you show up doesn’t mean you get to vote.
 
lomiller said:
In many Democrat leaning districts there is insufficient polling stations to handle even 60% turnout. That along with pervasive use of other methods mean that just because you show up doesn’t mean you get to vote.
Click to expand...

You mean that they turn you back or that the polls close before the line's through?
 
smartcooky said:
Fiascos don't result in indictments, prosecutions and convictions; Mueller's investigation has DIRECTLY lead to a very large number of these, and has well and truly paid for itself with punitive confiscation of millions of dollars in assets.

The only reason Trump won't be impeached (and he won't be) will be because his devoted minions in the Senate are the most corrupt politicians since Buz Lukens got caught up in the House Banking Scandal 20 years ago. The serial liar that he has just managed to get onto SCOTUS will protect him from prosecution by placing POTUS above the Law.

However, all things some to an end. Assuming no-one has employed a 2A solution on him, Trump will likely be out on his ear in 2020 (if not then 2024 for certain) and then his umbrella disappears because Kavanaugh, if he hasn't been impeached or convicted of sex crimes or perjury by then (or if someone hasn't taken a 2A solution out on him as well) will no longer be able to protect Trump. I see a loose fitting orange jump suit in Trump's future.


.... play the long game!!
Click to expand...


I've said this a few times along the way, so I'll repeat to make clear my position on this "fiasco".

Anyone found to be guilty of crimes most likely earned their consequences, and that goes for any partisanship. Americans deserve better to represent us. However, this does not mean I feel like this is all a done deal by any stretch of words.

I think many liberal minds will explode before its over. Beginning with the roots of it all getting exposed. #watergate? #Fisagate? #ObamaGate!

Also should add, I do not have an outcome prediction just yet as we're waiting on some very important information and investigations ATM. (declassifcations?)
 
Last edited:
Tolls said:
The queues get massive (from what I remember seeing from earlier elections). So you could be talking hours before you vote, which is frankly ridiculous.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-minority-areas-waiting-to-vote-a7405816.html
Click to expand...

That's just nonsense. We had an election in Quebec last week and when I went to vote there was literally no one in front of me at the polling booth. If I had remembered which booth I was supposed to go to I would've done the whole deal in under a minute.

But then, in Canada we're actually encouraged to vote.
 
Belz... said:
That's just nonsense. We had an election in Quebec last week and when I went to vote there was literally no one in front of me at the polling booth. If I had remembered which booth I was supposed to go to I would've done the whole deal in under a minute.

But then, in Canada we're actually encouraged to vote.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

In the UK the Independent Electoral Commission has standards for polling stations. Larger polling stations serve a couple of thousand people, and whenever I have voted (every election for the past 25 years in various parts of the country from safe Tory, to safe Labour, to Tory-Labour marginal) I have never had more than a minute to wait - usually none.
 
Yup, every voting experience I've had here in the UK has seen me turn up, walk straight in, give my name and address, walk right up to the voting booth, make my mark, fold up the ballot, drop it in the box, walk out the door again. Under a minute, every single time.
 
River said:
Will that laughing turn into tears if what he is suggesting is true? Me thinks so.
Click to expand...
Indeed it would shake me up if the things that look so obvious to me turned out to be false, and worse yet it would further empower the Banana Republican. However my speculative emotions are highly irrelevant and off topic. Unlike you citing an Devin Kabuki Nunes, an obvious liar and bootlicker.
 
Elagabalus said:
Had BB worded his post a little different he wouldn't have received a gify. It isn't a hoax because it has already netted some top people. What the Strumpets think... eh. And, yeah, I'm not sure of the whole "blue wave" thing (at least, not yet).
Click to expand...

Netted some top people? The target in the investigation of Trump/Russia Collusion is clearly Trump. Trump says it's a hoax because he KNOWS he didn't do any of this nonsense he's being accused of by all of fake news. Mueller nailing Manafort for his financial shenanigans has nothing to do with Trump. Neither do any of the Russians who were indicted with great fanfare by Mueller, and since then crickets. Zero connection between them and Trump. Carter Page is hitting every talk show he can find saying the "dossier" is nonsense and everything in it about him didn't happen. It's a giant nothingburger, much like looking for WMD in Iraq and finding nothing but some buried old chemical weapons we gave them to begin with. We only found what we already knew was there, and the rest was lies.
 
BrooklynBaby said:
Netted some top people? The target in the investigation of Trump/Russia Collusion is clearly Trump.
Click to expand...

No, it's clearly Russia and the Americans who betrayed their country to help them.

Trump says it's a hoax because he KNOWS he didn't do any of this nonsense he's being accused of by all of fake news.
Click to expand...

Oh, and you know this how?

Mueller nailing Manafort for his financial shenanigans has nothing to do with Trump. Neither do any of the Russians who were indicted with great fanfare by Mueller
Click to expand...

That should tell you that your opening statement is wrong. The investigation is not about Trump. In other words your statement was meant to set up this one here: change the point of the probe so that when they actually indict people, you can complain that it has nothing to do with the point of the probe. Of course, the premise is false, as is your conclusion.

It's a giant nothingburger
Click to expand...

No one can say that with a straight face anymore. The investigation HAS resulted in convictions and indictments. We KNOW the Russians tried to influence US elections. That isn't nothing.
 
lomiller said:
In many Democrat leaning districts there is insufficient polling stations to handle even 60% turnout. That along with pervasive use of other methods mean that just because you show up doesn’t mean you get to vote.
Click to expand...

Or you go to vote and find that your registration magically disappeared. So you cast a provisional ballot that maybe isn't ever counted or your ballot is thrown out for some slight error.

Or you vote and have no way to tell if your vote counted or whether the end result was manipulated because when records are requested it's denied or the data and the backups are deleted.

There are lots of shenanigans that discourage voting.
 
phiwum said:
No one here is claiming otherwise.
Click to expand...
No, they just get right up to the line and then feign outrage when you call them on it.

You're coming in on the tail end of a conversation where I inquired about Russian interference and The Great Zaganza replied by citing Manafort's indictments. Which have nothing to do with my inquiry about Russian interference. If this kind of thing bothers you as much as it bothers me, then I suggest you take it up with Zaganza, as I have done.

But several campaign and administration officials have been indicted or pleaded guilty as a direct result of the investigation. These cases came about as a result of the investigation, and are explicitly part of Mueller's mandate.
Click to expand...
I agree. However, when I ask if Mueller has charged anyone with interfering in the election, the correct answer is not "yes, he's charged people." It's not "yes, he's charged people for other stuff." It's not even "no, but he has charged people for other stuff." And whenever I do ask about election interference, the answers all seem to get mixed together, with one standing in for the other. I would like to see some clarity of thought, and clarity of argumentation, on the question of Russian election interference.

Please stop pretending people here are arguing that the indictments, etc., are directly about Russian interference.
Click to expand...
I have never pretended this. Quite the opposite: I keep trying to cut through the ongoing pretense on this topic. Your objection is directed at entirely the wrong person.

If not a single American is ever indicted because of Russian interference, that does not mean the investigation failed or that the indictments handed down are in any sense illegitimate.
Click to expand...
I have never argued otherwise.

In short, drop the straw man. It's tiresome.
Click to expand...
You seem to understand my argument as being the opposite of what my argument actually is. This has inadvertently (and ironically) caused you to produce several straw men of your own. This tiresomeness is something only you can put a stop to.

To which only you can put a stop.

ETA: And really, the "no, but he found other stuff to charge" is kind of weird and a little disturbing. To me, it only really makes sense if we decide to appoint a Special Counsel for every administration, give them some arbitrary topic of "investigation", and then encourage them to find whatever crimes they can, wherever they can.

I mean, there's always a risk of campaign finance impropriety. Why not just appoint a Special Counsel every four years? Tell them to look for campaign finance crimes, but feel free to expand that search to any and every possible crime they can think of.

Or, it's not like the Russians are ever going to stop trying to interfere. So maybe we should just saddle every administration from here on out with a Special Counsel. Nominally to investigate that issue, but of course if they turn up campaign finance crimes, or obstruction crimes, or any other damn thing that happens to be out there, that's okay too. Maybe.

I'm not saying Mueller shouldn't indict on whatever crimes he finds - of course he should. But let's be clear about the stated goal of his investigation, and what progress he's made towards that goal. And let's be clear that if we believe that Trump conspired with the Russians to interfere in the 2016 US elections, we cannot settle for evidence of other crimes, in lieu of evidence for the crime we set out to prove. Nor should we be entirely complacent about an investigation that turns up crimes other than the ones it actually set out to discover.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
No, they just get right up to the line and then feign outrage when you call them on it.

You're coming in on the tail end of a conversation where I inquired about Russian interference and The Great Zaganza replied by citing Manafort's indictments. Which have nothing to do with my inquiry about Russian interference. If this kind of thing bothers you as much as it bothers me, then I suggest you take it up with Zaganza, as I have done.


I agree. However, when I ask if Mueller has charged anyone with interfering in the election, the correct answer is not "yes, he's charged people." It's not "yes, he's charged people for other stuff." It's not even "no, but he has charged people for other stuff." And whenever I do ask about election interference, the answers all seem to get mixed together, with one standing in for the other. I would like to see some clarity of thought, and clarity of argumentation, on the question of Russian election interference.


I have never pretended this. Quite the opposite: I keep trying to cut through the ongoing pretense on this topic. Your objection is directed at entirely the wrong person.


I have never argued otherwise.


You seem to understand my argument as being the opposite of what my argument actually is. This has inadvertently (and ironically) caused you to produce several straw men of your own. This tiresomeness is something only you can put a stop to.

To which only you can put a stop.

ETA: And really, the "no, but he found other stuff to charge" is kind of weird and a little disturbing. To me, it only really makes sense if we decide to appoint a Special Counsel for every administration, give them some arbitrary topic of "investigation", and then encourage them to find whatever crimes they can, wherever they can.

I mean, there's always a risk of campaign finance impropriety. Why not just appoint a Special Counsel every four years? Tell them to look for campaign finance crimes, but feel free to expand that search to any and every possible crime they can think of.

Or, it's not like the Russians are ever going to stop trying to interfere. So maybe we should just saddle every administration from here on out with a Special Counsel. Nominally to investigate that issue, but of course if they turn up campaign finance crimes, or obstruction crimes, or any other damn thing that happens to be out there, that's okay too. Maybe.

I'm not saying Mueller shouldn't indict on whatever crimes he finds - of course he should. But let's be clear about the stated goal of his investigation, and what progress he's made towards that goal. And let's be clear that if we believe that Trump conspired with the Russians to interfere in the 2016 US elections, we cannot settle for evidence of other crimes, in lieu of evidence for the crime we set out to prove. Nor should we be entirely complacent about an investigation that turns up crimes other than the ones it actually set out to discover.
Click to expand...


Hear hear, someone gets it. Very nicely said.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
No, they just get right up to the line and then feign outrage when you call them on it.

You're coming in on the tail end of a conversation where I inquired about Russian interference and The Great Zaganza replied by citing Manafort's indictments. Which have nothing to do with my inquiry about Russian interference. If this kind of thing bothers you as much as it bothers me, then I suggest you take it up with Zaganza, as I have done.
Click to expand...

Unless I made a mistake, the first post in this particular subthread is from BrooklynBaby. Your exchange with Zaganza did not occur upstream of this post.
 
phiwum said:
Unless I made a mistake, the first post in this particular subthread is from BrooklynBaby. Your exchange with Zaganza did not occur upstream of this post.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter. They are both part of the same tribe and therefore responsible for what each other says. All Lefties/Righties have to be ready to on a moment's notice answer for everything a Lefty/Righty has ever done.
 
theprestige said:
I'm not saying Mueller shouldn't indict on whatever crimes he finds - of course he should. But let's be clear about the stated goal of his investigation, and what progress he's made towards that goal. And let's be clear that if we believe that Trump conspired with the Russians to interfere in the 2016 US elections, we cannot settle for evidence of other crimes, in lieu of evidence for the crime we set out to prove. Nor should we be entirely complacent about an investigation that turns up crimes other than the ones it actually set out to discover.
Click to expand...

No one should trust his certainty on the highlighted more than he trusts Mueller. Did Trump conspire? There is some suggestive evidence, but surely I can't be certain he did.

Thus, if Mueller finds no evidence of collusion, I'll accept the result, barring unusual circumstances.
 
From Woodward's book, it seems that Mueller thinks he has a solid case for Obstruction of Justice at the very least.
 
theprestige said:
I agree. However, when I ask if Mueller has charged anyone with interfering in the election, the correct answer is not "yes, he's charged people." It's not "yes, he's charged people for other stuff." It's not even "no, but he has charged people for other stuff." And whenever I do ask about election interference, the answers all seem to get mixed together, with one standing in for the other. I would like to see some clarity of thought, and clarity of argumentation, on the question of Russian election interference.
Click to expand...


I concur with your last comment, starting with you: You're wrong when you say "the correct answer is not 'yes, he's charged people'".

He's charged several Russians with interfering in the election.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom