Cont: Mueller Investigation pt3

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Big Dog said:
Here, that correction is at the bottom of a whole series of ******** and basically cuts the guts out of the thread.
Click to expand...

It really doesn't. It's one point amongst many. And is corrected in the very same thread that the error appears in.

Had you used some words, perhaps you could have alerted people to that rather than bitching about TBD having to do it?
Click to expand...

"Alerted people"? Are you assuming people can't read?

Christ, you do like to try to manufacture issues and outrage out of nothing, don't you?
 
Last edited:
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
It really doesn't. It's one point amongst many. And is corrected in the very same thread that the error appears in.



"Alerted people"? Are you assuming people can't read?

Christ, you do like to try to manufacture issues and outrage out of nothing, don't you?
Click to expand...

Yes alerted them that the bull **** you just posted without comment is ******** because the people are going to read 20 some odd tweets only to find out about the MASSIVE GLARING ERROR in the second post in that thread.

I assume that people can read, and don't want to waste their time reading the garbage you just inflicted on the people in this thread.

Talk about outrage, you should thank me.
 
The Big Dog said:
Yes alerted them that the bull **** you just posted without comment is ******** because the people are going to read 20 some odd tweets only to find out about the MASSIVE GLARING ERROR in the second post in that thread.
Click to expand...

You're right, the thread does contain the correction, and would be read by people reading the thread. Therefore the error doesn't need to be pointed out by anybody else, because the thread contains the correction which would be read by anybody reading the thread.

The parts of the thread that don't contain, refer to, or rely on the error, however, are unaffected by the error, as they don't contain, refer to, or rely on the error.

So there we go. No need for you to panic. I'm sure the adults reading this thread are perfectly capable of making their own assessments, like the adults they are, without needing you to nanny them.
 
Babbylonian said:
... Whatever irritation he has caused Trump was not worth having Sessions in charge of the Justice Department.
Click to expand...
Segnosaur said:
You also forgot homophobia.. Plus, he's got foolish ideas regarding drug laws and global warming.

You are of course assuming Trump will actually better than Sessions (admittedly a low bar). Given the legacy of questionable nominations he has made, there is no guarantee he won't pick someone worse.
Click to expand...
Whitaker will almost certainly be worse in every way.


Steve said:
Is Trump now going to tell his acting AG to fire Mueller?
Click to expand...
The_Animus said:
We all know Trump will use his new AG to try to stop or at least control the Mueller investigation.

Any predictions on when **** will hit the fan?

I'm not sure if he'll take quick action, say within the next week or two, or if he'll wait a while to let things cool before taking the next step
Click to expand...
Immediately. Trump will tell Whitaker to spill all the Mueller beans, probably to Trump's lawyers. That will be Trump's first step, find out what Mueller actually has on Trump and his kids.

From there you can expect some order to trim any and everything re Trump's finances as being too far reaching. This will give Trump enough cover for all the cult followers to satisfy themselves Trump is not a con and a crook.


dmaker said:
So, I guess Trump is just going to do all his dirty work before January when he will have to deal with actual Congressional over sight?
Click to expand...
No doubt.

Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Even Fox News' legal analyst says firing Sessions looks "nefarious"
Click to expand...
It will be interesting if Fox takes the light side. But it's unlikely.
 
"Donald Trump may think he has the power to hire and fire whomever he pleases, but he cannot take such action if it is determined that it is for the purposes of subverting the rule of law and obstructing justice. If he abuses his office in such a fashion, then there will be consequences."

- Jerry Nadler, very likely to soon be Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

(It would be the HCJ that runs any impeachment investigation of POTUS)
 
Last edited:
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
You're right, the thread does contain the correction, and would be read by people reading the thread. Therefore the error doesn't need to be pointed out by anybody else, because the thread contains the correction which would be read by anybody reading the thread.

The parts of the thread that don't contain, refer to, or rely on the error, however, are unaffected by the error, as they don't contain, refer to, or rely on the error.

So there we go. No need for you to panic. I'm sure the adults reading this thread are perfectly capable of making their own assessments, like the adults they are, without needing you to nanny them.
Click to expand...

OR? One could avoid posting garbage twitter threads without you having read the whole thing, because literally the whole twitter thread was hot garbage.
 
Setting aside your sudden outrage at twitter thread accuracy, what are your feelings regarding Trump's obvious recent move against the Mueller investigation?
 
Beelzebuddy said:
Setting aside your sudden outrage at twitter thread accuracy, what are your feelings regarding Trump's obvious recent move against the Mueller investigation?
Click to expand...

me?

Pretty funny actually, cannot believe that Mueller did not move to wrap it up quicker.

Can you imagine that Trump was under control leading up to the midterms?
 
The Big Dog said:
OR? One could avoid posting garbage twitter threads without you having read the whole thing, because literally the whole twitter thread was hot garbage.
Click to expand...

Okay, you are free to panic about a lack of hand-holding if you like. I'll take solace in the fact that everybody else has responded like the capable adults I assumed they were, and have proven themselves capable of reading 22 tweets of no more than 280 characters each without getting lost and confused.

Artist's impression of The Big Dog, yesterday:

giphy.gif
 
Last edited:
New acting AG Matt Whitaker said he wanted ‘biblical view of justice’ in federal judiciary: report

Newly appointed acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker put forth religious requirements for federal judges while running as a Republican for the United States Senate, the Des Moines Register reported in 2014.

During an Iowa Family Leader debate moderated by Erick Erickson, Whitaker gave his views on the federal judiciary.

“If they have a secular world view, then I’m going to be very concerned about how they judge,” he explained.

“Natural law often times is used from the eye of the beholder and what I would like to see — I’d like to see things like their world view, what informs them. Are they people of faith? Do they have a biblical view of justice? — which I think is very important because we all know that our government …”

Erickson, the moderator, interrupted his answer with, “Levitical or New Testament?”

“I’m a New Testament,” Whitaker replied. “And what I know is as long as they have that world view, that they’ll be a good judge. And if they have a secular world view, where this is all we have here on Earth, then I’m going to be very concerned about that judge.”
Click to expand...

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/11/ne...diciary-report/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
 
Captain_Swoop said:
New acting AG Matt Whitaker said he wanted ‘biblical view of justice’ in federal judiciary: report

Levitical or New Testament?
Click to expand...

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/11/ne...diciary-report/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
Click to expand...

I was shaken by the concept itself. When the moderator felt the need to ask that question I realized that we live in frightening times.

ETA: I am also worried about his response. Saying “I’m a New Testement guy” does not indicate whether or not he would reject a Leviticus guy who wanted to run a courtroom with a Biblical sense of justice. “Bailiff, pluck out that man’s eye and then get a minister in here so that this rapist can marry his victim.”
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom