Mueller Investigation pt4

[fagin]

"Mueller is recommending that Michael Flynn be given no jail time because of his “substantial assistance” to the special counsel inquiry."

Could be interesting.

https://www.newstatesman.com/world/...Cxni4fTem12sLMLitp9CZFEtwUCTo3JHuzpwHlgyirkK8

 

[The_Animus]

"Curious" as to why sensible people don't use the ignore function on trolls.

Because we have a troll president, supported by other trolls, and we have even non-trolls supporting them with the same troll arguments.

Their arguments and views are those we have to deal with. I understand there is the balance of giving them credence by addressing them at all, and not allowing bad/stupid/irrational/hateful/utterly craven ideas to go unchallenged, but the former ship has sailed with them gaining political power.

Do you see any Trump defender making any arguments substantially better? The only ones I can find are those that address only the accusations against Trump that are not supported or have evidence against them, and even then those people tend to then lump all accusations against Trump in with the weak ones.

People here can't seem to help themselves. The trolls are playing by a different set of rules. If their posts provoke a reaction from the libs or they control the conversation by distracting/diverting the conversation to what they're talking about instead of what's actually important and relevant then they've won. It doesn't matter if what they post is factually wrong, conspiracy theory, partisan bias, or hypocrisy. It doesn't matter if those who respond are correct, or mock them, or annihilate their argument. Those aren't the rules of their game. By their rules, almost any response means they've accomplished their goal and therefore they've won.

But people here see the posts and think about how wrong it is and how they have a great counter argument, and can't help but respond. I understand this feeling and it's hard not to respond myself and I occasionally still fail in that regard. But after seeing the same pattern over and over I can come to no other conclusion.

'Those first 100 mouthfuls of dirt didn't taste very good, maybe the next one will taste better'

For the foreseeable future people will continue to eat mouthfuls of dirt and the trolls will continue to win their game.

 

[plague311]

Whatever. You can't deal with the fact his touchdowns have all been grand slams. That's TWO buttermilk pancakes, TWO eggs sunny-side up, TWO strips of bacon, TWO sausage links, hash browns, AND coffee.

I had a mouthful of coffee, while working on a customers laptop when I read this...testing my abilities.

I could really use a grand slam as well.

 

[Paul2]

People here can't seem to help themselves. The trolls are playing by a different set of rules. If their posts provoke a reaction from the libs or they control the conversation by distracting/diverting the conversation to what they're talking about instead of what's actually important and relevant then they've won. It doesn't matter if what they post is factually wrong, conspiracy theory, partisan bias, or hypocrisy. It doesn't matter if those who respond are correct, or mock them, or annihilate their argument. Those aren't the rules of their game. By their rules, almost any response means they've accomplished their goal and therefore they've won.

But people here see the posts and think about how wrong it is and how they have a great counter argument, and can't help but respond. I understand this feeling and it's hard not to respond myself and I occasionally still fail in that regard. But after seeing the same pattern over and over I can come to no other conclusion.

'Those first 100 mouthfuls of dirt didn't taste very good, maybe the next one will taste better'

For the foreseeable future people will continue to eat mouthfuls of dirt and the trolls will continue to win their game.

I use taking apart absurd posts to practice my logical thinking.

 

[Paul2]

On the one hand, Rachel Maddow implied but didn't come right out and say that Trump must not be ragging on Michael Flynn because Trump is smart enough (for once) to not mess around with something that could be dangerous to him.

On the other hand, can't we infer that Flynn, despite all his suspicious contacts with the Russians, wasn't involved in collusion because wouldn't Mueller have included charges related to collusion in the indictment he just filed? And, how could it be that Flynn didn't collude, given his central position in dealings with Russia?

 

[Imhotep]

People here can't seem to help themselves. The trolls are playing by a different set of rules. If their posts provoke a reaction from the libs or they control the conversation by distracting/diverting the conversation to what they're talking about instead of what's actually important and relevant then they've won. It doesn't matter if what they post is factually wrong, conspiracy theory, partisan bias, or hypocrisy. It doesn't matter if those who respond are correct, or mock them, or annihilate their argument. Those aren't the rules of their game. By their rules, almost any response means they've accomplished their goal and therefore they've won.

But people here see the posts and think about how wrong it is and how they have a great counter argument, and can't help but respond. I understand this feeling and it's hard not to respond myself and I occasionally still fail in that regard. But after seeing the same pattern over and over I can come to no other conclusion.

'Those first 100 mouthfuls of dirt didn't taste very good, maybe the next one will taste better'

For the foreseeable future people will continue to eat mouthfuls of dirt and the trolls will continue to win their game.

I agree except with the part about not responding. If 40% of the voters in this country actually buy into the troll logic, they absolutely should be responded to - as thoroughly and directly as possible, laying out why they are wrong, or why their logic is invalid.

 

[acbytesla]

From what we know, Flynn really shouldn't get off scot-free: he got caught being a paid foreign lobbyist and just had to rat some others out to be no worse off.
I hope that at least his reputation is tanked and he didn't get to keep the Turkish money.

No he shouldn't. No question in my mind and every career military officer I've heard speak about Flynn. Flynn betrayed his country. I heard Colonel Peters on MSNBC talking about Flynn. Someone he has known Flynn for 30 years. He said Flynn was a great soldier and someone he liked personally, but who betrayed his country.

His opinion was that military officers know better and should be held to a higher standard. Peters said he was shocked when he heard about Flynn working for Russia. But given how often Flynn met with Mueller he believed he came totally clean and gave Mueller EVERYTHING he had.

That is the only reason I believe he got off.

 

[acbytesla]

I hope he's remembered he was a general and he's embarrassed and remorseful for his own actions during and after the Trump campaign.

I hope he's remembered as the key person who took down Trump. That he realized that he had made a huge mistake and he was trying to make amends to the country that he had once served faithfully.

 

[The Big Dog]

What is really intriguing is that Mueller and his team went to the bother of quoting extensively from the WaPo article, going so far as to say that the author (who is neither a lawyer, prosecutor nor judge) speculated that Flynn violated the Logan Act.

They never tried to tie that up, and it sticks out like a sore thumb.

Someone stroking CIA's paper boy's ego for some reason, hmmm?

 

[Belz...]

What is really intriguing is that Mueller and his team went to the bother of quoting extensively from the WaPo article, going so far as to say that the author (who is neither a lawyer, prosecutor nor judge) speculated that Flynn violated the Logan Act.

They never tried to tie that up, and it sticks out like a sore thumb.

Someone stroking CIA's paper boy's ego for some reason, hmmm?

Things are getting a bit hot, aren't they TBD?

 

[JoeMorgue]

I hope he's remembered as the key person who took down Trump. That he realized that he had made a huge mistake and he was trying to make amends to the country that he had once served faithfully.

I can, within reason, respect that not matter the politics of the matter for a person who's served their country as long as Flynn has "taking down the President" is a hard step to take and something he considered a last resort.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

On the other hand, can't we infer that Flynn, despite all his suspicious contacts with the Russians, wasn't involved in collusion because wouldn't Mueller have included charges related to collusion in the indictment he just filed?

You're assuming that Mueller charged him on everything that he could charge him on. The question, if that is the case, is why did Flynn cooperate as thoroughly as he did in order to avoid a sentence of no more than 6 months? And why is Mueller happy to charge him now if he may be required at a later date to provide more information or testify?

A reasonable explanation is that Mueller has other charges against Flynn that he is choosing not to charge as part of a plea deal, and if Flynn breaks that deal then Mueller can bring those other charges.

 

[The Big Dog]

On the one hand, Rachel Maddow implied but didn't come right out and say that Trump must not be ragging on Michael Flynn because Trump is smart enough (for once) to not mess around with something that could be dangerous to him.

On the other hand, can't we infer that Flynn, despite all his suspicious contacts with the Russians, wasn't involved in collusion because wouldn't Mueller have included charges related to collusion in the indictment he just filed? And, how could it be that Flynn didn't collude, given his central position in dealings with Russia?

what are the suspicious contacts with the Russians you are referring to?

A list if you please...

 

[JoeMorgue]

what are the suspicious contacts with the Russians you are referring to?

A list if you please...

Water is wet you say? I demand you provide me a list of every body of water on the planet that is wet before we move forward. I'll wait.

 

[The Big Dog]

On the one hand, Rachel Maddow implied but didn't come right out and say that Trump must not be ragging on Michael Flynn because Trump is smart enough (for once) to not mess around with something that could be dangerous to him.

On the other hand, can't we infer that Flynn, despite all his suspicious contacts with the Russians, wasn't involved in collusion because wouldn't Mueller have included charges related to collusion in the indictment he just filed? And, how could it be that Flynn didn't collude, given his central position in dealings with Russia?

what are the suspicious contacts with the Russians you are referring to?

A list if you please...

Water is wet you say? I demand you provide me a list of every body of water on the planet that is wet before we move forward. I'll wait.

Oh dear, did you believe it was unreasonable for me to ask this question about a claim made in another person's post?

Huh....

 

[plague311]

I agree except with the part about not responding. If 40% of the voters in this country actually buy into the troll logic, they absolutely should be responded to - as thoroughly and directly as possible, laying out why they are wrong, or why their logic is invalid.

My two cents on it is I don't really see how the trolls are "winning". Their goal is to get under the skin, or needlessly irritate their "opposition".

Does anyone here actually get flustered, angry, or upset at statements that disagree with yours? I can say I certainly don't.

 

[acbytesla]

I can, within reason, respect that not matter the politics of the matter for a person who's served their country as long as Flynn has "taking down the President" is a hard step to take and something he considered a last resort.

It may not be what he hoped for when he started his career. But it may be the most important way he served this nation

 

[JoeMorgue]

It may not be what he hoped for when he started his career. But it may be the most important way he served this nation

Indeed. "I supported the President, even protected, him as long as I could, far longer than people think I should have, past the even the point it was legal because I honestly thought it was the best thing for the country, but in the end I had to do what was right." isn't a good thing per se, but it's understandable, even respectable in a way.

 

[Imhotep]

Oh dear, did you believe it was unreasonable for me to ask this question about a claim made in another person's post?

Huh....

I'll start the list.

Sergey Kislyak

 

[The Big Dog]

Indeed. "I supported the President, even protected, him as long as I could, far longer than people think I should have, past the even the point it was legal because I honestly thought it was the best thing for the country, but in the end I had to do what was right." isn't a good thing per se, but it's understandable, even respectable in a way.

golly, I hope that it is not unreasonable to get a source for that quote, because i have reviewed his statements and it does not appear that he said that.

Thanks a bunch!