• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Mueller Investigation pt4

Status
Not open for further replies.
The_Animus said:
If that's the purpose, I can get behind that. But anyone hoping for a genuine discussion, to persuade them, or to shame/embarrass them has fallen for the trap.
Click to expand...
In all honesty, I probably also hope for a genuine discussion, as unlikely as it may be.

On the other hand, you never know when you can be surprised. I recently had an argument (very civil, though) about religion on a forum in which there are notoriously rude jerks that post, and the person I was disagreeing with stood up very strongly for me against some jerk when said jerk was a jerk to me.
 
I Am The Scum said:
We are now in the "Why are you pulling me over for running a red light when there are murderers and rapists roaming the streets?" level of apologetics.
Click to expand...

To defend the indefensible, one must use the power of stupidity to its fullest.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
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.
Click to expand...
That reason had been explicitly stated already by sources. You turn and you get to pick your charge.
 
IT is quite likely that Flynn has been pointing fingers at Russians at least as much as at Trump campaigners - I believe Mueller does want take Putin to court - or the closest feasible alternative to that.
 
The_Animus said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well said. It's very difficult not to respond to them when they write complete crap. Even though I use the ignore feature with a couple posters, I can still see what they write when others quote them and I'm very tempted to respond. Most of the time I'm successful. I wish I were as successful at ignoring dessert!
 
The_Animus said:
Just from reading posts here it certainly seems some people do and it's not like anyone wants to admit it if it does.
Click to expand...
Sometimes you pop into a thread and it takes a few exchanges before you realize that the poor, misguided soul who made a moronic or otherwise unsupported statement is, in fact, simply trolling. With each new mark who comes in assuming that all are participating from a position of intellectual honesty the troll gets to keep on trolling.
 
The Shrike said:
Sometimes you pop into a thread and it takes a few exchanges before you realize that the poor, misguided soul who made a moronic or otherwise unsupported statement is, in fact, simply trolling. With each new mark who comes in assuming that all are participating from a position of intellectual honesty the troll gets to keep on trolling.
Click to expand...
I have no illusions about The Big Dog, and neither does my dog (who's not impressed, unsurprisingly).
 
The Big Dog said:
here is one article...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ports-Clinton-investigation-Russia-probe.html

the problem is of course we will not get the 302s!
Click to expand...
The bigger problem is that there is no evidence in that article, there is merely (another) claim (by the congressman) that there is evidence. Yet you made the following claim that there was evidence:
The Big Dog said:
Keep in mind also when considering the Report that there is evidence that actual scumbos McCabe and Strzok falsified the 304s for the Flynn interview.
Click to expand...
and when asked for what this evidence is, the first thing you could do was to link to an article that had no evidence, but merely claimed that there was evidence. That's not a strong move.


Did I miss what the evidence that was presented in that article? Please point it out to me if I did.


I'm perfectly happy to condemn falsifying 302s by anyone, if and when there is evidence.
 
Paul2 said:
The bigger problem is that there is no evidence in that article, there is merely (another) claim (by the congressman) that there is evidence. Yet you made the following claim that there was evidence:
and when asked for what this evidence is, the first thing you could do was to link to an article that had no evidence, but merely claimed that there was evidence. That's not a strong move.


Did I miss what the evidence that was presented in that article? Please point it out to me if I did.


I'm perfectly happy to condemn falsifying 302s by anyone, if and when there is evidence.
Click to expand...

But the statement by the congressman is the evidence, of course. He had access to them that we will not get, unfortunately which is why this whole discussion started out that those are the big issues that Mueller should be taking a gander at!

the question you should be asking yourself is whether there is probable cause and the answer should be: hell yes!

Say it out loud and proud: Hell YES!
 
Imhotep said:
Factual Reporting: MIXED

(a score of 4 – 6 out of 10, where 0 is best)

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-mail/

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/methodology/
Click to expand...

The joke about the Daily Mail is that it is the Daily Fail. It is notorious for making up stories from whole cloth. They wrote stories about Amal Clooney's family not wanting her to marry George Clooney that were entirely fabricated. Similarly it reported on Amanda Knox as if she was guilty for years including an article about a party that was 90 percent fabricated. It's worse than the National Enquirer for accuracy.
 
The Big Dog said:
But the statement by the congressman is the evidence, of course. He had access to them that we will not get, unfortunately which is why this whole discussion started out that those are the big issues that Mueller should be taking a gander at!

the question you should be asking yourself is whether there is probable cause and the answer should be: hell yes!

Say it out loud and proud: Hell YES!
Click to expand...

You're saying the Daily Mail's reporting that Mark Meadows said that McCabe and Strzok falsified the 304s for the Flynn interview and you think that is evidence? Surely ye jest.

First off Meadows is like Trump. A notorious lying partisan POS. Also, if you read that article, Meadows doesn't say that. Jeez, and I thought you had something.
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
You're saying the Daily Mail's reporting that a US Politician said that a US Politician said that McCabe and Strzok falsified the 304s for the Flynn interview and you think that is evidence? Surely ye jest.
Click to expand...

The politician actually claimed 'maybe growing evidence', so from none to maybe ever so slightly more than none.

And quiet air since June on the subject.
 
The Big Dog said:
But the statement by the congressman is the evidence, of course. He had access to them that we will not get, unfortunately which is why this whole discussion started out that those are the big issues that Mueller should be taking a gander at!

the question you should be asking yourself is whether there is probable cause and the answer should be: hell yes!

Say it out loud and proud: Hell YES!
Click to expand...
Somebody saying that they have evidence in support of a claim is not sufficient evidence in support of that claim.

If I claim I have a nickel in my pocket, me saying that I have evidence that I have a nickel in my pocket is not sufficient evidence that I do: a picture of the contents of my pocket would be better evidence; a nickel-sized bulge in my pocket (no jokes, please) would be better evidence; testimony from someone who saw me put a nickel in my pocket would be better evidence.

We still don't know if there is sufficient evidence or not, especially since it's one person, and nothing has happened since June, that congressman's party is in control of the House, and the qualifier "growing evidence" does not equal sufficient evidence.

If I tell you that I have a nickel in my pocket, is that sufficient evidence that I do?

I encourage you not to get ahead of your skis: don't make claims until evidence is actually presented, and can be evaluated as to whether it is sufficient to support a claim based on that evidence.
 
The Greater Fool said:
The politician actually claimed 'maybe growing evidence', so from none to maybe ever so slightly more than none.

And quiet air since June on the subject.
Click to expand...

I just read his link to find out that the politician that was reference was Mark Meadows who after reading the sentencing recommendation for Flynn said that it was good news because it didn't say collusion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom