• 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 pt5

Status
Not open for further replies.
Trump tried to get Sessions to un-recuse, and the only reason it didn't happen is because Sessions refused.
Click to expand...

IIRC, he threatened to FIRE him on twitter if he didn't un-recuse!
 
newyorkguy said:
This is really terrible. From page 234 of the report:


Under oath, Sanders is forced to admit she is nothing more than a propagandist as well as a liar. Nice job Sarah.

I know some reporter is going to ask Sanders at some news conference:


A reporter tells the White House spokesperson, "the majority of FBI agents support James Comey" and she reacts in the "heat" of the moment? It bothered her that much that she reacted viscerally? She now stands revealed as what so many felt about her all along. She's nothing more than a shill. And for a man like Donald Trump?

I don't know how some of these people live with themselves. I really don't.
Click to expand...

Obviously she should have counted the number of agents and made notes for use at a later time in case she was asked for that specific number. ;)

The interpretation represents a missing fact. Did she count the "number of FBI agents" or not? If not then her representation is correct. There were several agents but she did not bother to count them. As this happened at a date in the past , the number of agents can only be "countless" to her perspective of that past moment when asked.

This is a technique used by prosecutors that are trying to get the witness to tell a lie under oath so they can then prosecute them for perjury or making false statements under oath. She did well by not putting a number to the amount of agents if she did not know that number.

Chris B.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Obviously she should have counted the number of agents and made notes for use at a later time in case she was asked for that specific number. ;)

The interpretation represents a missing fact. Did she count the "number of FBI agents" or not? If not then her representation is correct. There were several agents but she did not bother to count them. As this happened at a date in the past , the number of agents can only be "countless" to her perspective of that past moment when asked.
Click to expand...

count·less
/ˈkoun(t)ləs/
adjective

too many to be counted; very many.
Click to expand...

That's the only definition of the word countless. It does not mean "a few but I didn't count them."
 
phunk said:
That's the only definition of the word countless. It does not mean "a few but I didn't count them."
Click to expand...

It also means immeasurable. As in she could not measure the number presently as she did not count that number in the past.

Chris B.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Obviously she should have counted the number of agents and made notes for use at a later time in case she was asked for that specific number. ;)

The interpretation represents a missing fact. Did she count the "number of FBI agents" or not? If not then her representation is correct. There were several agents but she did not bother to count them. As this happened at a date in the past , the number of agents can only be "countless" to her perspective of that past moment when asked.
.
Click to expand...

'Countless' doesn't ever mean 'I don't know the exact/approximate number'. It means a number beyond counting, or so many that it's overwhelming.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
This article compares and contrasts the out-of-context quotes from Barr's letter and what Mueller actually wrote in context
Click to expand...

That is an excellent read. It shows that Barr literally took what Mueller said, and recharacterised it to make it sound like Mueller was either saying the opposite of what he really said, or was saying something less damaging to the President than it really was.

The more of this report that is being analysed and published, the worse it has got for Trump. Now that someone has actually read the report to Trump (I doubt he's capable of reading and understanding it) and he has seen the media analysis of it, he's switched back from his "total exoneration - collusion" back to is "18 angry democrats" mantra.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
It also means immeasurable. As in she could not measure the number presently as she did not count that number in the past.

Chris B.
Click to expand...

Her answers about the FBI, the report concludes, is not founded on anything. If these unknown number of agents existed, then it could be described as founded as something. It is not.
 
Having read the report and some of the analysis...

1. I think Trump should step down. It’s clear that he tried to obstruct. I think the House should impeach and I think the Senate should then remove him from office. Won’t happen, but it’s what should happen.

2. The Russian efforts to interfere began during Obama’s term. His Administration didn’t do much about it and I find it odd that nobody is talking about that.

3. American politics is fundamentally broken. I have no idea how to fix it, but I think impeachment is a good start.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Obviously she should have counted the number of agents and made notes for use at a later time in case she was asked for that specific number. ;)

The interpretation represents a missing fact. Did she count the "number of FBI agents" or not? If not then her representation is correct. There were several agents but she did not bother to count them. As this happened at a date in the past , the number of agents can only be "countless" to her perspective of that past moment when asked.

This is a technique used by prosecutors that are trying to get the witness to tell a lie under oath so they can then prosecute them for perjury or making false statements under oath. She did well by not putting a number to the amount of agents if she did not know that number.

Chris B.
Click to expand...

You tried to change the actual, well-established, well known meaning of a word like "countless" in order to make a lie told by a Trump minion sound less of a lie and more of a mistake. Your post is a perfect example of the kind of pretzel-twisting the Trump faithful will put themselves though to defend the indefensible lies by Trump and his loyal minions.

I don't know how you Trumpistas can look in the mirror in the morning and not feel ashamed.
 
Last edited:
Mitt Romney:

picture.php


Also Mitt Romney:

picture.php
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
It also means immeasurable. As in she could not measure the number presently as she did not count that number in the past.

Chris B.
Click to expand...


She admitted under oath her claim was baseless. Baseless being the key word here.

In other words, she either exaggerated for the sake of brevity (which is still technically speaking: a lie), or she outright purposefully lied on national television as a declaration of support for her master.

She's a liar no matter which way you look at it. And now that she's no longer under oath, she's trying to backpeddle and twist everything into a new alternative fact... the exact same type of dishonest tactic her master uses every single day of the week.

Basket of deplorables, indeed.
 
xjx388 said:
Having read the report and some of the analysis...

1. I think Trump should step down. It’s clear that he tried to obstruct. I think the House should impeach and I think the Senate should then remove him from office. Won’t happen, but it’s what should happen.

2. The Russian efforts to interfere began during Obama’s term. His Administration didn’t do much about it and I find it odd that nobody is talking about that.

3. American politics is fundamentally broken. I have no idea how to fix it, but I think impeachment is a good start.
Click to expand...

The problem is partisanship means impeaching the president will kill Pence and others ability to win elections. That is a heck of a cost. One option would be for democrats to remove the cost of impeachment by agreeing to let pence and specific senators run unopposed.
 
newyorkguy said:
Sanders is still spinning it like the shill she is.


Okay so it was "a number of FBI agents," not "countless." So why didn't Sanders explain all this to the Mueller investigators? I think we all know why. Because she was under oath.
Click to expand...
One is a number. She does use the plural, so presumably there were at least two.

Countless, if you've never learned to count.
 
From this day forward, every time Huckabee-Sanders holds a press conference, journalists should ask her after each statement she makes, "How do we know you're telling us the truth?".

Her credibility is finished.
 
AnonyMoose said:
From this day forward, every time Huckabee-Sanders holds a press conference, journalists should ask her after each statement she makes, "How do we know you're telling us the truth?".

Her credibility is finished.
Click to expand...
It's "finished" in the sense that she never had any to begin with, but I don't think Trump supporters are going to hold it against her.

Again my disclaimer, I do not expect press secretaries, or whatever her title is, to have credibility.

It would be more fun to needle her more subtly by working the word "countless" into as many questions as possible.
 
AnonyMoose said:
She admitted under oath her claim was baseless. Baseless being the key word here.

In other words, she either exaggerated for the sake of brevity (which is still technically speaking: a lie), or she outright purposefully lied on national television as a declaration of support for her master.

She's a liar no matter which way you look at it. And now that she's no longer under oath, she's trying to backpeddle and twist everything into a new alternative fact... the exact same type of dishonest tactic her master uses every single day of the week.

Basket of deplorables, indeed.
Click to expand...

Are you certain she's the first White House Press Secretary to ever embellish on the truth when speaking to reporters? Indeed?

Chris B.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom