• 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.
Safe-Keeper said:
I wonder if the best solution to posts like his is to simply ignore him.
Click to expand...

Yes. I used to enjoy the back-and-forth for my own amusement. Then The Big Dog took the first of his recent sabbaticals and I was struck by, despite what I thought I enjoyed, how much more I actually enjoyed participating in this forum. So when he came back I stuck him on ignore (as I believe I'm now allowed to say since his account has been deactivated and therefore I'm not talking about a current member of the forum). That was much more pleasant, and I very quickly came to understand the frustration that other posters had expressed at threads being disrupted by these kinds of posts, even if they can only see the replies to those posts.

A philosophy I've been slowly adopting over the last few years is that if someone obviously can't be reasoned with, then don't waste your time trying to reason with them.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
If she has committed a crime, shouldn't she be held accountable? I'm certain if she has lied under oath there will be consequences. Seems like many were burned for lying under oath during this investigation. However, if she lied as part of her job, well she's no different than any other White House Press Secretary, ever.......

Chris B.
Click to expand...

Nobody is saying she lied under oath. She lied to manufacture a a reason for Trump to fire the head of the FBI so that it didn’t look quite as much like obstruction. Let’s not forget that: it’s not like telling fibs in the playground.

In 2017 she lied and then doubled down on the lie the next day, clarifying “countless” as “a large number” when questioned by a reporter on the point. Then on TV the other day when questioned about this, she claimed that she misspoke in using the word “countless”. That was also a lie as we can tell from her clarification in 2017.

Whether it is common practice or not, it is not the job of the Whitehouse press secretary to lie. If other press secretaries have lied, that does not exonerate this one. Can you give examples of other Whitehouse press secretaries who have been discovered to have lied on this scale and who have kept their jobs?
 
Why should We the People feel "relieved" (Barr's word)? I can think of a couple of reasons why We the People should not feel relieved:

1. Mueller did not say there is insufficient evidence to support an obstruction charge. He said he was constrained by the legal framework from doing so (the DOJ policy against indicting a sitting president).

2. Mueller did not say there was no conspiracy. The report details how possible evidence of conspiracy may have been concealed by taking the 5th, lying under oath, and encription and deletion of messages and emails.

Mueller also mentioned a couple of ominous facts:

1. Congress is not constrained from using Mueller's findings to impeach.

2. Even if Congress impeaches, Trump can still be charged after leaving office.
 
And why should We the People feel "relieved" (Barr's word)? I can think of a couple of reasons why We the People should not feel relieved:

1. Mueller did not say there is insufficient evidence to support an obstruction charge. He said he was constrained by the legal framework from doing so (the DOJ policy against indicting a sitting president).

2. Mueller did not say there was no conspiracy. The report details how possible evidence of conspiracy may have been concealed by taking the 5th, lying under oath, and encription and deletion of messages and emails.

Mueller also mentioned a couple of ominous facts:

1. Congress is not constrained from using Mueller's findings to impeach.

2. Even if Congress impeaches, Trump can still be charged after leaving office.
 
jeremyp said:
Nobody is saying she lied under oath
Click to expand...

I am, actually.

She testified that it was a "slip of the tongue". But she was asked follow-up questions that she answered by confirming that she'd heard from lots of FBI agents.

One thing we can say that this does demonstrate is that Mueller was not looking to entrap people into "process crimes" by getting them to say it's a nice day when it's actually a bit cloudy, but instead that he only prosecuted those who lied about material issues.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
I am, actually.

She testified that it was a "slip of the tongue". But she was asked follow-up questions that she answered by confirming that she'd heard from lots of FBI agents.

One thing we can say that this does demonstrate is that Mueller was not looking to entrap people into "process crimes" by getting them to say it's a nice day when it's actually a bit cloudy, but instead that he only prosecuted those who lied about material issues.
Click to expand...

OK I've looked it up

Sanders told this Office that her reference to hearing from "countless members of the FBI" was a "slip of the tongue ." She also recalled that her statement in a separate press interview that rank-and-file FBI agents had lost confidence in Corney was a comment she made "in the heat of the moment" that was not founded on anything.
Click to expand...

You are correct. My mis-statement was based on Steve Colbert's treatment of the subject in which he "redacted" the slip of the tongue bit.

So she definitely did lie under oath.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
If she has committed a crime, shouldn't she be held accountable? I'm certain if she has lied under oath there will be consequences. Seems like many were burned for lying under oath during this investigation. However, if she lied as part of her job, well she's no different than any other White House Press Secretary, ever.......

Chris B.
Click to expand...

No, the Bitch Queen of the Briefing Room is in a class by herself. Most press secretaries don't lie because they're in a room full of people whose job it is to catch them in lies. They may spin and offer wildly different interpretations of events but to out and out lie would be foolish in the extreme. She like all Trump supporters just don't care what the truth is.
 
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...
Start with the fundamentals. Get the election system working. Remove the responsibility for running federal elections from the states. Remove the electoral college from the presidential election process.
 
Cabbage said:
My impression is that Obama wanted to go public with the information, but McConnell refuse to cooperate, saying that he would spin it as Obama trying to get a partisan advantage for Clinton.
Click to expand...
Amazing that McConnell had the ability to spin something like that 180 degrees and be so confident he could get away with it and Obama agreed that McConnell could do it.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Yes. I used to enjoy the back-and-forth for my own amusement. Then The Big Dog took the first of his recent sabbaticals and I was struck by, despite what I thought I enjoyed, how much more I actually enjoyed participating in this forum. So when he came back I stuck him on ignore (as I believe I'm now allowed to say since his account has been deactivated and therefore I'm not talking about a current member of the forum). That was much more pleasant, and I very quickly came to understand the frustration that other posters had expressed at threads being disrupted by these kinds of posts, even if they can only see the replies to those posts.

A philosophy I've been slowly adopting over the last few years is that if someone obviously can't be reasoned with, then don't waste your time trying to reason with them.
Click to expand...
I had an experience like this once, too. I frequented the Israel-Palestine discussion thread for a while, and there were certain members there whom I won't name who kept spamming links, remarks, and whataboutisms which constantly derailed/stalled the discussion.

I remember one of them going away for a while and discussion picking up. Actual discussion, not responses to troll talking points and spammed links. Then the person came back and immediately took control of the discussion again, making it all about whatever they could spam the thread with.

People like that can be good chew toys, but as you say, discussion is more rewarding if you just ignore them.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
I don't know where you want to go with this? Does Sanders lie? Obviously. But that doesn't mean she lies under oath. Did she lie to the press? Sure she did, probably often as most do. Was the lie she told only determined to be a lie because of her choice of one word used in a sentence? Sure it was. Could have she misspoken? Certainly. There's no strawman in the house. We're talking about something that was said and at least I am considering her reasoning for it. Truth is, only she can know her intent as I can't read minds and I'll bet you can't either. So we'll never know her true intent.

Chris B.
Click to expand...

No. The one word thing is her post hoc rationalization when she is no longer accountable to a DoJ interview m the key phrase in the report is "not based on anything."
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
But there cannot be administrations characterized by never having lied.

Chris B.
Click to expand...

If I’m understanding you correctly...

...this is blatant false equivalency.

For instance, I’ve heard, as recently as yesterday, Trump supporters point out Obama lied too. And go to “If you like your doctor/health insurance you can keep your doctor/health insurance”. Or the alleged $2,500 annual savings of Obamacare.

So, the “lie” tally is roughly Obama 3, Trump 9,000 and counting.

Not exactly equivalent. And a pretty pathetic defense of a President who lies compulsively.
 
I'm waiting for them to come out with the spin that "Not based on anything" is both truthful and consistent with "a large number of people".

They have a room full of dudes with whiteboards trying to figure it out.

Half of the whiteboards just say "What about Clinton?" over and over. It's handy because they get to reuse those for every job.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom