• 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 pt 7

PhantomWolf said:
I would call it Truthism rather than Truth.

We are now in a world where nothing we are told can be believed, it is almost impossible without knowing primary sources if what you are being told about is real or not.

JayUtah stated in my signature that It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality, but we are all fast getting there, where reality and truth will be nothing more that what we choose to believe from whom we choose to believe it, and no one's truth and reality will be allowed to be any more real than anyone else's chosen truth and reality.
Click to expand...
Has it ever been different?
 
Darat said:
PhantomWolf;1291922I would call it Truthism rather than Truth. We are now in a world where nothing we are told can be believed said:
It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality[/I], but we are all fast getting there, where reality and truth will be nothing more that what we choose to believe from whom we choose to believe it, and no one's truth and reality will be allowed to be any more real than anyone else's chosen truth and reality.
Click to expand...
Has it ever been different?
Click to expand...


Perhaps my recollections are rose-colored, but it seems to me that in the (even relatively recent, as in pre-Trump) past the lies and falsehoods were not so blatant. So easily, even trivially disproved.

So transparent that they were not even internally consistent.

Repugnican pols regularly make pronouncements that they contradict in the same paragraph. Not infrequently in the same sentence.

Yes, it is axiomatically true that politicians lie, and fabricate reality to their own convenience, but I think we have moved past earlier norms as far as that goes.
 
quadraginta said:
Perhaps my recollections are rose-colored, but it seems to me that in the (even relatively recent, as in pre-Trump) past the lies and falsehoods were not so blatant. So easily, even trivially disproved.

So transparent that they were not even internally consistent.

Repugnican pols regularly make pronouncements that they contradict in the same paragraph. Not infrequently in the same sentence.

Yes, it is axiomatically true that politicians lie, and fabricate reality to their own convenience, but I think we have moved past earlier norms as far as that goes.
Click to expand...

+1.

I think that's what irritates me even more. It's almost an insult, as if they're saying "you all are so stupid I don't even have to try to make sense and you'll swallow it".
 
Hellbound said:
+1.

I think that's what irritates me even more. It's almost an insult, as if they're saying "you all are so stupid I don't even have to try to make sense and you'll swallow it".
Click to expand...

Stalin had to have other people taken out of photos and records to push his narrative.

The modern GOP has eliminated the need for the “memory hole,” their followers look at contradictory evidence and simply don’t see it.

Trump is more dangerous than Jim Jones ever could have hoped to be.
 
quadraginta said:
Perhaps my recollections are rose-colored, but it seems to me that in the (even relatively recent, as in pre-Trump) past the lies and falsehoods were not so blatant. So easily, even trivially disproved.

So transparent that they were not even internally consistent.

Repugnican pols regularly make pronouncements that they contradict in the same paragraph. Not infrequently in the same sentence.

Yes, it is axiomatically true that politicians lie, and fabricate reality to their own convenience, but I think we have moved past earlier norms as far as that goes.
Click to expand...
At least in the olden days, now and then they'd qualify the bs... Not intended as a factual statement That was positively risible at the time. By today's GOP standards, it was forthright and honorable.
 
Hellbound said:
+1.

I think that's what irritates me even more. It's almost an insult, as if they're saying "you all are so stupid I don't even have to try to make sense and you'll swallow it".
Click to expand...

It's not 'as if' they're saying it; they are saying it. Sadly, they're right when it comes to Trump supporters. They believe everything he tells them.
 
WASHINGTON — For more than two years, President Trump has repeatedly attacked the Russia investigation, portraying it as a hoax and illegal even months after the special counsel closed it. Now, Mr. Trump’s own Justice Department has opened a criminal investigation into how it all began.

Justice Department officials have shifted an administrative review of the Russia investigation closely overseen by Attorney General William P. Barr to a criminal inquiry, according to two people familiar with the matter. The move gives the prosecutor running it, John H. Durham, the power to subpoena for witness testimony and documents, to convene a grand jury and to file criminal charges.
Click to expand...


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/24/us/politics/john-durham-criminal-investigation.html

So what gives here? Have none of you heard anything about this? Or are you all so sanguine in your ideological purity that you just choose to ignore it?
It's been suggested that indictments may be pending, to appear like a bolt from the blue.

ETA >> OK, reading back over the thread it appears to be the latter. Good luck with that.
 
Last edited:
IsThisTheLife said:


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/24/us/politics/john-durham-criminal-investigation.html

So what gives here? Have none of you heard anything about this? Or are you all so sanguine in your ideological purity that you just choose to ignore it?
It's been suggested that indictments may be pending, to appear like a bolt from the blue.

ETA >> OK, reading back over the thread it appears to be the latter. Good luck with that.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

Ignore? Not quite. When the available evidence looks like it's just another Republican witch hunt that covers ground that's already been covered over and over and over with no success by them and reality denying basis on top of that, though, there's not much reason to treat it as anything other than a wild misuse of government resources for political gain. Yet again, because the Republicans just keep doing this crap to try to back up their claims that black is white and white is black.

No, the FBI that just kept doing big anti-Hillary things and pro-Trump things and did pretty much nothing that was actually anti-Trump did not have an overwhelming anti-Trump bias worth any note whatsoever, no matter how much right-wingers want to paint Trump as a victim because he got caught doing crap that would have them howling from the rooftop if a Democrat did it and would have led to a Democrat being impeached and removed nearly immediately - with the support of the Democrats.
 
Last edited:
IsThisTheLife said:

Re: Durham report...

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/24/us/politics/john-durham-criminal-investigation.html

So what gives here? Have none of you heard anything about this? Or are you all so sanguine in your ideological purity that you just choose to ignore it?
It's been suggested that indictments may be pending, to appear like a bolt from the blue.
Click to expand...
"Suggested" by whom? And "May" be pending? Just what is the probability associated with 'may'? 1%? 50%? 99%

Frankly we've seen this before... Lots of chest-beating by the republicans, claims that they are about to uncover some huge conspiracy or fraud. Then... nothing. Happened when the republicans attacked Clinton over Benghazi (when the big source of blame belonged to congress itself who cut funds that could have been used to improve security.) More recently it happened with Trump and his commission into voter fraud, which ended up getting disbanded after less than a year.

Perhaps before you begin having wet dreams about the Durham report somehow proving anti-Trump corruption you should actually wait for them to actually report something concrete. Its not outside the realm of possibility that they may find something, but the republicans don't exactly have a stellar track record. (And they have a long way to go before matching the number of indictments handed down as a result of the Mueller inquiry.)
 
IsThisTheLife said:


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/24/us/politics/john-durham-criminal-investigation.html

So what gives here? Have none of you heard anything about this? Or are you all so sanguine in your ideological purity that you just choose to ignore it?
It's been suggested that indictments may be pending, to appear like a bolt from the blue.

ETA >> OK, reading back over the thread it appears to be the latter. Good luck with that.
Click to expand...
Indictments pending? :sdl:

Did you notice this:
Now, Mr. Trump’s own Justice Department has opened a criminal investigation into how it all began.
Click to expand...
That would be Trump's personal minions, the ones along with Nunes and Giuliani who are out there trying to prove Ukraine did it. Kind of like Trump claiming his people found something incredible in Hawaii when they went looking for Obama's birth certificate.

I wouldn't get your hopes up. I believe Durham is not coming up with key evidence and doesn't agree with everything Barr wants him to agree on.
 
None of you have watched Comey's recent, embarrassing attempt at damage limitation?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vekox6iCwWg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yfXxeJn3Tc

You're not aware that Carter Page has tenaciously been pursuing legal redress against the the crooked officials who lied through their teeth ("made missteps") to obtain FISA warrants to spy on him? FFS, have you really managed to convince yourselves that this is some kind of "doubling down" on his part?

You're not aware that it's now as good as confirmed that the "evidence" presented to the DOJ to obtain the FISA warrants that Carter Page "colluding with Russia" consisted of nothing but the DNC-sponsered Steele Dossier?

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/12/10/ig-report-fbi-fisa-abuse-secret-court-trump-campaign-column/4383722002/
 
Last edited:
IsThisTheLife said:
None of you have watched Comey's recent, embarrassing attempt at damage limitation?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vekox6iCwWg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yfXxeJn3Tc

You're not aware that Carter Page has tenaciously been pursuing legal redress against the the crooked officials who lied through their teeth ("made missteps") to obtain FISA warrants to spy on him? FFS, have you really managed to convince yourselves that this is some kind of "doubling down" on his part?

You're not aware that it's now as good as confirmed that the "evidence" presented to the DOJ to obtain the FISA warrants that Carter Page "colluding with Russia" consisted of nothing but the DNC-sponsered Steele Dossier?

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/12/10/ig-report-fbi-fisa-abuse-secret-court-trump-campaign-column/4383722002/
Click to expand...

So he claims. There is a quote of particular importance in that opinion article, though.

Everything else is noise and spin:The FBI properly, legally investigated 2016 Trump campaign
Click to expand...

Can you agree on that to start with?
 
On the one hand, there is the concept of "fruit of the poisonous tree". If evidence is obtained illegally, it is not admissible in a court of law, nor is any evidence which was obtained as a result of said illegal search. I think such blanket dismissal of downstream evidence is fairly unique to US law, but is there as a protection against rogue law enforcement violating our constitutional protection against illegal search and seizure. In most other countries, I think the remedy is punishment of the parties conducting the illegal search, but the evidence still stands.

On the other hand, the exclusion of said tainted evidence says absolutely nothing about whether the subject at hand did or did not commit the offense involved. A bloody knife found in the trunk of a a subject's car via unlawful search and matching the DNA of the victim will be excluded from evidence of the person's guilt, while still establishing that the subject did, in fact, commit the murder.

I think this relates to all this concern over the beginning of the investigation. Even if parts of it are ultimately found to have been tainted, it says absolutely nothing about the crimes exposed by said evidence. That, plus the fact that impeachment is a political and not a criminal process, makes all this hubbub nothing but a huge distractor. Which is clearly the point.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom