Mueller Investigation pt4

[beren]

You get testimony. Testimony is evidence itself.

Testimony without evidence is not believable.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Testimony without evidence is not believable.

Not my problem.

 

[beren]

Not my problem.

I can't believe that. Please provide evidence that it is not your problem.

 

[fagin]

beren meet Bob.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I can't believe that. Please provide evidence that it is not your problem.

Don't feel like it.

 

[Aridas]

https://twitter.com/MaddowBlog/status/1088992076027572224

I've seen that, but... this is a bit odd, in a couple ways, even if it does fit neatly into the 'the GOP is friggin' corrupt and they know it' narrative perfectly. A lot of people are apparently having trouble finding what rules are being referred to by Maddow that would prevent the Committee from doing its job, besides the fear of not appearing bipartisan (which has limited value these days, especially under a circumstance like this). Also, supposedly, a lot of Republicans wanted to be on it. It's possible that they simply still haven't finished the intra-party behind-the-scenes maneuverings somehow, even if it's more likely that they don't want to get politically pegged because they can't stop the release of so much damning information, now that they're not in control.

Either way, I intend to keep the suggestion in mind, but not assume that it's accurate without slightly firmer confirmation.

Yes. But more interesting is the "was directed" part.

Manafort and Trump are both potential people who could have done it, I've heard. Neither would be surprising.

 

[beren]

Don't feel like it.

Of course not.
The game is only fun when you are the Tru skeptim (tm) right?

 

[acbytesla]

I found one headline, Politico, using past tense. But the article only talked about 'is going to'.

You probably did see it somewhere.


So can Mueller subpoena the transcripts regardless of the committee releasing them?

I don't know. But I don't see why he should have to other than to get past the committee playing games.

I also wonder why the Democrats didn't walk out of House committees where people like Nunes were being dishonest?

Because if they left, they would not know the levels of their dishonesty.

 

[timhau]

What is this about Stone bring sued by the DNC?

I think it's got something to do with fools and their money.

 

[carlitos]

Either way, I intend to keep the suggestion in mind, but not assume that it's accurate without slightly firmer confirmation.

Rachel Maddow is the liberal heir to Glenn Beck's chalkboard.

 

[Bob001]

I've seen that, but... this is a bit odd, in a couple ways, even if it does fit neatly into the 'the GOP is friggin' corrupt and they know it' narrative perfectly. A lot of people are apparently having trouble finding what rules are being referred to by Maddow that would prevent the Committee from doing its job, besides the fear of not appearing bipartisan (which has limited value these days, especially under a circumstance like this).
....

Maddow isn't saying the Democrats can't send the documents. She's saying that the committee can't function at all -- in effect, doesn't exist -- until the Republicans appoint members. I dunno whether that's true, but it sounds like it's about more than the transcripts.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Of course not.
The game is only fun when you are the Tru skeptim (tm) right?

I don't meet the burden of proof for you. Cool. Part of advocating for such a strong burden of proof lends itself to accepting you will almost never meet it. You have to be zen about these things.

 

[Paul2]

Maddow isn't saying the Democrats can't send the documents. She's saying that the committee can't function at all -- in effect, doesn't exist -- until the Republicans appoint members. I dunno whether that's true, but it sounds like it's about more than the transcripts.

While I think Maddow does great work generally, I don’t get this one. If it were true, the minority’s party could hold the majority hostage, and that hasn’t happened in the past as far as I recall. This ploy would have more apparent

 

[BobTheCoward]

While I think Maddow does great work generally, I don’t get this one. If it were true, the minority’s party could hold the majority hostage, and that hasn’t happened in the past as far as I recall. This ploy would have more apparent

The counter force is people want to be on that committee and get the travel and the secret briefings.

 

[beren]

I don't meet the burden of proof for you. Cool. Part of advocating for such a strong burden of proof lends itself to accepting you will almost never meet it. You have to be zen about these things.

Evidence that you have to be zen about it? Otherwise it isn't believable.

Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk

 

[BobTheCoward]

Evidence that you have to be zen about it? Otherwise it isn't believable.

Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk

It isn't

 

[beren]

It isn't

Evidence that it isn't?

 

[Trebuchet]

While I think Maddow does great work generally, I don’t get this one. If it were true, the minority’s party could hold the majority hostage, and that hasn’t happened in the past as far as I recall. This ploy would have more apparent

It hasn't happened in the past because the minority party hasn't refused to appoint members, I'd guess. Holding the committee hostage sounds like exactly what's happening.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Evidence that it isn't?

You seem to be in a conundrum. No evidence for zen and asserting it isn't believable, satisfying the "otherwise condition.

ETA: you are not going to receive evidence from me.

 

[beren]

You seem to be in a conundrum. No evidence for zen and asserting it isn't believable, satisfying the "otherwise condition.

ETA: you are not going to receive evidence from me.

Of course not. Your are bnot here to deal with evidence or rational discussion.