Mueller Investigation pt5

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cavemonster said:
I'm curious to see how Trump's defenders spin the White House redactions.

Surely any classified information, ongoing investigations or other information dangerous or illegal to share will be redacted by the AG's office or already marked for redaction by Mueller's office. I can't see any reason for the white house to get a swipe at it aside from hiding true information that may be damaging to the President from the public.

And since these same Trump supporters frame Wikileaks releases of stolen emails as being heroic and the public deserving to know, I imagine the mental cartwheels will need to be especially impressive.
Click to expand...


'How can we trust the 9/11 Commission Report findings on the Pentagon airplane when all the data they based their conclusions on was filtered by the perpetrators themselves?'
 
Bogative said:
'How can we trust the 9/11 Commission Report findings on the Pentagon airplane when all the data they based their conclusions on was filtered by the perpetrators themselves?'
Click to expand...

Wow, the findings were given to dead terrorists for redaction? That's amazing!


The president and his administrations are the ones under investigation, Bogative.
 
applecorped said:
L.

O.

L.
Click to expand...
'

Long "LOL" concatenated to save space.

I admire a guy who can take pleasure in the little things.

But I have to say, you "LOL" people sure know how to jack up what would otherwise have been a bright future for America.
 
Last edited:
cmikes said:
As I already said, Tribalism could very well be the death of the American experiment. The mirror imaging of the collusion truthers as compared to the Obama birthers is instructive because it demonstrates just how out of control the extremes of both sides are.
Click to expand...

Yeah but Obama released his birth certificate. And his tax returns.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
I've not really got time to go through the last 5 pages, and so don't know if this has already been posted, but it's huge - Barr will send the Mueller report to the White House before releasing it to the public, to allow them to make redactions
Click to expand...

I think it’s kind of weird that they can conduct an investigation into a guy without ever talking to him, release the findings to his subordinate who’s defining qualifications are his inability to indict the President, who was appointed weeks beforehand, who declares it exonerates him, and then gives the findings to the guy to edit as he sees fit before anyone else can see why it exonerates him.

I don’t know, this is the kind of blatantly corrupt stuff that you’d laugh about how messed up it is over there if Kim Jong Un was doing it. Like which one of them brung in a doctor to declare him a ripped 6’4” 240 and started serving Big Macs and Gatorade to guests, or which one investigates himself and declares himself innocent. Who doesn’t even have to bother to explain any of it anymore. Just seems like the laws shouldn’t work that way here.
 
Bogative said:
Not according to 9/11 Truthers, who are frighteningly being emulated in this thread.
Click to expand...

You just argued that 9/11 Truthers don’t believe that dead terrorists redacted the 9/11 Commission Report. Which may be true, I suppose, but doesn’t make a lick of sense.

Also, could you please cite some specific examples of 9/11 Truthers being emulated in this thread?

Let’s start with the ones that frighten you the most.

And please try to apply a little more clarity of thought than your recent posts have exhibited. Your muddled arguments - like the one noted above - sometimes come across as nonsensical.
 
Is "collusion truthers" the approved talking-point now? That is, comparing not trusting a biased arbiter parsing a huge report in four pages and then misrepresenting what his own pages said and wanting the full report released with believing joos did 9/11?

Do you think it'll play?
 
uke2se said:
Is "collusion truthers" the approved talking-point now? That is, comparing not trusting a biased arbiter parsing a huge report in four pages and then misrepresenting what his own pages said and wanting the full report released with believing joos did 9/11?

Do you think it'll play?
Click to expand...

After admitting he hasn't read the whole thing, mind you.
 
uke2se said:
Is "collusion truthers" the approved talking-point now? That is, comparing not trusting a biased arbiter parsing a huge report in four pages and then misrepresenting what his own pages said and wanting the full report released with believing joos did 9/11?

Do you think it'll play?
Click to expand...

Of course it will play.

And the irony is that it’s being peddled by people who support and defend Trump, an actual conspiracy theorist.
 
Lambchops said:
Here's a crazy idea: Maybe russian bots and trolls did not get Trump elected.

Maybe it happened because Queen Hillary was just a ****** candidate.
Click to expand...

Are you saying you thought/think Trump was a better candidate? Are you happy with his performance so far?

It would be nice if some of the folks who attack anyone who opposes Trump would instead choose to be honest about their support for Trump.
 
Lambchops said:
Here's a crazy idea: Maybe russian bots and trolls did not get Trump elected.

Maybe it happened because Queen Hillary was just a ****** candidate.
Click to expand...

It's not that crazy an idea. It just needs the right context. In this thread, the context is getting Donald Trump indicted or impeached, and getting him out of office. The preferred theme here is that he colluded with the Russians to steal the election from Hillary Clinton. Suggesting that Clinton lost for reasons other than Trump's criminal acts just undermines that narrative, and impedes the Great Work. So you can't talk about that here.

But you can talk about it in other threads. In the Democratic Candidates 2020 thread, you'll find there's rather more appetite for the idea that Clinton lost because she was a bad candidate, or ran a bad campaign, or both.

And while I'm not going to bother digging it up, I know there's a few places around here where people will insist that James Comey cost her the election.* It's all a question of context. You just have to keep in mind which narrative you're trying to push right this moment, and make sure to stay on message.

---
*That one in particular is comedy gold. Comey was an honest cop while he was investigating Clinton and opting not to indict her. But the moment he announced he was re-opening the investigation, he became a partisan tool bent on her destruction. Then, a couple months later, when the president fired him for losing the trust of literally everyone, he became a darling of the left again.
 
wareyin said:
theprestige said:
It's not that crazy an idea. It just needs the right context. In this thread, the context is getting Donald Trump indicted or impeached, and getting him out of office. The preferred theme here is that he colluded with the Russians to steal the election from Hillary Clinton. Suggesting that Clinton lost for reasons other than Trump's criminal acts just undermines that narrative, and impedes the Great Work. So you can't talk about that here.

But you can talk about it in other threads. In the Democratic Candidates 2020 thread, you'll find there's rather more appetite for the idea that Clinton lost because she was a bad candidate, or ran a bad campaign, or both.

And while I'm not going to bother digging it up, I know there's a few places around here where people will insist that James Comey cost her the election.* It's all a question of context. You just have to keep in mind which narrative you're trying to push right this moment, and make sure to stay on message.

---
*That one in particular is comedy gold. Comey was an honest cop while he was investigating Clinton and opting not to indict her. But the moment he announced he was re-opening the investigation, he became a partisan tool bent on her destruction. Then, a couple months later, when the president fired him for losing the trust of literally everyone, he became a darling of the left again.
Click to expand...
Are you saying you thought/think Trump was a better candidate? Are you happy with his performance so far?

It would be nice if some of the folks who attack anyone who opposes Trump would instead choose to be honest about their support for Trump.
Click to expand...

Thanks in advance
 
theprestige said:
It's not that crazy an idea. It just needs the right context. In this thread, the context is getting Donald Trump indicted or impeached, and getting him out of office. The preferred theme here is that he colluded with the Russians to steal the election from Hillary Clinton. Suggesting that Clinton lost for reasons other than Trump's criminal acts just undermines that narrative, and impedes the Great Work. So you can't talk about that here.

But you can talk about it in other threads. In the Democratic Candidates 2020 thread, you'll find there's rather more appetite for the idea that Clinton lost because she was a bad candidate, or ran a bad campaign, or both.

And while I'm not going to bother digging it up, I know there's a few places around here where people will insist that James Comey cost her the election.* It's all a question of context. You just have to keep in mind which narrative you're trying to push right this moment, and make sure to stay on message.

---
*That one in particular is comedy gold. Comey was an honest cop while he was investigating Clinton and opting not to indict her. But the moment he announced he was re-opening the investigation, he became a partisan tool bent on her destruction. Then, a couple months later, when the president fired him for losing the trust of literally everyone, he became a darling of the left again.
Click to expand...

You seem to imply that there is only one factor that cost Clinton the election, and people won't agree on what that one factor is. That is almost never the case, especially in an election in which there were very narrow vote margins in several States. It would actually be absurd to think that. You could say (as a for instance) that roughly 15 out of 20 factors had to go against Clinton for Trump to win. Russian Interference was one. Comey was certainly another. Poor campaign strategy was another. etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom