Mega-Thread: Mueller investigation

[Lenonis]

Or he'll threaten to kill you....It's a 50/50 chance.

Yeah...I'm honestly hoping people are just fooled by the name change and not realizing who they are talking to. Frankly no one should respond to him ever again except to point out his radicalization.

[Thekri]

Yeah...I'm honestly hoping people are just fooled by the name change and not realizing who they are talking to. Frankly no one should respond to him ever again except to point out his radicalization.

Oh wow, yeah I didn't know who it was until you sad that and I checked his posting history. That is horrifying, it is like watching Arthas turn into the LK...

Seriously Tony, come back, you gave in all the way to the hate. You used to be a rational person, now you seem like someone that is going to start hurting people.

[mvaliz]

Oh wow, yeah I didn't know who it was until you sad that and I checked his posting history. That is horrifying, it is like watching Arthas turn into the LK...

Seriously Tony, come back, you gave in all the way to the hate. You used to be a rational person, now you seem like someone that is going to start hurting people.

The above is debatable, but even I'll admit he had one or two heartbeat moments...

What's even more terrifying is how Tony changed his profile to a) a hand burning communist symbol, b) Lists "burning heretics" as a pastime, and c) is now listing "Inquisitioning" as his occupation.

This is seriously batshit insane stuff. Tony, A former US Military man who brags about killing people durring war and threatens people on forums - believing in some mythical communist uprising, is now changing his entire profile listing how he wants to "Burn Heretics" and act as some Inquisition hunting "communists"!? o_O

[Captain N]

Oh wow, yeah I didn't know who it was until you sad that and I checked his posting history. That is horrifying, it is like watching Arthas turn into the LK...

Seriously Tony, come back, you gave in all the way to the hate. You used to be a rational person, now you seem like someone that is going to start hurting people.

He was never rational -- He's been threatening posters for years. He threatened to shoot Rukentuts in the back of the head. He's threatened to sucker punch Wells, Didactic, and myself. He's accused posters of hacking his personal information despite all the information used against him has been posted right here on these forums. He's been a long disturbed individual. The death threats and the general lunacy aren't anything new. They're just more common lately.

[Warning]

Dershowitz has been shilling for Trump for a while now. He is an idiot. He has been saying that Trump hasn't Obstructed justice, even though we know he has, several times.

The Dershowitz matter imo is a little more complex. His argument isn't necessarily about Trump either (or at least that is the claim): he argues that Presidents in general can never obstruct justice by exercising any power (such as pardoning a crime or firing an FBI director) that the President is constitutionally given, because if they could it would undermine separation of power by giving the courts the power to judge on the exercise of powers that are outside their domain.

I think that reasoning has a flaw though, because it bites right back: If the President is exempt from the laws concerning obstruction for those specific actions and pardons have no limits then that power undermines both the legislative AND the judiciary branches all at once. Furthermore there are instances where immunity is granted explicitly, but that didn't happen in the case of the President, which suggests it was purposefully left out.

I don't much care to delve deeper into US law on this right now, but its' certainly more complex than he makes it out to be, it is very common for certain legal principles to clash, which is why there is a Supreme Court to adjudicate on interpretations. I think that may need to happen here as well, and I think the case for equality under the law is stronger than the case against it. Looking at the purpose of checks and balances: stopping the birth of tyrants, it is almost unthinkable to me that the correct application of those checks and balances would result in a President being beyond prosecution for the corrupted use of constitutional powers for his own gain.

Furthermore I do actually Dershowitz' motivations to be suspect as he seems to be unable to stop himself from fulminating against certain Obama era actions whenever discussing these matters.

[Lenonis]

What's even more terrifying is how Tony changed his profile to a) a hand burning communist symbol, b) Lists "burning heretics" as a pastime, and c) is now listing "Inquisitioning" as his occupation.

This sort of thing really shouldn't be tolerated on these forums (or really anywhere). When you add everything up over the last couple of months the fact that the last infraction was only for a 1 month ban is completely and utterly unacceptable. MMO-C is essentially giving slaps on the wrists for posters issuing death threats.

Anyway, what's done is done. But it's really making me start wondering what is going on here.

[mvaliz]

He was never rational -- He's been threatening posters for years. He threatened to shoot Rukentuts in the back of the head. He's threatened to sucker punch Wells, Didactic, and myself. He's accused posters of hacking his personal information despite all the information used against him has been posted right here on these forums. He's been a long disturbed individual. The death threats and the general lunacy aren't anything new. They're just more common lately.

Add me to the list - I remember him threatening to use a ball-pin hammer on my knuckles...

Seriously, I just wish he get some help. There is a tiny bit good in him that I've seen, when he called out Ted Cruz for shutting down the gov durring Obama's tenure, and when he and I both agreed that John Kasich was the best choice for Repubs durring the primaries. Now it seems like he just doesn't care and is happy to stand behind Dumpy not because he likes him - but soley because it "pisses of Libz". You can even see it in how he tries to pretend he doesn't like trump by calling him "uncouth"... Tony calling somebody like Dumbass Donnie Dump "Uncouth" is like a Star Wars Rebel calling Darth Vader "unscrupulous". You can REALLY tell he wants to call him bad, but doesn't want to use his known harsher words because, deep down, he likes what Dump doing to "the libz". (Which, we must remind people, isn't really the "liberals" - since it also comprises Libertarians, REAL conservatives, indipendents, ect... - but to most of the alt-right, anybody who doesn't support the current GOP admin is automatically tarred a "Liberal"... or apparently now a Communist, according to Tony.)

[Thepersona]

He was never rational -- He's been threatening posters for years. He threatened to shoot Rukentuts in the back of the head. He's threatened to sucker punch Wells, Didactic, and myself. He's accused posters of hacking his personal information despite all the information used against him has been posted right here on these forums. He's been a long disturbed individual. The death threats and the general lunacy aren't anything new. They're just more common lately.

And after he just threatened genocide and murder... still no perma-ban (or at te very least a 6 month ban).

- - - Updated - - -

This sort of thing really shouldn't be tolerated on these forums (or really anywhere). When you add everything up over the last couple of months the fact that the last infraction was only for a 1 month ban is completely and utterly unacceptable. MMO-C is essentially giving slaps on the wrists for posters issuing death threats.

Anyway, what's done is done. But it's really making me start wondering what is going on here.

Add with that that skroe got banned for esentially nothing

[Crissi]

talking about moderation publicly isn't allowed, and this is going way off topic. This is about the Mueller indictment

[Lenonis]

talking about moderation publicly isn't allowed, and this is going way off topic. This is about the Mueller indictment

I have a question and then I'll stop -- if we wanted to discuss the moderation is PMing a blue the route? I don't mean specific infractions but the philosophy in general. Are the blue mods open to questions about the moderation philosophy here or is that just not a topic willing to be discussed in private even?

[Crissi]

I have a question and then I'll stop -- if we wanted to discuss the moderation is PMing a blue the route? I don't mean specific infractions but the philosophy in general. Are the blue mods open to questions about the moderation philosophy here or is that just not a topic willing to be discussed in private even?

Always pm a blue.

Also this question should have been pm to me, not asked publicly.

Now drop it

[Shalcker]

No, based on the metadata from the DNC server report from Crowdstrike.

Which we still haven't seen. And which FBI didn't independently verify.

- - - Updated - - -

Highlighting how they were manipulated is not a dismissal. It's an understanding.

How about discussing how you were and are manipulated? Are you up for that too?

Some people seek to actually understand things. Some people like to discuss them in good faith. You wouldn't understand.

Maybe you should try it sometimes to understand how it looks like.

[masterhorus8]

How about discussing how you were and are manipulated? Are you up for that too?

Maybe you should try it sometimes to understand how it looks like.

This is literally a variation of "nuh-uh, you are!"

[NYC17]

Which we still haven't seen. And which FBI didn't independently verify.

- - - Updated - - -

How about discussing how you were and are manipulated? Are you up for that too?

Maybe you should try it sometimes to understand how it looks like.

If you can demonstrate it with anything beyond your tired ass "no, but you" routine. But, you can't. That's what your arguments are distilled down to just about every time.

This post of yours is a perfect example. You simply aren't capable of a more interesting or pertinent "criticism".

[Tijuana]

He gets it just fine. How do you reconcile Christian values with serving an American president that pays hush money to whores and belittles the family of service men and women who have died for the country?

Jesus, the mental gymnastics you must go through to believe your narrative are hilarious. And the fact that probably 1/3 of your country men "think" (I use that term lightly) the same as you just shows why your country in tanking in the eyes of the world, the currency is tanking and your deficit is blossoming.

Worst is, your views have probably been shaped by Putinbots and you lack the self awareness to see you've been duped.

Because the other option included letting a credibly accused rapist back in to the White House. That was remarkably easy.

[Lenonis]

Because the other option included letting a credibly accused rapist back in to the White House. That was remarkably easy.

Except for that tiny problem that Trump has also been accused of rape by a number of women including his ex-wife.

[Tijuana]

I think I did. You trust Mike Pence because he is a "Good Christian". I do not. Here is the thing about religious zealotry, people will go a long way to protect it, and they don't always like where they end up. This is a "Good Christian" that has decided to serve a lying, adulterous, ego-manical, blaspheming, tyrannical man that believes himself to be a near messianic figure to modern evangelicals. He did this because he believes God willed it. Putin isn't a far jump from that.

I'm not a Christian even myself. The Pence thing was an obvious joke, to relate him to the Opus Dei. I don't even think Pence is Catholic, is he? You guys always miss the joke, and then run around huffing and puffing. Just relax. Pence is a ridiculous person, and that was my point.

- - - Updated - - -

He doesn't have to allow an interview. That's not the same thing as being subpoenaed. Your claim was that Mueller can't subpoena Trump. if you meant something else you should have said it. This isn't a semantical argument. There are fundamental differences between what you said, what you now claim to have meant, and what is factually correct.

If providing you factual information is what you consider "winning the internet", then that's fine. DO what you have to in order to reconcile being wrong. The problem isn't that you are wrong, it's that you are so assuredly wrong you make grand statements that we can "take to the bank" and when you are shown to be wrong it's suddenly about being the victim of people who want to fight and win the internet".

I couldn't care less about winning or losing. I care about factual information. You seem to be committed to expressing the exact opposite of factual information, and masquerading it as fact, as much as you possibly can. So, what about how factually incorrect you were would be up for discussion?

Quote me where I said that, or made that distinction, if what you say is true.

Look, the bottom line is, this counter intelligence investigation is not going to lead to Trump being charged with a crime, or being impeached, or any of that. It's basically a conspiracy theory at this point, to think that. If Trump was guilty of crimes that could lead to impeachment, they wouldn't just sit on that info while they indict random Russians who will never see a court room. They would want the impeachment to proceed, and not leave him in power. So, your entire fantasy is just not going to happen. I'm sorry. I know you really want it. But you will never get it. Ever.

- - - Updated - - -

Good Christian and Good American aren't necessarily the same thing, we have a very long list of "Good Christians" that have been doing horrible things behind closed doors. And Pence has already been named in several of those Russian meetings that nobody on Team Trump seems to be able to remember the first time they are asked.

Can you people for real not see the joke here. Really? A literal self flagellation reference doesn't even get noticed? Jesus...

- - - Updated - - -

Except for that tiny problem that Trump has also been accused of rape by a number of women including his ex-wife.

Yeah but not credibly.

[Machismo]

Because the other option included letting a credibly accused rapist back in to the White House. That was remarkably easy.

You voted for a less-moral, less-conservative version of Bill Clinton. All of your constant defense of Trump points to utter hypocrisy on that front. Seriously, how is Bill Clinton any different from Trump?

You have an administration who has consistently lied from the beginning about everything. Remember when they said there were no meetings at all? Yeah, those were good times.

[Shalcker]

Uhm... I am not dismissing any votes... Why are you trying to create conflict when none exist? I said Russians misinformed these people, to make them think Trump was a lesser of two evil, when standing just about next to anyone.

How about calling it informing? Because, you know, IRA troll antics aside (though as far as i remember they weren't the ones who invented "Hillary for jail" - they just "animated" it), DNC (and later Podesta) emails were actually true.

Why do you instead choose to create conflict, by saying I am dismissing votes?

Because you're dismissing their informed opinion. Because you're calling them misinformed.

Maybe you were the one being misinformed instead? How about that?

[Lenonis]

Yeah but not credibly.

Sure. Whatever you say.

I could go ahead and point out the witness that corroborated stories, or that one accusation was made under oath, but let's face it -- there is nothing that would make you believe the women accusing "your side". Just like everyone accusing Moore was lying, etc. etc. etc.

And, in the same breath, you wonder why women don't come forward.