Mega-Thread: Mueller investigation

[callipygoustp]

I don't understand why people can't say "yeah, politicians are corrupt, screw them", and instead need to invent some scenario where they are wrong in different situation.

You are, clearly, not reading posts then. Plenty of posters are convinced of politicians being corrupt. Only when those politicians are involved with a Russian related entity does it become an issue for you. Nothing is being invented.

[Kiri]

Who is saying politicians aren't corrupt?

There's a big difference between selling your vote on a piece of legislation to a business and selling secrets to a hostile foreign government, however.

We are complaining about cancer and you're trying to talk about a broken leg to minimize the scare of cancer. It is fucking stupid.

It is called whataboutism. By pointing out the flaws of politicians in general, people try to put the faults of whoever they defend on the same level, in order to ensure people can't get too mad about it. Your argument will fall on deaf ears, because usually those who employ such tactics fully know that it is BS, but it is their bread and butter.

[Breccia]

Found this earlier:

“The reality of how long this legal process will likely take, the cost, and the circuslike atmosphere of an anticipated trial are too much. I will better serve my family moving forward by exiting this process.”
-- Richard Gates

Hmm. That sounds like someone who has never heard of "no contest". Also, it sounds like someone who forgot they're only getting a plea deal, if they can provide something Mueller wants, which in turn implies guilt. That's a failure in spin, right there.

- - - Updated - - -

Who is saying politicians aren't corrupt?

It is called whataboutism.

Indeed. A classic example is, if you were asked why you support Putin, a killer, you respond "There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. What do you think? Our country’s so innocent?" It creates a false equivalence, implying everyone is as bad as Putin, while trying to deflect from the fact that you support Putin, a killer, in the first place.

Whataboutism is an invalid, limp-dick, IMPOTUS defense of someone you know fucked up, but don't want to admit it.

[Shalcker]

Who is saying politicians aren't corrupt?

Noone managed to say that they are in response, however. Is it taboo for some reason?

I guess they might consider it obvious truth not worth being repeated; but then what is the point of immediately going on offensive against someone saying it?

There's a big difference between selling your vote on a piece of legislation to a business and selling secrets to a hostile foreign government, however.

Where did that come from? I don't think anyone was accused of selling secrets to a hostile foreign government yet. :/

- - - Updated - - -

You are, clearly, not reading posts then. Plenty of posters are convinced of politicians being corrupt. Only when those politicians are involved with a Russian related entity does it become an issue for you. Nothing is being invented.

You're writing it in post that replied to literal "invented 2019 reaction"; plenty of things get invented.

And plenty of things can change between now and 2019.

- - - Updated - - -

It is called whataboutism. By pointing out the flaws of politicians in general, people try to put the faults of whoever they defend on the same level, in order to ensure people can't get too mad about it. Your argument will fall on deaf ears, because usually those who employ such tactics fully know that it is BS, but it is their bread and butter.

Yeah, that shows quite prominently in attacks on Putin when we're talking about US situation.

[Breccia]

Let's check in with the Fire and Fury author.

Fire and Fury author Michael Wolff said he believes Jared Kushner — President Trump’s son-in-law and senior advisor — will be indicted in special counsel Robert Mueller's probe, and would likely turn on Trump.

...huh...

The author of the best-selling book that details the inner workings of the Trump White House said at an event in London that the Russian investigation could trigger the biggest crisis the administration will face, all before the midterm elections.

Wolff said that “that there is a pretty good possibility at this point that Jared will be indicted,” according to a report by the Huffington Post.

“So the more direct question is will Trump throw his son-in-law under the bus, and then the corollary to that is, will his son-in-law throw his father-in-law under the bus?” Wolff said. “And I think the answer to both of those questions is ‘yes’.”

At the London event, Wolff also described Kushner and Ivanka Trump as “the most entitled people on earth” and said they didn’t have any relevant experience to hold the positions they were given by Trump.

Bolded for "selling apartments and handbags is qualification for making peace in the Middle East and talking to North Korea".

[Stormspark]

Let's check in with the Fire and Fury author.



...huh...



Bolded for "selling apartments and handbags is qualification for making peace in the Middle East and talking to North Korea".

I LOL at anyone that thinks there is any loyalty in the Trump household. They would sell each other out for pocket change.

[mvaliz]

I LOL at anyone that thinks there is any loyalty in the Trump household. They would sell each other out for pocket change.

I'll admit I would be surprised if Kushner sold out Donnie Dump... not for any love of him, but for (one would assume...) his wife, Ivanka.

I'm still 50/50 on the whole Kushner/Dump relationship. Part of me still believes he (Dump) put Kushner in charge of all that crazy pie-in-the-sky shit like "Bridging mideast peace" and "Restructuring the US Government" as attempts to make him fail... also, he is Jewish - and we all know how much what Dumbass Dump and his male spawnlings think of Jews...

I'll tell you what, though - if Kushner did turn on Dump, that marriage between Kushy and Ivanka is finished... and will be a massive shitstain on her that will be debated for decades as to what the whole point/goal of that marriage really was. it would also mean any chance of her going for President (*urp*) is finished. Either she stays married to Kush and supports a criminal, thus ruining her name. Or she leaves him and supports her Father, thus confirming her stance on accepting her father's behavior and ruining her image via supporting the worst President of all of US history.

[Mormolyce]

If there's a split between Trump and Kushner, I think the alt right will be massively relieved. They've been holding in their hatred of (((Kushner))) for ages now.

- - - Updated - - -

See, while Trump is playing one dimensional checkers, Mueller is actually playing chess.

Honestly, I don't know how anyone can look at this and see Trump winning. On the one side you've got the biggest bunch of ass-clowns and chucklefucks I've ever seen, and on the other, the angry ghost of Eliot Ness.

[Stormspark]

If there's a split between Trump and Kushner, I think the alt right will be massively relieved. They've been holding in their hatred of (((Kushner))) for ages now.

- - - Updated - - -



Honestly, I don't know how anyone can look at this and see Trump winning. On the one side you've got the biggest bunch of ass-clowns and chucklefucks I've ever seen, and on the other, the angry ghost of Eliot Ness.

And we have someone that's not Russian pleading GUILTY to conspiracy against the United States. As a plea bargin. He got it reduced to that. Makes you wonder what Mueller was going to do. When I saw that I saw the likelihood of treason charges against at least some people increase.

[Felya]

And we have someone that's not Russian pleading GUILTY to conspiracy against the United States. As a plea bargin. He got it reduced to that. Makes you wonder what Mueller was going to do. When I saw that I saw the likelihood of treason charges against at least some people increase.

Is there anyone left that isn’t a Trump family member, Kushner included? Haven’t all the main people that there was speculation of, charged already? Who are the remaining big fish, outside those?

[Stormspark]

Is there anyone left that isn’t a Trump family member, Kushner included? Haven’t all the main people that there was speculation of, charged already? Who are the remaining big fish, outside those?

I don't think so. I don't expect Mueller to move against any Trump family member until he's ready to move against them all at once.

[mvaliz]

If there's a split between Trump and Kushner, I think the alt right will be massively relieved. They've been holding in their hatred of (((Kushner))) for ages now.

...Is it sad that I think I know why you wrote it that way? =/

[Mormolyce]

...Is it sad that I think I know why you wrote it that way? =/

It's really baffling, isn't it? Create a system of shorthand to disguise what you're really saying - only anyone encountering it will immediately google it to figure out why you're abusing parentheses, and discover what your super secret code means.

[mvaliz]

Is there anyone left that isn’t a Trump family member, Kushner included? Haven’t all the main people that there was speculation of, charged already? Who are the remaining big fish, outside those?

The Keebler Elf, Jeffory Sessions.

Also, technically Bannon the Smog Monster is still lurking about without an indictment... yet.

Lastly - there's VP Petulant Pence himself. I still do not believe he's not involved in this somehow since he was hand-picked by, introduced to by, and sold to Dumbass Dump to be his VP by Paul Manafort himself. Prior to Paul Manafort, Pence had NOTHING to do with Dump or the Campaign.

There's GOT to be some agreement/connection there!

EDIT:

This gives me a great excuse to updated this JPEG I made a while ago! ^_^

[Stormspark]

It's funny, I used to doubt Skroe being banned had any correlation to anything. But his latest ban, we got a guilty plea for conspiracy against the US.

[Vanyali]

It's funny, I used to doubt Skroe being banned had any correlation to anything. But his latest ban, we got a guilty plea for conspiracy against the US.

@Skroe is actually Mueller. When he's banned he takes out his rage for such transgressions but beating the crap out of people with legalese.

[Stormspark]

@Skroe is actually Mueller. When he's banned he takes out his rage for such transgressions but beating the crap out of people with legalese.

Haha. I wonder when his ban is up this time.

[mvaliz]

Haha. I wonder when his ban is up this time.

I think at this point he's probably sadly at the monthly phase =/

[Mormolyce]

It's funny, I used to doubt Skroe being banned had any correlation to anything. But his latest ban, we got a guilty plea for conspiracy against the US.

It's undeniable, isn't it?

[Breccia]

TRUMP WILL ONLY TESTIFY BEFORE MUELLER IF QUESTIONS ARE 'LIMITED IN SCOPE'

That's not how "testified to FBI" works.

Trump’s legal team are willing to consider allowing the president to be interviewed by Robert Mueller’s investigation into alleged Russian collusion if the questions are “limited in scope,” a source close to the president’s legal team told the Wall Street Journal.

Trump’s lawyers are considering allowing him to testify before Mueller as long as the questions “don’t test his recollections in ways that amount to a potential perjury trap,” according to the source cited in Sunday's report.

Yes, yes, Trump has the best memory etc etc.

Other options include Trump responding to Mueller’s questions with written answers.

Nope.

Trump might not know the scope of what he's facing, but it's clear his lawyers do. They're willing to throw anything at the wall and see if it sticks. As we've discussed before, no sane prosecutor would ever allow written responses to interview questions.

Third, Mueller’s team will not be satisfied with an affidavit or written responses to questions. It would be extremely unusual for prosecutors to agree to either for someone so central to their investigation. Prosecutors always want to eyeball a witness. They want to see his demeanor and body language, to see and hear how he reacts when confronted with difficult questions or contradictory information.

Written answers or an affidavit from the president would be carefully crafted in consultation with his lawyers. Sterile legalisms on a page would not give prosecutors the true measure of the president’s knowledge and state of mind, nor would they allow the probing follow-up questions that are the mark of a skilled examiner.