Mega-Thread: Mueller investigation

[Pterodactylus]

You spending longer in this section of the forum then myself does not exactly speak to you being more informed, that's for sure.

Certainly more informed than you. The content of your posts vs. his speaks to that. I mean, you are the guy who thinks a wall is an effective idea to curb immigration! Laughable. You're just a troll and I am surprised Skore fed you so much. Back to under your bridge now.

[rda]

That was the general consensus a week or two ago anyway. Don't think that's changed and if so he's probably lying. Agenda and talking points are simply too obvious.

No need to guess, I am Russian. My point of view on things is frequently very different from that of Shalcker, just in case. Not that you'd notice, of course.

[Skroe]

Certainly more informed than you. The content of your posts vs. his speaks to that. I mean, you are the guy who thinks a wall is an effective idea to curb immigration! Laughable. You're just a troll and I am surprised Skore fed you so much. Back to under your bridge now.

My Mid-years resolution is to make extensive use of this:
https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...1#post51127791

[rda]

Certainly more informed than you. The content of your posts vs. his speaks to that. I mean, you are the guy who thinks a wall is an effective idea to curb immigration! Laughable. You're just a troll and I am surprised Skore fed you so much. Back to under your bridge now.

I did not say that a wall is an effective idea to curb immigration. I said something completely different. Yet you somehow read it into what I said and put an exclamation mark.

[Shalcker]

So, let's settle it once and forever. Come up and fight on the three points. You have it all figured out and I am super-misinformed and don't care, so show everyone your intellectual superiority.

Skroe is just too invested in idea of Trump being worst thing ever. Including literally invested - that is, spending his money on things he assumes might lead to or hasten Trump's downfall.

He has a different set of biases then average anti-Trump poster here, given that he is a (former) Republican. The Never-Trumper kind of Republican.

But his problem is that he doesn't want to test his assumptions in such matters.

And that leads to his assumptions frequently failing - like his assumption of Republicans supporting Trump's impeachment as result of Mueller's probe.

He creates perfectly believeable pictures of how Trump can be out any moment now if this and that happens... and then it never happens.

[rda]

Skroe is just too invested in idea of Trump being worst thing ever. Including literally invested - that is, spending his money on things he assumes might lead to or hasten Trump's downfall.

He has a different set of biases then average anti-Trump poster here, given that he is a (former) Republican. The Never-Trumper kind of Republican.

But his problem is that he doesn't want to test his assumptions in such matters.

Yes, I know that his position differs from the average (laughable) "position" of many other anti-Trump posters in this thread (which is basically "Trump is bad, alright <meme picture>"), I figured that from posts. Unfortunately, he is unwilling to put that position to test, as you say. Maybe this is really because he saw too much useless trolling or whatever and does not engage anymore, but whatever the case, over time this just means that his honed no-challenge-allowed position slowly morphs into a dogma and parts ways with reality.

[Skroe]

Skroe is just too invested in idea of Trump being worst thing ever. Including literally invested - that is, spending his money on things he assumes might lead to or hasten Trump's downfall.

He has a different set of biases then average anti-Trump poster here, given that he is a (former) Republican. The Never-Trumper kind of Republican.

But his problem is that he doesn't want to test his assumptions in such matters.

Are you kidding me? I actually refuted that a page ago when I said that despite my opposition to Trump, I only held him illegitimate after Charlottesville. But more broadly, as events have occured and the situation changed, I've adjusted my position, and in terms of my side job at the PAC, we've adjusted our tactics.

Case in point I said when the Mueller report landed that it was unlikely impeachment would happen. Trump was primed. His relationship with McConnell was fraying due to the shut down at the start of the year in particular, and then the emergency declaration. Events, some anticipated, converged to put Trump in a real bad spot that would have made it easier for Republicans to turn on Trump. But the Mueller report didn't say enough of what it needed to say to bring that about, no small thanks to Barr's mechanations. So I figured it was off the table.

Now though, the situation is changing again, as Barr's mechanations are disintegrating, Democrats are opening investigations and getting documents, and Republicans get getting uneasy looking at poll numbers. Should we impeach? Maybe. Will it succeed? Not yet. I'm undecided. But the situation is changed compared to just after the Mueller report landed.

We've all been very flexible, which is in no small part why Trump is on the ropes. Witness how the Mueller investigation was rolled into the Congressional investigations. That may now role into an impeachement inquiry. Or it may not. Pelosi could just decide to proverbially water board Trump until 2020 and beat him then.

Whatever works!

[Dontrike]

Because the wall is just a small episode in the whole trust of curbing immigration that Trump wanted / tried to do, no? Right on this page there is a mention of strengthening policies at the border, for example.

Except the wall won't do anything. It's a pet project to make racists feel like they are actually doing something when in reality they need to stop inbreeding. It won't curb a damn thing. If you want to strengthen policies, then great, but a wall isn't going to do a lick and having kids die in cages isn't going to stop it either (by the way, the number is up to six). Trump could have gotten the wall done in the two years he had full control of everything and chose not to, so apparently it isn't that important.

- - - Updated - - -

OK, I should have worded my question differently, because I meant all investigations together as well. This isn't very important.

Alright, well then apparently they will do something if Trump is so hard pressed to stop every single one looking into him. We know of one investigation already did something and it brought down his charity, another brought down his "university", and I can only imagine what others would do. So how about look back and see Trump is about as innocent as a mob boss.

- - - Updated - - -

You keep posting empty posts assuring everyone that you know the answers without posting the answers.

The irony in this post is thicker than I am.

[Shalcker]

Are you kidding me? I actually refuted that a page ago when I said that despite my opposition to Trump, I only held him illegitimate after Charlottesville. But more broadly, as events have occured and the situation changed, I've adjusted my position, and in terms of my side job at the PAC, we've adjusted our tactics.

You're mostly adjusting them after previous assumptions fail though. You don't seem to give alternatives their due chance until they become the only remaining option.

Case in point I said when the Mueller report landed that it was unlikely impeachment would happen. Trump was primed. His relationship with McConnell was fraying due to the shut down at the start of the year in particular, and then the emergency declaration. Events, some anticipated, converged to put Trump in a real bad spot that would have made it easier for Republicans to turn on Trump. But the Mueller report didn't say enough of what it needed to say to bring that about, no small thanks to Barr's mechanations. So I figured it was off the table.

You've read it. You're saying it "didn't say enough", but you still use it as something supporting impeachment?

Now though, the situation is changing again, as Barr's mechanations are disintegrating, Democrats are opening investigations and getting documents, and Republicans get getting uneasy looking at poll numbers. Should we impeach? Maybe. Will it succeed? Not yet. I'm undecided. But the situation is changed compared to just after the Mueller report landed.

What machinations? Do you think there is still something extremely damning in remaining redactions?

All those other investigations and document requests could happen right in 2017, why would anyone wait for Mueller's probe finishing to do them if they had real chance of foiling Trump?

We've all been very flexible, which is in no small part why Trump is on the ropes. Witness how the Mueller investigation was rolled into the Congressional investigations. That may now role into an impeachement inquiry. Or it may not. Pelosi could just decide to proverbially water board Trump until 2020 and beat him then.

Whatever works!

Or he might comfortably win 2020 as well. I guess you'll go to Singapore then? Or just wait for Democrats to win 2024?

[Flarelaine]

I can assure you, new guy, I've been accused of many things in this forum, but not having something to say has never been one of them.

Fellas, do I have a second on that?

Roger that.

[Skroe]

You're mostly adjusting them after previous assumptions fail though. You don't seem to give alternatives their due chance until they become the only remaining option.

On the contrary, we've been laying out contingencies since the get go.

You've read it. You're saying it "didn't say enough", but you still use it as something supporting impeachment?

Said plenty for any honest broker. Senate Republicans are not honest brokers. And didn't read it. My comment is in reference to what they needed. And frankly, I'm not even sure what that would be. Maybe if Trump accepted a briefcase full of money. And even then I have my doubts.

What machinations? Do you think there is still something extremely damning in remaining redactions?

Nah the framing from the memo. The part where he left out all the context. You know. Half sentences. That kind of thing. It worked for all of two days.
[QUOTE=Shalcker;51229666]
All those other investigations and document requests could happen right in 2017, why would anyone wait for Mueller's probe finishing to do them if they had real chance of foiling Trump?/QUOTE]
Democrats didn't have the House until January of this year. Or they would have done it then.

The most important event to occur was Democrats taking back the house.

Or he might comfortably win 2020 as well. I guess you'll go to Singapore then? Or just wait for Democrats to win 2024?

I broke this down in the other thread. If Democrats lose Pennsylvania, it's pretty much impossible for them to win unless they win Florida. If Trump lose either Pennsylvania or Florida, it's pretty much impossible for him to win. Democrats have more paths to victory in 2020, and those paths are very similar to 2016. The question is, can Trump repeat his narrow wins in states that are normally Democratic states that he's uncomfortable in?

And besides, Democrats are very unlikely to lose the House in 2020 (a flip coming after a flip has only happened a few times ever), which means that Donald Trump would go into his second term being a ribbon cutter until the 2022 midterms. And after those mid-terms, he'd be a lame duck and nobody will go to bat for him. So even "winning" Trump doesn't win much, unless he can take the House which he probably won't. Conversely, even in "winning" Democrats don't win much from the policy perspective, unless they can take the Senate, which they probably won't.

The net win condition for Democrats though, is of course, Trump is not President, what he is hiding gets dumped into public light, he and his goons are prosecuted, and we get our revenge on Russia at a time and place of our choosing. Oh and don't think for a second Democrats have forgotten about that. Putin better hope that his dumb stunts pay off until the end of time.

I'll likely be working outside of the country in the next couple of years anyhoo, for unrelated matters.

[rda]

Now though, the situation is changing again, as Barr's mechanations are disintegrating, Democrats are opening investigations and getting documents, and Republicans get getting uneasy looking at poll numbers. Should we impeach? Maybe. Will it succeed? Not yet. I'm undecided. But the situation is changed compared to just after the Mueller report landed.

If Trump manages to beat China into accepting laws that stop the appropriation of IP / make stealing it harder, and makes no huge blunders according to whatever your personal criteria of that is, will that make you reconsider your "strategy" to be more tolerant to Trump and maybe - oh, the horrors - even preferring him to some others?

[Felya]

If Trump manages to beat China into accepting laws that stop the appropriation of IP / make stealing it harder, and makes no huge blunders according to whatever your personal criteria of that is, will that make you reconsider your "strategy" to be more tolerant to Trump and maybe - oh, the horrors - even preferring him to some others?

Yeah, if Trump acts out of character, people wouldn’t react the same to his character. You figured it out... grats! As is, how much are we spending on this blunder already?

[rda]

Yeah, if Trump acts out of character, people wouldn’t react the same to his character. You figured it out... grats! As is, how much are we spending on this blunder already?

I think you don't realize that the trade was is not a blunder, at least in the opinion of Skroe, whom I am asking.

[Felya]

I think you don't realize that the trade was is not a blunder, at least in the opinion of Skroe, whom I am asking.

Nothing you quoted actually mentions the trade war. It dances around an idea of Trump getting a better reaction, if he were out of character. In fact, it’s off topic... how about posting how much Trump’s investigation into investigators going to cost?

[rda]

Nothing you quoted actually mentions the trade war. It dances around an idea of Trump getting a better reaction, if he were out of character. In fact, it’s off topic... how about posting how much Trump’s investigation into investigators going to cost?

"If Trump manages to beat China into accepting laws that stop the appropriation of IP / make stealing it harder"

[Felya]

"If Trump manages to beat China into accepting laws that stop the appropriation of IP / make stealing it harder"

WTF? Why are you quoting your self?

Nothing you quoted actually mentions the trade war.

I will ask again... how much do you think Trump’s investigation into investigators going to cost? Stay on topic...

[Shalcker]

Said plenty for any honest broker. Senate Republicans are not honest brokers. And didn't read it. My comment is in reference to what they needed. And frankly, I'm not even sure what that would be. Maybe if Trump accepted a briefcase full of money. And even then I have my doubts.

Well, i think i've said essentially same thing for long time. Because it was quite obvious that no, Republicans aren't going to go against Trump en masse with most serious charge being "minor campaign finance violation" (and even less so on "obstruction" - that only ever matters when other side does it).

Nah the framing from the memo. The part where he left out all the context. You know. Half sentences. That kind of thing. It worked for all of two days.

*shrug* He released report and there is still no impeachment.

And Mueller doesn't want to have a public hearing.

Democrats didn't have the House until January of this year. Or they would have done it then.
The most important event to occur was Democrats taking back the house.

Okay, i see that there is stuff like "only chairman of committee can request this and that", and apparently they can only appoint chairman if they control the House, so, maybe.

Three months isn't that much of the wait.

I broke this down in the other thread. If Democrats lose Pennsylvania, it's pretty much impossible for them to win unless they win Florida. If Trump lose either Pennsylvania or Florida, it's pretty much impossible for him to win. Democrats have more paths to victory in 2020, and those paths are very similar to 2016. The question is, can Trump repeat his narrow wins in states that are normally Democratic states that he's uncomfortable in?

Isn't it more on "can Democrats produce candidate that might actually win those states"? It isn't just on Trump.

And besides, Democrats are very unlikely to lose the House in 2020 (a flip coming after a flip has only happened a few times ever), which means that Donald Trump would go into his second term being a ribbon cutter until the 2022 midterms. And after those mid-terms, he'd be a lame duck and nobody will go to bat for him. So even "winning" Trump doesn't win much, unless he can take the House which he probably won't. Conversely, even in "winning" Democrats don't win much from the policy perspective, unless they can take the Senate, which they probably won't.

So in the end it doesn't matter if Trump wins or loses?

The net win condition for Democrats though, is of course, Trump is not President, what he is hiding gets dumped into public light, he and his goons are prosecuted, and we get our revenge on Russia at a time and place of our choosing. Oh and don't think for a second Democrats have forgotten about that. Putin better hope that his dumb stunts pay off until the end of time.

*shrug* Putin will most likely be out at the end of this term anyway.

And if he doesn't he'll have bigger problems. So, not that scary really.

[rda]

WTF? Why are you quoting your self?

I will ask again... how much do you think Trump’s investigation into investigators going to cost? Stay on topic...

Mate. I quoted "If Trump manages to beat China ..." because you said that "nothing [you] quoted mentions the trade war" and this was about the trade war. If you don't understand the relation of the phrase to the trade war, maybe go learn about the trade war, why it is fought, who is fighting, etc.

I don't know how much Trump's investigations into investigators are going to cost. Your "stay on topic" is ironic because nobody but yourself was talking about that. If you are asking me whether Trump is right to launch investigations into investigators, then I see the only legit reason to be Ukrainians supplying the Hillary campaign with data on Manafort who was on Trump's team - that might warrant some small scale investigation, especially because most of what happened has already been figured out. If you don't know about that either, go and read what happened there.

- - - Updated - - -

And Mueller doesn't want to have a public hearing.

I am probably going to state the obvious, but Mueller doesn't want a public hearing likely because he doesn't want to expose himself to the risk of saying something and then being charged for it by someone who isn't a friendly Dem.

[DocSavageFan]

Mueller wants to testify in private? Hell no!