Mega-Thread: Mueller investigation

[NYC17]

I mean, I don't know what to say, NYC. He's a right-leaning member of the commentariat with a qualifying background to speak on these issues. I really don't want to get into a sidebar about the Obama administration's doings regarding the Clinton campaign, or, more specifically, the anti-Trump campaign, but there's a lot of substance to be discussed about all that. Dismissing his expertise and insight based not on the specifics of what he says about the issues at hand, but on his opinions on unrelated issues, is not a convincing rebuttal.

That's exactly the point; he wants to muddy the waters regarding those subjects that you " don't want to sidebar" over. I'm not dismissing whatever questionable expertise he's displayed. He's responsible for that. He renders his "expertise" moot because he exhibits pure, unabashed, and shameless dog whistle/Trumpeteer/delusional talking points, and does it under the guise of an "expert" so people like you can throw his bullshit up on an internet forum and declare in spite of all that, he still holds some credibility because "experience".

He's the worst kind of asshole because he tries to shield his partisan hackery behind a wall of "expertise" and any criticism or highlighting of his obvious absurdity and bias is met with "but he's experienced."

Fuck. That.

[Dacien]

That's exactly the point; he wants to muddy the waters regarding those subjects that you " don't want to sidebar" over. I'm not dismissing whatever questionable expertise he's displayed. He's responsible for that. He renders his "expertise" moot because he exhibits pure, unabashed, and shameless dog whistle/Trumpeteer/delusional talking points, and does it under the guise of an "expert" so people like you can throw his bullshit up on an internet forum and declare in spite of all that, he still holds some credibility because "experience".

He's the worst kind of asshole because he tries to shield his partisan hackery behind a wall of "expertise" and any criticism or hihglighting of his absurdity is met with "but he's experienced."

Fuck. That.

I stand by the position that his arguments should be debated on their merits. I'm not going to hand-wave off a critical piece toward Trump by Renato Mariotti simply because he's got a pro-left lean, I'm going to read what he has to say and evaluate it on it's merits. If it's all partisan hogwash, that'll be easy to demonstrate, if it's more problematic, well then, I need to either address that or concede he's got a different interpretation of the facts (which happens quite often when the facts aren't cut and dry).

It's all part of the debate.

[NYC17]

I stand by the position that his arguments should be debated on their merits. I'm not going to hand-wave off a critical piece toward Trump by Renato Mariotti simply because he's got a pro-left lean, I'm going to read what he has to say and evaluate it on it's merits. If it's all partisan hogwash, that'll be easy to demonstrate, if it's more problematic, well then, I need to either address that or concede he's got a different interpretation of the facts (which happens quite often when the facts aren't cut and dry).

It's all part of the debate.

You're missing the point, and it can only be intentional now because I have stated it quite clearly. The problem isn't his leanings. The problem is he uses his "expertise" to blatantly push a political agenda. This makes his analysis disqualifying. It doesn't matter how experienced you are when your objectivity about a legal issue is overwhelmingly influenced by a political agenda. It's not because he "leans right". It's because he says disqualifying things. It's because his political agenda invalidates his supposed expertise.

I don't know how to make it any more clear. I can't distill it down anymore than I have.

[Dacien]

You're missing the point, and it can only be intentional now because I have stated it quite clearly. The problem isn't his leanings. The problem is he uses his "expertise" to blatantly push a political agenda. This makes his analysis disqualifying. It doesn't matter how experienced you are when your objectivity about a legal issue is overwhelmingly influenced by a political agenda. It's not because he "leans right". It's because he says disqualifying things. It's because his political agenda invalidates his supposed expertise.

I don't know how to make it any more clear. I can't distill it down anymore than I have.

So the argument is that because he has, in your subjective view, "disqualifying views", we shouldn't evaluate his insights and opinions on political topics. It should be pointed out that he doesn't trumpet his expertise, that has been something I have done in defending him. Regardless, I understand what you're saying. You're saying that he has an agenda (which is really just another way of saying he leans a certain way, if you ask me), and therefore his words and opinions have no merit.

I reject that. I'll evaluate his words and opinions simply on their merit. I'll continue to do the same for commentators who disagree with my point of view. If I take the position that people who disagree with me deserve only to be dismissed out of hand because they have an "agenda", and not on the merits of their arguments, that is the point where I begin to sequester myself into the tribalist partisan division that has led us to the point where we are today.

[Shadowmelded]

So the argument is that because he has, in your subjective view, "disqualifying views", we shouldn't evaluate his insights and opinions on political topics. It should be pointed out that he doesn't trumpet his expertise, that has been something I have done in defending him. Regardless, I understand what you're saying. You're saying that he has an agenda (which is really just another way of saying he leans a certain way, if you ask me), and therefore his words and opinions have no merit.

I reject that. I'll evaluate his words and opinions simply on their merit. I'll continue to do the same for commentators who disagree with my point of view. If I take the position that people who disagree with me deserve only to be dismissed out of hand because they have an "agenda", and not on the merits of their arguments, that is the point where I begin to sequester myself into the tribalist partisan division that has led us to the point where we are today.

His entire argument relies on his expertise. You can't evaluate the "merits" while distancing yourself from the guy making them who claims to have inside knowledge of the situation, which while probably true is, as NYC pointed out, fatally undermined by his partisan conduct and, frankly, conspiratorial beliefs.

[Shalcker]

That's not what "having an agenda" means, jesus christ.

agenda noun [ C ] uk ​ /əˈdʒen.də/ us ​ /əˈdʒen.də/
​
C1. a list of matters to be discussed at a meeting:
There were several important items on the agenda.
The question of security is high on the agenda for this afternoon's meeting.
​

C2. a list of aims or possible future achievements:
Women's rights have been put back on the agenda (= are being discussed publicly again).
The subject of safety needs to be placed high on/at the top of the agenda (= must be discussed because it is very important).
Education was placed firmly on the political agenda in the prime minister's weekend speech.
​

3. a secret aim or reason for doing something:
She felt that some of the group had an agenda.
There's no hidden agenda - I'm just trying to help.

Obviously everyone on this forum is going with 3.
And "having an agenda" tells nothing about merit of given argument; it only presupposes that every given argument is used to lead toward certain goal.

So if people oppose that goal then they choose to refuse to interact with arguments that might lead them there. That is basically admission that they are weak and cannot hope to refute it in honest discussion with opponent's arguments being stronger.

Or, in more charitable view, just not having strength or desire to engage with this particular line of reasoning.

[NYC17]

So the argument is that because he has, in your subjective view, "disqualifying views", we shouldn't evaluate his insights and opinions on political topics. It should be pointed out that he doesn't trumpet his expertise, that has been something I have done in defending him. Regardless, I understand what you're saying. You're saying that he has an agenda (which is really just another way of saying he leans a certain way, if you ask me), and therefore his words and opinions have no merit.

I reject that. I'll evaluate his words and opinions simply on their merit. I'll continue to do the same for commentators who disagree with my point of view. If I take the position that people who disagree with me deserve only to be dismissed out of hand because they have an "agenda", and not on the merits of their arguments, that is the point where I begin to sequester myself into the tribalist partisan division that has led us to the point where we are today.

That's not "just another way of saying leaning tee heee hee hee", as Shadowmelded has already pointed out. Seriously, this is the problem trying to discuss things with people who claim they have objectivity when they clearly do not. It's not a coincidence that you started out with one train of thought, supposedly educated yourself with all these views, and are now here defending the indefensible for post after post. There's absolutely no reason for you to be clinging to McCarthy's bullshit. It's not subjective to say what I've said. His blatant partisanship and "but Obama" accusation is a disqualifying assertion. It's dog whistle distraction designed to appeal to a particular audience. It has no analytical value whatsoever.

You think your rejection has some wait or merit to it. You keep going back to this tired old half-assed "but I apply this to both sides" when you clearly do not. Or, if you do, you somehow conveniently find McCarthy's partisan hackery not nearly as egregious. And this little coinkydink just happens to support your preconceived notions. But again, I don't particularly care how you evaluate things at this point as this little episode has belied your own declarations. This is about McCarthy and his blatant partisan nonsense, and how to anyone with even just a rudimentary capability for objective thought, it is clearly disqualifying when it comes to accurate legal analysis.

But no, go ahead. Keep trying to claim "but subjective" as if that's somehow more disqualifying than blatant partisanship. When you can't sell something I hear repeatedly offering the same product to an uninterested market suddenly makes it desirable.

[Arvei]

Rumors going around that Drumpf is getting ready to fire Mueller during christmas.

I wonder if Mueller has a deadman's switch in place for this? I hope it doesn't come down to this, because I feel like 80% of the GOP won't even be bothered to react at this point.

[Dontrike]

Rumors going around that Drumpf is getting ready to fire Mueller during christmas.

I wonder if Mueller has a deadman's switch in place for this? I hope it doesn't come down to this, because I feel like 80% of the GOP won't even be bothered to react at this point.

I hope he does this. Firing Mueller is the biggest admission of guilt next to actually saying he did it. Trump keeps saying he hasn't done anything wrong and yet constantly keeps doing things any guilty person would do. Letting Mueller do his job will help Trump far more than firing.

I'd love to see how @Ransath, @lockedout, and @Tijuana would say how this would be a good thing and this is just to piss off those "lubs" and get their "tars falin' "

[ati87]

I hope he does this. Firing Mueller is the biggest admission of guilt next to actually saying he did it. Trump keeps saying he hasn't done anything wrong and yet constantly keeps doing things any guilty person would do. Letting Mueller do his job will help Trump far more than firing.

I'd love to see how @Ransath, @lockedout, and @Tijuana would say how this would be a good thing and this is just to piss off those "lubs" and get their "tars falin' "

Ofc he had to fire Mueller since he was clearly biased, now he can hire somebody decent like Rudy Giuliani or Chris Christie would be much more fair


I think that would be the response

[Shadowmelded]

Rumors going around that Drumpf is getting ready to fire Mueller during christmas.

I wonder if Mueller has a deadman's switch in place for this? I hope it doesn't come down to this, because I feel like 80% of the GOP won't even be bothered to react at this point.

Comey did, I'm sure Mueller has.

[Warning]

Rumors going around that Drumpf is getting ready to fire Mueller during christmas.

I wonder if Mueller has a deadman's switch in place for this? I hope it doesn't come down to this, because I feel like 80% of the GOP won't even be bothered to react at this point.

If Mueller is fired it is the duty of every American instilled with the values of democracy to take to the street and demand the removal of the president. It will be the test of a generation.

[Shalcker]

If Mueller is fired it is the duty of every American instilled with the values of democracy to take to the street and demand the removal of the president. It will be the test of a generation.

You need to check out ongoing J20 trial to see how previous call to exactly that unfolds...

[Stormspark]

I hope he does this. Firing Mueller is the biggest admission of guilt next to actually saying he did it. Trump keeps saying he hasn't done anything wrong and yet constantly keeps doing things any guilty person would do. Letting Mueller do his job will help Trump far more than firing.

I'd love to see how @Ransath, @lockedout, and @Tijuana would say how this would be a good thing and this is just to piss off those "lubs" and get their "tars falin' "

It's funny because 1) it wouldn't stop the investigation, and 2) as you said, it's basically an admission of guilt. It worked out really well for Nixon, let's try it again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre

[Dontrike]

It's funny because 1) it wouldn't stop the investigation, and 2) as you said, it's basically an admission of guilt. It worked out really well for Nixon, let's try it again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre

I'm waiting for one of his lawyers to punch him in the jaw and just scream "Good god man, just stop! What's WRONG with you?! Just shut up for 5 minutes." Punching the president in the mouth might be easier on their careers than defending anything Trump is doing.

[DarkTZeratul]

I'm waiting for one of his lawyers to punch him in the jaw and just scream "Good god man, just stop! What's WRONG with you?! Just shut up for 5 minutes." Punching the president in the mouth might be easier on their careers than defending anything Trump is doing.

Trump's lawyers are really shitty lawyers. Their only real strategy is intimidation, and they only work for him because he pays well. We've already seen that any lawyer truly worth their salt refuses to work for him.

[Warning]

It's funny because 1) it wouldn't stop the investigation, and 2) as you said, it's basically an admission of guilt. It worked out really well for Nixon, let's try it again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre

Incidentally Trump is viewed as more corrupt than Nixon with a larger majority in favor of impeaching him then there was the time when Nixon was impeached.

[Dacien]

That's not "just another way of saying leaning tee heee hee hee", as Shadowmelded has already pointed out. Seriously, this is the problem trying to discuss things with people who claim they have objectivity when they clearly do not. It's not a coincidence that you started out with one train of thought, supposedly educated yourself with all these views, and are now here defending the indefensible for post after post. There's absolutely no reason for you to be clinging to McCarthy's bullshit. It's not subjective to say what I've said. His blatant partisanship and "but Obama" accusation is a disqualifying assertion. It's dog whistle distraction designed to appeal to a particular audience. It has no analytical value whatsoever.

You think your rejection has some wait or merit to it. You keep going back to this tired old half-assed "but I apply this to both sides" when you clearly do not. Or, if you do, you somehow conveniently find McCarthy's partisan hackery not nearly as egregious. And this little coinkydink just happens to support your preconceived notions. But again, I don't particularly care how you evaluate things at this point as this little episode has belied your own declarations. This is about McCarthy and his blatant partisan nonsense, and how to anyone with even just a rudimentary capability for objective thought, it is clearly disqualifying when it comes to accurate legal analysis.

But no, go ahead. Keep trying to claim "but subjective" as if that's somehow more disqualifying than blatant partisanship. When you can't sell something I hear repeatedly offering the same product to an uninterested market suddenly makes it desirable.

I get it, you think McCarthy is a hack with an agenda, and that renders his insights, opinions, and analysis invalid.

I disagree. Still going to bring up McCarthy analysis when I think it contributes in discussions and you're free to lambaste me for doing so. But I'd be much more convinced if you refuted his arguments directly, prove that he's factually wrong.

I mean, it looks like all I have to do to disregard political analysis from anyone on the left is bring up a pattern of pro-left articles they've written, claim that this is proof they "have an agenda", and now I can throw out their opinions into the garbage completely. That seems weak to me, a cop out. And as I said, it leads to political tribalism, where political opinions that don't agree with our own are disregarded outright based on "agenda" accusations.

And on another note, McCarthy was but a small aside in one sentence among many multiple paragraphs over multiple posts I made about the Mueller investigation needing a shot in the arm after the credibility accusations, and that if the investigation does not produce substantial charges or pleas in the end, it could have a positive effect on Trump. McCarthy is not the basis for this opinion.

- - - Updated - - -

That's not what "having an agenda" means, jesus christ.

Strictly speaking, not it's not. But follow me here: the accusation of "having an agenda" is usually tied to the political leanings of a particular columnist. That's what's happening here. NYC is pointing to anti-Obama sentiment and pro-right statements by McCarthy, and this is then used to argue that he has an agenda, and therefore his opinions are invalid.

The two concepts are linked.

[LaserSharkDFB]

You need to check out ongoing J20 trial to see how previous call to exactly that unfolds...

"You shouldn't protest because you'll get punished!" said the willing puppet of a murderous dictator.

Bee tee dubs, the prosecutors in the J20 trial aren't even trying to pretend the protestors actually broke any laws, as I understand it. They're trying shit like 'they were infringing on Trump's 1st Amendment rights by exercising their 1st Amendment rights.'

[mvaliz]

Rumors going around that Drumpf is getting ready to fire Mueller during christmas.

I wonder if Mueller has a deadman's switch in place for this? I hope it doesn't come down to this, because I feel like 80% of the GOP won't even be bothered to react at this point.

Dude, if we're getting this info about Dumbass Dump doing this - then Muller has obviously heard this. Not only do I believe Muller has a "deadman's switch" in place (based on how masterfully he's been conducting this investigation combined with keeping BIG secrets), but even if he doesn't by some unbelievable miracle - he clearly has a full week now to implement one.