Mega-Thread: Mueller investigation

[mvaliz]

Soon lad, soon.

Wow, the objectivist doesn't realize it's still almost 1 year away...

But, I guess it's in your best selfish interest to belief you can fold time, right? >_<

[Deletedaccount1]

Wow, the objectivist doesn't realize it's still almost 1 year away...

But, I guess it's in your best selfish interest to belief you can fold time, right? >_<

Hey man why are you always putting down objectivists? Where is your love for your fellow man?

[Brubear]

Define "You People"

I couldn't care less what you do on Fridays. Other than you surrounding yourself with a bunch of anti-Trumpsters and believing it makes you an expert on anything.

Fine. Meuller report didn't prove what you want it to prove. It failed in doing what it should have done. And any attempts to reference back to it will be immediately slapped across the face of anyone doing it. Why? Because you made Trump the 'victim of malicious prosecution of partisan reasons'. I'm definitely not the learned intellectual you are, and I already know how this goes.

So we fight till you are satisfied? Piss off. Trump is a fucking child. Debate his policies and cut out your resistance jargon. Trump wants a wall and the response is "Walls are Immoral" - People are fucking tired of these stupid games. But you try again for another year and see how that works.

No, it means you lost the battle. And now you're preparing the decimated forces for one more hoorah. Go for it.

I'm not fighting your stupid fight based on your stupid conspiracy theory.

Done.

Yeah, the part I put in bold shows you really aren't paying attention to the reasons people are opposed to Trump's Wall, which makes the rest of your post seem rather silly. The reasons people are opposed to the wall (which, as someone who follows a shit-ton of news sources from across the political spectrum, has read numerous articles from all of them discussing the actual reason) is because it is damn-near the least cost-effective way to secure a border given the size and terrain it covers. Increased staffing, greater use of drone technologies, cameras, motion sensors, and other tech (which is what the Border Patrol has been asking for and even argued against the effectiveness of a massive wall pre-2016) is how the border needs to be secured, because people trying to get in will just go over/under/through the wall (like they already do where there are current walls). Plus, if all of their budget is spent on building/maintaining a wall, how the hell are they going to pay for all the other things that actually work?

Seriously, everything about your post just screams "I only listen to talking points so this is what I think everyone has been saying the report will show!" and have been caught up by the noise instead of actually listening.

[Orbitus]

Soon lad, soon.

- - - Updated - - -

Also here's the report for anyone who hasn't read it yet.

https://www.scribd.com/document/4028...85D35_Y9nOhxyI

So, I really hope you weren't posting this as fact, considering it is the fucking lyrics to All-Star by Smash Mouth.

[Endus]

It does state this VERY clearly. The FBI says that is was not the DOJ who had the final say:

we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case

Lisa Page's testimony says that No, they were told DOJ would not charge them if the FBI tried for gross negligence

It's a simple question, again, who lied and why?

Oh man. I had to dig back through a couple pages because I couldn't believe this was actually an argument.

So, as stated above, you're taking from the FBI's statement the phrase that "we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case" as a statement that the DOJ did not have the final say, yes?

Then why, in the name of all the Hells there are, does the immediately preceding clause right before the one you quoted say "although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this"?

That explicitly states, in the FBI's statement, that the DOJ has the final say.

Which Page confirms in her testimony.

Stop ignoring half of what you quote just because that half won't support your bananas conspiracy theory.

[Deletedaccount1]

So, I really hope you weren't posting this as fact, considering it is the fucking lyrics to All-Star by Smash Mouth.

Oh man, I just looked it up and you're right. I'm a little embarrassed tbh.

[Endus]

So, I really hope you weren't posting this as fact, considering it is the fucking lyrics to All-Star by Smash Mouth.

I will say, it makes a hilarious new Lorem Ipsum.

[Adam Jensen]

I will say, it makes a hilarious new Lorem Ipsum.

Nah.

Lorem Ipsum is formatted like a paragraph which makes it useful for planning layouts for websites and other works that require typography. I use Lorem Ipsum all the time. In fact, in VSCode, you type "lorem" and hit tab, it gives you a paragraph automatically with the Emmet extension.

But anyways song lyrics don't make a good lorem substitute unless what you need is to model how lyrics should look.

Then by all means, use All Star.

[Michh]

-=-=-=-



It does state this VERY clearly. The FBI says that is was not the DOJ who had the final say:



Lisa Page's testimony says that No, they were told DOJ would not charge them if the FBI tried for gross negligence


It's a simple question, again, who lied and why?

Again, not alleging anything further. You still haven't answered the same question I keep having to repeat. And no worries feeling is mutual - I'm getting tired of repeating the same question over and over.

I admire your persistence, but it is futile. The thing you said happened is all a conspiracy to muddle the water to fool middle America.

[Brubear]

I'm bopping out what you said for multiple reasons, but mainly this.

I keep asking you who lied and you keep explaining governmental functions to me. This is not that, nor am I alleging a grand conspiracy in any one way or the other.

I'm pointing out somebody told a lie. It was either in the report or it was during congressional testimony. I've stated what the lie was. You keep dancing around to say "it doesn't matter because-" Fine. It wouldn't have changed anything. So why lie and who lied?

It's really simple, but you're making it seem more complicated because you've created a false dichotomy. It's not a "either this person is lying or that person is lying" because the two statements aren't mutually exclusive. The FBI said they weren't recommending charges, but the ultimate decision to charge lies with the DoJ. The Page statement states that, the DoJ told them they weren't going to charge her so the FBI shouldn't charge her (which, again, the FBI can only recommend charges).

Since you really don't seem to be able to grasp how these two statements don't disqualify the other, I'll try and break it down.

The FBI's recommendations on charges is non-binding, meaning it ultimately doesn't matter what they say either way. If the DoJ told them not to recommend charges but they did, it wouldn't matter, if the DoJ told them to recommend charges and they didn't, it wouldn't matter. Because it really doesn't matter what the FBI says so they can make any recommendation they want, but no one has to follow it.

The official FBI state literally says "we decided to not recommend charges, but ball is in the DoJs court". Even if the DoJ told them not to recommend charges, the FBI has to decide whether to listen to that recommendation because, just like their recommendation is non-binding, the DoJ's recommendations to the FBI are also non-binding. So even if what Page said was 100% factual and exactly what happened, it doesn't disqualify the FBI's statement. Similarly, the FBIs statement doesn't disqualify what Page said, because even if they DoJ said "hey don't recommend charges" and the FBI decides not to, they still opted not to.

That's the whole problem, you've tried to turn it into an either/or situation and think it somehow proves some sort of conspiracy one way or another, when in reality they're two statements that aren't really conflicting (mostly due to the fact that the question Page answered really wasn't clear at all, but a broad question that could be interpreted to maybe indicate something either way).

[Celista]

Welp, 'tis the witching hour.

Official prediction: No collusion.

Hope I'm wrong!

[PACOX]

Hold up.

Something doesn't add up. The Mueller Grand Jury still has sealed documents/indictments that were never acted upon.

Either he doesn't think he can touch Trump (which he can't without added a Constitutional crisis on top of trying to convict Trump) or built up enough of a case for Congress to impeach (doesn't mean that Congress will do it though will all the Republican shills). Lets be honest, theres tons that Trump could be impeached on already.

[Realitytrembles]

One of the things I said a very, very, very long time ago... like at the very beginning of this process, is that when this is over, when the Mueller report is in, the DoJ and US intelligence agencies need to dump everything they have on the table for everyone to see. This is the reason we have all those intelligence agencies... for when shit hits the fan, seperate fact from fiction. If this means burning some sources and methods, it means doing just that. It's big enough.

My concern, actually, is less about Barr. Because regardless of him, this is coming out. It will be leaked. It will be subpoenaed. The next Democratic President will release it. My concern is that the important stuff, in the unredacted reports, hide in the governments networks forever, because the national security apparatus is addicted to secrecy and even "this" isn't big enough for them.

To offer a simple example of what I mean, if they have have people working for them inside Vladimir Putin's inner circle, which is widely believed to be the case, this is the time they out and say it... not hold onto it for a rainy day. The rainy day is here.

The worst possible outcome in my view, isn't that if Trump gets off light here because Barr runs interference. That'll be a delay, at best. It's if we find out 10 years from now, when the report is declassified, that the confidential report, redacted by the IC was far far worse than the public one, and that if the confidential report was out, Trump would be asking for asylum in the Russian embassy.

So, what I'm getting from this is you're backtracking a bit.

You said before that trump doesn't make it to the 2020 election. If this report is a non-smoking gun (as in, nothing can be directly connected to Trump) , then how exactly does he get removed before 2020?

Because it's looking like to me your former party is protecting him still.

Scenario

Mueller report has nothing directly implicating Trump

Trump is not removed from office before 2020

He wins re-election by the skin of his teeth

How possible do you think this is?

[Celista]

Scenario

Mueller report has nothing directly implicating Trump

Trump is not removed from office before 2020

He wins re-election by the skin of his teeth

How possible do you think this is?

I think it's the most likely scenario.

- - - Updated - - -

So, I really hope you weren't posting this as fact, considering it is the fucking lyrics to All-Star by Smash Mouth.

Fine by me, it's time that a new generation recognize the utter majesty of Smash Mouth.


Example:

Somebody once asked could I spare some change for gas?
I need to get myself away from this place
I said yep what a concept I could use a little fuel myself
And we could all use a little change

Fucking magical.

[Adam Jensen]

I think it's the most likely scenario.

For me, if I gave it a number, I'd say ~40% chance.

But I wonder how much of that is my hope that this country will get its shit together and give Donald the boot in November 2020.

[Super Kami Dende]

Lets be honest, theres tons that Trump could be impeached on already.

Do you want to be honest? Or do you want to say there is actually tons of impeachable stuff?

[Merkava]

Do you want to be honest? Or do you want to say there is actually tons of impeachable stuff?

An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.

[Zaydin]

For me, if I gave it a number, I'd say ~40% chance.

But I wonder how much of that is my hope that this country will get its shit together and give Donald the boot in November 2020.

If the economy falters between now and the election like most economists are predicting, you can probably kiss Trumps re-election chances goodbye.

Hence why he freaks out when the Fed raises interest rates since he views it as an effort to sabotage him.

[Stormspellz]

Do you want to be honest? Or do you want to say there is actually tons of impeachable stuff?

you mean like the obstruction, security breaches, bribery and general corruption along isn't impeachable?

remember Clinton had articles of impeachment for lying about a blow job.

[Zaydin]

you mean like the obstruction, security breaches, bribery and general corruption along isn't impeachable?

remember Clinton had articles of impeachment for lying about a blow job.

And of course conservatives now are insisting that the president can't obstruct justice, including Newt Gingrich, who impeached Clinton for obstruction.

IOKIYAR, I suppose.