1. #16181
    Quote Originally Posted by Ashrynn View Post
    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.

  2. #16182
    Quote Originally Posted by Knadra View Post
    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.

  3. #16183
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    63,079
    Quote Originally Posted by Ashrynn View Post
    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.

  4. #16184
    Quote Originally Posted by Orbitus View Post
    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.

  5. #16185
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    63,079
    Quote Originally Posted by Orbitus View Post
    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.

  6. #16186
    Merely a Setback Adam Jensen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Sarif Industries, Detroit
    Posts
    27,386
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    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.

  7. #16187
    Quote Originally Posted by Ashrynn View Post
    -=-=-=-



    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.

  8. #16188
    Quote Originally Posted by Ashrynn View Post
    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).

  9. #16189

  10. #16190
    The Unstoppable Force PACOX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    The Upside Down
    Posts
    21,016
    Quote Originally Posted by Belize View Post
    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.

  11. #16191
    Quote Originally Posted by Skroe View Post
    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?
    "Independence forever!" --- President John Adams
    "America is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own." --- President John Quincy Adams
    "Our Federal Union! It must be preserved!" --- President Andrew Jackson

  12. #16192
    Quote Originally Posted by Realitytrembles View Post

    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 - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Orbitus View Post
    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.

  13. #16193
    Merely a Setback Adam Jensen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Sarif Industries, Detroit
    Posts
    27,386
    Quote Originally Posted by Celista View Post
    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.

  14. #16194
    The Unstoppable Force Super Kami Dende's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    The Lookout
    Posts
    20,161
    Quote Originally Posted by PACOX View Post
    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?

  15. #16195
    Quote Originally Posted by Meat Rubbing Specialist View Post
    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.

  16. #16196
    The Lightbringer Zaydin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    FL, USA
    Posts
    3,540
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Jensen View Post
    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.
    "If you are ever asking yourself 'Is Trump lying or is he stupid?', the answer is most likely C: All of the Above" - Seth Meyers


  17. #16197
    Quote Originally Posted by Super Kami Dende View Post
    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.

  18. #16198
    The Lightbringer Zaydin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    FL, USA
    Posts
    3,540
    Quote Originally Posted by Stormspellz View Post
    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.
    "If you are ever asking yourself 'Is Trump lying or is he stupid?', the answer is most likely C: All of the Above" - Seth Meyers


  19. #16199
    Quote Originally Posted by Realitytrembles View Post
    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?
    I put this at 60%. If he does get reelected, it would be nice if democrats held either the house or the senate. However, republicans have a lot of seats up for grabs in the Senate in the next election, so it's possible that Trump stays President while democrats keep the house and take the senate.

  20. #16200
    Quote Originally Posted by Realitytrembles View Post
    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?
    I don't backtrack. And Anti-Trump is holding a winning hand, so why would I be?

    I wrote this 7-12-2017, soon after the response to the Trump Tower meeting became public.

    Quote Originally Posted by Skroe View Post
    First the likelihood of his impeachment directly over Russia collusion is unlikely. But for obstruction of justice? That took a big, big step forward today. The saying "it's not the crime, it's the cover-up" is a Washington DC truism that time and time again finds itself confirmed.

    And his popularity? I mean put aside the now proven collusion with Russia that is foundation Trump-Russia. His numbers are underwater. 33%-35% . He's radioactive to other Republicans. Trumpcare is enormously unpopular.

    Americans are fickle about their elected leader. After electing President Chaos and having six months that feels like six years, you honestly think they would take a second helping? In this scenario, when Donald Trump tries to call the Democratic nominee some infantile name or be a terrible human being again... it won't work twice. Americans will flock to the politician who makes Politics boring and uneventful again.
    I wrote this 10/12/2017
    Quote Originally Posted by Skroe View Post
    You'll be waiting until early-mid 2019. Legitimately nobody but kooks ever thought it was going to happen in 2017, or even most of 2018. But you knew this. Because we've had this discussion.

    Mueller isn't going to get Trump for Collusion (he'll get his subordinates for that). He'll get him for Obstruction of Justice.

    We're taking your President from you.

    I wrote this 10/28/2017
    Quote Originally Posted by Skroe View Post
    They won't get Trump on collusion. That's too abstract. It's the kind of thing historians and researchers will spend decades debating. "How much did Trump know". It will be difficult to find out.

    They will nail him to the wall on Obstruction of Justice. The public case against that is already extremely compelling according to veteran prosecutors.

    Some of his subordinates will go down for things obliquely related to collusion.


    I wrote this 10/30/2017
    Quote Originally Posted by Skroe View Post
    And that's also why Trump won't go down for collusion. That'll be an object of debate for the next 50 years. Books, in 2070, will be published by historians titled "Trump Knew" or conversely "The King Who Knew Nothing".

    But Obstruction of Justice though... that's a different story. Trump didn't have to "know" there was collusion to obstruct an investigation. He just has to have committed an act.

    And that is what they'll go after. Proving something as abstract as "collusion" would be too tough. Obstruction? There is significant precedent for that. And in the end, that is what Trump will go down for.



    I wrote this on 11/16/2017

    Quote Originally Posted by Skroe View Post
    If you cornered me, I'd probably tell you I think he'd be going down for collusion and financial crimes as well. There is a compelling argument to take a shotgun approach to charges.

    But the Trumpkins are intrinsically dishonest people who do not care what people say and lie very easily. How many times a week do we get some of those losers pretending WE'RE the ones saying "oh he's going to be impeached in the next 5 days guiz". They know we don't say that shit. They lie because they have no argument. Because they're bad people. At their core. They're really rotten people.

    When the case is made against Trump there will be some things we all expected to be on the list of accusations. It will also be missing some things. And because they are liars by trade, they will use that. For example, I fully expect, if Mueller does NOT explicitly include collusion to deny that Trump took part in any collusion, even if he did obstruct.

    In otherwords, anything we say we think will happen, that doesn't, they'll weaponize.

    So I've chosen to adopt an approach whereby I'm sticking to the one thing that is most likely, even if in my heart of hearts, I believe there will be way more. But I'm not going to let them use that. It'll be obstruction. That's all we need. Anything else digs the grave of the Trump administration deeper, and that's just gravy.


    I wrote this 11/27/2018, a year later (and 5 months ago).

    Quote Originally Posted by Skroe View Post
    I'll repeat what I said a week ago.

    Nancy Pelosi will only bother to take up impeachment proceedings if the accusations in the Mueller report are so shocking and decisive, that they are impossible to ignore. If it's a wishy-washy document, with some allusion to crimes, then she won't. If it is a strong document, then she will. And the grounds will be Obstruction of Justice, not Collusion. She will not engage in a 1998-style politically-driven impeachement. She'll only go forward if she thinks there is a real chance of achieving a conviction.


    And she will only do that if there is a political accommodation in the Senate first. McConnell deciding Trump has outlived his usefulness and working out an agreement with Schumer to speed impeachment along.

    This is why I believe that if Impeachement goes to a vote, the vote will be something like 87-13. It'll be all Democrats and a lot of Republicans, engaging in a vote that is the outcome of a Schumer-McConnell-Pelosi deal. Republicans who need it will have a saftey-in-number voting defense (with dozens of fellow Republicans). Republicans who must vote in defense of Trump, or won't go along with the deal, will be in that "13".

    Basically, it comes down to the Mueller report. If it is a strong one, then Trump's finished and it comes down to the outlines of the deal between the House and Senate. If it is an indecisive one, and we're trying to count Republican votes to get to 67, there won't be impeachment. Pelosi won't bother.

    Hopefully I'm getting my thought process on this across.

    Oh and one more thing, unlike a bill that becomes law, under the Constitution, McConnell has no choice but to schedule an Impeachment trial if the House passes the Articles. It's not like a bill that McConnell can simply refuse to take up. This is Pelosi's leverage. If Donald Trump is accused by Mueller of such wrong doing as to be unacceptable for him to continue on as President, she can threaten to hold this vote, and that will force McConnell to come to a deal.

    I believe the Mueller evidence as we know it is damning enough. It is likely far worse. And that is why I believe Trump is screwed. But I'll say it again: people trying to count Republican Senate votes to get to 67 are thinking about this way, way, way wrong.



    My record when it comes to the Trump-Russia investigation since the beginning is pretty much spotless. I largely nailed it two years ago, and not a soul outside of a handful of people in the DoJ know what is in the report yet.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •