The Mueller investigation.
- Thread starter Quantum Quack
- Start date
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
Mueller was wrong about one thing, it's not unconstitutional to indict a sitting president, it's just DOJ policy.
They didn't - just a single Russian agent, who Trump's son hoped to work with secretly to get dirt on Clinton. He then lied about it.
Consider what you would think if Clinton had done that. You'd be demanding her immediate arrest.
And Nixon didn't break into the DNC headquarters. Still got impeached - and still resigned. "It wasn't me" and "I'm not a crook" didn't work for him.
That wouldn't change your mind. You'd say "but TRUMP didn't rig them so it's not his fault!" There is literally nothing Trump or his administration could do that would change your mind about him.
Does the process of impeachment grant Congress special investigatory powers that are not present other wise?
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
i think the senate and general political ideology sits around 65% to the right
what would it take to swing that 16% ?
global markets took a 1% nose dive yesterday and that has been blamed on the current usa president.
global markets are expected to see a continued downward nose dive if things do not change.
the tariff burden on the usa national economy is going to undermine broker faith in the share market.
moves to gold has already begun early yesterday.
the car market is signalling some big issues and that is one of the biggest corporate welfare recipients in the usa.
will there be a show down between the current usa president and the usa car manufacturers ?
For some absurd reason Trump doesn't realize who is going to end up paying for most of those new tariffs...
He has given every indication that he believes that the tariffs will be paid for by the country who imports into the USA...
Inflation is inevitable ... IMO
Hurr durr Trump derangement syndrome, case closed!
Yes.
You have no interest in that. You said so yourself - "internal matters", remember?
You "subdivided" so as to pretend there were no violations of international law involved.
Yes, you did. At one point you described Barr's bs - explicitly - as the only source of information "available" to you in forming your opinion at the time . You were defending your reliance on Barr's "summary" for your opinions.
Sure. You reject things frequently - facts, information, other viewpoints, explanations, anything that doesn't fit in the Republican media bubble. Nobody is surprised by you rejecting things that don't fit in the Rep bubble.
Plenty of evidence has been presented, and nothing followed from your rejection of it.
It's not a defamation, it's a description. The evidence included such obvious items as you trying to claim the Russian troll farm behavior was an example of "free speech" - clearly you hadn't understood the indictments, which did not rest on the content of anyone's "speech".
Fixing your silly propensity for ignorant guesswork is not my job. You are posting Republican Party line media feeds, all of them bullshit one way or another - that repetition is why I am replying at all. If you no longer want to be a tool of the Republican Party media operations on this forum, start there.
Meanwhile: the active, positive, even arduous, rejection of information - rejection of historical and physical fact - by the Republican Party base and leadership, remains striking. They want their fantasy world, and they will do a lot of work to defend it and keep it.
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
Clinton has done such things. The information against Manafort used to throw dirt on Trump comes from the Ukrainian government. The Steele dossier also comes from some foreign intelligence service.
(Just to remind again: I would not object, but even like it if the Dems would start impeachment procedures against Trump.)
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
That still working for ya? More than 1,000 former federal prosecutors signed a letter saying that Trump should be charged with obstruction.
He tried to fire Mueller.
He tried to limit the scope of the investigation.
He tried to prevent witnesses from cooperating.
He attempted witness tampering and intimidation.
He floated pardons for those on his side.
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
Yes, freedom of speech is internal matters. But in this particular case, the internal matter is widely used in Western propaganda, in form of the lie that there is some "freedom of speech" in the West. In combination with lies that freedom of speech is suppressed elsewhere, this is a quite powerful propaganda tool. Facts which allow me to prove that this is propaganda only are of interest for me.
No, I subdivided to clarify which parts of the indictment are legitimate as protecting US individuals against stealing their identities and opening fake bank accounts in their name, and which parts show that de facto there is no longer any freedom of speech in the US.
So what? This does not mean that I somehow trust it. Of course, in a situation where no better information is available, I use unreliable information as far as one can use it.
All that follows is that you frequently have to change your behavior in the discussion with me to become a decent participant. That means you have to take into account all the time that what you think about as facts are, in my opinion, not facts. Thus, arguments of type "you claim to follow principle A, but this contradicts the fact B" are something you should avoid either completely, or you have to check that B is something I do not question.
Correct. But the same holds for the Dem Party base and leadership.
Trump supporters have been saying "case closed!" for two years now. Strangely, during that time, a lot of Trump insiders, cabinet members, business associates and campaign officials have ended up indicted, fined and thrown in prison. It's almost as if the case really isn't closed, and they figure if they say that it is closed often enough, that will change reality . . . .
And then there's Nixon!
I never disagreed with any of that, but some people won't be convinced unless you can fit all that with the supporting evidence into a short one or two-line sentence using simple everyday vocabulary.
I've had plenty of real-life arguments with all sorts of iconoclastic people who blankly insist that "there's no evidence for ____", and I typically just reply "yeah sure, as long as you disregard all the evidence for ____".
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
yup
Nixon,
who ended the corrupt draft board system and introduced the fairer draft lottery via executive order.
who negotiated with china in an effort to end our involvement in vietnam (which was started by Kennedy and expanded by Johnson-----who was the asshole who drafted me)
who was caught up in the watergate crap which he did not initiate
who pursued reforms in welfare, heath care, civil rights, energy and environmental policy,
who created the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Energy Policy for advice on oil policy and supported the Clean Air Act of 1970
who established the Environmental Protection Agency.
who insisted that Congress broaden the U.S. Civil Rights Commission mandate to include sex discrimination and signed all civil rights legislation passed by Congress, including Title IX, which banned sexual discrimination in educational benefits.
who expanded enforcement of affirmative action.
who supported the Constitutional amendment lowering the voting age to 18
who used the "peace dividend" from reducing troops in Vietnam to finance social welfare services and enforce civil rights through the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
who increased spending on human resource services exceeded spending for defense for the first time since World War II
.....................etc........etc.......etc..........
shal I go on?
No.
In point of fact, much of the Democratic base and some of the "leadership" has a reasonable grasp of physical reality. They talk like the yickety douches they are, but they don't live in a fantasy bubble.
You pay no attention to the facts of that matter, and when reminded you reject them as "internal matters".
No such subdivision is possible.
There are no parts that conflict with freedom of speech in America - the indictment has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
It means you accepted it as information, rather than disinformation. You got played.
1) Better information was easily available, and presented to you - you rejected it. 2) It wasn't unreliable information. It was disinformation, which you accepted as information because you are ignorant and gullible (you didn't know who Barr was, for example). You then relied on it, used it, as if it were information - you drew conclusions, posted them as valid opinion, repeated the Republican Party line about the Mueller report like a parrot, and refused to even reconsider - let alone correct - the dumbass claims you made about a report you have not read and will never read.
You don't even know where you got the idea that "questioning" facts would make them go away, dismiss them from the argument, do you.
Maybe I can offer a possibility: In the US, it's a familiar tactic of the corporate authoritarian rightwing media feed - what has become the Republican Party media operations. They use it a lot - the "Fox question" is a punditry category of its own. And since you get so much of your posting here from that source, it would be no surprise if you picked up a few of those tactics for yourself.
Meanwhile: that's how the Republican Party and voting base reacted to the Mueller report - for the same reasons.
You guys live in that bubble.
Uh, no - Nixon was not "caught up" in his and his administration's behavior. He was at the center of it (barring Spiro Agnew's side hustles).
You haven't even got past the New Deal hangover via Congress to the criminal stuff Nixon originated yet - so, sure, go on. Plenty of road ahead.
If you are looking for parallels with Trump, the fleecing by the Chinese Nixon took to get spurious credit for "opening up China" (Carter finished the job) is ready to hand.
So is the expansion of secret bombing/droning on the borders of longstanding war zones.
So is the claim of a plan to get the US out of those wars, a secret plan by a guy who knows how to make deals.
So is the direct appeal to racial bigotry for Confederate votes, i.e. the making of the modern Republican Party. (Granted Nixon actually organized that - a task beyond Trump's capabilities. Credit where credit is due).