Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #12151  
Old 11-05-2019, 07:54 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,502
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
If you think that obstructionist senators would even blink at the accusation of having no dignity, I have a senator to sell you (they're cheap).

I get it, you're unhappy that Mueller's report doesn't appear to have changed anything. And because he wasn't absurdly theatrical, you think that if he had been absurdly theatrical the trumpists would have arisen as one to cry out for Trump's arrest, and/or the congressmen would have been inspired to suddenly realize no shit, they're evil, and Trump would have panicked in terror and surrendered himself with a full confession.

Or something. You think that something would have happened to make things super-much better, had Mueller lost his cool, or started saying out loud what everybody's already been saying out loud, or started shooting a gun into the ceiling, or who knows, just not what he actually did.

But that's just you guessing. That's you taking an unknown series of behaviors that you didn't see happening and guessing what would happen if it had played out that way instead.

I'm looking at the same set of possible behaviors and guessing that fuck all would be different. Seriously, you think that congress doesn't know Trump's a criminal? You think that his followers aren't divided between people who don't believe the news, and those who don't care? God, you're not just an optimist, you're delusional.

I don't know what possible futures Mueller was seeing. It's entirely possible that with his vast stores of intel, he already knew nothing would happen - that congress wouldn't turn on Trump because they're all complicit and compromised. He's also not an idiot - he's very aware of the sway that alternative news has on the populace. Maybe he walked into it knowing that his information would be left on the table.

At which point, what is there to do? Do his job, put it on the table, and not make an ass out of himself in the process.
It was "decency" not "dignity".

He failed to interview the main target. So it was not the lack of fireworks or drama or aha that dems care about. It was that he spiked the whole investigation by not interviewing and then calling it an investigation, when it was really just investigation with an asterisk.

As soon as he did it, dt and other of his minions began treating US Congress with more contempt than the day before. Do you really think that rm's passivity hasn't led to recent troubles with Barr, Giulliani, Pompeo, Ross, ad nauseum?
  #12152  
Old 11-05-2019, 08:13 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 24,094
I will say that as a person who quit the family business, bought out a competitor, and lodged bids at my parents clients for 3 years, finally stopping when they bought me out, going all out for a moral point is apparently easier for me than it is for Uber-Bureaucrat Robert Mueller.

I, for one, am thrilled that Mecha-Mueller did not break the bonds of his programming. His world might have been disturbed. I mean, the man had memorandums which needed obeying!
  #12153  
Old 11-06-2019, 10:41 AM
Ann Hedonia's Avatar
Ann Hedonia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,638
First, my apologies for my technical misstatements. The newsreader I used to read the Mueller Report ( and I read every single word, as well as the full text of every indictment along the way ) uses different pagination and it is 787 pages in that format. And I’m glad to know that Muellers pension is safe although that makes his actions less understandable.

But I just read Marie Yovanovitch’s testimony, and her pension is definitely not safe. And that document is kind of scary. Because of the scheme by Trump’s cronies to discredit the Mueller report. And not just the part of the report having to do with the Trump campaign.

I wasn’t happy with the Mueller Report, but at the time I was fairly understanding of his actions. I was surprised that Don Jr ( the Traitor Tot) wasn’t indicted - given the national security implications of some of his actions, but I got it. And I still don’t think it’s overreach to expected a freaking prosecutor to issue a “traditional prosecutorial decision”.

But that isn’t why I’ve been calling him out now. I’m calling him out because he was the person that we entrusted with the task of getting to the bottom of Russian interference in the 2016 election. Which he did, admirably. But there is now a concerted effort going on inside TrumpWorld to reverse his narrative.

When I read the Yovanovitch testimony, it was kind of frightening to see how Jim Jordan and Mark Meadows tried to paint her as corrupt for taking US State Department endorsed positions against individuals who were generally considered to be working against Western interests. The average American citizen isn’t going to know or care whether or not Lutsenko or Lestchenko is actual the corrupt one ( hint — its Lutsenko )

So, a bunch of good State Department civil servants are probably going to lose their jobs and pensions and possibly they might get arrested. And the White House and the DOJ are gleefully crapping on all the evidence of Russian interference laid out by Mueller. Because they are trying to prove that Manafort and the Russians were framed by Mueller and the Democrats.

And I’m taking the silence of private citizen Robert Mueller as acquiescence. Well, he may speak up when they try to arrest him for framing poor innocent Paul Manafort, but it’ll probably be too late then. Should’ve done it while there was still a vestige of the rule of law left in our country.
  #12154  
Old 11-06-2019, 10:45 AM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,537
Are there not still sealed indictments out there waiting for...something?
  #12155  
Old 11-06-2019, 12:36 PM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 17,083
Quote:
Originally Posted by drad dog View Post
...He failed to interview the main target. ...
He would NEVER have been able to get the main target to submit to an interview in a million zillion years. And he didn't need to. Everything is in the report. This argument y'all are presenting that Mueller somehow failed because he didn't physically shove a lighted firecracker up DJT's butt is utter crap.
  #12156  
Old 11-06-2019, 12:39 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 24,094
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThelmaLou View Post
He would NEVER have been able to get the main target to submit to an interview in a million zillion years. And he didn't need to. Everything is in the report. This argument y'all are presenting that Mueller somehow failed because he didn't physically shove a lighted firecracker up DJT's butt is utter crap.
It's also the position of the Trump Administration, as cited above.

I mean, when the criminals are celebrating the Mueller testimony (for it is this testimony where he failed the most), that merely adds evidence for the hypothesis that Mueller left a lot on the table.

Last edited by JohnT; 11-06-2019 at 12:42 PM.
  #12157  
Old 11-06-2019, 12:44 PM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 17,083
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
It's also the position of the Trump Administration, as cited above.

I mean, when the criminals are celebrating the Mueller testimony (for it is this testimony where he failed the most), that merely adds evidence for the hypothesis that Mueller left a lot on the table.
O, please. That is also pure crap. JohnT, you are losing your grip. Don't let the Trumpers write the narrative.
  #12158  
Old 11-06-2019, 12:50 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 24,094
Lol, I have the Mueller report. I also have his testimony.

I also have the subsequent reaction, from both the Dems (who functionally ignored the report) and the President (who thought the testimony so vindicated him that he was emboldened to bribe Ukraine the very next day).

I'm not writing this timeline, Thelma. I'm speaking to the sequence of events, bringing citations, and drawing the reasonable conclusion that a retired FBI Director could have been more forceful in his last public hearing.

Last edited by JohnT; 11-06-2019 at 12:52 PM.
  #12159  
Old 11-06-2019, 01:24 PM
SteveG1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Van Nuys CA
Posts: 14,753
Quote:
Originally Posted by DesertDog View Post
Yet he managed to testify before Congress and not say, "Barr's redacted version of my report is, at best, a misleading version of the facts, at worst a fucking lie."
Instead, he just rolled over for Barr (his old buddy).
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
I can add that her assertion that civil servants are non-partisan is merely that: An assertion, not a fact.
I can also assert that a white, 70-something Republican man retired since 2012 has very likely filled his head with Fox News crap for 5 years prior to being called as a "safe choice" to handle the investigation. That, too, may not be factual, but in my experience (as Aspen expects us to depend upon hers), that's a strong possibility.
They can be, and some are, partisan as all fucking hell. And they LOVE Trump. No lie, crime or betrayal will budge them, one iota. They were the same about GW Bush. They are just MORE fanatic about Trump.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drad dog View Post
Mueller taking a pass on dt sitting down for a normal interview led directly to the arrogant flouting of congress by all of his toadies, including the Sec of State.
Once you let that go by, why not just invite don to be president for life?
And that is exactly what is happening. They are simply refusing to appear, refusing to testify. That is the precedent Meuller created when he let the orange traitor off the hook. They all should be locked up for contempt. But no, the Dems don’t have the backbone to actually DO it. They too are a spineless joke.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drad dog View Post
It was "decency" not "dignity".
He failed to interview the main target. So it was not the lack of fireworks or drama or aha that dems care about. It was that he spiked the whole investigation by not interviewing and then calling it an investigation, when it was really just investigation with an asterisk.
As soon as he did it, dt and other of his minions began treating US Congress with more contempt than the day before. Do you really think that rm's passivity hasn't led to recent troubles with Barr, Giulliani, Pompeo, Ross, ad nauseum?
Correct. As soon as he caved to Trump on the whole question of having him testify or provide written answers, and then let him completely off the hook – KNOWING the lying fuck would perjure himself, the bullshit floodgates opened. And also, the investigation* was limited in scope, insuring the fat orange rat would skate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
I will say that as a person who quit the family business, bought out a competitor, and lodged bids at my parents clients for 3 years, finally stopping when they bought me out, going all out for a moral point is apparently easier for me than it is for Uber-Bureaucrat Robert Mueller.
I, for one, am thrilled that Mecha-Mueller did not break the bonds of his programming. His world might have been disturbed. I mean, the man had memorandums which needed obeying!
And of course, internal DoJ bullshit memos supercede and cancel ALL laws.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
Are there not still sealed indictments out there waiting for...something?
What are they waiting for? I know. Stalling for us to forget. And then throw them away. If they EVER existed to begin with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
Lol, I have the Mueller report. I also have his testimony.
I also have the subsequent reaction, from both the Dems (who functionally ignored the report) and the President (who thought the testimony so vindicated him that he was emboldened to bribe Ukraine the very next day).
I'm not writing this timeline, Thelma. I'm speaking to the sequence of events, bringing citations, and drawing the reasonable conclusion that a retired FBI Director could have been more forceful in his last public hearing.
The whole thing stinks from beginning to end.

Last edited by SteveG1; 11-06-2019 at 01:25 PM.
  #12160  
Old 11-06-2019, 02:26 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,502
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThelmaLou View Post
He would NEVER have been able to get the main target to submit to an interview in a million zillion years. And he didn't need to. Everything is in the report. This argument y'all are presenting that Mueller somehow failed because he didn't physically shove a lighted firecracker up DJT's butt is utter crap.
If Mueller was convinced he had sealed the case up without interviewing the president then he needed to say something when he realized he was so very very very wrong in the eyes of the boss that he was writing the report for.

It's all new this stuff, but how do you have an investigation without an interview? How does the US POTUS refuse to be deposed?

Was there any other time in US history where it is acceptable for the US POTUS to: refuse to keep the tax return promise; and to also rickroll the investigator by refusing to be interviewd and refusing topics of questions? And now it's defiance of subpoenas.

Once you close the thing without an interview you can't convict him anyway. It's not a real investigation.
  #12161  
Old 11-06-2019, 05:59 PM
SteveG1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Van Nuys CA
Posts: 14,753
Quote:
Originally Posted by drad dog View Post
If Mueller was convinced he had sealed the case up without interviewing the president then he needed to say something when he realized he was so very very very wrong in the eyes of the boss that he was writing the report for.

It's all new this stuff, but how do you have an investigation without an interview? How does the US POTUS refuse to be deposed?

Was there any other time in US history where it is acceptable for the US POTUS to: refuse to keep the tax return promise; and to also rickroll the investigator by refusing to be interviewd and refusing topics of questions? And now it's defiance of subpoenas.

Once you close the thing without an interview you can't convict him anyway. It's not a real investigation.
It was after all the smoke and mirrors, just a dog and pony show - but now it's a SHIT show.

Last edited by SteveG1; 11-06-2019 at 05:59 PM.
  #12162  
Old 11-06-2019, 06:14 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by drad dog View Post
If Mueller was convinced he had sealed the case up without interviewing the president then he needed to say something when he realized he was so very very very wrong in the eyes of the boss that he was writing the report for.

It's all new this stuff, but how do you have an investigation without an interview? How does the US POTUS refuse to be deposed?

Was there any other time in US history where it is acceptable for the US POTUS to: refuse to keep the tax return promise; and to also rickroll the investigator by refusing to be interviewd and refusing topics of questions? And now it's defiance of subpoenas.

Once you close the thing without an interview you can't convict him anyway. It's not a real investigation.
I am firmly of the opinion that it's entirely possible to mount a criminal investigation even if the person you're accusing lawyers up or otherwise refuses to say a word to you.
  #12163  
Old 11-06-2019, 06:16 PM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 17,083
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
...I also have the subsequent reaction, from both the Dems (who functionally ignored the report)...
And you blame Mueller for that?
Quote:
...and the President (who thought the testimony so vindicated him that he was emboldened to bribe Ukraine the very next day).
You blame Mueller for that, too?

Quote:
... drawing the reasonable conclusion that a retired FBI Director could have been more forceful in his last public hearing.
I completely agree with you: he could have been more forceful. But your assertions go way beyond that into the realm of the absurd.


Quote:
Originally Posted by drad dog View Post
...How does the US POTUS refuse to be deposed?
By flat-out refusing, that's how. You've been watching him refuse every lawful directive that has been issued to him.

Quote:
Was there any other time in US history where it is acceptable for the US POTUS to: refuse to keep the tax return promise; and to also rickroll the investigator by refusing to be interviewd and refusing topics of questions? And now it's defiance of subpoenas.
You are correct. This is new and unprecedented. Next question?

Quote:
Once you close the thing without an interview you can't convict him anyway. It's not a real investigation.
Does not follow. It was absolutely a real investigation with real conclusions. Even without the president's testimony, which NEVER would have happened.

Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
I am firmly of the opinion that it's entirely possible to mount a criminal investigation even if the person you're accusing lawyers up or otherwise refuses to say a word to you.
Yes, yes, yes, and yes. Let's get some lawyer-ish opinions on this.

Last edited by ThelmaLou; 11-06-2019 at 06:17 PM.
  #12164  
Old 11-06-2019, 07:29 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,502
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
I am firmly of the opinion that it's entirely possible to mount a criminal investigation even if the person you're accusing lawyers up or otherwise refuses to say a word to you.
So am I. But that is when you have an adversarial system; and a judge; and it's a trial.
  #12165  
Old 11-06-2019, 07:43 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,502
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThelmaLou View Post
And you blame Mueller for that? You blame Mueller for that, too?

I completely agree with you: he could have been more forceful. But your assertions go way beyond that into the realm of the absurd.


By flat-out refusing, that's how. You've been watching him refuse every lawful directive that has been issued to him.

You are correct. This is new and unprecedented. Next question?

Does not follow. It was absolutely a real investigation with real conclusions. Even without the president's testimony, which NEVER would have happened.

Yes, yes, yes, and yes. Let's get some lawyer-ish opinions on this.
It feels to me like you are sitting in the water and letting it get hot.

I voted against dt. If I am going to live under his regime he is going to have to be clean, give up his tax returns, and show up for interviews when required. If he fails to do this he has lost any claims he had to fairness and frankly should resign, that day.

I am part of the majority of this country and there is a minority that wants to ignore the law and the rules. Apparently you do too. You are posing special rules for dt. Why?

He gets away wtih shit and you say "See he got away with shit! How can anyone cope with such a man" You know that is not the only response one can have right?

Do you really see no meaning in taking a stand to obtain dts deposition? You already know how it's going to end?
  #12166  
Old 11-06-2019, 07:45 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by drad dog View Post
So am I. But that is when you have an adversarial system; and a judge; and it's a trial.
It is extremely clear that Mueller believed that he was, and is, operating within such a system - he was doing discovery for the case that the House of Representatives would prosecute and the Senate would judge. Conditional, of course, on the prosecutors (the House) deciding that there was enough evidence to make a case on.

Last edited by begbert2; 11-06-2019 at 07:47 PM. Reason: spelling
  #12167  
Old 11-06-2019, 07:51 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,502
I will repeat: Donald Trump has failed to do things he promised as a candidate, or refused normal levers of government so often that all the posts, cases, arguendos etc here stated, by ignoring this need in public life (for dt to resign for bad faith basically) are just invalid on the face.

When he broke those promises he needed to feel the full weight of the system pushing back, to represent the voters who voted against him, that he is not representing or even pretending to. After that breach he needs to get hit back, hard, in all venues, until he is out of US public life.
  #12168  
Old 11-06-2019, 07:58 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,807
Of course Trump is awful and breaks both norms and laws constantly and overtly.

I just don't follow what precisely you think should be done about that - overtly breaking the law? Which law?
  #12169  
Old 11-06-2019, 07:59 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,502
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
It is extremely clear that Mueller believed that he was, and is, operating within such a system - he was doing discovery for the case that the House of Representatives would prosecute and the Senate would judge. Conditional, of course, on the prosecutors (the House) deciding that there was enough evidence to make a case on.
the m.r. wasn't a trial though.

And he failed in a few matters: not interviewing dt; not geting transcripts of dt phone calls with world leaders that have been "hidden"; and making it so Barr could "land the plane" in an airport rm never even thought of.

I find it hard to believe people just give a pass to the lack of an interview with dt when democracy seems to be on the block.

We're paying his salary and he doesn't have the right to sneer at the country while getting the "benefit of the doubt" that we reserve for those who have not trolled and rat fucked our country.
  #12170  
Old 11-06-2019, 08:06 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,502
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
Of course Trump is awful and breaks both norms and laws constantly and overtly.

I just don't follow what precisely you think should be done about that - overtly breaking the law? Which law?
I didn't mention the law. You did.

I am saying that dt has breached his social contract with the nation by breaking campaign and presidential promises, because his fans don't care about them. But every voter has a right to take an interest in dt and his promises. We all have to live here. If he breaks them, what does the law have to do with it?

He asked for a job and we gave it to him. He is not entitled to just shit all over the place just because his base likes it. There is a majority who are paying his salary. Those people were betrayed by the lack of an interiew with dt.

But the biggest deal about it is that he gets treated like he is not rat fucking us as a country, by the people who say "Well what are you gonna do right?"

Last edited by drad dog; 11-06-2019 at 08:09 PM.
  #12171  
Old 11-06-2019, 08:55 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,502
We need a voters rights association.

The first plank would be "no position without deposition." Like a morals clause, or an anti trolling measure.

You cannot stay in your job if you are refusing to obey a lawful summons. For public employees that's the way it works.

Dd you ever try to get a license renewed, but you just didn't feel like paying the tickets you had. So you prevailed on them by being an aggressive alpha male with a huge head of hair? Did they let you have your license?

When you flaunt the rules, like we have seen from dt and many players in this, in a public job, you have to go, right then and there. The rules should become strictly enforced for such a person, until they're gone.

Last edited by drad dog; 11-06-2019 at 08:57 PM.
  #12172  
Old 11-06-2019, 09:30 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,502
Really I could just say if you flaunt the oath you need to go.
  #12173  
Old 11-07-2019, 08:29 AM
mhendo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 25,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by drad dog View Post
When you flaunt the rules, like we have seen from dt and many players in this, in a public job, you have to go, right then and there. The rules should become strictly enforced for such a person, until they're gone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drad dog View Post
Really I could just say if you flaunt the oath you need to go.
Flout.
  #12174  
Old 11-07-2019, 01:24 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,502
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhendo View Post
Flout.
Yes. I thought about this last night. But then again I could make it "flaunt their contempt for..."
  #12175  
Old 11-07-2019, 01:37 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,502
I propose to coin a new word, "flount" which is to express an extremely exhibitionistic and publicly aggressive contempt for something. Sorry about my mispelling of that in the prior posts. Now if I walk out of the room backwards I think I can make this work.
  #12176  
Old 11-07-2019, 04:24 PM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 17,083
Quote:
Originally Posted by drad dog View Post
I propose to coin a new word, "flount" which is to express an extremely exhibitionistic and publicly aggressive contempt for something. Sorry about my mispelling of that in the prior posts. Now if I walk out of the room backwards I think I can make this work.
How about flart, which is expressing public contempt for something while producing a loud noise and a bad smell?
  #12177  
Old 11-07-2019, 04:44 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by drad dog View Post
the m.r. wasn't a trial though.

And he failed in a few matters: not interviewing dt; not geting transcripts of dt phone calls with world leaders that have been "hidden"; and making it so Barr could "land the plane" in an airport rm never even thought of.

I find it hard to believe people just give a pass to the lack of an interview with dt when democracy seems to be on the block.

We're paying his salary and he doesn't have the right to sneer at the country while getting the "benefit of the doubt" that we reserve for those who have not trolled and rat fucked our country.
Personally I think it's retarded to think that an interview 1) was necessary, 2) would have accomplished anything, or 3) would have been agreed to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by drad dog View Post
I didn't mention the law. You did.

I am saying that dt has breached his social contract with the nation by breaking campaign and presidential promises, because his fans don't care about them. But every voter has a right to take an interest in dt and his promises. We all have to live here. If he breaks them, what does the law have to do with it?

He asked for a job and we gave it to him. He is not entitled to just shit all over the place just because his base likes it. There is a majority who are paying his salary. Those people were betrayed by the lack of an interiew with dt.

But the biggest deal about it is that he gets treated like he is not rat fucking us as a country, by the people who say "Well what are you gonna do right?"
Well, what are you gonna do? Mr. "I'm not talking about breaking the law", what exactly are you proposing? Besides whining and making dumbass claims about how if Mueller had worn a different tie Trump would have been executed by now and thus the fact he DIDN'T wear a different tie means that he's secretly a Trump supporter who just compiled that all that evidence into a report by accident.
  #12178  
Old 11-07-2019, 04:57 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,537
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
... to think that an interview 1) was necessary, 2) would have accomplished anything, or 3) would have been agreed to.
...
Sure it would have. 2) specifically. There is no way that Trump would have handled quesioning of that sort without lying. No chance in hell, not a chance at all. Mueller got convictions in actual courts because people (Trump's people) lied to him.
  #12179  
Old 11-07-2019, 05:22 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
Sure it would have. 2) specifically. There is no way that Trump would have handled quesioning of that sort without lying. No chance in hell, not a chance at all. Mueller got convictions in actual courts because people (Trump's people) lied to him.
2 iff 3, eh?
  #12180  
Old 11-07-2019, 05:32 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,537
Mueller could have pushed for that. He could have tried to push, anyway. Or even glanced at the thought of trying to push. Instead, he made it known that written answers would suffice. Shit, Mueller even stated in his congressional appearance that the written replies were incomplete, and IIRC he even said untruthful.
  #12181  
Old 11-07-2019, 05:32 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,493
I think the part that's not understood by those saying Mueller should have subpoenaed Trump is how long it would have taken to get a dispositive ruling on that subpoena.

Since it is an unsettled area of the law, SCOTUS would have taken it up, and it would have taken forever to get to SCOTUS. Between general stonewalling (asking for continuances, etc.), briefing schedules, rulings and appeals, the delay could easily have lasted well into 2021 if not longer. And in the end, all Trump would have done is appear and responded, "I assert my rights under the Fifth Amendment," in response to every question.

Does anyone really feel it would have been useful to await that outcome until long past the 2020 election?
  #12182  
Old 11-07-2019, 05:43 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
Mueller could have pushed for that. He could have tried to push, anyway. Or even glanced at the thought of trying to push. Instead, he made it known that written answers would suffice. Shit, Mueller even stated in his congressional appearance that the written replies were incomplete, and IIRC he even said untruthful.
So what you're saying is, he got a written record of Trump hedging and lying, on the record. Mission complete!
  #12183  
Old 11-07-2019, 06:25 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,537
Sure, have a look around. It's complete.
  #12184  
Old 11-07-2019, 06:50 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
Sure, have a look around. It's complete.
It's as complete as it would have been if he'd gotten Trump in front of him in person.

What you nimrods are forgetting is he couldn't indict Trump. So even if you willfully ignore the fact that Trump wouldn't have deigned to appear before we all died of old age, it remains an indisputable fact that all Mueller would have done with such an interview would be to write it into his fucking report. Where it would boil down to a footnote* that would be buried under all the piles of evidence of wrongdoing much worse than "gibbered incoherently and lied some in an interview".

There is no sane interpretation of events where such an interview would make a difference where the incredibly damning contents of the report did not. You insane fuckers are just pretending otherwise to grasp at straws and find something, anything you can point at to try and frame the current events as the result of, literally, a fucking conspiracy.



* Note: Trump's response to the questions posed was mostly incoherent, and is demonstrated to be lies. See all the other evidence in this report.
  #12185  
Old 11-07-2019, 07:25 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,502
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThelmaLou View Post
How about flart, which is expressing public contempt for something while producing a loud noise and a bad smell?
Flart sounds like something that goes away eventually. We can only hope...
  #12186  
Old 11-07-2019, 07:46 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,502
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
Personally I think it's retarded to think that an interview 1) was necessary, 2) would have accomplished anything, or 3) would have been agreed to.

Well, what are you gonna do? Mr. "I'm not talking about breaking the law", what exactly are you proposing? Besides whining and making dumbass claims about how if Mueller had worn a different tie Trump would have been executed by now and thus the fact he DIDN'T wear a different tie means that he's secretly a Trump supporter who just compiled that all that evidence into a report by accident.
1) It was necessary to have an interview, if it is a full investigation of a "crime of intent." It was.

2) You have no idea of what it might accomplish at all. Maybe donald will run rings around those high tone lawyers. Maybe not? But why are you so triggered by it? Most would say dt is not up to it and so such an interview would be supportive of democracy. We don't know yet.

3) I have no thoughts on whether he would agree. It's irrelevant, unless we are going to go all "dear leader" about dt.

So he wastes time. When someone fails to testify under order that can be taken as a sign of guilt. We should have been keeping track of every one of these instances from the beginning.

It's a question of the "oath" not the law. He was in violation of it on day 1 or so. So after that I don't give him a pass on anything. He is dead man walking in the government to me.

If Mueller had held out for an interview we have no idea the kinds of things that would ensue. But it would not be a lost opportunity to get dt. As it happened, even without an interview, they spun away from it and it seemingly worked. There would be no opportunity cost for telling dt that he needs to come in and talk, or else resign.
  #12187  
Old 11-07-2019, 07:49 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,537
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
...
There is no sane interpretation of events where such an interview would make a difference where the incredibly damning contents of the report did not. You insane fuckers are just pretending otherwise to grasp at straws and find something, anything you can point at to try and frame the current events as the result of, literally, a fucking conspiracy.
....
Conspiracy. That's cool. Nobody is or has claimed there was a conspiracy. Did Mueller conspire with Trump? And you call someone else insane? No, there was just one man who tried to do his best, but he could not.
  #12188  
Old 11-07-2019, 07:54 PM
Monty's Avatar
Monty is offline
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Beijing, China
Posts: 23,732
Quote:
Originally Posted by drad dog View Post
I propose to coin a new word, "flount" which is to express an extremely exhibitionistic and publicly aggressive contempt for something. Sorry about my mispelling of that in the prior posts. Now if I walk out of the room backwards I think I can make this work.

I thought we already had a word for that: trump. And if it's really egregious, then it's presidentin' trump.
  #12189  
Old 11-07-2019, 07:56 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,502
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
It's as complete as it would have been if he'd gotten Trump in front of him in person.

What you nimrods are forgetting is he couldn't indict Trump. So even if you willfully ignore the fact that Trump wouldn't have deigned to appear before we all died of old age, it remains an indisputable fact that all Mueller would have done with such an interview would be to write it into his fucking report. Where it would boil down to a footnote* that would be buried under all the piles of evidence of wrongdoing much worse than "gibbered incoherently and lied some in an interview".

There is no sane interpretation of events where such an interview would make a difference where the incredibly damning contents of the report did not. You insane fuckers are just pretending otherwise to grasp at straws and find something, anything you can point at to try and frame the current events as the result of, literally, a fucking conspiracy.



* Note: Trump's response to the questions posed was mostly incoherent, and is demonstrated to be lies. See all the other evidence in this report.
An "investigation" is when you work and find out where things go in the scheme, in a way that might surprise you. Whether you can indict or not, whether they are cooperative or not.

What you are talking about is where you already know what is going to happen and nothing can be done, so you just punch the clock and mark time until you can retire. Why did we have to hear all the claptrap about how he was a marine and he was in viet nam if he couldn't even manage a subject who was reticent?
  #12190  
Old 11-07-2019, 07:57 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,502
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
Conspiracy. That's cool. Nobody is or has claimed there was a conspiracy. Did Mueller conspire with Trump? And you call someone else insane? No, there was just one man who tried to do his best, but he could not.
Open up the tired eyes
  #12191  
Old 11-07-2019, 08:20 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,502
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
Mueller could have pushed for that. He could have tried to push, anyway. Or even glanced at the thought of trying to push. Instead, he made it known that written answers would suffice. Shit, Mueller even stated in his congressional appearance that the written replies were incomplete, and IIRC he even said untruthful.
Imagine if Mueller came into the job by implying that any real investigation, by a real American and a real marine, needs an interview to be done, and dt was in the barrel?

Could that have been a way to save a year or two of dt in the white house? If it had jump started the impeachment it might have.
  #12192  
Old 11-07-2019, 08:20 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,537
Quote:
Originally Posted by drad dog View Post
Open up the tired eyes
(He gets it. Hey Mikey, he gets it!)

Last edited by bobot; 11-07-2019 at 08:21 PM.
  #12193  
Old 11-07-2019, 10:31 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,502
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
(He gets it. Hey Mikey, he gets it!)
Even Richard Nixon has got it...soul.
  #12194  
Old 11-08-2019, 02:48 PM
Walken After Midnight is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 5,398
Darren Samuelsohn, Politico, is a good person to follow for Roger Stone trial updates. Bannon is currently on the stand.
  #12195  
Old 11-08-2019, 03:02 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,940
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walken After Midnight View Post
Darren Samuelsohn, Politico, is a good person to follow for Roger Stone trial updates. Bannon is currently on the stand.
Can you imagine that scene. One loathsome douchebag railroading the other loathsome douchebag. It's like a mob trial with informants trying to out-ratfuck each other.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #12196  
Old 11-08-2019, 04:53 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by drad dog View Post
2) You have no idea of what it might accomplish at all. Maybe donald will run rings around those high tone lawyers. Maybe not? But why are you so triggered by it?
Why am I so triggered? Well...

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
Conspiracy. That's cool. Nobody is or has claimed there was a conspiracy. Did Mueller conspire with Trump? And you call someone else insane? No, there was just one man who tried to do his best, but he could not.
No conspiracy theories, eh? For your perusal:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann Hedonia View Post
Yeah, I’m pretty pissed off at Robert “If we had found that the President did not rob the bank at gunpoint we would’ve said so” Mueller. I’m thinking he was in the bag for Trump all along. And now that Trump and the DOJ are trying to discredit the Russian interference conclusion, it’s like that asshole has dropped off the face of the earth.

There’s good stuff in the Mueller report. And I think Mueller knew that the best way to bury that stuff was to hide it inside an 800 page document that was so deliberately boring that no one could possibly read it. Then answer every question you are asked with “It’s somewhere in my report”. So I think Mueller has, by omission, has weighed in pretty solidly on the “Better Russian than Democrat” side of the equation.

I am "triggered" by the fact that in our desperate search for order and meaning to the universe, we've decided to throw what is undoubtedly a rigidly principled man under the bus in our search for blame. Now, do I believe that randos on a message board are in a better position than experienced prosecutor Robert Mueller in determining, based on the evidence that only Robert Mueller fully knows, whether getting a liar in a room to lie for a while would be worth the four years of court action to drag him into the room? Fuck no! You dipshits are, at best, armchair lawyering, while not being laywers. You very obviously have no goddamn clue what you're talking about, and are merely venting your angry spleens in the direction of anybody you can point a shaking finger at.

I'm glad I'm not a public figure; I can only get unjustly slandered by a handful of people at a time.
  #12197  
Old 11-08-2019, 06:08 PM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 17,083
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
Why am I so triggered? Well...

No conspiracy theories, eh? For your perusal:


I am "triggered" by the fact that in our desperate search for order and meaning to the universe, we've decided to throw what is undoubtedly a rigidly principled man under the bus in our search for blame. Now, do I believe that randos on a message board are in a better position than experienced prosecutor Robert Mueller in determining, based on the evidence that only Robert Mueller fully knows, whether getting a liar in a room to lie for a while would be worth the four years of court action to drag him into the room? Fuck no! You dipshits are, at best, armchair lawyering, while not being laywers. You very obviously have no goddamn clue what you're talking about, and are merely venting your angry spleens in the direction of anybody you can point a shaking finger at.

I'm glad I'm not a public figure; I can only get unjustly slandered by a handful of people at a time.
Well said.

I'm dismayed by watching formerly sensible posters fly off the deep end.
  #12198  
Old 11-08-2019, 06:35 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,438
It is reasonable to ask if a public servant's work product is as useful or complete as it could have been.

Attempts to characterize these reasonable questions as being "off the deep end" or "armchair lawyering" (and worse, but I won't collect more at the moment) are puzzling. Why is expressing disappointment over features of Mueller's work and choices, somehow an occasion for name-calling and hyperbolic descriptions? Is Mueller a figure of religious veneration?

If he's not--if he is a human being--then why is it bad and wrong to examine his choices? Is the assertion here that some people may not be questioned? That, in this, they differ from mortals?
  #12199  
Old 11-08-2019, 06:48 PM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
It is reasonable to ask if a public servant's work product is as useful or complete as it could have been.
Sure. It's not reasonable to ascribe conspiracy theory woo as the reason for that work not being as useful as it could be, however.
  #12200  
Old 11-08-2019, 06:48 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
It is reasonable to ask if a public servant's work product is as useful or complete as it could have been.

Attempts to characterize these reasonable questions as being "off the deep end" or "armchair lawyering" (and worse, but I won't collect more at the moment) are puzzling. Why is expressing disappointment over features of Mueller's work and choices, somehow an occasion for name-calling and hyperbolic descriptions? Is Mueller a figure of religious veneration?

If he's not--if he is a human being--then why is it bad and wrong to examine his choices? Is the assertion here that some people may not be questioned? That, in this, they differ from mortals?
You mean, aside from the overt slandering?

I see it as conflating fiction and reality (and then using that to slander). The fiction is when they use their imaginations to decide what would have happened if Mueller had acted differently. This second guessing naturally leaps to wild improbabilities with no consideration for their likelihood, because they're not starting from the alternate behavior and working forward to conclusions, they're starting from a desired fantasy outcome and probing backwards for possible ways it might have occurred. Little things like "facts" and "reality" are barely speed bumps in this approach - even when the resulting argument is "Trump is flagrantly ignoring subpoenas! If only Mueller had subpoena'd him it wouldn't have come to this!" Most certainly the notion that Mueller might have had good reasons for his action that they are unaware of is never considered. And so these elaborate fictional alternate universes are constructed. And then the slandering begins.

Seriously, if you're going to question somebody's actions, these questions should spring from a factual basis. Not a fantasy one. And then, only when the facts actually support it, should the slandering begin.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:30 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017