The Swamp

Joe K wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2019 10:13 am

Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2019 10:02 am And yet I can find an article in less than 5 minutes quoting a dozen legal experts that says you are wrong.

At what school are you a law professor?

Who the fuck cares what was predicted on this board, man? WHO. CARES.

You are thumping your chest when there are people that literally... this is their job... And they are saying you are wrong.

Fucking bizarre.

Yeah it’s really bizarre that I’d take offense to being called out repeatedly by Bengal, Giff and Enoch for three years — and now accused of being “severely disturbed.”

And I made exactly one factual statement in my post: that no Americans were indicted for conspiring with Russia. That’s a true statement that isn’t contradicted by anything those law professors said.

But carry on.

So you’re a troll? I mean, shut the-fuck up already. You’re not as smart as you try to come off, and you’re annoying.

But that is the definition, isn’t it.

I almost edited my post.

But nah. You should read that. It’s just a message board, right?

We're just not having an actual conversation. You are beating back personal stuff that has nothing to do with the facts.

Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2019 10:37 am We're just not having an actual conversation. You are beating back personal stuff that has nothing to do with the facts.

Message received (and thank you), but he’s straight-up trolling.

EnochRoot wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2019 10:39 am

Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2019 10:37 am We're just not having an actual conversation. You are beating back personal stuff that has nothing to do with the facts.

Message received (and thank you), but he’s straight-up trolling.

I mean, I was talking to Joe, but cool.

:-)

I'm not above being pissed off on this subject.

Thanks for the clarification. Interesting that when things seem so torn and frayed where true colors emerge?

I mean, I guess I’m overall combative and generally annoying, but why would somebody gravitate towards *that* sort of behavior, unless that’s what he’s been feeding on for the past several years?

EnochRoot wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2019 10:51 am Thanks for the clarification. Interesting that when things seem so torn and frayed where true colors emerge?

I mean, I guess I’m overall combative and generally annoying, but why would somebody gravitate towards *that* sort of behavior, unless that’s what he’s been feeding on for the past several years?

Because I genuinely believe my posts on this issue. One can think that the various Trump-Russia conspiracy theories are unfounded and implausible without being a troll. The following things can all be true:

1. Trump is an awful person and an awful President.
2. Trump’s heavy-handed attempts to bully DOJ are abhorrent.
3. Trump did not conspire with Russia to win the election and, unfortunately, was legitimately elected.

Joe K wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2019 11:00 am

EnochRoot wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2019 10:51 am Thanks for the clarification. Interesting that when things seem so torn and frayed where true colors emerge?

I mean, I guess I’m overall combative and generally annoying, but why would somebody gravitate towards *that* sort of behavior, unless that’s what he’s been feeding on for the past several years?

Because I genuinely believe my posts on this issue. One can think that the various Trump-Russia conspiracy theories are unfounded and implausible without being a troll. The following things can all be true:

1. Trump is an awful person and an awful President.
2. Trump’s heavy-handed attempts to bully DOJ are abhorrent.
3. Trump did not conspire with Russia to win the election and, unfortunately, was legitimately elected.

4. Even though there may have been no direct conspiracy, Trumps actions since have exceeded the normal threshold for obstruction of justice. Were he to hold any other office than president he would have since been indicted.

5. Even if you cede the point that Trump didn't personally conspire with Russia, it is indisputable that members of his campaign did. Providing polling data to help direct Russian efforts in certain swing states is very clearly conspiring with Russian operatives.

Joe K wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2019 11:00 am 3. Trump did not conspire with Russia to win the election and, unfortunately, was legitimately elected.

"If it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer." - Trump Jr, when promised "dirt" on Hillary's campaign by Russian operatives.

6. Trump stood in front of the world and unambiguously stated that be believed Putin regarding Russian election interference over his intelligence agencies.

I mean what path can that possibly take you on that doesn't lead to collusion? He's just dumb?

Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2019 11:39 am 5. Even if you cede the point that Trump didn't personally conspire with Russia, it is indisputable that members of his campaign did. Providing polling data to help direct Russian efforts in certain swing states is very clearly conspiring with Russian operatives.

Mueller didn’t reach that conclusion (although he didn’t necessarily rule it out). He said it was unclear why Manafort shared the data and that he couldn’t establish it was part of an election conspiracy.

Here’s a Greenwald Tweet screenshotting this passage from the Mueller Report:

Jerloma wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2019 11:58 am 6. Trump stood in front of the world and unambiguously stated that be believed Putin regarding Russian election interference over his intelligence agencies.

I mean what path can that possibly take you on that doesn't lead to collusion? He's just dumb?

Because he’s a mentally addled pathological liar who refuses to acknowledge any facts that dilute the “greatness” of his “victories”? How many times did he tell patently absurd lies about the size of his inauguration crowd or the historic margin in his Electoral College win?

occam's razor seems applicable here when wondering if someone(s) seeking to interfere with the US electoral process would or would not have utilized shared polling data

Yeah, sorry, Meuller is being RIDICULOUSLY conservative and cautious there. Gimme a fucking break with that.

There are dozens of people in the Trump campaign meeting with and passing information to Russians.

I'm really not going to debate this anymore. It's ridiculous.

Joe K wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2019 12:05 pm

Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2019 11:39 am 5. Even if you cede the point that Trump didn't personally conspire with Russia, it is indisputable that members of his campaign did. Providing polling data to help direct Russian efforts in certain swing states is very clearly conspiring with Russian operatives.

Mueller didn’t reach that conclusion (although he didn’t necessarily rule it out). He said it was unclear why Manafort shared the data and that he couldn’t establish it was part of an election conspiracy.

Here’s a Greenwald Tweet screenshotting this passage from the Mueller Report:

Can we get a Greenwald addendum to Godwin's law?

FFS, the sentence directly above explains why they couldn't reach a conclusion.

That's Fox News-level gas-lighting.

DaveInSeattle wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2019 12:32 pm

Joe K wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2019 12:05 pm

Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2019 11:39 am 5. Even if you cede the point that Trump didn't personally conspire with Russia, it is indisputable that members of his campaign did. Providing polling data to help direct Russian efforts in certain swing states is very clearly conspiring with Russian operatives.

Mueller didn’t reach that conclusion (although he didn’t necessarily rule it out). He said it was unclear why Manafort shared the data and that he couldn’t establish it was part of an election conspiracy.

Here’s a Greenwald Tweet screenshotting this passage from the Mueller Report:

Can we get a Greenwald addendum to Godwin's law?

Come on. I just posted the first Tweet I could find showing that specific language from the Mueller Report. Your or my thoughts on Greenwald have nothing to do with the fact that Mueller (whether out of an abundance of caution or not) declined to reach the conclusion that Nonlinear said was indisputable.

Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2019 12:45 pm FFS, the sentence directly above explains why they couldn't reach a conclusion.

That's Fox News-level gas-lighting.

That’s exactly why I said in my post that Mueller “didn’t necessarily rule it out.”

You are engaging in Fox News-level gas-lighting Joe. You want to continue defending Barr?

Because I have about 200 legal scholars and political pundits up and down the spectrum who can tell you how full of shit you are.

I'm done. Have a weekend.

Joe K wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2019 8:45 pm

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2019 4:53 pm But that is all the Mueller Report found no evidence of. You had Russia offering the Trump campaign illicit assistance, the campaign saying "I love it, especially later in the summer," and then the campaign formed strategies around it the Russians' assistance, fully exploited it, and then helped to cover it up, both before and after the election and before and after the inauguration. At no point did the campaign repudiate or report the foreign interference.

That's collusion, and that is what people like Adam Schiff have been talking about.

This is just one example of how the known facts have been sensationalized a bit to fit the preset narrative of a criminal conspiracy, which is made clear by the Mueller Report’s discussion of this meeting. Although the attendees at the Trump Tower meeting had some connections to the Russian government, which they played up to get the meeting, it’s never been shown that they were actually acting on behalf of the government. So it wasn’t “Russia” offering assistance but rather a handful of Russian citizens. Moreover, it’s not clear the assistance offered was “illicit.” They did not claim to have hacked or stolen documents from Clinton or the DNC. Rather, they (falsely) claimed to have Russian government records showing misconduct by the Clintons. Mueller specifically addressed whether seeking such information could be a campaign finance violation and concluded it likely was not. That’s why no one has been charged or will be charged in connection with the Trump Tower meeting. So if that’s the best evidence of “conclusion,” it’s not saying much.

Dude, just wow.

I don't know who specifically has said that Trump's dealings with the Russians were directly criminal. But they were definitely disloyal and a betrayal of Trump's duty to the United States. And the collusion wasn't just the Trump Tower meeting - it was primarily the DNC emails.

What the Trump Tower meeting accomplished was making it clear that the Russian government's illicit assistance (and of course it's illicit, the Russian government can't offer non-illicit election assistance) would be welcomed. It would not be repudiated. It would not be reported to the FBI. Manafort, Page, Papadopolous, Flynn would not be wearing a wire when they met with Russians.

So you end up with Russia stealing emails from the DNC and giving them to Wikileaks. Then you have Wikileaks putting them on a website, and Trump saying "Hey everyone, look at Wikileaks! And by the way, these hacks aren't being done by the Russians!" That is coordination. It is not a prosecutable crime because Mueller didn't obtain solid evidence of a "we'll do this if you do that" agreement, explicit or implicit. But in that situation, they didn't need to have an agreement, because both the Russians and the Trump campaign had the same goal - to get Trump into office regardless of any legal, moral, ethical, or fiduciary considerations.

The Mueller Report confirmed that the Trump campaign planned media and campaign strategies around the release of the DNC emails, so they and the Russians could both maximize the benefit of the Russian crimes.

And there is no way we can be sure that the email releases and Trump strategies around it (including relying on the media to keep the email releases in the public eye) didn't sway the election, since it was so close.

Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2019 12:59 pm You are engaging in Fox News-level gas-lighting Joe. You want to continue defending Barr?

Because I have about 200 legal scholars and political pundits up and down the spectrum who can tell you how full of shit you are.

I'm done. Have a weekend.

Thank you. That’s what I meant to say. Trolling is a lazy definition.

For the record, I like Joe K's POV because I always have this moment where I go "Am I in my own head too fucking much about this? Am I in a bubble and eating up shit for no other reason that I don't like this administration?"

It's sometimes yes, sometimes no. I just put myself in Trump's position. If everyone in my orbit is being arrested and doing illegal shit, how can I not be associated with it? I'm under scrutiny at all times if the Airmen I supervise do something dumb. This guy is my boss, ffs.

So, if counter to everything ever, ignorance is a defense in this instance and he's just an asshole with bad friends, then it's affluenza the presidency. Ok, dude is legitimately too stupid or dumb to know just how stupid or dumb he is at running the country. K.

HOWEVA, if the logic follows, he needs to be removed for being incontinent. Full stop. Racist geriatric grandpa tweeter in chief aside, he is literally not able to do the job if you're defending his lack of ability.

HOWEVA AGAIN, the team assembled to prove bad are operating under the auspice that they aren't allowed to do exactly that and cannot indict. They can lay out every fact and nuance, but they have to defer to Congress.

But yet, half of Congress is corrupt heathens on the same team as the incontinent president. So there's no wrongdoing from their point of view. He's our guy. Fuck you we won!

This whole thing sucks and fuck politics.

I like your switching ”incontinent” for “incompetent”. If that was unintentional that’s even more impressive.

How much of the redacted stuff is Assange? My gut says ~25%.

L-Jam3 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2019 2:16 pm I like your switching ”incontinent” for “incompetent”. If that was unintentional that’s even more impressive.

“Military sources are suggesting the pee tape is real!”

Square Rob wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2019 3:35 pm How much of the redacted stuff is Assange? My gut says ~25%.

I think a lot of it is Roger Stone, some of which may also relate to Wikileaks.

Joe K wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2019 3:41 pm

Square Rob wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2019 3:35 pm How much of the redacted stuff is Assange? My gut says ~25%.

I think a lot of it is Roger Stone, some of which may also relate to Wikileaks.

Yeah, I think the "Harm to Ongoing Matters" redactions appear to be Stone.

Which is bullshit. The harm to the prosecution of Stone that comes from disclosure in the report can't come close to the harm from keeping that information from the American people.

Noice.

Johnnie wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2019 2:05 pmHOWEVA, if the logic follows, he needs to be removed for being incontinent. Full stop. Racist geriatric grandpa tweeter in chief aside, he is literally not able to do the job if you're defending his lack of ability.

For as much as I’ve disagreed with people in this thread I’ve gotta say this is spot on, including the use of the word “incontinent.” The pee tape is real, and it resulted in a purchase of gold-plated Depends. It’s crazy how everyone knows Trump has lost whatever mental acuity he may have once had and is now too spaced out to read a 2 page memo. If this were historical times (shoutout, Jerloma), some Rasputin-type would long since have taken advantage of the ruler’s frailty to seize the levers of power.

Today's outrage:


US threatens to veto UN resolution on rape as weapon of war, officials say

Why?

Even after the formal monitoring mechanism was stripped from the resolution, the US was still threatening to veto the watered-down version, because it includes language on victims’ support from family planning clinics.

It’s been good to see Democratic Presidential candidates finally wisen up and start criticizing Netanyahu.

Joe K wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2019 12:55 pm
It’s been good to see Democratic Presidential candidates finally wisen up and start criticizing Netanyahu.

Looks like Bibi forgot the 2nd commandment.

"I'm gonna head to the Supreme Court if you try to impeach me" just encapsulates everything wrong about this timeline.

You can't do that, dumbfuck.

I'm no legal scholar, but I feel like "White House says it will fight subpoenas" is pretty blatant obstruction.

Well, to be fair (which this batch doesn't deserve), they are coming at it under the "protection of the president/executive branch" which every president has done going back to the 50s and 60s.

This guy and Kellyanne must have the awkwardest marriage.

Mutual protection. Two people who believed at a core level couldn’t coexist.

I never thought Judge Napolitano would be the voice of reason reassuring me I'm not crazy.

The Sybian wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 11:17 am I never thought Judge Napolitano would be the voice of reason reassuring me I'm not crazy.

That is scathing. Wow.