Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Time to give Trump Presidency it's own Thread.Follow

#127 Jun 15 2017 at 7:12 AM Rating: Good
******
49,824 posts
gbaji wrote:
You're playing a semantics game.
"Sure."
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#128 Jun 15 2017 at 7:42 AM Rating: Excellent
Especially when he praised him for said handling.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#129 Jun 15 2017 at 8:40 AM Rating: Good
******
49,824 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Especially when he praised him for said handling.
What a strange world you live in where things people say and do continue to exist and don't just magically disappear.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#130 Jun 15 2017 at 8:50 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The GOP talking points (expect to hear them soon from you-know-who) are that Mueller's investigation didn't turn up anything so now he is trying to pursue obstruction charges. First off, even if this were true, obstruction is still obstruction and still illegal so throwing a fit because Mueller is investigating the wrong crime seems sort of weird. But it's not true anyway -- Mueller has been continually staffing up as the investigation grows and broadens into more people and financial ties to Russia. He was bringing on people as recently as last week. So it's just a plain lie to say "He didn't find anything so..." when the investigation is just getting started. Still, tools gonna tool on along.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#131 Jun 15 2017 at 9:50 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,400 posts
When to we get to read down to the 16th definition of what 'is' means?

Kind of assumed obstruction charges would be inevitable. Seems like they'd be easier to pin on someone, just given the nature of the crime.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#132 Jun 15 2017 at 10:22 AM Rating: Good
******
49,824 posts
Jophiel wrote:
(expect to hear them soon from you-know-who)
As amusing as how often the "But Billy hit me first!" point pops up, our Voldedolt has been leaning further and further into "It's a conspiracy!" territory so I wouldn't really expect to see many of those to show up on Zam.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#133 Jun 16 2017 at 8:30 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Trump says that he's being investigated for firing Comey by the same guy who told him to fire Comey. Of course, Trump has already proudly said that he was going to fire Comey no matter what and Rosenstein was pretty much made to write a letter as cover. And now Trump is accusing Rosenstein of a "witch hunt" (his words).

Boy, I bet Rosenstein wishes he never answered the phone the day he agreed to stay on under the new administration.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#134 Jun 16 2017 at 8:34 AM Rating: Good
******
49,824 posts
Jophiel wrote:
says that he's being investigated for firing Comey by the same guy who told him to fire Comey.
He's investigating himself? It's a bold strategy Cotton, lets see if it pays off for 'em.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#135 Jun 16 2017 at 8:49 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Layers upon layers: Rosenstein may be recusing himself from the case he inherited after Sessions recused himself as Rosenstein's letter may implicate him as a person of interest in an obstruction investigation.

Eventually this case will be managed by the FBI's janitor.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#136 Jun 16 2017 at 9:03 AM Rating: Good
******
49,824 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Eventually this case will be managed by the FBI's janitor.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#137 Jun 16 2017 at 2:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Trump's lawyer has, uh, lawyered up as a result of the Russia probe.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#138 Jun 16 2017 at 6:04 PM Rating: Good
***
1,065 posts
Smart guy. Then again, he did graduate from law school.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#139 Jun 16 2017 at 6:07 PM Rating: Good
***
1,065 posts
Actually, my only objection here is that he should have hired a whole team of lawyers, not just one.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#140 Jun 16 2017 at 6:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Each lawyer associated with Trump should hire five more lawyers, etc. It'll be a law school make-work project. Who says government can't make jobs?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#141 Jun 16 2017 at 8:00 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
******
20,518 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Each lawyer associated with Trump should hire five more lawyers, etc. It'll be a law school make-work project. Who says government can't make jobs?

trump's finally building his wall. A wall of business suits and leather briefcases.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#142 Jun 16 2017 at 8:01 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,518 posts
Gotta get in on this double-posting action.

Edited, Jun 16th 2017 10:02pm by Debalic
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#143 Jun 16 2017 at 8:43 PM Rating: Excellent
***
1,065 posts
Quote:
trump's finally building his wall. A wall of business suits and leather briefcases.


Then we will litigate in the shade.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#144 Jun 19 2017 at 7:54 AM Rating: Good
******
49,824 posts
Jophiel wrote:
's lawyer has, uh, lawyered up as a result of the Russia probe.
According to whichever layer of litigators Sekulow is on, 45 isn't actually under investigation after all. That's if you ignore the media and 45's own tweet stating that "I'm being investigated". Apparently the 140 characters just aren't enough to give all the necessary information and how it's absolutely impossible to tweet multiple times in a row.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#145 Jun 19 2017 at 12:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,244 posts
Of course, he said that literally seconds after saying, twice, that Trump is under investigation.

This is the hallmark of a man who has to corkscrew himself into his pants.

Edited, Jun 19th 2017 11:07am by Samira
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#146 Jun 22 2017 at 7:39 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
's lawyer has, uh, lawyered up as a result of the Russia probe.
According to whichever layer of litigators Sekulow is on, 45 isn't actually under investigation after all. That's if you ignore the media and 45's own tweet stating that "I'm being investigated". Apparently the 140 characters just aren't enough to give all the necessary information and how it's absolutely impossible to tweet multiple times in a row.


Sekulow's comments (and Trump's tweet) were examples of reductio ad absurdum, which apparently flew right over the heads of most members of the media (including Wallace when interviewing Sekulow). In this form of argument the "if" and "then" is implied, but should be apparent in the argument itself. So "if" I'm being investigated, then I'm being investigated by the guy who told me to do what I'm being investigated for.

There's also a point to be made about an official investigation, which actually requires checking off certain boxes like who you're investigating, what crime you think was committed, etc, and what's going on right now, which is more or less a non investigation investigation. As I've stated several times now, this smells a heck of a lot like the Plame investigation, where there was no crime, they knew who was involved in the action that wasn't a crime, but they chose to go on a witch hunt in the Bush White House anyway, presumably because they could.

Honestly, while I think Trump does hurt himself with his tweeting about this, the more this goes on, the worse those pushing the investigation side of things are looking. If Bush had been able to get the words "this is all a witch hunt" to the public over and over for the couple years that the Plame investigation was going on, things might have turned out very differently. Instead, he did the normal politician thing and kept quiet. The problem with that approach is that the other "side" gets to control when things "leak" to the press, what those leaks consist of, and can use the process to accomplish the actual goal, which is to undermine the administration.

Trump's pushing this right back. And I don't think it'll matter what is found (likely nothing), or leaked (I"m sure tons of speculative stuff), it'll all be framed in the context of fake information. These sorts of things basically rely on one side being able to put out a narrative that can't be opposed. Fact's don't matter. It's what the public hears that does. We all know that what the public will hear from this is leak after leak after leak, not of facts, but speculative stuff. OMG! This person is "under investigation". That person is "being questioned". Someone said that they suspect "someone did something bad". The media gets a field day essentially writing rumors and speculation, knowing that they are covered because they aren't actually the ones making stuff up. They also know that the public largely can't tell the difference, so this will form their opinions.

So yeah, as annoying as it is, Trump is actually doing the right thing here. He knows that all he has to do is tweet "fake news" and "witch hunt" over and over, and a largish percentage of the population will interpret anything that comes of this in that context. If he doesn't, then the other side gets to frame the entire narrative. Of course, if we had a less one sided media, this wouldn't be necessary, but that hasn't been the case for decades now.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#147 Jun 22 2017 at 7:58 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Samira wrote:
Of course, he said that literally seconds after saying, twice, that Trump is under investigation.


If you actually watch the interview instead of just a news segment about it showing the two sections, it's obvious that he's making an argument that if we accept the claim, it makes no sense. It's a shorthand way of saying it though. Like if someone accuses you of breaking into a house, you might respond with something like "Ok. So I broke into this guys house at the exact same time I was sitting at a restaurant having dinner with 10 other people?". We all understand this form of argument. We all use this form of argument. It's actually a quite effective form of argument. And again, everyone normally gets it. Well, except when they're slavishly scanning through what the other person said to try to find some inconsistency or absurdity, that is.

I guess I just find the whole thing somewhat surreal. And to respond to what someone mentioned earlier, you can't obstruct justice unless there's actual justice going on. Yet, we've seen this script play out before. Rightly pointing out that there is no evidence of criminal behavior so maybe there should not be an investigation, is not obstructing justice. It's making a valid observation. The president suggesting that an investigation should be dropped since it hasn't come remotely close to finding any evidence of crime is not obstruction of justice. It's someone in the room acting like a sane person IMO.

Witch hunts are not justice. Fishing expeditions are not justice. But that's what's going on here. It's all about having an investigation (or multiple investigations) purely for the sake of saying that "so and so is under investigation". There's political value in the mere existence of such things (I seem to recall pointing this out a few months back in fact). And if, along the way, you can find some tangential thing to charge someone with (like the extremely vague "obstruction of justice" charge), that's all the better.


Anyone want to take bets on whether any person associated with Trump is ever charged, much less convicted of collusion with the Russians to manipulate the election? If history of these sorts of things is any indication, there won't be. But there will be a ton of speculation and implication along the way, and they'll probably find some poor sap to charge with some secondary thing, just so they can claim they accomplished something. Let's face it, the claims are so ludicrous and frankly so impossible to prove that I'm not sure how you could proceed. Barring a recording of someone actually offering a quid pro quo to the Russians in return for help, I just don't see how you can ever convict anyone of anything.

And I think that's what has a ton of people on the right riled up about this. Last year, Comey and the Justice department did this whole "we're not going to pursue charges against Clinton because we don't think a prosecution can succeed" bit, but this year, it seems like "possibility of ever succeeding in a prosecution" has been completely tossed out the window. It doesn't seem to matter to them. But any rational person can look at the evidence in the two cases and see that in the case last year, there was a mountain of solid evidence that clearly showed a violation of the law (multiple violations, in fact), while in this case there's... nothing. Just a speculation that maybe someone, somewhere, related to Trump, maybe did something with someone else. But we can't say who, or what was done. But if we look hard enough, and long enough, maybe we'll find something.

The double standard for "justice" is pretty ridiculous IMO.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#149 Jun 22 2017 at 9:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
Last year, Comey and the Justice department did this whole "we're not going to pursue charges against Clinton because we don't think a prosecution can succeed" bit, but this year, it seems like "possibility of ever succeeding in a prosecution" has been completely tossed out the window
After a long and involved investigation...
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#150 Jun 23 2017 at 7:26 AM Rating: Good
******
49,824 posts
gbaji wrote:
Sekulow's comments (and 's tweet) were examples of reductio ad absurdum,
It requires everyone from the top of the administration to the random online cheerleaders repeating Kellyanne Conway talking points to be functionally retarded, but I guess it's possible since, well, there seems little evidence to contradict the theory that they are, in fact, functionally retarded.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#151 Jun 23 2017 at 5:25 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Quote:
Last year, Comey and the Justice department did this whole "we're not going to pursue charges against Clinton because we don't think a prosecution can succeed" bit, but this year, it seems like "possibility of ever succeeding in a prosecution" has been completely tossed out the window
After a long and involved investigation...


An investigation into activities which were not in doubt, to determine whether said activities violated the law. I know that this may be just crazy talk, but in order to have a criminal investigation you kinda have to start with either a known crime and then try to figure out who committed it, or you have to have known actions by a known person and try to figure out if those actions are criminal.

With Clinton we know who she is and we know she maintained an email server at home which she used to conduct official state department business. The things she did were not in question, nor the fact that she was involved in doing them. The only question was whether doing this involved a violation of the law.

With this "investigation" (and yeah, I'm putting it in air quotes here), we don't have any known activities from any known person that we suspect may have been criminal as our starting point. What we have is a foreign country hacking into a political party's servers and the data from that server later being released by wikileaks, with the presumption that said foreign country obtained that data and leaked it to wikileaks. Great! That's a crime. We can investigate that. So you should be following the trail of that data, right? Find out who was involved in the hack, find out how the data got to wikileaks and see who was responsible, then figure out if you have any jurisdiction over them, and pursue whatever criminal charges you can.

That's how you investigate, right? You start with the crime and follow it to the criminals. Er... but that's not what's happening here. Here, we have this massive gap. Somehow, via what appears to be some combination of extreme speculation and wishful thinking, we've leaped to a conclusion that someone in the Trump campaign was "involved" somehow. No one seems to know what form that involvement may have taken, nor who might have done it, nor how they could have done it. But let's ignore these pesky facts and "investigate".

What are they actually investigating? What possible evidence could be found that could result in any sort of legal charge involving the original actual crime? As I've pointed out a number of times on this forum, barring finding some recording or email showing a clear conversation between someone connected to the Trump campaign discussing and planning the hack and/or release of the data, and/or promising some sort of quid pro quo in return for said hack and/or release, I'm not sure how you can *ever* obtain a prosecution related to the crime you're actually investigating.

What we have here is an investigation that isn't following a crime or a person, but rather just targeting a group of people and seeing if it can find something they did, not necessarily in any way related to a known crime, which they can be charged with, after the fact. Worse, this is 100% politically targeted. You're choosing to target that group based on its association with a single politician. This sort of thing should send chills down all our spines, and thoughts of authoritarian regimes quashing opposition politicians via abuse and misuse of government power.

A sane legal system cannot allow this form of investigation. It's a fishing expedition. You can't just target a group of people because of their political associations (well, or any reason, this just makes it worse) and just look at everything they've done to see if you can find something. This is scarily reminiscent of the McCarthy hearings. It's not about justice. It's not about following evidence. It is purely about using the investigation itself as a tool to hurt a politician and everyone near him.

I predicted this months ago. I said that the mere fact of someone "being under investigation" would be used as ammunition against them. And what are we seeing right now? Leaks that contain, not evidence of criminal activity, but that "Jared Kuchner is being investigated. OMG! There must be something here!". And "Trump's being investigated. Wow this is really getting serious guys!". Seriously. That's the extent of these leaks. Who's being questioned. Who the investigation is looking at. No context for any of this, just fuel for the speculative fire.

So yeah. It's a witch hunt. I'll ask again: Where is the crime, and how is it connected to anyone currently "under investigation"? There is no connection any of us are aware of that isn't purely speculative. Anyone could be "under investigation" because we could speculate that anyone was involved, right? That's not enough, or should not be enough, to actually investigate people's activities. You have to start with the crime and work to the people. But that's not what's going on here.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 2 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (2)