Standing behind a placard of lies, Donald Trump says he refuses to do his job until the investigations stop

Donald Trump was scheduled to meet with Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer this afternoon at the White House to discuss his desire for a robust infrastructure program to rebuild America’s crumbling roads and bridges. According to the Washington Post, however, Trump — arriving 15 minutes late for the meeting — walked in “visibly angry”, accused Pelosi of saying something “terrible”, and then stormed out of the room. And, from there, he apparently kept right on walking to the Rose Garden, where a lectern with the presidential seal had been outfitted with an official-looking placard declaring “no collusion, no obstruction.” [Super presidential, right?] Donald Trump then went on to rant about the Democrats, telling the assembled members of the press that, until the investigations into his administration had been brought to a close, he would not be participating in the legislative process on behalf of the American people… “Get these phony investigations over with,” Trump demanded.

When asked afterward why Donald Trump would go to the trouble of pretending to storm out of a meeting and then have what he claimed to be an impromptu press conference — as if members of the press couldn’t figure out that the production of the above-mentioned placard would take some pre-planning — Chuck Schumer responded by saying that Trump “had to run away” because he hadn’t done the actual work of figuring out how an ambitious infrastructure plan, like the one he said he wanted, would be paid for.

And, now, as I mentioned above, Donald Trump is saying that, until the investigations stop, he will not longer work with Congress to do the work of governing… essentially saying that he’s going on a legislative strike until the Democrats stop attempting to do their constitutionally-mandated job of executive oversight. [Bill Clinton, as you might remember, took a much different approach, saying that he intended to keep working with Republican lawmakers, even as they pursued impeachment, saying that he wouldn’t stop doing the work of the people.]

Here’s footage of Trump demanding that the investigations be brought to an end.

There are any number of things that one could say about the President’s public tantrum today — like the fact that he declared “I don’t do coverups,” when we know for a certainty that he personally arranged for two of his mistresses to be paid-off during the campaign in order to guarantee their silence — but I’d like to spend our remaining time together talking about a few of the “facts” shared on that placard Donald Trump was standing behind today.

THE CLAIM: “$35+ Million spent (on the Mueller investigation)”
THE FACT: The investigation, which ultimately brought indictments against 34 people — including 5 close Trump associates — for about 200 separate criminal charges, actually made money. While the Special Counsel investigation may have cost $35 million, it’s estimated that that assets forfeited by Trump associate Paul Manafort as part of his plea deal totaled between $42 million and $46 million, meaning that there was a net positive to tax-payers of approximately $10 million.

THE CLAIM: “No collusion”
The FACT: While the Mueller report did say that no evidence was found of conspiracy or coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, it did not evaluate — in the words of the Washington Post — “the broader, non-legal concept of ‘collusion.’” So, in other words, the Special Counsel did not find “no collusion.”

THE CLAIM: “No obstruction”
THE FACT: The Mueller report actually laid out ten instances of potential obstruction, and called on Congress to take up the question of whether or not the President should be indicted. [Under Department of Justice guidelines, Mueller was not able to make a prosecutorial determination.]

THE CLAIM: “675 days”
THE FACT: Investigations of this nature take a long time, and there’s nothing unusual about the fact that the Mueller investigation took 675 days. In fact, Ken Starr’s investigation of Clinton lasted 1,693 days, and the Iran-Contra investigation took 2,420 days. And let’s not forget the Republican-produced piece of political theater that was the Benghazi investigation, which ran from May 2014 to December 2016, costing American taxpayers over $7 million, and yielding a total of zero indictments. [And, yes, the House Select Committee on Benghazi cost us, the American tax payers, approximately $17 million more than the Mueller investigation.]

CLAIM: “18 angry democrats”
FACT: Special Counsel Robert Mueller, as well as the Deputy Attorney General who appointed him, Rod Rosenstein, are both registered Republicans. As for whether any of the prosecutors hired by Mueller are registered democrats, I’m sure some are. There is no evidence, however, that this impacted their work at all. As Jim Walden, a former federal prosecutor in Brooklyn, told NBC News, the team assembled by Mueller, “(is) probably one of the most impressive groups ever assembled for a special counsel investigation… You’ve got a collective of prosecutors who’ve covered some of the most high-profile and complex investigations in the last 20 years.” These are highly regarded prosecutors, and there’s been not one shred of evidence to indicate that any of them were driven by political motivations.

OK, I could go on, but I think you probably get the point, right? We’re living in a hell world, completely untethered from reality, and we’ll all be dead soon… Good night.

This entry was posted in Politics, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

105 Comments

  1. John Brown
    Posted May 23, 2019 at 7:01 am | Permalink

    Mark, I’m gonna agree with everything you say here with the exception of “we’ll all be dead soon”. Biological Imperative (look it up trumptards) will prevent it. And is exactly why its critical for liberals to prepare not only to survive, but to win this struggle for reality by any means necessary. The future of the human race literally is in the balance, and due to climate change even more so than other points in history, and losing to delusional fascist enablers is not an option. Thats why we have to get gunned up and fully committed to this goal. Having this singular purpose is protective from feelings of despair and the risk of suicide that I think some libtards worry about. You cannot kill yourself once you accept this responsibility and have invested in the skills that may very well be needed to kill fascist to save humanity and the planet without betraying your entire species. Have a nice day.

  2. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted May 23, 2019 at 7:38 am | Permalink

    “…losing to delusional fascist enablers is not an option. Thats why we have to get gunned up and fully committed to this goal.”

  3. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted May 23, 2019 at 7:52 am | Permalink

    Two things about that: you sound like a mega fucking dickhead even to your own people and it’s obviously not going to do anything.

  4. Dogmatic Dolt
    Posted May 23, 2019 at 8:04 am | Permalink

    Aloha, As Howard Zinn stated, “They have the guns, we have the poets, therefore we will win.”

  5. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted May 23, 2019 at 8:10 am | Permalink

    Eminem an’ shit yo.

  6. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted May 23, 2019 at 8:17 am | Permalink

    He gonna beat Trump wif doz mad skills on da mic.

  7. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted May 23, 2019 at 8:25 am | Permalink

    mad *skillz* yo; caught me slippin’

  8. Frosted Flakes
    Posted May 23, 2019 at 8:26 am | Permalink

    I don’t want to discourage Mark from his future little attempt at dealing with facts, and I pre-apologize for being a pain of the butt all the time, but I must ask: Does Mark (intentionally?) miss the point much?

    Trump’s primary purpose in his poster-board-messaging is not that we should have spent less money, spent less time, or that “angry democrats” did not do a good job. Trump’s point is that they spent a lot of time, money, and personal effort to link Trump to Russian interference and they failed to find sufficient evidence of those links. Further, Trump is using the fact that this was in fact a thorough, sparing no expense investigation as a piece of evidence of that there was “no obstruction”.

    Whether or not Trump obstructed is obviously an open question, insofar as there are people that are raising the obstruction question. Trump saying “no obstruction” is him rejecting the accusation that he obstructed–like anyone would do if they were accused of a crime and wanted to defend themselves. It is just my opinion, but I find the fact that Trump is putting “no obstruction” on a poster board hilarious, and endearing.

    No meaningful conversation about obstruction can ignore all questions of the possibility that key people in the FBI were misusing their powers, that Trump knew it, and that his belief that “treasonous activity” was being executed (against him) influenced some of his actions.

    Nice fact checking though. Mark got the form of good fact checking down (“The Fact/ The Claim”) down cold, but I found the content lacking.

    Frosted Flakes give Trump’s poster board 1 out of 5 Pinocchios.
    Frosted Flakes gives Mark’s article 3 out of 5 Pinocchios.

  9. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted May 23, 2019 at 8:28 am | Permalink

    You guys really are creative with words though: “NO RACISTS NO KKK NO FASCIST USA….” That shit is fire hahahaha!

  10. Dogmatic Dolt
    Posted May 23, 2019 at 8:55 am | Permalink

    Aloha, HW–kinda like the Trumpian chant of “Lock her up”. Chants and slogans are not poems. As with economics, I think you need to take some basic literature courses. You are obviously a product of Republican educational policies.

    FF, “No meaningful conversation about obstruction can ignore all questions of the possibility that key people in the FBI were misusing their powers, that Trump knew it, and that his belief that “treasonous activity” was being executed (against him) influenced some of his actions. ” This makes about as much sense as HW and his secret indictments. It is as stupid as the Democrats always talking about Obama and his 3 dimensional chess playing. You guys just need to recognize that Trump is just not very bright. If McConnell was not covering his ass in the Senate all the time, he would cave to the Democrats and do what ever they wanted. Like all mean spirited bullies he only really wants to be liked.

  11. Frosted Flakes
    Posted May 23, 2019 at 8:56 am | Permalink

    John Brown
    Posted May 23, 2019 at 7:01 am | Permalink
    Mark, I’m gonna agree with everything you say here with the exception of “we’ll all be dead soon”. Biological Imperative (look it up trumptards) will prevent it. And is exactly why its critical for liberals to prepare not only to survive, but to win this struggle for reality by any means necessary. The future of the human race literally is in the balance, and due to climate change even more so than other points in history, and losing to delusional fascist enablers is not an option. Thats why we have to get gunned up and fully committed to this goal. Having this singular purpose is protective from feelings of despair and the risk of suicide that I think some libtards worry about. You cannot kill yourself once you accept this responsibility and have invested in the skills that may very well be needed to kill fascist to save humanity and the planet without betraying your entire species. Have a nice day.

    Fake John Brown is one of your biggest fans, Mark. You guys are in the same metaphorical fox hole. As a thought experiment: Just imagine being “gunned-up” in a real foxhole with this guy…In that hypothetical-fox-hole-moment with Fake John Brown, gunned up, with him talking all kinds of non-sensical bullshit, I imagine you asking 2 simple question: First: What mis-steps did I take, that got me here, gunned up now, in a fox-hole, with Mr. John Brown? Second: Why does Mr. Brown talk so fucking much?

    It’s not to late to change your path. Have a nice day.

  12. Dogmatic Dolt
    Posted May 23, 2019 at 9:02 am | Permalink

    Aloha FF, thinking more about your comments, you too must be a product of “No Child Left Behind.” Your argument means that Jeff Sessions was covering up and providing support for the “treasonous activity” in the Justice Department, and that Pompeo were covering up for the the traitors in the CIA. I am just a dolt, but I just don’t think these Republicans are that duplicitous as to betray their leader.

  13. Frosted Flakes
    Posted May 23, 2019 at 9:10 am | Permalink

    I don’t think it stupid, Wobblie.

    I think it is obviously and necessarily true.

    That is, the obstruction question cannot be addressed without also addressing the treason question. Obstruction hinges on corrupt intent. It would have been different if they found sufficient evidence of collusion, but they didn’t. If the investigation into the investigation finds evidence that validates Trump’s perceptions then that is necessarily a game ender and game changer.

  14. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted May 23, 2019 at 9:20 am | Permalink

    “Lock Her Up” is original and organic but I never said it is poetry. Just saying all leftists have is hackneyed chants left over from the 80’s and washed up rappers. They put “Fuck Donald Trump” to a beat and think dat’s da shit.

  15. Frosted Flakes
    Posted May 23, 2019 at 9:25 am | Permalink

    Wobblie,

    I am not certain about this, and I don’t have time to look it up, but I think there were moments in Mueller’s report where Mueller explicitly points out that Trump’s perceptions were a factor, on the obstruction question, and that was pointed out by Mueller without regard to whether or not Trump’s perceptions were valid.

    Again, I might be wrong about that (can’t look it up now) but I think I remember reading that in the report. It makes perfect sense to me…

    Also, as a general statement I don’t think party affiliations matter amongst the corrupt. Corrupt people are corrupt people.

  16. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted May 23, 2019 at 9:25 am | Permalink

    “Fake John Brown is one of your biggest fans, Mark. You guys are in the same metaphorical fox hole. As a thought experiment: Just imagine being “gunned-up” in a real foxhole with this guy…In that hypothetical-fox-hole-moment with Fake John Brown, gunned up, with him talking all kinds of non-sensical bullshit, I imagine you asking 2 simple question: First: What mis-steps did I take, that got me here, gunned up now, in a fox-hole, with Mr. John Brown? Second: Why does Mr. Brown talk so fucking much?
    It’s not to late to change your path. Have a nice day.”

    Haha, damn. Skewered

  17. Dogmatic Dolt
    Posted May 23, 2019 at 9:26 am | Permalink

    Aloha, HW this is an example of poetry. At least through my generation we were all exposed to this poem at least once. Seeing as how we are heading into the Memorial Day holiday, and all the talk of death it seems appropriate.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6BlOkpdkg8

    FF, what about Sessions and Pompeo–traitors too? Since you also seem to be a practitioner of 3 dimensional chess please explain them? As a dolt, unless these two are in on the “conspiracy” I don’t know how it could work. What do they gain? Sessions get’s fired and Pompeo gets made Sec. of State. Seems like all you have is word salad.

  18. John Brown
    Posted May 23, 2019 at 9:27 am | Permalink

    the Projection is strong in these trumptards. Lying through their teeth about easily observed fact, while accusing others of lying. Complaining about talking too much, when.they.will.not.shut.the.fuck.up!

  19. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted May 23, 2019 at 9:29 am | Permalink

    Thanks. I didn’t know what poetry is.

  20. Dogmatic Dolt
    Posted May 23, 2019 at 9:32 am | Permalink

    Aloha, FF, Trump’s perception matter only as far as it goes towards motive. What one does, can also establish motive. Mueller was clearly looking for a way to minimize his obstruction finding. Since he was already under his bosses orders not to recommend charges based on obstruction, he needed some way to justify it, rather than saying I’m just following orders. (orders in this case mean the DOJ position on Presidential obstruction of justice).

  21. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted May 23, 2019 at 9:32 am | Permalink

    I’ll shut the fuck up if I please. You’re not the one to make me do it. Reality has made you shut the fuck up though and it is right in line with everything I’ve said. No conspiracy with Russia by any American found by Mueller. Not only do you have to shut the fuck up you have to eat everything you said about it just like I said you would.

  22. Frosted Flakes
    Posted May 23, 2019 at 9:46 am | Permalink

    Wobblie,

    I am missing your point about Sessions. Trump hoping he had Sessions loyalty makes perfect sense if Trump perceived a “witch-hunt”. I don’t get it.

    TTYL

  23. Dogmatic Dolt
    Posted May 23, 2019 at 10:21 am | Permalink

    Aloha FF, it seems if your hypothetical treason against Trump is true, then Sessions as head of the DOJ for two years had to be covering it up, just like Pompeo had to be covering up the CIA complicity in the Treason. Chris Wray obviously would also have to be in on it. The only other answer to a continuing cover-up of treason within the DOJ, the FBI and CIA is that all of the appointees by Trump are as dumb as me and are simply dolts.

  24. Dogmatic Dolt
    Posted May 23, 2019 at 10:22 am | Permalink

    Aloha FF, forgot to ask being a dolt I forgot to ask what is TTYL mean.

  25. Hyborian Pudlord
    Posted May 23, 2019 at 10:52 am | Permalink

    Warlord got the wif doz
    Limp dick honky frontin like he’s got ho’s
    But there just ain’t no replacement
    For Rosie Palmer in mom’s basement
    Player too fat to even see his toes

  26. Dogmatic Dolt
    Posted May 23, 2019 at 11:13 am | Permalink

    Aloha, FF, I know I am a dolt and am slow, but I learned to google,
    TTYL

  27. Anonymous
    Posted May 23, 2019 at 11:31 am | Permalink

    Pelosi says he want’s to be impeached.

    “The White House is just crying out for impeachment. That’s why he flipped yesterday,” Pelosi says of Trump.

    https://twitter.com/feliciasonmez/status/1131583623361159171

  28. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted May 23, 2019 at 11:56 am | Permalink

    Hey, you are the one putting out the pudlord vibe to the world. That’s you. I’m the Slayer of Unreason, bitch. Fucking alll your shit up. It’s a bad look to get torn up every single day and all you have is some weird sexual “putdowns”. It’s truly ill. What would YOUR mom think if she read what you write? You are the momma’s boy, right? Just making sure I’ve got my derps straight.

  29. GOP Congressman Justin Amash
    Posted May 23, 2019 at 12:58 pm | Permalink

    Mueller’s report describes a consistent effort by the president to use his office to obstruct or otherwise corruptly impede the Russian election interference investigation because it put his interests at risk.

  30. Dogmatic Dolt
    Posted May 23, 2019 at 1:17 pm | Permalink

    Aloha Justin, I know lots of folks who frequent this web site think you are just another worthless Republican. But I have learned that you are a man of honor and principles. Country before Party. If only you could convince some of your more principled colleagues to do the right thing.
    Now if only the Democrats could convince Pelosie.

  31. Dogmatic Dolt
    Posted May 23, 2019 at 1:23 pm | Permalink

    Aloha, Here is Nancy’s latest take on impeachment. She does not want to give up on the Democrats best fund raiser ever.

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/speaker-pelosi-speaks-to-reporters-after-white-house-temper-tantrum-over-investigations-live-stream-today-2019-05-23/

  32. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted May 23, 2019 at 2:49 pm | Permalink

    Emiliano Salinas, son of former Mexican President named co-conspirator in NXIVM case. Damn, what’s up? You’ve got (elite) billionaires, a hollywood actress and family of a head of state on trial for horrific crimes against women and children; exactly the kind of thing that triggers a spasm of ridicule on this sorry blog.

    You people are getting sooo fucked up every day but you just put on your protective ignorance layer and pretend it’s not happening exactly how I said. I love to see it. If you had been chill like I was when I first came around it wouldn’t matter to me how you felt about the changes ahead. I probably wouldn’t have stuck around. Now in slow motion I get to see your type of thinking get destroyed forever. It’s so good!

  33. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted May 23, 2019 at 2:53 pm | Permalink

    Do not forget that Clinton connection. Illegally bundled money came from Salzman and Bronfman through NXIVM members.

  34. Bob
    Posted May 23, 2019 at 5:41 pm | Permalink

    Is there an entire channel or app with hours of poetry devoted to making fun of Hyborian Warlords dick? There should be. Hilarious.

  35. EOS
    Posted May 23, 2019 at 7:41 pm | Permalink

    The FISA docs will be declassified and released at the same time the IG report will be released by Horowitz. Soon.

  36. Anonymous
    Posted May 23, 2019 at 7:48 pm | Permalink

    And then what? I have been hearing “coming soon” for more than two years now and nothing really happens.

  37. Posted May 23, 2019 at 8:29 pm | Permalink

    Yet.

  38. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted May 23, 2019 at 9:10 pm | Permalink

    Trump orders declassification of intelligence in Russia probe origins
    Washington Times-55 minutes ago

    Q let us know this would be how it will go a long time ago. The end of the Mueller blockade then DECLAS. After that the OIG report, then indictments and justice.

  39. Frosted Flakes
    Posted May 23, 2019 at 9:32 pm | Permalink

    Wobblie,

    In this case (T)alk (T)o (Y)ou (L)Ater meant I needed to exit our conversation because my mom’s meatloaf was ready to eat and I knew it would take me about ten hours to eat, leave my dirty dishes at the end of the sink, and get re-settled in mom’s basement. I am back now.

    I think there are lots of possibilities other than the extremes of Sessions being a) part of treasonous activities; or b) Sessions being an idiot.

    The fisa warrants were granted prior to his arrival.

    Corruption occurs unbeknownst to leaders all the time.

  40. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted May 23, 2019 at 9:34 pm | Permalink

    Sessions will be a witness. That is why he recused.

  41. Frosted Flakes
    Posted May 23, 2019 at 9:40 pm | Permalink

    Mr Amash,

    I have a hard time simply accepting your conclusions without hearing your reasoning behind your conclusion. I am wondering: 1)What are the most egregious examples, in your opinion, of Trump’s obstruction?; 2) what specific “interests” was Trump trying to serve, in those most egregious examples of obstruction that you allege?

  42. Lucky Pierre
    Posted May 24, 2019 at 6:34 am | Permalink

    “Whether or not Trump obstructed is obviously an open question, insofar as there are people that are raising the obstruction question.”

    No, there is no question. Trump very obviously obstructed justice. You would know this if you read the Mueller Report. It’s clear that you haven’t. Go seek the truth now.

    “Mr Amash, I have a hard time simply accepting your conclusions without hearing your reasoning behind your conclusion.”

    Then read the Mueller Report! If you are able to find any evidence in the report that Trump did NOT obstruct justice, please share it with us (and be specific).

  43. disinterested observer
    Posted May 24, 2019 at 6:42 am | Permalink

    In my impartial opinion Hyborian Warlord’s pudlord vibe is more authentic than Hyborian Pudlord’s, but Hyborian Pudlord has better flow.

  44. Frosted Flakes
    Posted May 24, 2019 at 7:22 am | Permalink

    Lucky Pierre is using a similar appeal to authority that Amash seems to be using.

    Amash claims he read it very carefully. He claimed others have not read it–implying they don’t know. He gave his conclusions without his reasoning.

    Whenever someone gives conclusions without their reasoning it is a red flag. It would be like haveing your neighbor call the cops on you and accusing you of assault. When the cops show up to question the neighbor on the specifics of the assault your neighbor says “my neighbor assaulted me. Don’t you know what assault is? Do you need a dictionary so you can look up the meaning of ‘assault’?”

    When a person gets assaulted, for example, they readily explain the details of the assault. They desire to explain the specifics. For example they will say first he pushed me from behind, then when I turned around he punched me in the right eye, then he kicked me in the leg, then he spit in my face….Then they will show evidence of the assault–look here is a picture of my black right eye, here is the bruise on my leg and here is my neighbor who saw him spit on me….

    Amash might have reasoning behind his conclusions. But, I searched the internet a few days ago and could not find him offering his reasoning. He gives a thesis with no argument. It is normal to ask him for specifics. He has announced himself as an expert. True experts enjoy displaying their nuanced knowledge on the specifics of a particular subject. Let’s see it Mr. Amash. Go for it. I am all ears.

  45. Frosted Flakes
    Posted May 24, 2019 at 7:33 am | Permalink

    Also, I have read the parts about potential obstruction a few times, actually. I am not convinced of obstruction at all. I am willing to consider obstruction an open question, however. I am more than willing to listen to reasoning….However, it is an additional red flag, in my opinion, when people seem to think it is possible to answer the question of obstruction without also trying to figure out the validity of Trump’s perceptions about it being a witch-hunt. The interplay between (possible) Treason vs. (possible) Obstruction is the dynamic that necessarily must be analyzed if we hope to be able to figure out the truth in this situation.

  46. Frosted Flakes
    Posted May 24, 2019 at 7:41 am | Permalink

    Following Amash’s lead: I think my two questions are a good place to start:

    1) What, in Amash’s opinion, are the most egregious examples of Trump’s “corrupt” obstruction.

    2) What, in Amash’s opinion, were the specific “interests” Trump was protecting within those specific “corrupt” acts of obstruction.

  47. Frosted Flakes
    Posted May 24, 2019 at 8:01 am | Permalink

    “Trump very obviously obstructed justice.”–Lucky Pierre

    So, LP does not think Mueller presented obstruction as an open question?

    That is an interesting claim. If I only I read the report maybe I could come with some quotes that would put LP’s claim into doubt. Oh well. I guess LP is right. Trump obstructed. Next.

  48. John Brown
    Posted May 24, 2019 at 8:17 am | Permalink

    Any of you Nazi enablers going to Dayton tomorrow for the KKK rally? These are the people who’s evil you support by supporting Agent Orange. They love him just as much as you. They’re your bedfellows.

    https://twitter.com/AntiFashGordon/status/1131610951332052993

  49. Frosted Flakes
    Posted May 24, 2019 at 8:21 am | Permalink

    The third red flag for me is the absence of any discussion of extent.

    When the neighbor you assaulted is questioned by the cops he does not say “his knuckles made contact with my right eye socket”. Rather, he naturally says, “he punched my right eye so hard it made my eyeball bleed” or something similar. Let’s assume Trump obstructed. What was the extent of that obstruction in those specific cases. Did the obstruction make certain questions unanswerable? Did the obstruction delay the investigation? How much of a delay?

    Maybe these questions can all be answered. I am not an expert like Amash.

  50. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted May 24, 2019 at 8:25 am | Permalink

    This place is so scummy. Flakes, your kindness and patience are wasted.

  51. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted May 24, 2019 at 8:34 am | Permalink

    John Brown has more in common with the KKK than anyone here. They both base their life on racial hatred and agitate for race war. I think Johnny should go down there all gunned up to determine who is the king of hate once and for all.

  52. Frosted Flakes
    Posted May 24, 2019 at 8:40 am | Permalink

    They don’t seem to want to know the truth about anything do they?

  53. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted May 24, 2019 at 8:44 am | Permalink

    In fact they actively suppress the truth. Too bad that illusion is becoming decreasingly possible to maintain. See how flat ignorant comments like “Agent Orange” fall now.

  54. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted May 24, 2019 at 8:48 am | Permalink

    One of the latest spate of Q posts: https://qanon.pub/data/media/55f970e2297b26994ec0d11119e16d9cfd85a5974d69e33ee443f610f465d22a.png

    It’s happening!

  55. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted May 24, 2019 at 9:13 am | Permalink

    May finished as PM, will step down June 7th

  56. Dogmatic Dolt
    Posted May 24, 2019 at 11:45 am | Permalink

    Aloha, FF, the events you are describing are in fact assault and battery. Assault is in fact more nuanced, much like obstruction of justice. You do not need to actually physically touch some one to be guilty of assault, the victim only needs to fear physical harm. So just like with obstruction of justice, you just need to establish intent, thus no need for an underlying crime. Though in Trumps case the underlying crime is the obstruction of a legally authorized investigation. It matters not one iota that the investigation did not uncover “collusion”. If Trump’s actions impeded the investigation that equals obstruction. His firing Comy because Comy was pursuing the investigation equals 1 count of obstruction. Trumps own words establish that that is the reason he fired Comy. It does not matter if it was all a “witch hunt”, the investigation was legally established. As Mueller’s report establishes there are a total of 10 such incidence that are obstructions of the investigation. In Trumps case, as with all Federal employees (it is so easy to forget that our Leaders actually are simply employees of the state, m) he took an oath stating that he would faithfully execute the laws of the country, so his transgression seems to be of a higher order.

  57. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted May 24, 2019 at 12:11 pm | Permalink

    Comey defrauded the court to start the investigation. Not allowing yourself to be illegally railroaded with false information is a crime for what reason? Far from obstructing it, the President is exposing crime.

  58. Frosted Flakes
    Posted May 24, 2019 at 1:22 pm | Permalink

    No Wobblie, In my hypothetical the neighbor was lying about getting assaulted. That was my point. Thanks for picking out a specific potential example of obstruction though. I don’t buy it.

    Trump really didn’t say, as you seem to suggest, that “I fired Comey because I wanted to stop his looking into ‘collusion’.” Your statement is just not true. Rather, Trump said, and I am paraphrasing: “I was going to fire Comey anyway. His handling of the collusion thing was another example of his incompetence…I fired Comey because he is incompetent.”

    Depending on how this shakes out (see HW’s comment) I think Trump was probably being generous to Comey there. That is, he was firing Comey because he incompetent and possibly corrupt…

    There is no getting around it: The dynamic interplay between (possible) Treason vs. (possible) Obstruction is the only way to understand the truth in this case. Anybody who tells you otherwise is lying or dumb.

  59. Lucky Pierre
    Posted May 24, 2019 at 3:17 pm | Permalink

    FF said: “Lucky Pierre is using a similar appeal to authority that Amash seems to be using.

    Nope, I read the whole report and it is plain as day Trump not only lied, but attempted to induce others to lie to mislead the public and the FBI, but I have an open mind if you would like to explain why you disagree. Please quote the portion of the report, and be specific what you question about it.

  60. John Brown
    Posted May 24, 2019 at 4:03 pm | Permalink

    Just a heads up that the Kraken has been released. Looks like we’re going to be grilling octopus for Memorial day. Yum!

    But seriously, it’s Nazis appropriating Norse mythology all over again. Deja Vu.

    https://twitter.com/Mediaite/status/1132012319335018496?s=19

  61. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted May 24, 2019 at 4:23 pm | Permalink

    “Nope, I read the whole report and it is plain as day Trump not only lied, but attempted to induce others to lie to mislead the public and the FBI, but I have an open mind if you would like to explain why you disagree. Please quote the portion of the report, and be specific what you question about it.”

    You just did the same thing, dumbass.

  62. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted May 24, 2019 at 4:59 pm | Permalink

    University of Pennsylvania study finds decreasing racial prejudice during Trump years. Their hypothesis was it would be increased.

    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3378076

  63. Lucky Pierre
    Posted May 24, 2019 at 5:47 pm | Permalink

    “You just did the same thing, dumbass.”

    You keep squawking “no collusion, no obstruction” because that is what your cult leader tells you. Is there anything in the report that does not suggest Trump obstructed? Please be specific and state why.

  64. Frosted Flakes
    Posted May 24, 2019 at 6:20 pm | Permalink

    LP,

    The burden of proof is on the accuser. It would be easiest if you just told us which of trump’s lies constitutes obstruction in your mind but it seems like you think is some of kind game.

    Anyway, I propose we go through the lies together, accepting Mueller’s report as factual, and examine which specific lies might constitute Trump obstructing Justice.

    CNN has a list of 77 falsehoods. Is that an ok list?

    We can take turns going through the list:

    #1 Trump claimed Comey invited him to dinner. Comey claimed Trump invited him to dinner. Mueller said there was substantial evidence that Trump invited Comey to dinner. Obstruction? Yes or NO?

    #2 and #3 On two separate occasions Trump denied “shooing other guests out of a room” which led to Comey and Trump being alone. Mueller said there was substantial evidence that Trump did “shoo people out of a room”. Obstruction? Yes or no?

    Your turn.

  65. Frosted Flakes
    Posted May 24, 2019 at 6:42 pm | Permalink

    Google: “77 lies and falsehoods Mueller called out, CNN”

    Or maybe you want to go at this from a different angle? You suggested there were uncovered lies that definitively showed collusion so I went with that…

  66. Frosted Flakes
    Posted May 24, 2019 at 6:58 pm | Permalink

    *obstruction

  67. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted May 24, 2019 at 9:01 pm | Permalink

    Yeah, I’m in a cult that helps you to think for yourself. No American was found to be conspiring with Russia in any way. Certainly not in the President’s camp. No indictments. To ask what in the report doesn’t suggest obstruction is about the dumbest thing imaginable. It’s hard to believe there are people like you walking around in the modern world.

  68. Frosted Flakes
    Posted May 24, 2019 at 9:47 pm | Permalink

    It sounds like HW is voting “no obstruction” on Trump inviting Comey to dinner and Trump shooing some guests at the dinner party in question. Where’s your vote Lucky? Let’s go down the list together.

  69. Frosted Flakes
    Posted May 25, 2019 at 8:06 am | Permalink

    Oh come on Lucky. I am giving you the fun stuff.

    The next 5 or 6 supposed lies, according to CNN, involve Trump asking for “loyalty” and Trump asking Comey to “let Flynn go”. I am excited about this. This is a good chance for you to prove a)you carefully read the report; and b) we also get to talk about legal definitions; and c) we also get to analyze the corroborating evidence; and d) we get to question whether or not CNN is presenting the facts in a straightforward manner.

    Let’s do this! It is your turn.

  70. Lucky
    Posted May 25, 2019 at 9:19 am | Permalink

    FF, did you really read the report? Why then do you only want to debate media narratives about it, instead of what is actually written in it? I asked if you would quote any portion and state specifically why you interpret it to suggest that Trump is innocent. Is it really an open question whether he obstructed? Surely then you should be able to quote some actual evidence from the report instead of what someone on CNN said about it.

    Alright then, you could have picked anything but you didn’t so here’s something from volume 2, page 97. Please explain specifically why you believe any reasonable person might have an open question that it represents anything besides obstruction of justice:

    “In analyzing the President’s efforts to have Lewandowski deliver a message directing Sessions to publicly announce that the Special Counsel investigation would be confined to future election interference, the following evidence is relevant to the elements of obstruction of justice:

    a. Obstructive act. The President’s effort to send Sessions a message through Lewandowski would qualify as an obstructive act if it would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.

    The President sought to have Sessions announce that the President “shouldn’t have a Special Prosecutor/Counsel” and that Sessions was going to meet with the Special Prosecutor to explain this is very unfair and let the Special Prosecutor move forward with investigating election meddling for future elections so that nothing can happen in future elections.” The President wanted Sessions to disregard his recusal from the investigation, which had followed from a formal DOJ ethics review, and have Sessions declare that he knew “for a fact” that “there were no Russians involved with the campaign” because he “was there.” The President further directed that Sessions should explain that the President should not be subject to an investigation “because he hasn’t done anything wrong.” Taken together, the President’s directives indicate that Sessions was being instructed to tell the Special Counsel to end the existing investigation into the President and his campaign, with the Special Counsel being permitted to move forward with investigating election meddling for future elections.”

    b. Nexus to an official proceeding. As described above, by the time of the President’s initial one-on-one meeting with Lewandowski on June 19, 2017, the existence of a grand jury investigation supervised by the Special Counsel was public knowledge. By the time of the President’s follow-up meeting with Lewandowski, ****redacted, grand jury ************
    ***********************************************************************************
    ***********************************************************************************
    See Volume II, Section II.G, infra. To satisfy the nexus requirement, it would be necessary to show that limiting the Special Counsel’s investigation would have the natural and probable effect of impeding that grand jury proceeding.

    c. Intent. Substantial evidence indicates that the President’s effort to have Sessions limit the scope of the Special Counsel’s investigation to future election interference was intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct.

    As previously described, see Volume II, Section II.B, supra, the President knew that the Russia investigation was focused in part on his campaign, and he perceived allegations of Russian interference to cast doubt on the legitimacy of his election. The President further knew that the investigation had broadened to include his own conduct and whether he had obstructed justice. Those investigations would not proceed if the Special Counsel’s jurisdiction were limited to future election interference only.

    The timing and circumstances of the President’s actions support the conclusion that he sought that result. The President’s initial direction that Sessions should limit the Special Counsel’s investigation came just two days after the President had ordered McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed, which itself followed public reports that the President was personally under investigation for obstruction of justice. The sequence of those events raises an inference that after seeking to terminate the Special Counsel, the President sought to exclude his and his campaign’s conduct from the investigation’s scope. The President raised the matter with Lewandowski again on July 19, 2017, just days after emails and information about the June 9, 2016 meeting between Russians and senior campaign officials had been publicly disclosed, generating substantial media coverage and investigative interest.

    The manner in which the President acted provides additional evidence of his intent. Rather than rely on official channels, the President met with Lewandowski alone in the Oval Office. The President selected a loyal “devotee” outside the White House to deliver the message, supporting an inference that he was working outside White House channels, including McGahn, who had previously resisted contacting the Department of Justice about the Special Counsel. The President also did not contact the Acting Attorney General, who had just testified publicly that there was no cause to remove the Special Counsel. Instead, the President tried to use Sessions to restrict and redirect the Special Counsel’s investigation when Sessions was recused and could not properly take any action on it.

    The July 19, 2017 events provide further evidence of the President’s intent. The President followed up with Lewandowski in a separate one-on-one meeting one month after he first dictated the message for Sessions, demonstrating he still sought to pursue the request. And just hours after Lewandowski assured the President that the message would soon be delivered to Sessions, the President gave an unplanned interview to the New York Times in which he publicly attacked Sessions and raised questions about his job security. Four days later, on July 22, 2017, the President directed Priebus to obtain Sessions’s resignation. That evidence could raise an inference that the President wanted Sessions to realize that his job might be on the line as he evaluated whether to comply with the President’s direction that Sessions publicly announce that, notwithstanding his recusal, he was going to confine the Special Counsel’s investigation to future election interference.”

  71. Frosted Flakes
    Posted May 25, 2019 at 12:44 pm | Permalink

    Mom made meatloaf again. I apologize it will be awhile before I get back to her basement computer. Thank you for singling out a passage you think shows obstruction.

    Since it is going to be awhile I will ask you this favor: Take a look at my claim and compare it to what you said I claimed. Think about how what you are asking of me does not speak to my claim and what you are asking is fundamentally contrary to the principles of our legal system.

    I am asking you to do this re-view, because, I believe there are quite a few basic misunderstandings and misapprehensions going on (on your end) that I will need to address before we can even begin to look at the Sessions stuff together.

    I think it is important to examine this stuff together. I truly do.

  72. Lucky Pierre
    Posted May 25, 2019 at 1:09 pm | Permalink

    I don’t care what you think I misunderstand about you. Read the damn Mueller report and explain how you think any portion of it exonerated Trump!

  73. Frosted Flakes
    Posted May 25, 2019 at 2:50 pm | Permalink

    Mom’s meatloaf so I need to go fast.

    Why does Lucky Pierre smell exactly like another french dude named Jean Henry?

    Are already beaten dead horses coming out of retirement again?

    It really is not a matter of opinion. Your questions and statements indicate that you are very confused person about a) basic logic; b) basic principles of law; and c) the positions of the person you are engaging with (me).

    Quick question: Why would I follow your instruction to try to “explain how [I] think any portion of the Mueller Report exonerated Trump [on obstruction]” when it is not my position that the Mueller Report exonerated trump on obstruction? I already said, for the purpose of this conversation, I am willing to accept the Mueller Report as a true presentation of evidence and the Mueller Report specifically states: With regard to obstruction Trump is not totally exonerated.

    (There is more tedious bullshit we need to get through before we look at Sessions.)

  74. Frosted Flakes
    Posted May 25, 2019 at 9:29 pm | Permalink

    “FF, did you really read the report? Why then do you only want to debate media narratives about it, instead of what is actually written in it?”–Lucky

    I did not read the whole report. Like I said, I read most of the parts on obstruction, however. Some of the parts on obstruction I read several times. In other areas I am guilty of skimming for sure…I don’t want want to debate media narratives particularly. My introduction of the CNN compilation of “lies” was my attempt to follow your lead because you said: “it is plain as day Trump not only lied, but attempted to induce others to lie.” You seemed to be making a connection between specific lies and your case for obstruction. Obstruction often deals with lies. The CNN piece catalogs the 77 lies. I thought we could go through the lies systematically. I asked you if you liked that idea but you did not respond. Anyway, it is not really necessary if you are willing to pick out a part of the report you think proves your claim that Trump “obviously obstructed”.

    I thank you for making the selection of the report that deals with Sessions, which I assume you believe proves “obstruction is not an open question–because Trump obviously obstructed”; but much of what you have said, asked, and requested makes almost no sense and you really haven’t said much….

    You said: “I asked if you would quote any portion and state specifically why you interpret it to suggest that Trump is innocent.”

    Why would I do that? My claim is that obstruction is an open question. Your claim is that obstruction is not an open question–because he “obviously” obstructed. Do you understand what “open question” means? Do you understand that Mueller’s task was not to prove innocence? Do you understand the concept of presumption of innocence until proven guilty? Mueller’s task was to investigate by collecting evidence and offer a prosecutorial judgment. The fact that he is dealing with the president makes the traditional prosecutorial judgment a murkier act. Mueller chose to not make a prosecutorial judgment, thus effectively preserving the question of the obstruction as an open question. Why in the fuck would anyone, who has read the report, or even summaries of the report think anything differently? It makes no sense.

    Why in the fuck would you say obstruction is not an open question? Not an open question in what way? Legally? Nope. In your mind? Maybe–but short of you offering an argument that obstruction occurred–why would anyone care what your stated opinion on obstruction happens to be?

    You said: “Is it really an open question whether he obstructed? Surely then you should be able to quote some actual evidence from the report.”

    You also said: “Is there anything in the report that does not suggest Trump obstructed?”

    These are very strange questions and statements if you understand what Mueller was doing. The Mueller report is not intended to be a compilation of evidence of Trump doing things that is NOT obstructing for God’s sake. Is this a real question? You asked something similar earlier and HW made fun of you. Do you understand why the question makes no sense and is deserving of ridicule?

  75. Sad
    Posted May 25, 2019 at 9:58 pm | Permalink

    What about those Covington kids FF?

  76. Frosted Flakes
    Posted May 25, 2019 at 11:30 pm | Permalink

    I am not sure. The Covington kids are probably doing better than the bigoted adults that were pushing a false narrative about them.

  77. Sad
    Posted May 26, 2019 at 5:50 am | Permalink

    Hundred dollars bills better.

    FF is always standing up for the little guy.

    No breaks, no vacations.

  78. Sad
    Posted May 26, 2019 at 5:51 am | Permalink

    https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2019/05/02/nick-sandmann-covington-catholic-students-legal-team-sues-nbc-msnbc/3649359002/

  79. Jean Henry
    Posted May 26, 2019 at 6:17 am | Permalink

    FF– while I’m happy to be associated with Lucky Pierre, I didn’t read the Mueller Report and have no intention of going deep into it. There is nothing more boring than engaging you in a debate. Your logic is circular and you are profoundly incapable of self-examination. And then there are the attempts to direct the discourse. I’m sure he’ll realize that soon enough. No, it’s not me. You have bored me one too many times.

  80. Jean Henry
    Posted May 26, 2019 at 6:18 am | Permalink

    PS why do I suspect the ‘Mom’ to which you refer is your wife?

  81. Frosted Flakes
    Posted May 26, 2019 at 6:46 am | Permalink

    Constantly going back to clear up basic misapprehensions is not circular logic it is unfortunately a necessary tedious task when dealing with people that have constant misapprehensions about basic things.

    From Sad’s article: “False accusers should not rest easy.”

    Sounds right to me.

  82. Frosted Flakes
    Posted May 26, 2019 at 7:13 am | Permalink

    PS Why do I suspect what Jean calls “boring” is actually a kind of childish frustration she feels when someone challenges the “supreme authority” of her baseless opinions that are often not grounded in any evidence whatsoever?

  83. Dogmatic Dolt
    Posted May 26, 2019 at 8:10 am | Permalink

    Aloha FF, I’m sorry but I find your obstruction argument to be fundamentally flawed. You also must recognize this as well. Other wise why, after establishing your hypothetical, would you then pull out of thin air a new fact to add to your hypothetical? ” In my hypothetical the neighbor was lying about getting assaulted. ” This is called introducing facts that are not in evidence. On what basis do you know the neighbor was lying? Did you conduct an investigation and determined they were lying? No you simply made up new facts to support your false argument. I do see that you move like a butterfly, but I’m sorry the dolt does not see that you have a stinger.

  84. Frosted Flakes
    Posted May 26, 2019 at 8:18 am | Permalink

    Consider these hypotheticals:

    1) Trump knows he is guilty of collusion. Trump asks Lewandowski to ask Sessions to limit the scope of the investigation to protect himself. Lewandowski actually asks Sessions to limit the scope of the investigation. Sessions follows the order. Obvious obstruction? I say yes.

    2) Trump knows he is guilty of collusion. Trump asks Lewandowski to ask Sessions to limit the scope of the investigation to protect himself. Lewandowski actually asks Sessions to limit the scope of the investigation. Sessions does NOT follow the order. Obvious obstruction? I would call it an obvious ATTEMPT at obstruction. Still obstruction.

    3) Trump knows he is guilty of collusion. Trump asks Lewandowski to ask Sessions to limit the scope of the investigation to protect himself. Lewandowski refuses to give the message to Sessions because it feels like obstruction. Trump does not ask anybody else to ask Sessions to limit the scope of the investigation. The execution of Trump’s intent terminates with Lewandowski. IMO this is also an obvious Attempt at obstruction. Still obstruction.

    More later. Mom’s meatloaf.

  85. Lucky Pierre
    Posted May 26, 2019 at 8:24 am | Permalink

    You can’t offer an innocent explanation for any of Trump’s actions documented in the report. Instead you want to debate the meaning of “obstruction” and “open question”. I don’t have time for this obtuse nonsense. Good day to you, sir. Bon jour, fou!

  86. Frosted Flakes
    Posted May 26, 2019 at 8:24 am | Permalink

    DD,

    I was offering the assault hypothetical only to try to illustrate why I got a red flag from reading Amash’s statements/ summary/ judgment.

  87. Frosted Flakes
    Posted May 26, 2019 at 8:31 am | Permalink

    LP,

    Thinks we ought to accept his truth claim that “obstruction is not an open question because Trump obviously obstructed” without considering the meaning of “obstruction”? We haven’t even got to that point. More tedious clearing up to come but first Mom’s breakfast meatloaf, of course.

    TTYL

  88. Frosted Flakes
    Posted May 26, 2019 at 8:35 am | Permalink

    Lynne

  89. Frosted Flakes
    Posted May 26, 2019 at 9:13 am | Permalink

    I am also surprised we need to clarify what “open question” means. We need to do it though because of your foggy thinking, right?

  90. Frosted Flakes
    Posted May 26, 2019 at 12:06 pm | Permalink

    4) Trump knows he is did not collude. Trump asks Lewandowski to ask Sessions to limit the scope of the investigation to PROTECT HIMSELF FROM THE HASSLE OF FURTHER SCRUTINY. Lewandowski actually asks Sessions to limit the scope of the investigation. Sessions follows the order. Obvious obstruction? I think so.

    5) Trump knows he did not collude. Trump asks Lewandowski to ask Sessions to limit the scope of the investigation to PROTECT HIMSELF FROM THE HASSLES OF FURTHER SCRUTINY. Lewandowski actually asks Sessions to limit the scope of the investigation. Sessions does NOT follow the order. Obvious obstruction? I would call it an obvious ATTEMPT at obstruction. Still obstruction.

    6) Trump knows he did not collude. Trump asks Lewandowski to ask Sessions to limit the scope of the investigation to PROTECT HIMSELF FROM THE HASSLE OF FURTHER SCRUTINY. Lewandowski refuses to give the message to Sessions because it feels like obstruction. Trump does not ask anybody else to ask Sessions to limit the scope of the investigation. The execution of Trump’s intent terminates with Lewandowski. IMO this is also is where we begin to enter grey area. It is not an obvious attempt at obstruction. probably still obstruction. OPEN QUESTION.

    7) Trump knows he did not collude. Trump asks Lewandowski to ask Sessions to limit the scope of the investigation NOT ONLY TO PROTECT HIMSELF FROM THE HASSLE OF FURTHER SCRUTINY BUT BECAUSE HE BELIEVES THAT BAD ACTORS ARE, THROUGH ILLEGAL MEANS, TRYING TO DELIGITAMIZE HIS PRESIDENCY FOR THEIR POLITICAL ENDS. Lewandowski refuses to give the message to Sessions because it feels like obstruction. Trump does not ask anybody else to ask Sessions to limit the scope of the investigation. The execution of Trump’s intent terminates with Lewandowski. Obstruction is definitely an OPEN QUESTION in this scenario. IMO probably NOT OBSTRUCTION.

    7) Trump knows he did not collude. Trump asks Lewandowski to ask Sessions to limit the scope of the investigation NOT ONLY TO PROTECT HIMSELF FROM THE HASSLE OF FURTHER SCRUTINY; AND NOT ONLY BECAUSE HE BELIEVES THAT BAD ACTORS ARE, THROUGH ILLEGAL MEANS, TRYING TO DELIGITAMIZE HIS PRESIDENCY FOR THEIR POLITICAL ENDS; BUT ALSO BECAUSE THERE IS PROOF, VIA AN INVESTIGATION OF THE INVESTIGATION, THAT ILLEGAL STEPS WERE TAKEN WITH THE INTENT TO DELEGITAMIZE THE DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED PRESIDENT VIA A WEAPONIZED FBI . Lewandowski refuses to give the message to Sessions because it feels like obstruction. Trump does not ask anybody else to ask Sessions to limit the scope of the investigation. The execution of Trump’s intent terminates with Lewandowski. Obstruction is definitely off the table. Time to prepare yourselves for the kind of stuff HW has been talking about.

    There is more to say obviously, but the main point is that anybody who tells you that it does not matter whether or not Trump colluded is lying. If anybody tells you the dynamic between (possible) Treason vs. (possible) Obstruction does not matter they are lying. If what I say is true then what is Amash doing? He is not giving details and he is not recognizing the necessary need to analyze the dynamic between Treason and Obstruction in order to get toward the truth.

    Amash does mention Trump did not need to break the law to impeached. LOL. Yes. No shit Sherlock. Please tell us more about impeachment….We should discuss things like consequences. Impeachment has consequences. Losing an election has consequences too.

  91. Sad
    Posted May 26, 2019 at 2:07 pm | Permalink

    Do you think anyone is going to read any of that?

  92. Anonymous
    Posted May 26, 2019 at 2:21 pm | Permalink

    TLDR

  93. Dogmatic Dolt
    Posted May 26, 2019 at 3:17 pm | Permalink

    Aloha FF, I thought this was supposed to demonstrate the FBI / Democratic Party collusion

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:A_Review_of_Various_Actions_by_the_FBI_and_DOJ_in_Advance_of_the_2016_Election.pdf

    HW also touted this report for months. I guess it is all part of the secret indictments.

  94. Lucky Pierre
    Posted May 26, 2019 at 6:51 pm | Permalink

    So many words to say you don’t deny that Trump kept interfering with the Mueller investigation, but you think there should be some kind of “self-defense” exception to obstruction of justice. There isn’t. Also Trump wasn’t the sole target of the investigation.
    You entertain the idea Trump interfered because he knew he was innocent. Did he know Manafort and Flynn were innocent too? They weren’t. The same investigation Trump was trying to shut down proved they were corrupt foreign agents. You can argue about whether Trump was trying to protect them or not, but at the end of the day it doesn’t matter. He had no business obstructing the investigation.

  95. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted May 26, 2019 at 7:23 pm | Permalink

    Flynn is in fact innocent and Manafort’s charges had nothing to do with Trump. Flynn will be fine, watch.

  96. Frosted Flakes
    Posted May 26, 2019 at 7:37 pm | Permalink

    LP,

    You want less words? Sorry. I tried.

    I offered hypotheticals to try to show a range of possibilities and interpretations of the situation. I believe hypothetical 7 is the closest-quick-summary to reality in that one specific slice of the investigation.

    I am sorry but I don’t understand what you mean when you say “[I] think there should be some kind of ‘self-defense’ exception to obstruction of justice. There isn’t”. Seriously, what is that statement even supposed to mean. Corrupt intent is part of the threshold for showing obstruction. Establishing intent does not occur in a vacuum.

    I do think you picked one of the more persuasive aspects of the report that might be used for arguments for obstruction. However, saying that “obstruction is not an open question because he obviously obstructed” just isn’t a very easily defensible position at all.

    “You entertain the idea Trump interfered because he knew he was innocent.”

    Actually, if you read what I wrote, again. (All you have to do is compare my opinion on 4,5, and 6 with my opinion on 7 and 8.) I obviously do not think there is a necessary link between Trump’s knowledge of his own innocence (of collusion) and any perceived legal “right” Trump might think he has to interfere. Trump’s actual status as guilty or not guilty does not speak to the legality of any interference directly. However, Trump’s knowledge of his status of guilt does speak to intent, as does evidence that he perceived it as a witch-hunt. His knowledge and perceptions, are the key factors, in this little slice of the report, in establishing whether or not his intent is corrupt. I know you do not want to talk about legal definitions but corrupt intent is a threshold which must be passed for proving obstruction. The fact that there might be evidence, in the investigation of the investigation, that support Trump’s perceptions, even if they turn out to be weak pieces of evidence is frosting on the cake for Trump. We do not know how thick that frosting will turn out to be, imo.

    Do you dispute that hypothetical 7 is the closest to reality without regard to my opinion on the status of the obstruction?

    I am going to resist the temptation to delve into different aspects. This is time consuming and I am not sure you understand what is going on in this tiny corner of the report. Sorry. Some of what you say does not make sense.

    If you have a very strong truth claim like: “Obstruction is not an open question, it is obvious he obstructed.” Then I think you should be able to hand pick at least one instance of obstruction where a lot of questions are not easily raised….Show me where I don’t make sense in this little corner of the report which you have hand picked. I am following your lead. If you say something that makes sense then I will move onto other areas with you…I might even agree with you.

  97. Sad
    Posted May 26, 2019 at 8:45 pm | Permalink

    This is Arby’s , Sir.

  98. Dogmatic Dolt
    Posted May 27, 2019 at 6:02 am | Permalink

    Aloha, Happy Memorial Day. It is good to see that we have a bi-partisan consensus that we do not have enough dead service men and woman to remember on Memorial Day.

    https://thegrayzone.com/2019/05/24/bipartisan-war-congress-trump-syria-iran-russia-hezbollah/?fbclid=IwAR05JnA-R-a__cgnOW6Vc__uELZGZNCP29WssZNCLglSNbJC8CjvTjGja34

  99. Jean Henry
    Posted May 27, 2019 at 6:00 pm | Permalink

    FF– you do not know what circular logic means and maybe should look it up.It does not mean redundancy. But you employ that too ad nauseum.

  100. Jean Henry
    Posted May 27, 2019 at 6:04 pm | Permalink

    Please, everyone should notice DD’s link the Inspector General’s report on FBI activity before the 2016 election. I await HW’s and EOS’ response.

  101. Jean Henry
    Posted May 27, 2019 at 6:15 pm | Permalink

    “This is Arby’s, Sir.” — best comment ever.

  102. Jean Henry
    Posted May 27, 2019 at 6:22 pm | Permalink

    Dolt– you led me astray. That’s the 2018 report. The Horowitz report is still pending…

  103. Frosted Flakes
    Posted May 27, 2019 at 6:25 pm | Permalink

    Jean Henry
    Posted May 27, 2019 at 6:00 pm | Permalink
    FF– you do not know what circular logic means and maybe should look it up.It does not mean redundancy. But you employ that too ad nauseum.

    I did not offer a definition of circular reasoning. I suspect I am more keenly aware of when circular reasoning is used than most. A few years ago I joked that circular reasoning would be an upgrade to the reasoning used here. It’s mostly heavy on thesis without supporting evidence. Jean is mostly all thesis without supporting evidence. If Jean thinks I am committing a logical fallacy then she should point it out.

    You guys are like: “Too many words. OMG now you want to discuss definitions. Totally boring.”

    Twitter logic all day long from people like you.

  104. Jean Henry
    Posted May 27, 2019 at 6:30 pm | Permalink

    FF- so were you referring to your wife as ‘Mom?’ Yes or no? One word answer, please. Inquiring minds want to know.

    PS you just spent more time explaining why you didn’t use the term ‘circular logic’ correctly (even though you assure us you know its meaning better than we do) than it would have taken to write out the definition. You really are insufferable.

    For Dolt: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/doj-inspector-generals-fisa-abuse-investigation-expected-to-finish-by-may-or-june

  105. Frosted Flakes
    Posted May 27, 2019 at 6:44 pm | Permalink

    When did I us the term “circular logic” incorrectly? When did offer a definition of circular logic?

    You made the accusation the accusation that I use circular logic. I denied it. I offered a guess why you made the accusation. The guess was partially based on my belief that you are not very good at detecting fallacies. It was a stab in the dark but a lot of responses to you are stabs in the dark because you don’t make sense.

    Another state in the dark: It is a holiday and you are drunk.

    Got to go. Mom is making me take out the garbage.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Connect

Sidetrack ad Aubree’s ad BUY LOCAL... or shop at Amazon through this link Banner Initiative Jeff Clark