The Mueller Report

[Mountain Man]

Random thoughts...

This "conversation" is basically an ongoing demonstration of confirmation bias, as well as the possibility that to a significant extent, political views are biologically rooted and not easily changed.

About the horde of "bipartisan" prosecutors that firmly believe Trump should have been formally charged with obstruction: I'm sure at least some of them were afflicted with TDS. I'm sure the vast majority are afflicted with something unrelated but probably even more pernicious: PDS, "Prosecutorial Derangement Syndrome." Prosecutors have an infamous tendency to seek scalps, and to look for ways to rationalize and justify the attempt.

It will be interesting to see the reactions on all sides when the IG and Durham results are completed and released.

About that open letter, none of them have any skin in the game. It's nothing more than their opinion, and if they're wrong, so what? Nobody is going care, so there is no risk whatsoever putting their name to it.

It would also be interesting to know who each of the signatories voted for in the last presidential election. It's a safe bet it wasn't Donald Trump.

[firstfloor]

Of course you would say that... but would you say the same og the honorable Judge Emmett Sullivan who smelled a rat in Mueller's case against Flynn and is forcing the dirty cop to come clean? Ironically, the more Mueller is forced to come clean, the dirtier he looks.

Unlike you, I do not jump to conclusions.

[Mountain Man]

Unlike you, I do not jump to conclusions.

[firstfloor]

The GOP’s fascination with all things Russia, won’t end well.

The other day, I was hearing about Ulysses S Grant. In those days, the Republicans were the progressives. What happened?

[Mountain Man]

There are times your posts seem disconnected from the general flow of conversation causing me to wonder if your comment was intended for another thread.

[Raphael]

The GOP’s fascination with all things Russia, won’t end well.

The other day, I was hearing about Ulysses S Grant. In those days, the Republicans were the progressives. What happened?

Democrats said "hold my beer and watch this" and proceed to ignore the warning signs and jump off the cliff.

[ke7ejx]

Democrats said "hold my beer and watch this" and proceed to ignore the warning signs and jump off the cliff.

[Tassman]

Yes, corrupt.

Shortly after his appointment as Special Counsel to investigate Russia’s alleged interference into the 2016 presidential election, a former colleague characterized Robert Mueller as “ramrod straight” and “utterly incorruptible.” Similar language was breathlessly repeated in mainstream media outlets such as Politico, BBC, and Time magazine. Mueller’s Vietnam-era service in the United States Marine Corps and 2004 tag-team with then-Deputy Attorney General James Comey to (supposedly) save American democracy from warrantless spying are mainstays of these biographies, sending a clear message that his integrity is not to be questioned, that his dedication to evenhanded justice is beyond reproach.

It’s always suspicious when anyone’s credibility is pushed hard like this, but that goes double when the same person was FBI director for 12 years—spanning across both the Bush and Obama administrations from 2001 to 2013—yet most people can’t remember anything about him. We should remember things such as actions he took to impartially uphold the law.

Sadly, that is not the case. What stands out most during then-FBI Director Mueller’s term in office is the two-tiered system of justice, when obvious crimes and scandals involving government officials and private-sector elites were ignored or even covered up by the FBI. Much of the worst behavior of government officials in the Bush and Obama administrations was given a pass by Mueller’s FBI, as well as a megabank that laundered billions of dollars for Mexican drug cartels and sponsors of terror.

Simply put: Mueller helped to create the swamp that needs to be drained. He’s a dirty cop with no business being anywhere near any national security investigation, but especially one involving James Comey.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...-fbi-director/

Follow the link for an in-depth look at all the scandals that happened at the FBI on Mueller's watch.

And now we can add to the dirty cop's long list of misdeeds the fact that he falsified an indictment against General Flynn.

You never let us down, MM. The Gateway Pundit is an extremely questionable source. It's just the National Enquirer without pictures.

[Mountain Man]

You never let us down, MM. The Gateway Pundit is an extremely questionable source. It's just the National Enquirer without pictures.

We can always count on you to desperately reach for the genetic fallacy when you can't dispute the facts of a story.

[firstfloor]

Is Trump deliberately shorting the stock market?

[MaxVel]

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Let me spell it out for you in teeny tiny phrases:

MM defends Trump obstructing Justice by claiming he did nothing wrong. My comment then is that is get's old watching MM defend Trump no matter what Trump does. No matter how vile. No matter how low. No matter that in ANY OTHER PERSON or POLITICAL figure he would be the first to write pages of scathing criticism of the very same actions.

It's just a comment on MM's comment - not a 'reply' to it, not an attempt to 'move goal posts'. There is literally NOTHING Trump can do, up to and including shooting someone in broad daylight, that will evoke a critical response to Trump. So it is not in the slightest surprising that MM would characterize Trump's attempts at obstruction as 'doing nothing wrong'.

My point still stands, as evinced by MM's subsequent replies.

Please cite posts where you have had anything good to say about Trump, or any of his actions as President. Just to confirm that you're not equally guilty of bias.

I then listed the latest violation of basic humanity from the Trump administration where Pompeo reacts to accusations the North Korean Despot had the people that negotiated with our people in Hanoi executed or banished to concentration camps by comparing that act to 'Trump choosing whoever he wants to negotiate for him'.

To spell that out in simple terms for those lured by Trump's Pied Piper's Pipe, Pompeo equated the execution of staff to 'choosing new staff'.

So - will the Trumpians find that acceptable as well?

Silence so far - which, BTW, is silent complicity ...


Jim

The full context - what Pompeo said before your 'quote' paints a less clear picture. You're doing what you habitually do - assume a point not granted by another, then criticise them for not acting as if that point was granted. Pompeo says that he doesn't know what happened, so to claim that he accepts that North Korea executed negotiators, and that is what he is saying Trump would be OK with is not true.

You've assumed something Pompeo didn't grant in the interview - the executions - and viewed his subsequent statement in the light of that. That's a distortion of his response.

[Cow Poke]

Is Trump deliberately shorting the stock market?

Shhhhh.... I told him I just needed a little rearranging in my 401(k)

[oxmixmudd]

My point still stands, as evinced by MM's subsequent replies.

Please cite posts where you have had anything good to say about Trump, or any of his actions as President. Just to confirm that you're not equally guilty of bias.

That is the odd thing. when it comes to good and evil, you can't define bias in such a simplistic way.

If a person boasts that they can kill people and others will still follow them, I am quite correct to point out that is a bad thing, and I have no obligation to search for something good to say about them just prove I am not 'biased'. Trump has a lot of negative baggage, baggage that I see as significantly dangerous to our country and even the world. Pointing that out, or criticizing it does not carry with it any sort of obligation to 'find something good in him'.

OTOH, constantly defending immoral acts is it own sort of evil and is indicative of bias in that we are all called to live moral lives and to stand for what is good. To consistently defend what is evil or bad is indicative of bias all its own.

All that said, when asked in the past I have noted there are some good elements in Trump's policy. Though I am just stubborn enough not to list them here in an effort to appease people that I see as unwilling to admit obvious evil.

The full context - what Pompeo said before your 'quote' paints a less clear picture. You're doing what you habitually do - assume a point not granted by another, then criticise them for not acting as if that point was granted. Pompeo says that he doesn't know what happened, so to claim that he accepts that North Korea executed negotiators, and that is what he is saying Trump would be OK with is not true.

There is no 'context' that can justify comparing the NK Despot executing members of his staff with 'choosing new negotiators'. The fact you think that Pompeo's earlier statements about not knowing if that had actually happened somehow softens his subsequent comparison, then you have unfortunately had your moral compass twisted by your desire to support the Trump administration.

The only mitigation would be if he simply misspoke, in that he was trying to get at the relative truth of the allegation rather than make the comparison the words he actually spoken implied. In which case the only compensation would be an apology and clarification, which never came. It's not as if his words were taken out of context, or could mean something else. But it is possible his mind was fuddled for a moment and the words he spoke did not reflect the idea he was actually trying to communicate.

You've assumed something Pompeo didn't grant in the interview - the executions - and viewed his subsequent statement in the light of that. That's a distortion of his response.

I disagree. His words were spoken without the knowledge of whether or not the executions had taken place, in which case they are totally inappropriate. Again, without direct knowledge of the truth or falsity of the allegations of execution, there is no context in which his words could be appropriate, and certainly not the context in which they were spoken. And again, if you think otherwise, then your moral compass is distorted by your desire to defend the Trump administration.

Jim

[Mountain Man]

Is Trump deliberately shorting the stock market?

What other explanation could there be? I would even go further and say that if it allows you to conclude "Orange man bad!" then no other explanation is needed.

[tabibito]

That is the odd thing. when it comes to good and evil, you can't define bias in such a simplistic way.

If a person boasts that they can kill people and others will still follow them, I am quite correct to point out that is a bad thing, and I have no obligation to search for something good to say about them just prove I am not 'biased'. Trump has a lot of negative baggage, baggage that I see as significantly dangerous to our country and even the world. Pointing that out, or criticizing it does not carry with it any sort of obligation to 'find something good in him'.

OTOH, constantly defending immoral acts is it own sort of evil and is indicative of bias in that we are all called to live moral lives and to stand for what is good. To consistently defend what is evil or bad is indicative of bias all its own.

All that said, when asked in the past I have noted there are some good elements in Trump's policy. Though I am just stubborn enough not to list them here in an effort to appease people that I see as unwilling to admit obvious evil.



There is no 'context' that can justify comparing the NK Despot executing members of his staff with 'choosing new negotiators'. The fact you think that Pompeo's earlier statements about not knowing if that had actually happened somehow softens his subsequent comparison, then you have unfortunately had your moral compass twisted by your desire to support the Trump administration.

The only mitigation would be if he simply misspoke, in that he was trying to get at the relative truth of the allegation rather than make the comparison the words he actually spoken implied. In which case the only compensation would be an apology and clarification, which never came. It's not as if his words were taken out of context, or could mean something else. But it is possible his mind was fuddled for a moment and the words he spoke did not reflect the idea he was actually trying to communicate.



I disagree. His words were spoken without the knowledge of whether or not the executions had taken place, in which case they are totally inappropriate. Again, without direct knowledge of the truth or falsity of the allegations of execution, there is no context in which his words could be appropriate, and certainly not the context in which they were spoken. And again, if you think otherwise, then your moral compass is distorted by your desire to defend the Trump administration.

Jim

Trump's comment was satirical. So is thissuffocate.jpg