TrumPutinGate

#23,203
#23,203
luthervol said:
It's not that difficult to know what you see and perceive because I give you credit of being at least marginally rational and lucid, and I know what at least marginal rationality and lucidity would lead one to see and perceive.
Click to expand...
In your case you have the "marginally" part covered, and that's being kind.
 
#23,207
#23,207
evillawyer said:
So awesome Mueller is building so many new fans. I've said from day one that'll I believe whatever he concludes as long as it's based on sufficient evidence. Will you?
Click to expand...
I will always believe his charter is complete ******** thus I reject any damn finding he comes up with.
 
#23,217
#23,217
luthervol said:
It's not that difficult to know what you see and perceive because I give you credit of being at least marginally rational and lucid, and I know what at least marginal rationality and lucidity would lead one to see and perceive.
Click to expand...
You're still setting your perception and motives as the standard of our truth, huh? Bold tactic.

You remember that time it was so clear to you that Trump would be out of office by, when was it? July?

You remember that time you asked (yesterday), in light of the rock solid Buzzfeed article, whether ND was ready to admit what the article made so clear?

You remember the other side of your mouth when you repeatedly post that you need to await Mueller's evidence and you'll respect whatever they find?

Your fluid grasp on reality isn't our standard of truth. You literally sound like a schizophrenic with delusions of grandeur. Make up your mind whether you're in wait and see mode with the rest of us, or whether your intuitions are the standard of truth that we should judge reality against.

Sigh...
 
#23,219
#23,219
Orange_Crush said:
You're still setting your perception and motives as the standard of our truth, huh? Bold tactic.

You remember that time it was so clear to you that Trump would be out of office by, when was it? July?

You remember that time you asked (yesterday), in light of the rock solid Buzzfeed article, whether ND was ready to admit what the article made so clear?

You remember the other side of your mouth when you repeatedly post that you need to await Mueller's evidence and you'll respect whatever they find?

Your fluid grasp on reality isn't our standard of truth. You literally sound like a schizophrenic with delusions of grandeur. Make up your mind whether you're in wait and see mode with the rest of us, or whether your intuitions are the standard of truth that we should judge reality against.

Sigh...
Click to expand...
Like everyone, I am in wait and see mode.
Unlike everyone, I am on record as saying I will accept Mueller's findings and tip my hat to him for a job well done.
Like everyone, I have ever changing opinions based on the latest data.
Unlike everyone, I have no difficulty or reservations with stating my current opinions.
Like everyone, I'm fully aware that my opinions could turn out to be wrong.

If you think it was clear to me that Trump would be out by July 21st, you're nuttier than I thought.
It was a prediction I wasn't scared to make, stick with, and then admit was wrong. Not all that difficult or painful.
I now predict Trump will resign before his current term is up.....and that TN beats bama next year.
 
#23,220
#23,220
luthervol said:
Like everyone, I am in wait and see mode.
Unlike everyone, I am on record as saying I will accept Mueller's findings and tip my hat to him for a job well done.
Like everyone, I have ever changing opinions based on the latest data.
Unlike everyone, I have no difficulty or reservations with stating my current opinions.
Like everyone, I'm fully aware that my opinions could turn out to be wrong.

If you think it was clear to me that Trump would be out by July 21st, you're nuttier than I thought.
It was a prediction I wasn't scared to make, stick with, and then admit was wrong. Not all that difficult or painful.
I now predict Trump will resign before his current term is up.....and that TN beats bama next year.
Click to expand...
So, you're in wait and see mode, your opinions very well could be wrong, but you're so assured of the outcome so as to claim it's clear to everyone.

That's a bold strategy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#23,221
#23,221
Orange_Crush said:
So, you're in wait and see mode, but so assured of the outcome so as to claim it's clear to everyone.

That's a bold strategy.
Click to expand...
What I've stated should be clear to everyone is that Trump is more dishonest and dirtier than anyone who supported him would have imagined.
What should be obvious to everyone is that he has blatantly and publicly lied over and over.
What should be obvious to everyone is that the story has moved far beyond Trump's earlier claims that no one had any contacts with Russia, he had no business with Russia, he knew nothing about a Trump Tower meeting, the meeting was about adoption, he knew nothing about payments to Stormy and the bunny.
What should be obvious to everyone is that considering the above, the outlook is bleaker than was once believed by many.
 
#23,222
#23,222
Just as an exercise, I've taken the special counsel's statement and reviewed the article for the "specific statements" it is possibly referring to.

Here's the special counsel's statement:

  • “BuzzFeed’s description of specific statements to the special counsel’s office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen’s congressional testimony are not accurate."
Here are the two specific statements from the article that are likely the target of the special counsel's statement:
  • "Now the two sources have told BuzzFeed News that Cohen also told the special counsel that after the election, the president personally instructed him to lie — by claiming that negotiations ended months earlier than they actually did — in order to obscure Trump’s involvement."
  • "The special counsel’s office learned about Trump’s directive for Cohen to lie to Congress through interviews with multiple witnesses from the Trump Organization and internal company emails, text messages, and a cache of other documents. Cohen then acknowledged those instructions during his interviews with that office."
Lots of innocuous ways for those statements to be "not accurate," while still being substantively true. Maybe the president didn't personally tell Cohen to lie, but relayed it through an intermediary. Or maybe Trump didn't expressly tell him to lie, but to instead keep him safe/clean/out of it etc. Maybe Trump's statements to Cohen were not express orders or directions, but could have been interpreted that way (remember what he told Comey re: Flynn was not a specific order).

I could go on, but there are lots of ways for these statements to be "not accurate" while still being substantively true. One thing we can all agree on though is that the SC's statement put a big wet blanket on any attempt to use that article as the basis for congressional hearings into what Trump did or did not tell Cohen to say in his testimony. And I think the SC would be much more concerned about that (because it's own investigation is not done) than the veracity of a news article from BuzzFeed.

I acknowledge that it's possible that BuzzFeed was completely wrong here. But why use the fairly soft "not accurate" phrasing as opposed to "false"?
 
#23,223
#23,223
evillawyer said:
Just as an exercise, I've taken the special counsel's statement and reviewed the article for the "specific statements" it is possibly referring to.

Here's the special counsel's statement:

  • “BuzzFeed’s description of specific statements to the special counsel’s office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen’s congressional testimony are not accurate."
Here are the two specific statements from the article that are likely the target of the special counsel's statement:
  • "Now the two sources have told BuzzFeed News that Cohen also told the special counsel that after the election, the president personally instructed him to lie — by claiming that negotiations ended months earlier than they actually did — in order to obscure Trump’s involvement."
  • "The special counsel’s office learned about Trump’s directive for Cohen to lie to Congress through interviews with multiple witnesses from the Trump Organization and internal company emails, text messages, and a cache of other documents. Cohen then acknowledged those instructions during his interviews with that office."
Lots of innocuous ways for those statements to be "not accurate," while still being substantively true. Maybe the president didn't personally tell Cohen to lie, but relayed it through an intermediary. Or maybe Trump didn't expressly tell him to lie, but to instead keep him safe/clean/out of it etc. Maybe Trump's statements to Cohen were not express orders or directions, but could have been interpreted that way (remember what he told Comey re: Flynn was not a specific order).

I could go on, but there are lots of ways for these statements to be "not accurate" while still being substantively true. One thing we can all agree on though is that the SC's statement put a big wet blanket on any attempt to use that article as the basis for congressional hearings into what Trump did or did not tell Cohen to say in his testimony. And I think the SC would be much more concerned about that (because it's own investigation is not done) than the veracity of a news article from BuzzFeed.

I acknowledge that it's possible that BuzzFeed was completely wrong here. But why use the fairly soft "not accurate" phrasing as opposed to "false"?
Click to expand...
F6DC19B1-FF98-43C1-8181-5D519F2A0198.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: volinbham and nuclearjunky
#23,224
#23,224
NorthDallas40 said:
View attachment 190132
Click to expand...

Do you think Mueller's team cares one way or the other about whether a news article about their investigation is true or false?

They care about being able to do what they need to do to complete their investigation in an accurate and fair way. As I mentioned earlier, this article had congressmen threatening to have Mueller turn over evidence on this issue before his investigation was over. That's what Mueller was trying to avoid. Now he may not want to turn over evidence because this was a cockamamie article that was radically false, but it could also be because this story was largely true, but Mueller still has angles that he is pursuing and early disclosure would potentially harm the investigation. So let's come back when the investigation is over and see what the story really was.
 
#23,225
#23,225
luthervol said:
What I've stated should be clear to everyone is that Trump is more dishonest and dirtier than anyone who supported him would have imagined.
What should be obvious to everyone is that he has blatantly and publicly lied over and over.
What should be obvious to everyone is that the story has moved far beyond Trump's earlier claims that no one had any contacts with Russia, he had no business with Russia, he knew nothing about a Trump Tower meeting, the meeting was about adoption, he knew nothing about payments to Stormy and the bunny.
What should be obvious to everyone is that considering the above, the outlook is bleaker than was once believed by many.
Click to expand...

You actually claimed that it IS obvious to everyone that Trump is a CRIMINAL, and that knowing that is the motive for believing the possibility that Mueller is a part of the deep state (i.e. investigation is a witch hunt).

You're full of itt with the "should be obvious" moved goalposts, and you're ignoring a LOT of verified evidence that puts the evidence in a bad light and makes it appear to be a witch hunt (i.e use of Hillary's opposition research as FISA warrant, FBI texts, etc, etc, etc). You're allowing your hatred of Trump to light your interpretation of everything we all know. That's fine. You're just full of itt when you claim your purview of the situation dictates ours.

I suspect you know that since you just moved the goal posts from what we apparently know, and how that defines what we do, to what you think should be obvious to us.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top