Russia probes II -- The Mueller Report

[Doc Socks Junior]

Just now, Harte said:

I have read the posts.

The assertion is above. Dispute it if you can.

Harte

 

Already did. Read #1118.

Or don't.

[Harte]

Your post yields no evidence at all that Merc had heard this story before.

Harte

[Doc Socks Junior]

 

6 minutes ago, Harte said:

Your post yields no evidence at all that Merc had heard this story before.

Harte

Not the point.

Edited May 10, 2019 by Doc Socks Junior

[Harte]

1 hour ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

 

Not the point.

It was the entire point of my post, which you responded to.

Harte

[Merc14]

6 hours ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

So do you normally make assertions before you know if they happened or not?

Several people in a video concocted a fantastical narrative.  You immediately agree.  A newspaper publishes an story about the guy who, in your fantastical narrative, is setting up FBI stings.  Except it turns out he's Israeli.  Suddenly, you get all skeptical.

Also, he did take the money.  Gave it to his lawyer.  Decides to cough it up to Mueller and proclaims that he believed it was from a foreign (non-Russian) agent.  Huh..I wonder what country the Israeli dude giving Papadop money represented?

Don't want to venture a guess on this one?  I do love how Israel has all conservatives huevos firmly in their grasp.

I don't hate people on the right.  I'm on the right.  I hate when people on the right swallow every stupid thing they hear because they lack critical thinking skills.  Try and keep up, Merc.

LOL.  Thanks socks, you never disappoint and you are not on the right, you aren't smart enough.   This post is evidence of that.

[Merc14]

3 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

This is great. Good to know you just throw out generic insults to everyone, assuming all who disagree with you are idiot leftists.

Might want to lay off the sauce, mate

 

Thanks for checking EMM, we were you had forgotten to breathe.

Edited May 11, 2019 by Merc14

[Doc Socks Junior]

2 hours ago, Merc14 said:

LOL.  Thanks socks, you never disappoint and you are not on the right, you aren't smart enough.   This post is evidence of that.

Excellent, substantive argument. Exactly what I've come to expect from you.  Disappointing, really. I had always imagined you weren't completely blinded by your myopic worldview.

Guess I was wrong.  Your mind is truly an astounding one. 

I don't swallow every drop of fetid, contradictory drivel that dribbles from pro-Trump conspiracy theorists.  Likewise, I believe even less out of the anti-Trump conspiracy theorists.

I wish I could turn off my higher reasoning facilities like you do.  It must be freeing.

[Doc Socks Junior]

6 hours ago, Harte said:

Your post yields no evidence at all that Merc had heard this story before.

Harte

I guess I'd better spell it out.

Merc sees a contradictory pro-Trump conspiracy.  His instant reaction is "Oh, haven't heard this, it must be right and the FBI is just the worst."

Merc sees the actual information that underpins (and disproves) the childish conspiracy. His instant reaction "Oh I haven't seen this, couldn't possibly comment.  Also, you're not smart because you don't agree with me."

I know that it's probably painful to see the logical absurdity of his claims, but it's best to let him flounder on his own.

 

[Harte]

I guess I'd better spell it out.

"... it must be right..."

Didn't see him post that.

Harte

 

[Doc Socks Junior]

4 hours ago, Harte said:

I guess I'd better spell it out.

"... it must be right..."

Didn't see him post that.

Harte

 

Sigh.

Suppose someone posts a YouTube video where several people present a silly narrative (which gets basic facts wrong) wherein they say "Harte attempted to assassinate the President".

I comment on this post, saying, "I hadn't heard about the attempted assassination.  Wow, he tried to shoot the President and when his gun didn't fire they nailed him.  Maybe Harte is too bent to fix and he needs to be locked away for the rest of his life."

Do you think:

a. I'm reserving judgment on your role in the assassination

b. I believe you tried to assassinate the President

[Harte]

The use of the term "maybe" is the indicator that you have not asserted that I am too bent to fix.

Harte

[Doc Socks Junior]

15 minutes ago, Harte said:

The use of the term "maybe" is the indicator that you have not asserted that I am too bent to fix.

Harte

Really leaning into semantics in order to apologize for Merc's acceptance of silly conspiracy theories.

Do you think a or b?

[Harte]

I didn't notice any conspiracy theory.

I think you're reading too much into Merc's posts.

Possibly mine too.

Harte

[Merc14]

19 hours ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Excellent, substantive argument. Exactly what I've come to expect from you.  Disappointing, really. I had always imagined you weren't completely blinded by your myopic worldview.

Guess I was wrong.  Your mind is truly an astounding one. 

I don't swallow every drop of fetid, contradictory drivel that dribbles from pro-Trump conspiracy theorists.  Likewise, I believe even less out of the anti-Trump conspiracy theorists.

I wish I could turn off my higher reasoning facilities like you do.  It must be freeing.

Why argue with someone who is well beyond reason.  You lost, no impeachment.  You were sold a lie, which we told you was a lie but of course you knwo far more than anyone else and now you are denied your wish.  Worse, you were dead wrong and a child like you can't accept that, so you strike out and deny reality and rail against those who have said all along there was nothing there, it was a scam.  Fun to watch though, reminds me of election night 2016, I bet you were apoplectic.  LMAO

19 hours ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

I guess I'd better spell it out.

Merc sees a contradictory pro-Trump conspiracy.  His instant reaction is "Oh, haven't heard this, it must be right and the FBI is just the worst."

Merc sees the actual information that underpins (and disproves) the childish conspiracy. His instant reaction "Oh I haven't seen this, couldn't possibly comment.  Also, you're not smart because you don't agree with me."

I know that it's probably painful to see the logical absurdity of his claims, but it's best to let him flounder on his own.

 

So there was no conspiracy?  Oh boy, you are really not going to enjoy the next year.  LMAO  Thanks though socks, you never stop providing enjoyment for we folks on the other side. 

 

Edited May 12, 2019 by Merc14

[Vorg]

[Buzz_Light_Year]

[Tatetopa]

[+DieChecker]

I was reading about the Mueller Report and Nadler. He wants the Full unredacted report, right? And he's been offered to read the Full report minus only 7 to 10 lines which concern Grand Jury names and such.

And with approximately half a paragraph of text hidden, out of 200 plus pages, he STILL thinks there is Conspiricy to hide the Real Evidence from him and the Congress?

Does even a single Liberal UM poster think such is not just simple partisanship? What could they be hiding in the couple lines of Grand Jury names? Why is Nadler refusing to accept this 99.99% report? 

Edited May 12, 2019 by DieChecker

[Buzz_Light_Year]

4 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

I was reading about the Mueller Report and Nadler. He wants the Full unredacted report, right? And he's been offered to read the Full report minus only 7 to 10 lines which concern Grand Jury names and such.

And with approximately half a paragraph of text hidden, out of 200 plus pages, he STILL thinks there is Conspiricy to hide the Real Evidence from him and the Congress?

Does even a single Liberal UM poster think such is not just simple partisanship? What could they be hiding in the couple lines of Grand Jury names? Why is Nadler refusing to accept this 99.99% report? 

[RoofGardener]

https://www.coloringbook.com/president-hillary-clinton-coloring-book.aspx

I thought this was rather amusing

 

Edited May 12, 2019 by RoofGardener

[Doc Socks Junior]

15 hours ago, Merc14 said:

Why argue with someone who is well beyond reason.  You lost, no impeachment.  You were sold a lie, which we told you was a lie but of course you knwo far more than anyone else and now you are denied your wish.  Worse, you were dead wrong and a child like you can't accept that, so you strike out and deny reality and rail against those who have said all along there was nothing there, it was a scam.  Fun to watch though, reminds me of election night 2016, I bet you were apoplectic.  LMAO

I didn't want impeachment. The investigation was unfounded. Certainly put into motion by anti-Trump elements in the IC.

So no, not my wish.

I was thrilled with election night 2016. 

Your pure vitriol at those who don't accept unquestioningly every fervid pronouncement you make is stunning.

Please lay off calling me a child. It just ain't good form.

15 hours ago, Merc14 said:

So there was no conspiracy?  Oh boy, you are really not going to enjoy the next year.  LMAO  Thanks though socks, you never stop providing enjoyment for we folks on the other side. 

Nah, there was a conspiracy.  I just don't agree with certain obviously incorrect formulations of it.

Given how I argued that stance multiple times in the other thread, you'd think even an only mildly intelligent person would remember.

Weird that you don't. I wonder what that means....

[Harte]

On 5/10/2019 at 6:06 PM, Doc Socks Junior said:

Not what I said. He said he hadn't heard the Israeli connection.

He happily swallowed the previous fantasy about the FBI.

Read the posts.

The people in the video, Joe DiGenova (former US Attorney) and his wife (another high-powered DC attorney,) are often called conspiracy theorists in the press.

Here's a list of Joe DiGenova's "bizarre" conspiracy theories.

Joseph diGenova: The bizarre conspiracy theories peddled by Donald Trump's new lawyer

Can you point one out that is debunked?

Can you point one out that seems unlikely to you?

I don't know how often DiGenova has been right. But the things he's saying today will be either confirmed or debunked in very short order, so he'd be unwise to just make it up.

Harte

[Doc Socks Junior]

19 hours ago, Harte said:

The people in the video, Joe DiGenova (former US Attorney) and his wife (another high-powered DC attorney,) are often called conspiracy theorists in the press.

Here's a list of Joe DiGenova's "bizarre" conspiracy theories.

Joseph diGenova: The bizarre conspiracy theories peddled by Donald Trump's new lawyer

Can you point one out that is debunked?

Can you point one out that seems unlikely to you?

I don't know how often DiGenova has been right. But the things he's saying today will be either confirmed or debunked in very short order, so he'd be unwise to just make it up.

The supposed illegality of the special counsel, for one. And the Papadop fantasy, for another. I've already pointed out the latter.

As to your last point, why would it be unwise to make it up? People who are pro-Trump won't care if it's wrong, and people who are anti-Trump wouldn't care anyway.  It sucks.  All is meaningless.

[Harte]

It just seems to me that in my experience people that make up crap are especially sensitive to exposure - in a personal way.

Regarding the legality of the special counsel, that is actually debatable if you read the law strictly and it would be for a judge to decide.

Harte

[Merc14]

1 hour ago, Harte said:

It just seems to me that in my experience people that make up crap are especially sensitive to exposure - in a personal way.

Regarding the legality of the special counsel, that is actually debatable if you read the law strictly and it would be for a judge to decide.

Harte

I believe he was illegally appointed simply because the federal regulations stipulate that a crime has been committed:

 

§ 600.1 Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel.

The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and -

(a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney's Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances; and

(b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.

A criminal investigation requires that an identifiable crime has been committed and there was no crime committed in this case.  In reality Mueller was looking for a crime, any crime, to pin on Trump, this is not how our legal system works.  If Mueller was an honest man he would not have taken this appointment and Rosenstein should never have caved to pressure and appointed him.

Ultimately Mueller failed but our country went through two years a hysterics and lord knows how much legislative business was not conducted and how much damage was done to foreign relations because of this farce.   Now people should be sent to jail and I believe that is going to happen.