ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

Mueller laid his cards out on the table face up for all to see, that being his report.

Oh c'mon, are you really telling me you read 448 pages without critical thinking? There were holes all over the place.

Why didn't Mueller explain why they just accepted the CrowdStrike report of the DCCC/DNC hack?

Why does Mueller cite a "fairness" doctrine of making sure the accused get a speedy trial, then indict dozens of Russians who we all know will never be extradited for their day in court?

And above all, who is Mueller kidding when he says he can't accuse the President of committing a crime? He says an Office of Legal Council memo stops him. In arguendo, if he'd have ignored that memo and just outright said Trump obstructed justice, would he really have gotten in trouble? Isn't Mueller directly accusing Trump of a crime what almost half of the country was hoping for prior to Mueller's report, and what almost half of the country was fearing to he would do? Did you, an ardent anti-Trump zealot, literally read Mueller excuse away why he couldn't do the one thing you most expected him fo do, and just shrugged and said "okay"!? Mueller's "I can't accuse" argument is Byzantine logic at best and sophistry at worst.

But it goes deeper than that. Relevance is subjective to the individual, and relevance is what separates included signal from omitted noise in a factual account of events. That's the whole point behind the Sherlock Holmes stories — you have the normie account of the relevant details, full of red herrings irrelevant to the truth but made seemingly relevant by our common, socialized mode of thought, and then you have the eccentric who finds relevance in things others do not, things the normal people see but do not observe — that is, that they hold in their perception but fleetingly before discarding it as irrelevant. Even among the things we recall, we often consider it a waste of everyone's time to say everything we remember, because we doubt its relevance to the matter at hand and wish to keep the signal-to-noise ratio at a sufficiently high quality. No one ever lays all their cards on the table, TD, not ever; they only play what they consider to be their best.

I know the standard oath for swearing in a witness is to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, but that's an impossible oath: no one can tell the whole truth. They can just try to get as close as they can.

"

Turtledove wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

Mueller laid his cards out on the table face up for all to see, that being his report.

Oh c'mon, are you really telling me you read 448 pages without critical thinking? There were holes all over the place.

Why didn't Mueller explain why they just accepted the CrowdStrike report of the DCCC/DNC hack?

Why does Mueller cite a "fairness" doctrine of making sure the accused get a speedy trial, then indict dozens of Russians who we all know will never be extradited for their day in court?

And above all, who is Mueller kidding when he says he can't accuse the President of committing a crime? He says an Office of Legal Council memo stops him. In arguendo, if he'd have ignored that memo and just outright said Trump obstructed justice, would he really have gotten in trouble? Isn't Mueller directly accusing Trump of a crime what almost half of the country was hoping for prior to Mueller's report, and what almost half of the country was fearing to he would do? Did you, an ardent anti-Trump zealot, literally read Mueller excuse away why he couldn't do the one thing you most expected him fo do, and just shrugged and said "okay"!? Mueller's "I can't accuse" argument is Byzantine logic at best and sophistry at worst.

But it goes deeper than that. Relevance is subjective to the individual, and relevance is what separates included signal from omitted noise in a factual account of events. That's the whole point behind the Sherlock Holmes stories — you have the normie account of the relevant details, full of red herrings irrelevant to the truth but made seemingly relevant by our common, socialized mode of thought, and then you have the eccentric who finds relevance in things others do not, things the normal people see but do not observe — that is, that they hold in their perception but fleetingly before discarding it as irrelevant. Even among the things we recall, we often consider it a waste of everyone's time to say everything we remember, because we doubt its relevance to the matter at hand and wish to keep the signal-to-noise ratio at a sufficiently high quality. No one ever lays all their cards on the table, TD, not ever; they only play what they consider to be their best.

I know the standard oath for swearing in a witness is to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, but that's an impossible oath: no one can tell the whole truth. They can just try to get as close as they can.

Mueller seems to be a straight shooter. It wasn't my speculation, he's the one that said the report was everything he had to say. I'm sure that congress will have him testify. When he does I suspect that he will do his best to stick to things he's already said in the report.

"

DarthSki44 wrote:

I think Mueller was VERY clear he wouldn't be testifying.

"

Turtledove wrote:

"

DarthSki44 wrote:

I think Mueller was VERY clear he wouldn't be testifying.

Agreed, if he was served a subpoena he would testify though.

"

DarthSki44 wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

"

DarthSki44 wrote:

I think Mueller was VERY clear he wouldn't be testifying.

Agreed, if he was served a subpoena he would testify though.

I suppose but I dont think that will happen. Even so Mueller goes by the book, and he wouldnt stray, even a little bit, beyond his report.

Also prosecutors dont testify to what a witness says. That is what the report is for. If Congress wants to hear from witnesses, ask for them directly, not Mueller.

"

Turtledove wrote:

"

CanHasPants wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

Over 900 retired federal prosecutors, whose job was deciding to indict or not have stated that based on the Mueller report they would indict on at least three charges of obstruction of justice if the President was a private citizen. Further they stated that it wasn't even a close call on those three charges. The "cards" are easy to read for the professional card readers whose job it was to read those cards.

I haven’t read a strong rebuttal of Scrotie’s constitutional argument against obstruction. I don’t recall reading a weak rebuttal, either. It’s almost like everyone is talking past one another.

Why should I care about obstruction?

Scrotie's constitutional argument against obstruction of justice was just plain ridiculous.

I know that Boem think's it's okay that Trump thinks he's above the law. But most Americans I hope, will understand that purposefully interfering with an investigation with a corrupt intent is a simple obstruction of justice. Telling people to lie to investigators, for example, is not protected speech anymore than yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded auditorium is protected speech.

Finally, Scrotie is not a Supreme Court justice, he is not even a lawyer so his opinion as a legal matter is irrelevant.

Today, Mueller tried to explain why we should care about Obstruction of Justice

"

Turtledove wrote:

"

DarthSki44 wrote:

I suppose but I dont think that will happen. Even so Mueller goes by the book, and he wouldnt stray, even a little bit, beyond his report.

Also prosecutors dont testify to what a witness says. That is what the report is for. If Congress wants to hear from witnesses, ask for them directly, not Mueller.

Agreed, the type questions that he might reasonably be asked is questions about the scope of the investigation. Did your team look into this or that? How about x, y, z? Why didn't the President testify in person, did he say he would plead the fifth?

"

DarthSki44 wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

"

DarthSki44 wrote:

I think Mueller was VERY clear he wouldn't be testifying.

Agreed, if he was served a subpoena he would testify though.

I suppose but I dont think that will happen. Even so Mueller goes by the book, and he wouldnt stray, even a little bit, beyond his report.

Also prosecutors dont testify to what a witness says. That is what the report is for. If Congress wants to hear from witnesses, ask for them directly, not Mueller.

"

Turtledove wrote:

Scrotie's constitutional argument against obstruction of justice was just plain ridiculous.

I know that Boem think's it's okay that Trump thinks he's above the law. But most Americans I hope, will understand that purposefully interfering with an investigation with a corrupt intent is a simple obstruction of justice. Telling people to lie to investigators, for example, is not protected speech anymore than yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded auditorium is protected speech.

Finally, Scrotie is not a Supreme Court justice, he is not even a lawyer so his opinion as a legal matter is irrelevant.

Today, Mueller tried to explain why we should care about Obstruction of Justice