• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.
Status
Not open for further replies.
tl,dr

Can you (or anyone) tell me if he thinks any of it is likely to succeed?
Very unlikely to result in Mueller's firing, significantly more likely to be used as a kind of loyalty oath to get all the GOP on the same boat to prevent impeachment while they hold Congress.

Mueller is saying it'll take more than a year because impeachment will be the first thing the Democrat-dominated congress will do in 2019. He wouldn't have flipped Flynn unless it got him Trump, so it's only a matter of political inertia. Expect a crap ton of Russian FUD and whining from the GOP until then, followed by pathetic backpedaling as they scramble to reclaim their discarded self-respect.
 
Really. There have also been reports that nothing is scheduled for 2018.

...and are these reports from Russian propaganda sites, perchance?

Meanwhile the House Intelligence Committee seems to be quite busy, having interviewed "Insurance Andy" for eight hours behind closed doors yesterday.

Okay. And?

We'll see what comes out of all of that, and contrary to most of your CT comrades, I think you might be capable of admitting that you were wrong at some point.

If I'm shown to be wrong, then of course I'll admit I'm wrong. I think it'd take quite a bit to convince me of that, though, given the amount of evidence you choose to ignore about the culpability of the Trump transition team. Any explanation - whether it inculpates or exculpates those under investigation - will have to account for all the facts, not just the few cherry-picked ones your sources like to talk or lie about.

The same goes for me, I'm almost tired of being right all the time.

Given your wilful blindness to information that contradicts what you'd like to believe to be true, I rather suspect that you only believe yourself to be right all the time. And even then, since this ignoring of evidence is clearly deliberate, even you might know what you're doing, deep down.

You might want to avoid sinking to their levels, though, as you really won't get to me with weakmindedness like in your last sentence. So much should be obvious. ;)

I don't really know what "last sentence" you're declaring to be "weakmindedness". If you're talking about the last sentence you quoted, then sorry, but it's true. If you mean my mentioning that you regularly link to Russian propaganda sites, well, if you don't like that being pointed out then the best solution would be to stop linking to Russian propaganda sites.
 
:sdl: You totally lost contact with reality. If this distasteful clown show goes on 2018 you will get into much deeper trouble than even with Killary's loss "against all odds".

Hey, if the GOP's willing to impeach the distasteful clown earlier, you won't hear me complaining about it.
 
And I've asked this before, but never got an answer. I wonder if Empress will answer - if there was nothing illegal about the meetings between people in Trump's team and Russians, then why did Flynn and Papadopolous risk jail time by lying to the FBI about them? What reason do you suppose they had to commit federal crimes in order to cover up meetings that were completely above-board and legal? They both risked a potential 5 years in prison, for what gain?

Same reason people who didn't break the law run from the cops.
 
I don't really know what "last sentence" you're declaring to be "weakmindedness". If you're talking about the last sentence you quoted, then sorry, but it's true. If you mean my mentioning that you regularly link to Russian propaganda sites, well, if you don't like that being pointed out then the best solution would be to stop linking to Russian propaganda sites.


I obviously meant your crude attempts to ad hominem Mercouris.
 
Very unlikely to result in Mueller's firing, significantly more likely to be used as a kind of loyalty oath to get all the GOP on the same boat to prevent impeachment while they hold Congress.

Mueller is saying it'll take more than a year because impeachment will be the first thing the Democrat-dominated congress will do in 2019. He wouldn't have flipped Flynn unless it got him Trump, so it's only a matter of political inertia. Expect a crap ton of Russian FUD and whining from the GOP until then, followed by pathetic backpedaling as they scramble to reclaim their discarded self-respect.

This is the only thing that makes sense to me Mueller drawing this thing out another year. But did Mueller really say that? I'm skeptical he would tip his hat like that. Or are you saying that's what 538 thinks?
 
This is the only thing that makes sense to me Mueller drawing this thing out another year. But did Mueller really say that? I'm skeptical he would tip his hat like that. Or are you saying that's what 538 thinks?
That's part of 538's scenario should Trump fire Mueller in the current environment.
 
Have you checked the schedule going into the new year? Any new witnesses interviewed soon? I've heard the NYT wrote about that.

You're mixing investigations. There are multiple ongoing ones. The one that was reported as having no witnesses scheduled next year, as well as having important witnesses scheduled outside Washington, during the tax votes, when they had been willing to come to Washington, along with numerous other GOP shenanigans is the one that you were likely hearing about. There was strong suspicion that shutting down that one would be used to pressure Mueller's investigation, but was not his investigation.
 
It's being reported that, contrary to everything that has been said up until now, Trump was told by White House lawyers in his first days in office about Flynn's illegal activities, but didn't fire him until those activities became public - at which point he lied about his knowledge

The White House turned over records this fall to special counsel Robert Mueller revealing that in the very first days of the Trump presidency, Don McGahn researched federal law dealing both with lying to federal investigators and with violations of the Logan Act, a centuries-old federal law that prohibits private citizens from negotiating with foreign governments, according to three people with direct knowledge of the confidential government documents.

The records reflected concerns that McGahn, the White House counsel, had that Michael Flynn, then the president’s national security advisor, had possibly violated either one or both laws at the time, according to two of the sources. The disclosure that these records exist and that they are in the possession of the special counsel could bolster any potential obstruction of justice case against President Donald Trump.

The records that McGahn turned over to the special counsel, portions of which were read to this reporter, indicate he researched both statutes and warned Trump about Flynn’s possible violations.

McGahn conducted the analysis shortly after learning that Flynn, on Dec. 29, 2016 — while Barack Obama was still president — had counseled the Russian ambassador to the United States at the time, Sergey Kislyak, not to retaliate against U.S. economic sanctions imposed against Russia by the outgoing administration.

McGahn believed that Flynn, and possibly anyone who authorized or approved of such contacts, would be in potential violation of the Logan Act, according to two of the sources, both of whom work in the administration.
 
Last edited:
I obviously meant your crude attempts to ad hominem Mercouris.

So when you said "last sentence" you meant "entire post before last" or even "first sentence from several posts previously"? Good news for you - you don't have to live with the burden of "being right all the time" any more.

As it is, I don't think you understand what the term "ad hominem" means.

An ad hominem is when you attack someone's character instead of addressing the argument they're making. You'll notice that I talked about Mercouris' track record and demolished the foundations of his argument.

And I'm sorry, but everything I mentioned is relevant to his credibility. He was disbarred for three different types of dishonesty. This speaks to how likely he is to tell big lies about important subjects. He was a reporter for RT and he still appears regularly on there. That he appears, touting the party line, on Russian state-controlled media speaks to his willingness to engage in spreading Kremlin propaganda. And the examples of him authoring and publishing articles which are obviously Russian propaganda speak, self-evidently, to his willingness to author and publish articles which are obviously Russian propaganda.

All three of this things are relevant when assessing whether or not we should take at face value any articles he publishes the contents of which are in Russia's interests, like the ones you continually insist on posting. Again, I'm sorry if you don't like it being pointed out when the links you post are Kremlin propaganda full of lies, distortions, and misrepresentations, but if you don't want it to happen in the future then the best way to prevent it is to stop posting links to Kremlin propaganda full of lies, distortions, and misrepresentations.

BTW, I'll note that you've not explained why you think McCabe being questioned was somehow some sort of "gotcha" and have gone entirely silent on the matter since having it pointed out that, rather than not reporting it at all as you were trying to imply, the source I was using reported it before your supposedly more credible source did. I would appreciate it if you'd explain what point you thought you were making and how it was in any way relevant to my posts.
 
Last edited:
I would appreciate it if you'd


And I would appreciate if you'd remember your position and don't expect from me to spoon-feed you things. You can, as everybody else, profit from information that breaks through the propaganda bubble I kindly provide to you, so that you can stop falling from surprise to surprise as reality crashes with the narrative, but that's it, Squeegee. You take it our you leave it, just like your comrades. And if you put a bit of energy into it, everybody benefits. So stop wasting that energy with singing that tiresome song such a huge choir is singing already. I know it all too well.

Russiagate Is Making Everyone Stupid

Caitlin Johnstone said:
[...] The establishment propagandists have shut down all dialogue and critical thinking by successfully advancing the narrative that everything they say is true and everything that contradicts what they say is Russian propaganda. By instilling a fear in their audience of all things Russian, any words that aren’t stamped with the approval of the western establishment are instinctively labeled Russian propaganda and therefore reflexively recoiled from. Using tactics exemplified in the above smear pieces by The Guardian and NPR, thinking has been killed. People have been turned into drooling, flag-waving idiots.

A new paradigm has been created wherein anti-establishment narratives are rejected by rank-and-file Americans not because of flawed arguments or factual inaccuracy, but solely because they are anti-establishment. The empire has created an impenetrable self-enforcing echo chamber, a mental prison of which their audience is their own wardens and guards. From that point they can weave any ridiculous ideas they like into the consciousness of mainstream media consumers, and it will be unquestioningly swallowed as gospel. [...]
 
And I would appreciate if you'd remember your position and don't expect from me to spoon-feed you things.

It was you who introduced it to the discussion. Now that the point you were making with it has been disproven, you suddenly don't want to discuss it any more. Curious.


Well, you're funny, I'll give you that. I provide quite a lot of evidence that you keep linking to Russian propaganda. Rather than countering any evidence you link to an opinion piece from someone who thinks that things are called Russian propaganda too easily. If we assume for the sake of argument that she's right, then so what? That doesn't magically make your links not Russian propaganda.

Again, the way to have me stop pointing out when you link to Russian propaganda that is full of lies, misinformation, and distortions, is to stop linking to Russian propaganda that is full of lies, misinformation, and distortions.
 
And I would appreciate if you'd remember your position and don't expect from me to spoon-feed you things. You can, as everybody else, profit from information that breaks through the propaganda bubble I kindly provide to you, so that you can stop falling from surprise to surprise as reality crashes with the narrative, but that's it, Squeegee. You take it our you leave it, just like your comrades. And if you put a bit of energy into it, everybody benefits. So stop wasting that energy with singing that tiresome song such a huge choir is singing already. I know it all too well.

Russiagate Is Making Everyone Stupid

2/10

Not enough Killary.
 
#Fakenews!

(I mean, yea, we already knew that)

I think we knew it was very unlikely to be untrue, but this is the first time it's reportedly been said by someone inside the White House, and it's the first time the existence of a paper trail proving it has been asserted.

Like most of the stories that have come out and which will continue to come out, it's not a huge revelation, but a small move forwards which will eventually add up.
 
I think we knew it was very unlikely to be untrue, but this is the first time it's reportedly been said by someone inside the White House, and it's the first time the existence of a paper trail proving it has been asserted.

Like most of the stories that have come out and which will continue to come out, it's not a huge revelation, but a small move forwards which will eventually add up.

Indeed. I'm just pining for that big move that gets that moron out of there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom