What's new
Frozen In Carbonite

Welcome to FIC! Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Trump-Russia Investigation Thread: Mueller Goes Terminator Edition

Reaction..

  • Huh?

    Votes: 2 6.7%
  • Seriously?

    Votes: 5 16.7%
  • ... are we in some crappy technothriller?

    Votes: 22 73.3%
  • WTF?

    Votes: 1 3.3%

  • Total voters
    30

Ravan

Gone
Grounds for an indictment for obstruction of justice.

See, I'm not calling you a liar, because I think that you really don't know that.
They also said that if the investigation had cleared Trump in the Russia mess they would have said so. They didn’t say so. Therefore, Trump has been exonerated of exactly nothing. He has been falsely accused of nothing. You are arguing in blatant bad faith for your orange fuhrer.
 

Alcibiades

Active member
They also said that if the investigation had cleared Trump in the Russia mess they would have said so.
Again, it is not a prosecutor's job to clear people. No prosecutor in history has ever cleared anyone.

Now, do you have an argument? Or do you just call people names if you don't like their opinions?

If you would like, can you find a point in the report where Mueller declares that Trump engaged in illegal collusive activity? Anywhere?
 

Ravan

Gone
Again, it is not a prosecutor's job to clear people. No prosecutor in history has ever cleared anyone.

Now, do you have an argument? Or do you just call people names if you don't like their opinions?
Except that he was not a prosecutor. This was an investigation, not a trial. You keep shifting the goalposts here. Trump was cleared of nothing.
 

Alcibiades

Active member
Except that he was not a prosecutor. This was an investigation, not a trial. You keep shifting the goalposts here. Trump was cleared of nothing.
Then how can he indict anyone?

I have shifted no goalposts. As I said, his job was to find if there was evidence of criminal activity. Of which he found none, as the report declares over and over. His job is not to "clear people of wrongdoing," which is impossible, but to determine if there is evidence of a crime that can then serve as the basis for legal action.

This is not controversial. That's why the Dem impeachment stuff has shifted over to obstruction of justice.

EDIT: look, dude

















 
Last edited:

Ravan

Gone
Then how can he indict anyone?

I have shifted no goalposts. As I said, his job was to find if there was evidence of criminal activity. Of which he found none, as the report declares over and over. His job is not to "clear people of wrongdoing," which is impossible, but to determine if there is evidence of a crime that can then serve as the basis for legal action.

This is not controversial. That's why the Dem impeachment stuff has shifted over to obstruction of justice.
Again: that is the opposite of what he said. He sat there in front of congress and flatout said that Trump would be indicted if he was anyone but the president. Impeachment is more than justified. Only Moscow Mitch is keeping it from happening.
 

Alcibiades

Active member
Again: that is the opposite of what he said. He sat there in front of congress and flatout said that Trump would be indicted if he was anyone but the president. Impeachment is more than justified. Only Moscow Mitch is keeping it from happening.
Again, he is referring to obstruction of justice, not to collusion.

I highly suspect you have been watching/reading highly partisan media that is trying to spin his comments and therefore has taken them out of context.

 
Last edited:

Vorpal

Administrator
Administrator
Except that he was not a prosecutor. This was an investigation, not a trial.
This whole conversation is frankly rather odd, but what do you think prosecutors do, exactly?
“Prosecutors are lawyers who investigate, charge, and prosecute (take to trial) people whom they think have committed a crime.” [ref]​
Now, INAL, but although it is logically possible that special prosecutors are not necessarily prosecutors (like, say, Rocky Mountain oysters aren't oysters), that would be prima facie a surprising enough situation to need some backing.
 

Lerticus

Senile Old Coot
Communism
Kind of a stretch to say that the person who convened grand juries, issued indictments, and who took plea deals from Trumpie's campaign staff and close colleagues was somehow not a prosecutor. You could argue that he never had the specific authority to prosecute the president himself, but he certainly was a prosecutor, and his testimony clearly indicated that if the DOJ did not have a policy in place that places the president above the law there he certainly could and would have prosecuted.
 

Alcibiades

Active member
This whole conversation is frankly rather odd, but what do you think prosecutors do, exactly?
“Prosecutors are lawyers who investigate, charge, and prosecute (take to trial) people whom they think have committed a crime.” [ref]​
Now, INAL, but although it is logically possible that special prosecutors are not necessarily prosecutors (like, say, Rocky Mountain oysters aren't oysters), that would be prima facie a surprising enough situation to need some backing.
If he didn't have any ability to do anything, what the hell was this whole investigation for?

"I'll spend two years investigating stuff, but my findings won't mean anything. You can ignore them and run with whatever your ideology says things should be like."

and his testimony clearly indicated that if the DOJ did not have a policy in place that places the president above the law there he certainly could and would have prosecuted.
Yeah. For obstruction of justice.

And my point during all of this has been that seeking impeachment for OoJ is a bad idea, because it will just give Trump the opportunity to point out that there was no crime undrlying the whole thing.
 

Lerticus

Senile Old Coot
Communism
And my point during all of this has been that seeking impeachment for OoJ is a bad idea, because it will just give Trump the opportunity to point out that there was no crime undrlying the whole thing.
Obstruction of Justice is a crime in itself. You can't just start shouting out that you didn't commit a crime, you just obstructed justice, because it means that you committed a crime. The entirety of impeachment proceedings against Clinton, which the Republicans fully orchestrated and endorsed, was on the crime of obstruction.

Trumpie whining all this time has actually done nothing to help him. Acting like somehow he will be strengthened by his persecution complex now, when it has failed for the last few years, is pretty pathetic as an argument. The one and only reason to not bring up the matter of impeachment is because of the Republican senate, and the only question is not whether or not there are enough grounds (congress literally needs no reason to impeach even though in this case there is a mountain of evidence), but if it would be more advantageous to portray all elected Republicans as shielding a criminal or to target only Trumpie in the election and let the down-ticket elections resolve themselves that way. More clearly, will people get more likely to vote for Democrats to get rid of Agent Orange or will they rally around the Republican party if it is a more general attack strategy.

The "opportunity to point out there was no crime" is still completely false either way.
 

Rabe

I identfy as a 9000 series intelligences
Lets hope they don't pick Hillary 2.0 as their frontrunner.
is there a dem running who has been the active target of political mudslinging (as in there is an industry committed to doing just that) for 30 plus years? well I mean other then Bernie, if No I kind doubt trumps chances at the popular vote, but we know the gop as been working over time to lock up the electoral college since W
 

Vorpal

Administrator
Administrator
The "opportunity to point out there was no crime" is still completely false either way.
That's true, though the Republicans' experience with hanging impeachment proceedings primarily on the OoJ charge itself do not give a particularly optimistic picture of the electoral response and overall result in trying the same, which I suspect is rather the point. Although Trump's OoJ case is also substantially heavier.
 

Lerticus

Senile Old Coot
Communism
That's true, though the Republicans' experience with hanging impeachment proceedings primarily on the OoJ charge itself do not give a particularly optimistic picture of the electoral response and overall result in trying the same, which I suspect is rather the point. Although Trump's OoJ case is also substantially heavier.
I suspect that the Democrats are holding back only because the election is coming (relatively speaking) soon. Trumpie won in a large part on his rhetoric that the Supreme Court and the Second Amendment were under attack as established institutions. Impeachment proceedings, successful or not, would give the illusion that Democrats would be willing to wipe out the party along with the leader, or the impression that they would just impeach any future Republican president for any reason (because a rational response that there is actually evidence supporting an impeachment is not exactly to be expected).

Better to just lay on Trumpie for his failed policies, for the fact that evidence of obstruction exists, and let the attacks not rest on the Republican party itself (as much as they may be deserving of such attacks), but upon individual chickenshit candidates who support the president despite all of the times they denounce his words and actions.

Even if the accusations are the same, the choice of forum to attack within is important. Just because they could try to impeach does not mean that they should, and it indeed would be a very risky maneuver. Far safer to use news outlets, campaign speeches, and debates to expose than it would be to put it in chamber. At this point in time, the risk is not really worthwhile since it is still likely that letting Tiny Hands go on the same path for another year will undermine his path to reelection, while impeachment is not only guaranteed to fail in the Senate, but it might just blow up in Democrats' faces at election time.
 

Alcibiades

Active member
Obstruction of Justice is a crime in itself. You can't just start shouting out that you didn't commit a crime, you just obstructed justice, because it means that you committed a crime. The entirety of impeachment proceedings against Clinton, which the Republicans fully orchestrated and endorsed, was on the crime of obstruction.

Trumpie whining all this time has actually done nothing to help him. Acting like somehow he will be strengthened by his persecution complex now, when it has failed for the last few years, is pretty pathetic as an argument. The one and only reason to not bring up the matter of impeachment is because of the Republican senate, and the only question is not whether or not there are enough grounds (congress literally needs no reason to impeach even though in this case there is a mountain of evidence), but if it would be more advantageous to portray all elected Republicans as shielding a criminal or to target only Trumpie in the election and let the down-ticket elections resolve themselves that way. More clearly, will people get more likely to vote for Democrats to get rid of Agent Orange or will they rally around the Republican party if it is a more general attack strategy.

The "opportunity to point out there was no crime" is still completely false either way.
There was no underlying crime behind the original investigation.

I think you're missing my point. I am saying that this will hurt the Dems greatly if they choose to pursue it, because it will allow the Republicans to portray them as politically-motivated witchhunters and fabricators. And this will work, because it's true.

Like, Adam Schiff claimed several times to have proof that Trump collaborated. Where is it?

It also gives a giant example of demonstrably fake news that Trump can point at whenever he is reported as doing something bad that he actually did do. Like, the notorious Trump Tower meeting that was supposed to be high-level spy contacts but was actually a British music producer trying to get a meeting for a pop star.

That Trump committed crimes of obstruction of justice is irrelevant. What the average person will take away from all this is that Trump was falsely accused of a crime for political reasons because some people didn't like the way the 2016 elections turned out, just like Trump said, and the country spent 2 years and lots of money, and the media ran with bullshit story after bullshit story for ratings. This will hurt the Dems like hell. If they are smart they'll shut up about it and, you know, try to win the election next year.
 

Lerticus

Senile Old Coot
Communism
There was no underlying crime behind the original investigation.

I think you're missing my point. I am saying that this will hurt the Dems greatly if they choose to pursue it, because it will allow the Republicans to portray them as politically-motivated witchhunters and fabricators. And this will work, because it's true.

Like, Adam Schiff claimed several times to have proof that Trump collaborated. Where is it?

It also gives a giant example of demonstrably fake news that Trump can point at whenever he is reported as doing something bad that he actually did do. Like, the notorious Trump Tower meeting that was supposed to be high-level spy contacts but was actually a British music producer trying to get a meeting for a pop star.

That Trump committed crimes of obstruction of justice is irrelevant. What the average person will take away from all this is that Trump was falsely accused of a crime for political reasons because some people didn't like the way the 2016 elections turned out, just like Trump said, and the country spent 2 years and lots of money, and the media ran with bullshit story after bullshit story for ratings. This will hurt the Dems like hell. If they are smart they'll shut up about it and, you know, try to win the election next year.
It is not irrelevant, because everyone will be asking "if there really was no crime, why did the president work so hard to cover it up?" Nobody actually believes Trumpie did nothing wrong, they only think that whatever wrong he did was not so bad because he is their guy. Pointing out that he committed crimes to cover up what was (supposedly) nothing at all is very damning. Just shutting up and letting his narrative of "I did nothing wrong, this is proof, I won" is far more dangerous than letting him rant and rave and make himself look like the paranoid crook that he is.

Either way, he will try and trot out his own story about what happened. The possibility that he will just shut his mouth and stop tweeting lies is non-existent. His "woe is me, I am being unfairly attacked for all the bullshit that I totally didn't do despite all the evidence to the contrary" story makes him look like a big weak baby and is far less damaging for his opponents than letting him just make shit up unopposed.

Making it so that Trumpie cannot have any successes without it being accompanied by a story of yet another failure on his part is crucial to winning the next election. He is completely unfit for the job that he has, and people need to be reminded of the fact constantly because 'Muricans have the attention spans of a couple days at most. Giving up the fight at any point will only tell people that things are perfectly fine. In case you missed the eight years before Trumpie came along, I will remind you that this is how the Republicans played against Obama and that unrelenting attack and building of resentment bears far more responsibility for the Republicans winning the election than anything that their candidate said or did.
 

Wakko

Well-known member
There was no underlying crime behind the original investigation.

I think you're missing my point. I am saying that this will hurt the Dems greatly if they choose to pursue it, because it will allow the Republicans to portray them as politically-motivated witchhunters and fabricators. And this will work, because it's true.

Like, Adam Schiff claimed several times to have proof that Trump collaborated. Where is it?

It also gives a giant example of demonstrably fake news that Trump can point at whenever he is reported as doing something bad that he actually did do. Like, the notorious Trump Tower meeting that was supposed to be high-level spy contacts but was actually a British music producer trying to get a meeting for a pop star.

That Trump committed crimes of obstruction of justice is irrelevant. What the average person will take away from all this is that Trump was falsely accused of a crime for political reasons because some people didn't like the way the 2016 elections turned out, just like Trump said, and the country spent 2 years and lots of money, and the media ran with bullshit story after bullshit story for ratings. This will hurt the Dems like hell. If they are smart they'll shut up about it and, you know, try to win the election next year.
What is worse - now anytime the Dems accuse Trump of anything, he can just brush it away claiming that they're lying again. Anytime they produce any documents, he can call them another Steele Dossier. Because of Russiagate, now they practically can't touch him because people will go "omg, not again this useless show."
 

Alcibiades

Active member
What is worse - now anytime the Dems accuse Trump of anything, he can just brush it away claiming that they're lying again. Anytime they produce any documents, he can call them another Steele Dossier. Because of Russiagate, now they practically can't touch him because people will go "omg, not again this useless show."
They're still doing it too.

Notice that this follows the standard pattern. Big bombshell about Trump and Russia from some unnamed source, which then gets retracted. Few people see the retraction, creating the impression that the bombshell is real.

before


shortly thereafter


note that he flatout admits that they didn't factcheck anything
 

Kinetic

Vivere est militare!
That's a pity. When I listen to her, I hear an American patriot who is not afraid to speak the truth as she sees it - and she has a 10/10 vision IMO.
The angle that "she's bad because the Russians like her" is hilarious useful. They like her because she's not using russophobia to get points, she's talking about actual real issues in US society.
All we need to do is send particular moron we don't like an invitation to dinner and he kinda stops being a problem without any other effort on our part.

Awesome.
 

Tithed_Verse

What's bugging you?
Author
Goddamn cromy didn't go to jail for breach of security. Fuck. He deserved it. Non partisin opinion: Comry needed to go to the clink. For interference with the election, among other sins.
 

Lerticus

Senile Old Coot
Communism
Sensational headlines. Prediction of being a silver bullet. Found out to be nothing more than sensationalism. Much shock.

OK, so which candidate am I talking about?

The same thing happened on both sides, but because Trumpie won the election it is claimed that all of the sensational headlines not being entirely correct (even though at the time everything was backing up the Steele Dosier) only strengthened him (from the future I suppose). Meanwhile Hillary was also lampooned by sensational headlines without merit and lost... but some will pretend that was nothing more than coincidence.

Which is why the argument is bullshit. Yes, sensationalist media is always bad, but acting like it somehow is strengthening one side despite the other side losing because of the exact same damn tactics is completely lacking in honesty.
 

Wakko

Well-known member
even though at the time everything was backing up the Steele Dosier
Whaaat? No it wasn't. It was clear from the start that it was an opposition research and there weren't actually any hard facts supporting it. A pee tape?? Really??
Steele diđ what former intelligence agents do. Took money for collecting rumours and fairy tales while making it look semi-professional. FBI, surprisingly, used it for a FISA warrant (Comey should go to jail for that), and Dems, desperate after losing to a sexist orange, grabbed and held on to it like it was the holy word. Remember that before buzzfeed (buzzfeed!) printed it, some more serious news sites declined to do it?
 

Aaron Fox

SB's Minor Junker Descendant and Hunter of Nazis
Author
Goddamn cromy didn't go to jail for breach of security. Fuck. He deserved it. Non partisin opinion: Comry needed to go to the clink. For interference with the election, among other sins.
The situation is... more convoluted than you would think. From what I've gathered, Comney sent a memo that if another investigation was done on Hillary, it would be on a sitting president. The GOP ran with this and, well, as they say the rest was history.
 

Tithed_Verse

What's bugging you?
Author
The situation is... more convoluted than you would think. From what I've gathered, Comney sent a memo that if another investigation was done on Hillary, it would be on a sitting president. The GOP ran with this and, well, as they say the rest was history.
Naw, I don't buy that. Comry deliberately dicked around with both parties. He wanted to be J Edgar Hoover or some shit. God, the legacy of that irredeemable monster (J Edgar Hoover, I mean). The FBI may still need some serious reworking to stamp out the last traces of his personality and legacy.
 

Aaron Fox

SB's Minor Junker Descendant and Hunter of Nazis
Author
Naw, I don't buy that. Comry deliberately dicked around with both parties. He wanted to be J Edgar Hoover or some shit. God, the legacy of that irredeemable monster (J Edgar Hoover, I mean). The FBI may still need some serious reworking to stamp out the last traces of his personality and legacy.
Comny isn't the sort to be even close to J. Edgar Hoover, it takes a man of immense paranoia and some patriotism to be even close to the man. We also don't know of the actual political shenanigans that were behind closed doors as well...
 

Tithed_Verse

What's bugging you?
Author
Comny isn't the sort to be even close to J. Edgar Hoover, it takes a man of immense paranoia and some patriotism to be even close to the man. We also don't know of the actual political shenanigans that were behind closed doors as well...
Please, don't pretend Hoover was patriotic. All it takes is a man desperately digging for control. And that's all Comry wanted. He wanted to be a name that was feared by congress, and someone that could control by releasing this, and releasing that. He wanted to wield the FBI, and it's investigations as a weapon. Not for his country. Not for any reason other than to do it. Which, yes, makes him identical to Mr J Edgar.

You can see this CLEARLY in his actions, attacking both presidential candidates and sitting presidents alike. Interfering in elections.

J Edgar Hoover was a monster, not a patriot. And Comry was an idiot who wanted to be a monster and thankfully failed.
 
Last edited:

Top