Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
SenatorRock

Mueller Time is officially over. Predictions?

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Kanil said:

I'm pretty sure I was told he was different and was going to drain the swamp.  You mean he's just like all the others?  I've been hoodwinked.

Pretty much, as far as dirt goes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So now that Trump has been cleared and looking back at seemingly all of Washington (and certain governments) were against him, why do same people still want him gone? For the corruption to continue? 

Admitting you were duped isn't anything to be ashamed of. Rejoice we have a guy wanting to clean it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Kanil said:

I'm pretty sure I was told he was different and was going to drain the swamp.  You mean he's just like all the others?  I've been hoodwinked.

What was Trump's crime? I seriously want to know, I think I missed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Filthy Fernadez said:

So now that Trump has been cleared and looking back at seemingly all of Washington (and certain governments) were against him, why do same people still want him gone? For the corruption to continue? 

Admitting you were duped isn't anything to be ashamed of. Rejoice we have a guy wanting to clean it up.

The  mental gymnastics going on from the left right now is pathetic. They keep losing and they keep becoming more unhinged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty accurate piece the NYT published (someone is definitely getting fired/Khashoggi'd)

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/18/opinion/barr-media-trump.html

Some highlights:

For nearly four years, members of America’s ruling class, especially those in the media, the academy and government, have operated on one central, unquestioned assumption: orange man bad. This stifling orthodoxy led to a blind, counterfactual faith in the theory that Mr. Trump had somehow colluded with “the Russians” (never well defined) to win the election. Again, the specific charges were always amorphous — plastic enough to change as needed. That’s hardly surprising: That’s the way conspiracy theories always work. The Russian collusion hoax was in fact nothing more than a massively multiplayer coping mechanism for people who couldn’t accept the results of the 2016 election.

But why is it not enough to simply acknowledge that you dislike Mr. Trump and disagree with his policies? What psychological purpose does adding the fiction of a conspiracy serve?

The French philosopher and literary critic René Girard held that such scapegoating and ritual sacrifice is an essential part of group identity and solidarity. That seems to apply here. Mr. Trump ran against American elites and their insular culture. Their response was to load onto him all of the sins they see in American society and attempt to sacrifice him to appease their gods

 

 

Again, the operating principle was that of the zealot: Believe the narrative regardless of the lack of evidence, squint to see justifications where there are none and then in an intoxicated frenzy of moral superiority use any weapon at hand to destroy your enemy.

Shortly after Mr. Mueller concluded his investigation without any indictments related to Russian collusion with the Trump campaign, Representative Adam Schiff, now the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, did not admit he was wrong — far from it. He brazenly doubled down, saying during a committee hearing, “You may think it’s O.K. how Trump and his associates interacted with Russians during the campaign. I don’t. I think it’s immoral. I think it’s unethical. I think it’s unpatriotic. And yes, I think it’s corrupt.”

The problem is that the Mueller investigation, as Mr. Barr explained, “did not find that the Trump campaign or other Americans colluded in those schemes.”

 

 

There are three types of people who promoted Russian collusion hoax. First, those who knew it was false all along, but promoted it for money, power, prestige or dopamine hits from Twitter high-fives. Second, the journalists who had a responsibility to dig into this story rather than just repeating what they hoped was true and what the story’s promoters were telling them.

And then there is the Kool-Aid brigade. These are the people outside of politics, the people who couldn’t wait to hear what Rachel Maddow had to say, who believed every breathless prediction on cable news that “new revelations could spell the end for Trump,” and who shared these nuggets with a mixture of indignation and ecstasy on social media.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, lickin_starfish said:

What was Trump's crime? I seriously want to know, I think I missed it.

Kanil seems to think that an international business developer engaging in preliminary discussions with a dozen countries at any given time is evidence of collusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, SenatorRock said:

Pretty accurate piece the NYT published (someone is definitely getting fired/Khashoggi'd)

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/18/opinion/barr-media-trump.html

Some highlights:

For nearly four years, members of America’s ruling class, especially those in the media, the academy and government, have operated on one central, unquestioned assumption: orange man bad. This stifling orthodoxy led to a blind, counterfactual faith in the theory that Mr. Trump had somehow colluded with “the Russians” (never well defined) to win the election. Again, the specific charges were always amorphous — plastic enough to change as needed. That’s hardly surprising: That’s the way conspiracy theories always work. The Russian collusion hoax was in fact nothing more than a massively multiplayer coping mechanism for people who couldn’t accept the results of the 2016 election.

But why is it not enough to simply acknowledge that you dislike Mr. Trump and disagree with his policies? What psychological purpose does adding the fiction of a conspiracy serve?

The French philosopher and literary critic René Girard held that such scapegoating and ritual sacrifice is an essential part of group identity and solidarity. That seems to apply here. Mr. Trump ran against American elites and their insular culture. Their response was to load onto him all of the sins they see in American society and attempt to sacrifice him to appease their gods

 

 

Again, the operating principle was that of the zealot: Believe the narrative regardless of the lack of evidence, squint to see justifications where there are none and then in an intoxicated frenzy of moral superiority use any weapon at hand to destroy your enemy.

Shortly after Mr. Mueller concluded his investigation without any indictments related to Russian collusion with the Trump campaign, Representative Adam Schiff, now the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, did not admit he was wrong — far from it. He brazenly doubled down, saying during a committee hearing, “You may think it’s O.K. how Trump and his associates interacted with Russians during the campaign. I don’t. I think it’s immoral. I think it’s unethical. I think it’s unpatriotic. And yes, I think it’s corrupt.”

The problem is that the Mueller investigation, as Mr. Barr explained, “did not find that the Trump campaign or other Americans colluded in those schemes.”

 

 

There are three types of people who promoted Russian collusion hoax. First, those who knew it was false all along, but promoted it for money, power, prestige or dopamine hits from Twitter high-fives. Second, the journalists who had a responsibility to dig into this story rather than just repeating what they hoped was true and what the story’s promoters were telling them.

And then there is the Kool-Aid brigade. These are the people outside of politics, the people who couldn’t wait to hear what Rachel Maddow had to say, who believed every breathless prediction on cable news that “new revelations could spell the end for Trump,” and who shared these nuggets with a mixture of indignation and ecstasy on social media.

 

 

Hard to believe that's from the NYT. Sounds like Drobeski. Which is good. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Hard to believe that's from the NYT. Sounds like Drobeski. Which is good. 

To be fair to NYT and their fake news reputation, it was in the opinion section.

Also from NYT:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/19/us/politics/steele-dossier-mueller-report.html

Interviews with people familiar with Mr. Steele’s work on the dossier and the F.B.I.’s scramble to vet its claims suggest that misgivings about its reliability arose not long after the document became public — and a preoccupation of Trump opponents — in early 2017. Mr. Steele has made clear to associates that he always considered the dossier to be raw intelligence — not established facts, but a starting point for further investigation.

By January 2017, F.B.I. agents had tracked down and interviewed one of Mr. Steele’s main sources, a Russian speaker from a former Soviet republic who had spent time in the West, according to a Justice Department document and three people familiar with the events, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. After questioning him about where he’d gotten his information, they suspected he might have added his own interpretations to reports passed on by his sources, one of the people said. For the F.B.I., that made it harder to decide what to trust

Agents did not believe that either the source or Mr. Steele was deliberately inventing things, according to the former official. How the dossier ended up loaded with dubious or exaggerated details remains uncertain, but the document may be the result of a high-stakes game of telephone, in which rumors and hearsay were passed from source to source.

Another possibility — one that Mr. Steele has not ruled out — could be Russian disinformation. That would mean that in addition to carrying out an effective attack on the Clinton campaign, Russian spymasters hedged their bets and placed a few land mines under Mr. Trump’s presidency as well.

Oleg D. Kalugin, a former K.G.B. general who now lives outside Washington, saw that as plausible. “Russia has huge experience in spreading false information,” he said.

 

 

 

So NOW they are admitting that the dossier was unverified third person testimony from Russian leaks and very well could have been a disinformation campaign to interfere with the election.

GAME OVER

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎4‎/‎19‎/‎2019 at 12:50 PM, lickin_starfish said:

What was Trump's crime? I seriously want to know, I think I missed it.

 

On ‎4‎/‎19‎/‎2019 at 2:05 PM, SenatorRock said:

Kanil seems to think that an international business developer engaging in preliminary discussions with a dozen countries at any given time is evidence of collusion.

I believe we were here to predict what would happen with the report.  I said no collusion (TRUE), they would find that he had business deals in Russia after he said he didn't (TRUE), the dems would make a big deal about it (TRUE), and nothing would come of it (to be seen but I still believe this is TRUE).  No where did I say a crime occurred.  Stop getting your panties twisted up just because I'm a guy that doesn't tow your line.  Learn to read, fockheads.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Turns out Mueller spent $700,000 and contracted out some of his report (Weissman report in actuality). Did he continue using Fusion GPS and Crowdstrike? Christopher Steele? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×