~*Official Thread of Wade Being An Easy Mark*~

[Anathema-]

 

 

That crazy SDNY

[SuperSpreader]

2 hours ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

Some of you guys just keep blowing your loads too early.

No such thing

[skillzdadirecta]

2 hours ago, ThreePi said:

If anyone is planting false stories its Giuliani. Trump's too dumb to plant believable false stories.

He's been doing it since the 80's... he's not a smart man, but he knows how to play and work the media.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

[Jason]

57 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

 

 

[Jason]

[skillzdadirecta]

10 hours ago, Jwheel86 said:

So what are realistic possibilities for what happened? It has to be somewhere between they made it up and it was a planted story. 

I'm guessing that it was planted but with enough truths to make it believable.  Some of it may be "kinda" true, but it was false enough that Mueller thought it was prudent to speak out against it. Plus again, one of the reporters on this story got in trouble once before for "exaggerating" a story.

 

Honestly my guess is the Buzzfeed story is probably right but got some of the specific details wrong and may have overstated some of the evidence that Mueller has. Either that or this is all one big work and Trump will get away with this regardless of what Mueller finds.

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

My thought on the denial was it was so carefully worded that if something in the reporting was off by a bit it would meet the criteria for not entirely accurate.

 

Why would the SC make a statement, I wonder if they still have sources within and around Individual 1. Buzzfeed's reporting could have clues on who could be working with the investigation and how they are obtaining information. While not being 100% accurate, close enough to endanger the investigation. 

 

So Mueller puts out a carefully worded denial. And Individual 1 breathes a sigh of relief. 

[Jason]

 

[CitizenVectron]

It's possible that their information is accurate, but that they are referring to the NY investigation, and not Mueller.

[CitizenVectron]

[Jason]

Suck it, @SFLUFAN @Kal-El814

 

23 hours ago, Jason said:

 

 

 

@mclumber1 is back on the menu

[MarSolo]

 

I'm doing it. I never get to do it.

[Jason]

Just now, MarSolo said:

 

I'm doing it. I never get to do it.

 

embrace it

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Whatever.

[Jason]

54 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

Whatever.

 

Mueller’s own filings show ‘the core of BuzzFeed’s story is correct’: Former FBI official to MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow

 

57 minutes ago, Jason said:

embrace it

 

[marioandsonic]

On 1/17/2019 at 10:53 PM, RedSoxFan9 said:

Nothing will happen 

 

 

1 hour ago, SFLUFAN said:

Whatever.

 

[Jason]

1 hour ago, Jason said:

embrace it

 

[CitizenVectron]

Let me try

 

[Jason]

1 minute ago, CitizenVectron said:

Let me try

 

 

[skillzdadirecta]

6 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

Let me try

 

 

Let me see how it feels...

 

 

Overrated.

[Signifyin(g)Monkey]

1 hour ago, Jason said:

 

Mueller’s own filings show ‘the core of BuzzFeed’s story is correct’: Former FBI official to MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow

 

 

Quote

Suck it, @SFLUFAN @Kal-El814

 

 

 

@mclumber1 is back on the menu

I’m confused.  The WaPo article you posted said pretty clearly:

Quote

People familiar with the matter said after BuzzFeed published its story — which was attributed to “two federal law enforcement officials involved in an investigation of the matter” — the special counsel’s office reviewed evidence to determine if there were any documents or witness interviews like those described, reaching out to those they thought might have a stake in the case.

They found none, these people said. That, the people said, is in part why it took Mueller’s office nearly a day to dispute the story publicly

In addition to:

Quote

People familiar with the matter said the special counsel’s office meant the statement to be a denial of the central theses of the BuzzFeed story — particularly those that referenced what Cohen had told the special counsel, and what evidence the special counsel had gathered.

 

I don’t see how this indicates that the BuzzFeed story was any less disastrously wrong.

 

I’m sticking with my long-standing policy of waiting for Mueller to confirm impeachment-level wrong-doing occurred on Trump’s part before I start getting worked up about anything.  At the pace we’re going I expect to know the truth sometime in 2024.

 

And if Trump *did* do something truly impeachment worthy like obstruction, you can now thank BuzzFeed for giving him ammunition to fight the allegations with.

[Kal-El814]

No you don't get it.

 

We believe Cohen when he says things that confirm our biases and don't believe him when he says things that do not, for reasons that are unrelated to the previously mentioned and wholly transparent confirmation bias. That is mere coincidence and we look for reasons to believe the person we just said we did not believe.

 

We believe Mueller and we believe IN Mueller and post gifs of him photoshopped onto Judge Dredd. But when his team comes out and says, "hey that thing that confirmed your biases is not correct," we say, "that cannot be, my biases do not get confirmed for no reason," and we look for reasons to not believe the person we just said said we believed.

 

I mean... we buy into Rachel Maddow's guests and takes, now? That Trump tax return clown show is so far in the rear view that you can't see it? Y'all are giving out the gold for mental gymnastics 15 seconds into the start of the floor routine.

[Anathema-]

I'm not going to tie the need for or the appropriateness of impeachment to Mueller's findings. It's not necessary and a bit absurd. 

[SuperSpreader]

letitburn

[Signifyin(g)Monkey]

7 hours ago, Anathema- said:

I'm not going to tie the need for or the appropriateness of impeachment to Mueller's findings. It's not necessary and a bit absurd. 

I meant in regards to matters surrounding the Russia/collusion investigation, where Mueller has more facts than anyone else to make a judgment.

 

Obviously if Trump does something impeachable outside the scope of the Mueller inquiry then we’re dealing with a different situation and Mueller’s word won’t be authoritative on the matter.

 

But, In the end, for me, what it comes down to is this: it’s very difficult to take out the King, regardless of what he’s done.  You need a silver bullet, I.e. pretty indisputable evidence of (prosecutable) high crimes.  Something indisputable enough that it would get even his most loyal soldiers to abandon him.  Nothing less will likely suffice, due to the many built-in defense mechanisms at the disposal of the crown.

 

If and when the silver bullet appears, by all means fire it with great abandon—but I think pinning my hopes on a lesser weapon will more often than not leave me disappointed.

 

Just my take.

 

 

[Anathema-]

He's been committing impeachment level offenses since his first moments on the job and frequent new ones since. The report that he directed Cohen to lie to Congress is only the latest we know about. The fact that that lie also leaves him exposed to blackmail by a foreign power is also an impeachable offense. I could be here for hours listing all the publicly available information that is grounds for impeachment that have nothing to do with whether he entered into a criminal conspiracy to steal the election. 

 

Frankly, if he isn't impeached for clear emoluments violations then why is it even in the constitution? How can any Congress enforce it (or any other discrete issue) in the future if they abdicate their responsibility now?

[Jason]

55 minutes ago, Anathema- said:

He's been committing impeachment level offenses since his first moments on the job and frequent new ones since. The report that he directed Cohen to lie to Congress is only the latest we know about. The fact that that lie also leaves him exposed to blackmail by a foreign power is also an impeachable offense. I could be here for hours listing all the publicly available information that is grounds for impeachment that have nothing to do with whether he entered into a criminal conspiracy to steal the election. 

 

Frankly, if he isn't impeached for clear emoluments violations then why is it even in the constitution? How can any Congress enforce it (or any other discrete issue) in the future if they abdicate their responsibility now?

 

I get that the genesis of this is needing to find 20 GOP Senators willing to cross party lines and vote to convict/remove, but the Congressional Democrats really do seem weirdly obsessed with finding some ironclad legalistic basis for impeachment despite the fact that the Clinton blowjob impeachment clearly established that impeachment is primarily political and not legal.

 

But yeah if you were guaranteed to wrangle up those 20 GOP Senators (18 before the midterms) then I think it's pretty clear that impeachment would have happened pretty much ASAP. "Russia, if you're listening..."

[Jwheel86]

1 hour ago, Jason said:

 

I get that the genesis of this is needing to find 20 GOP Senators willing to cross party lines and vote to convict/remove, but the Congressional Democrats really do seem weirdly obsessed with finding some ironclad legalistic basis for impeachment despite the fact that the Clinton blowjob impeachment clearly established that impeachment is primarily political and not legal.

 

But yeah if you were guaranteed to wrangle up those 20 GOP Senators (18 before the midterms) then I think it's pretty clear that impeachment would have happened pretty much ASAP. "Russia, if you're listening..."

Impeachment is a political process, the question is what are the political circumstances to get 20? Whoever votes to convict will face a primary challenge, so the more recently elected the better, gives time for the base to cool off. Circumstances outside of the impeachment will matter too. If the Trade Wars cause a recession than donors might want Trump gone. 

[Jason]

2 minutes ago, Jwheel86 said:

Impeachment is a political process, the question is what are the political circumstances to get 20? Whoever votes to convict will face a primary challenge, so the more recently elected the better, gives time for the base to cool off. Circumstances outside of the impeachment will matter too. If the Trade Wars cause a recession than donors might want Trump gone. 

 

I still think every GOP legislator, recently elected or not, could probably get away with going anti-Trump by just doing it immediately after the most recent election (so in this case the midterms). The 30% will show up to vote for whomever has the (R) next to their name no matter what if the alternative is a (D).

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

He can be impeached and not removed from office, and that's fine

[Jason]

2 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

He can be impeached and not removed from office, and that's fine

 

[Jwheel86]

3 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

I still think every GOP legislator, recently elected or not, could probably get away with going anti-Trump by just doing it immediately after the most recent election (so in this case the midterms). The 30% will show up to vote for whomever has the (R) next to their name no matter what if the alternative is a (D).

The general election isn't the issue, it's the primary when the base can put in more extreme candidates who'll avenge Trump. Whoever the 20 are need to be in relatively moderate states where the convicting Senator will be viewed a glorious hero of the republic and not a traitor. Romney is the best example, he's got that seat no matter what he does to Trump. 

[Anathema-]

28 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

He can be impeached and not removed from office, and that's fine

 

put the assholes on record

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

32 minutes ago, Jwheel86 said:

The general election isn't the issue, it's the primary when the base can put in more extreme candidates who'll avenge Trump. Whoever the 20 are need to be in relatively moderate states where the convicting Senator will be viewed a glorious hero of the republic and not a traitor. Romney is the best example, he's got that seat no matter what he does to Trump. 

There are maybe eight to ten Republican senators who come from a purpleish state that could vote to convict. One of them is Rubio so the list is virtually meaningless because moderates. Don't. Exist.

 

Here's how it goes if you're a Republican from a purple state: you do the cross over party lines thing for impeachment, you get primaried. Best case, you win the primary, but lose a good chunk of support from your base for going against Trump, who love him, but tolerate you. You lose a lot of the base, and very few people are going to look at the impeachment vote and then overlook literally everything else you've supported and not vote against you. You gain nothing. People have made up their minds.