The Farce Nears its End

Hello everyone,

maybe the farce about the Mueller "Investigation" nears its end? Have a look at the following article:

The Farce Nears its End

Cheers

Comments

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,272

    Yeah, the "investigation" as you put it has marred the United States. It is a disgrace. And, in the end, it is going to confirm what any objective person already knew, there was no collusion.

  • C_M_C_M_ Posts: 3,005

    Oh, please! What marred the USA ...

    1. Electing Donald J. Trump.
    2. The multiple indictments and convictions for lying to the FBI and/or about contacts with Russia.
    3. Taking children from their parents (kidnapping) with no desire or plans to return them--familial abortion.
    4. A President wasted $11 billion dollars, in a childish tantrum, shutting down the government for 35 days, demanding $5 billions dollars for a border wall, he promised Mexico would pay.
    5. Rich people tax cut.
    6. Personal profiting off the American people while president.
    7. Paying off porn workers to keep quiet after sexual encounters.
    8. Worse than " collusion", obstruction of justice.


    Need I say more...CM

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,489


    No, CM, I don't think you need to say more. You've assembled a VERY formidable assessment of the damage caused by or associated with President Trump. Well done! 👍️

    One of the few items whose addition to your list I would lobby strongly for is the devaluation of facts and truth-telling caused by the president's pathological lying.

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,489

    @Wolfgang says:

    Hello everyone,

    maybe the farce about the Mueller "Investigation" nears its end? Have a look at the following article:

    The Farce Nears its End

    Cheers

    The article to which you've provided a link, Wolfgang, includes a bit more than 1,100 words. Of those 1,100 words, charitably it can be said that about 100 of them have anything to do with the subject of your introduction to the link - that the "farce" of the Mueller "'investigation'" might be nearing its end. The other 1,000 words of the article indict media coverage of the probe, citing three stories and one subject of speculation [The Guardian’s report about Paul Manafort at the Ecuadorian UK embassy; McClatchy's story about the presence of Michael Cohen’s phone in Prague; the Buzzfeed story that Trump ordered Michael Cohen to lie to Congress; and speculation that calls to blocked phone numbers made by Donald Trump Jr on the day of Trump tower meeting were to his father]. So no more than 10% of the article even references the subject of your summation of it.

    And THEN there's the problem with the crux of that 10%. Given just three recent aspects of what we know about the Mueller probe...

    1. That three weeks ago it obtained a trove of new potential evidence to review via search warrants of Roger Stone's homes
    2. That in mid-January Mueller's office asked for an extension of the deadline by which it must make a sentencing recommendation in the case of former deputy Trump campaign chair Rick Gates because Gates is cooperating with "several ongoing investigations"
    3. That Mueller last month received a six month extension of the D.C. grand jury that is hearing the evidence gathered by the investigation

    ... Whitaker's claim during a recent press conference that "...right now, the investigation is, I think, close to being completed" is suspect, to be kind.

    So, Wolfgang, I propose that the article to which you linked fails on two important fronts: 1) its content only in passing even attempts to make the point your introduction to it claims it makes; 2) its attempt to make that point has no substantive evidentiary support, and in fact is refuted by what we know from the Mueller probe's recent activity.

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,272
    1. How did electing Donald Trump mar the USA?
    2. I think you need to look closer at those indictments and convictions and what they were really about. They were technicalities, not collusion.
    3. Separating kids from criminal parents just like happens with American kids in the Social Service system. Nothing to see here. If the parents did not break the law, they would not lose their kids. Oh, by the way, Obama had the same policy.
    4. How did a government shutdown waste money exactly? If anything, it saved money.
    5. I'm not rich, I got a tax cut.
    6. How is he profiting off of the American people exactly?
    7. This one does trouble me.
    8. How exactly has there been obstruction of justice? Spoiler Alert: There hasn't been.


  • C_M_C_M_ Posts: 3,005

    Wolfgang,

    You're a breast-hair better in your selection of political commentary. I have to give you some credit on your source. It's not P.C. Roberts. Different writer, now, seek more substance. Read on. CM

  • C_M_C_M_ Posts: 3,005

    The answer to your questions, at this point, requires induce political vomiting and the examination of its biles. I don't have the time nor the interests. CM

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,272

    In other words you don't have a response because your statements were hogwash.

  • C_M_C_M_ Posts: 3,005

    CM Said: "The answer to your questions, at this point, requires induce political vomiting and the examination of its biles. I don't have the time nor the interests. CM

    Reformed, you've apologized for name-calling, one of such is "pigs" and I acknowledged such declaration. However, your remarks above is not a direct name-call, but I noticed you're not far from the "pig", just using the temporary means of cleaning the "pig" ("hogwash").

    To respond to your post above, it's not "in other words", it's my words above [I don't have the time nor the interests]. They have nothing to do with "pigs" or the water one washes them in. My points remains as your questions do. Why can't you accept that? This is NOT a title sports. CM

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,272

    I in no way called you a name. I called your points hogwash. That is attacking your ideas which is perfectly acceptable and to then try and twist it into saying I am going back to old ways is disheartening as I try to turn a new leaf.


    That being said, if you have answers to my points, I'd love to see them. But I don't believe for a second you have a response because my points and questions are solid and poked holes throughout your points.

  • C_M_C_M_ Posts: 3,005

    You're right. Re-read my post. I didn't say you called me a name. I said your quest to "attack" my "ideas" you're not far from the pig. Please don't read more into what I said. Whatever conclusion you draw about my decision beyond this, use it to comfort yourself. CM

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,489

    @reformed said:

    That being said, if you have answers to my points, I'd love to see them. But I don't believe for a second you have a response because my points and questions are solid and poked holes throughout your points.

    My take on CM's "points" and your "points" and "questions":

    • CM: "Electing Donald J. Trump" | reformed: "How did electing Donald Trump mar the USA?"

    CM's assertion is his partisan political assessment of the election's result. Your question doesn't "poke holes in his assertion; it simply asks for information. The following chart is one piece of evidence that backs up CM's claim; similar data are widely available via simple Google searches.

    • CM: "The multiple indictments and convictions for lying to the FBI and/or about contacts with Russia" | reformed: "I think you need to look closer at those indictments and convictions and what they were really about. They were technicalities, not collusion."

    The most important element of any perjury or false statement charge/conviction/confession is the damage done to our judicial system when people lie. There can be no justice without truth-telling. Therefore, suggestions such as yours - that those charges are "technicalities" - or others' - that they report "process crimes" - are badly misguided.

    The second most important element of the perjury or false statement charges etc in the Mueller probe is that so many of them have been about contacts with or about Russians. It's a fundamental question the Trumpsters union routinely fails to address: If there was nothing wrong with the Trump campaign's contacts and connections with Russia, why have so many people associated with that campaign lied about those contacts and connections (in lies both charged/plead to, and discovered but not yet charged or plead to)?


    • CM: "Taking children from their parents (kidnapping) with no desire or plans to return them--familial abortion." | reformed: "Separating kids from criminal parents just like happens with American kids in the Social Service system. Nothing to see here. If the parents did not break the law, they would not lose their kids. Oh, by the way, Obama had the same policy."

    I reject CM's imagery of "familial abortion" and "kidnapping," and I'm not convinced it's accurate to say the government has no "desire" to return separated kids their families - though it IS true that the evidence shows the administration had no "plan" to do so. But the Trump administration's "zero tolerance" policy - which the Obama administration did NOT have, by the way - is a mar against our country's values, in my view.


    • CM: "A President wasted $11 billion dollars, in a childish tantrum, shutting down the government for 35 days, demanding $5 billions dollars for a border wall, he promised Mexico would pay." | reformed: "How did a government shutdown waste money exactly? If anything, it saved money."

    The $11 billion shut down cost figure has been widely publicized - HERE, for example.


    • CM: "Rich people tax cut." | reformed: "I'm not rich, I got a tax cut."

    The president promised the typical American household a $4,000 pay raise/tax cut. My wife and I are a pretty typical American household - ours is something close to median household income for the country. We didn't get anything close to a $4,000 benefit from the tax cut. Did you?

    In addition, the VAST majority of the tax cuts went to the wealthiest in the nation. One estimate: 20% of the benefits went to the richest 1% of Americans.

    Then there's the matter of the explosion in the federal deficit.


    • CM: "Personal profiting off the American people while president." | reformed: "How is he profiting off of the American people exactly?"

    Widely known are the benefits the president and his businesses receive from the president's use of his golf courses and clubs (e.g. Mar-a-Logo) as well as rent and other fees paid to Trump Tower for the time the president spends there. Then there's the Trump International Hotel, just down the street from the White House, which has played host to lots of foreign - and likely some domestic - dignitaries, people whose expenses have helped the president's bottom line. (Google "emoluments clause")

    We might also mention the membership initiation fee increase that Mar-a-Lago implemented after the president took office (from $100,000 to $200,000) One has to think the club would not have done that had its owner not been elected president. In my view, that increase was a form of profiting off the American people.


    • CM: "Paying off porn workers to keep quiet after sexual encounters." | reformed: "This one does trouble me."

    Common ground is a good thing.


    • CM: "Worse than " collusion", obstruction of justice." | reformed: "How exactly has there been obstruction of justice? Spoiler Alert: There hasn't been."

    To-date in the Mueller probe, Konstantin Kilimnik has been charged with obstruction. Paul Manafort has plead guilty to an obstruction charge. The proverbial jury is still out on the president's legal exposure for actions such as his firing of James Comey, his composing a false statement to the nation about the purpose of the Trump Tower meeting, any dangling of pardons in which his staff engaged on his behalf, any witness intimidation contained in his tweets (e.g. the tweets about Michael Cohen's father in-law) and any false statements he made in his written submission to the special counsel.


    MY CONCLUSION: I don't find many of the holes you claim your questions and points "poked" in CM's "points.

  • C_M_C_M_ Posts: 3,005

    Wow! Bill, Great Job!

    You "channelled" my points almost perfectly. Thanks. The facts speak for themselves. Thanks for taking time, Bill. I hope, in future, Reformed would take time to connect the obvious dots of data of truth for himself. In my view, he owes you. CM🤣

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,489


    Thanks for the kind word, CM.

    I posted earlier my applause for your list. I'm glad to have added supportive evidence to its claims where I could.

Sign In or Register to comment.