Humpty-Dumpty, Trump-ity Drumpf-ity, Dummy-dumb-F___-ity

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Nov 29, 2006
15,601
4,051
136
Some folks around here, many of whom I considered sane and balanced before, went full retard, once Trump was elected. Never seen one figure who could cause so many people to lose their shit. It's a phenomenon, the likes of which I have never seen in my lifetime.

Yeah Trumpers are an insane bunch. I wasnt aware that needed pointing out by you.
 
Nov 29, 2006
15,601
4,051
136
It's not even going to be redacted i.e. it's another summary. This guy is a real piece of work!


I dont know how many pages the report it, but what gets sent to the dems will be "No" on page 3, and "Collusion" on page 17 and the rest all blacked out. So basically useless. I dont think the president should ever see these reports first. Should be sent right to the house/senate/public in full.

Its like if a murderer was on trial getting to tell the judge hes innocent because he gets to decide what evidence the judge get to know about. Totally insane that we allow this at all.
 
Last edited:

mikeymikec

Lifer
May 19, 2011
17,578
9,268
136
I dont know how many pages the report it, but what gets sent to the dems will be "No" on page 3, and "Collusion" on page 17 and the rest all blacked out. So basically useless. I dont think the president should ever see these reports first. Should be sent right to the house/senate/public in full. Its like a murderer telling the judge hes innocent because he gets to decide what the judge get to know.

Based on my assumption that there is some definite dirt on say Trump / his admin in the Mueller report:
Mueller has a rep of being incorruptible and doing an honest and thorough job of what he was told to investigate. I find it highly unlikely that he and his team spent ages investigating everything thoroughly and then not anticipating that the GOP / Trump admin would try to bury the report in the event it says something they don't like. Ergo, IMO Mueller (and/or one of his team) will have decided to draw a line at the point that they are ready to intervene (e.g. leak the report).

IMO it's unreasonable to think that people investigating corruption at the highest levels of government are just going to say, "well, if they want to bury it, that's all there is to it!". I don't know whether leaking the report in the traditional sense (ie. anonymously) is the best counter-tactic because the veracity of the leak would be the obvious thing for the GOP / Trump admin to question.

What would happen if Mueller just went to Congress in full view of the cameras and dropped the report off with them? Perhaps a redacted copy from a security (say protecting confidential sources) perspective, but nonetheless it would be a statement saying that the copy he dropped off is untainted with political bias.
 

brandonbull

Diamond Member
May 3, 2005
6,330
1,203
126
Says the schmuck who defends a guy who calls neo nazis as "fine people".

For fucks sake, he never called neo nazis or any other hate group "fine people". Try actually watching the press conference and the MULTIPLE times he publicly condemned hate groups. Now as for elected Democratic members of Congress, they sure do love their hate groups.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
Pretty clear here:



To any objective person the obvious implication there is that Mueller had significant evidence of obstruction of justice. If he hasn’t, there would be no evidence to present for it.
lol so it's either no evidence or significant evidence. Got it.
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
25,992
23,792
136
For fucks sake, he never called neo nazis or any other hate group "fine people". Try actually watching the press conference and the MULTIPLE times he publicly condemned hate groups. Now as for elected Democratic members of Congress, they sure do love their hate groups.

Very fine people on both sides. One side being avowed white supremacists. So yes he did call a hate group "very fine people".
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,718
47,407
136
lol so it's either no evidence or significant evidence. Got it.

As I posted in another thread the lawyers over at Lawfare agree with me. While this is of course speculation as again, nobody has seen the report, they believe the most likely answer is that Mueller believed he had sufficient evidence against Trump to indict him and obtain a conviction but because the case wasn't a slam dunk and because of all the other political considerations he asked Congress to make that decision.

One thing this does hint at, though, is that Mueller directly faced the question of whether prosecution would be “worth it”—and that, in turn, suggests that he was at least tentatively of the view that he had passed the first hurdle and could, if pressed, make a case to obtain and sustain a conviction. If he did not think he had the evidence, then the second-order question of federal interests never would have arisen.

Does that sort of analysis by a recognized, nonpartisan expert change your opinion at all?

https://www.lawfareblog.com/unpacking-obstruction-justice-mystery-barr-letter
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
As I posted in another thread the lawyers over at Lawfare agree with me. While this is of course speculation as again, nobody has seen the report, they believe the most likely answer is that Mueller believed he had sufficient evidence against Trump to indict him and obtain a conviction but because the case wasn't a slam dunk and because of all the other political considerations he asked Congress to make that decision.



Does that sort of analysis by a recognized, nonpartisan expert change your opinion at all?

https://www.lawfareblog.com/unpacking-obstruction-justice-mystery-barr-letter
No. Because as you said is all speculation. Until the the full report comes out.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,718
47,407
136
No. Because as you said is all speculation. Until the the full report comes out.

But you're already speculating when you said people are overestimating. Since you have no problem with speculation why not read the most informed speculation?
 

BonzaiDuck

Lifer
Jun 30, 2004
15,699
1,448
126
It seems to me that Mueller's job is done.

We don't have to "wait a long time" for the House Committees to either invite -- or subpoena -- Mueller's testimony.

They can start asking questions as of yesterday. Correct me if I'm wrong, but what could possibly prevent that?

If somehow the report is quashed, I can imagine people filling the Capitol Mall, Lafayette Square and all the streets on either side of the White House, all carrying enough rotten eggs to paint the entire building with an omelet.
 

tweaker2

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
14,478
6,902
136
I think you guys are *drastically* underestimating the likelihood that Mueller’s report contains some really bad stuff, especially around obstruction of justice.

Conservative media is doing a full court press about this report vindicating Trump despite having basically no knowledge of its contents. They are really setting themselves, and you guys, up for a fall.

Many conservatives have been tripping over their tongues and feet defending the indefensible antics of that buffoonish megalomaniac. The emotions of shame and embarrassment over his constantly making a complete ass of himself have fled their house and gotten replaced with hair triggered reflex responses tuned to instantly ignore his incompetence whilst simultaneously mindlessly defending it with...............madness.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,382
7,446
136
Very fine people on both sides. One side being avowed white supremacists. So yes he did call a hate group "very fine people".

That is NOT what Fox initially reported, that is NOT what the President saw. That is NOT what he spoke for. The narrative was quite literally "Some Southerners want to save their historical monuments". Are you slandering every single person in the South? Everyone who cares to honor American war heroes? If not, then you'd be in agreement with the President's statement.

Democrats pulled a bait and switch on the words used in that moment. Because they only know their truth, and their context. And it was hella convenient to paint the President that way. They have no idea what goes on in the minds of Republicans, of those who have their own ideas and context of what occurs. In your absolute certainty in the evil of Trump's statement, did it ever occur to you that your view and his might be of two completely different things?

Apple VS Orange.

Trump says that's a nice very fruit. You condemn him for loving those avowed tart and bitter devils. You are blind to the Apple in front of him.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
23,331
10,238
136
Some folks around here, many of whom I considered sane and balanced before, went full retard, once Trump was elected. Never seen one figure who could cause so many people to lose their shit. It's a phenomenon, the likes of which I have never seen in my lifetime.
Been watching it in Republicans regarding the Clintons for at least 20 years. We got some catching up to do.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,718
47,407
136
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
110,515
29,100
146
Some folks around here, many of whom I considered sane and balanced before, went full retard, once Trump was elected. Never seen one figure who could cause so many people to lose their shit. It's a phenomenon, the likes of which I have never seen in my lifetime.

How quickly you forget what happened to you when the black man was elected.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

brandonbull

Diamond Member
May 3, 2005
6,330
1,203
126
Very fine people on both sides. One side being avowed white supremacists. So yes he did call a hate group "very fine people".

Again, Trump says a lot of crap but he didn't say that. Try being somewhat truthful during criticisms. Is honesty not your strong suit?
 
Nov 29, 2006
15,601
4,051
136
Very fine people on both sides. One side being avowed white supremacists. So yes he did call a hate group "very fine people".

You didnt honestly think he was going to connect those dots, did you? I mean its clear as day to everyone else, but some people are beyond helping with the obvious.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

UberNeuman

Lifer
Nov 4, 1999
16,937
3,087
126

BonzaiDuck

Lifer
Jun 30, 2004
15,699
1,448
126
I really cannot see how anyone with their head screwed on tightly can assume that normal people will act normally when confronted on TV every day with the most disgusting person ever to appear on TV since the 1936 Berlin Games' landmark broadcast.

You can question my sanity, but I really have to question yours for electing that P-O-S . . . . or worse -- assisting the Russians to lose the election and capture the White House.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JEDIYoda

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
110,515
29,100
146
For fucks sake, he never called neo nazis or any other hate group "fine people". Try actually watching the press conference and the MULTIPLE times he publicly condemned hate groups. Now as for elected Democratic members of Congress, they sure do love their hate groups.

Oh he did, and he did it very publically. It's staggering that you can't accept the obvious. It's irrefutable.

How did this happen to your brain? I find it kinda fascinating.

and lol, suddenly it's "dems are the real supporters of hate groups!" based on nothing. Jesus christ you are so fucking useless.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
110,515
29,100
146
Again, Trump says a lot of crap but he didn't say that. Try being somewhat truthful during criticisms. Is honesty not your strong suit?

lol. he said exactly that. what the holy fuck is wrong with you? Was that presser not broadcast on Fox news? Is this what actually happened?

How can you be so fucking poorly informed?