The editorial is a stepped-up criticism of Trump from apiece the board published last month, which said “it’s time for Republicans to move on” from the former president. The board endorsed Trump for president in 2020.
The piece followed the latest public hearing from the House select committee investigating the insurrection. At its hearing on Thursday, the committee outlined how Trump did not take action to disperse rioters for hours as the attack unfolded despite some of his top advisers pressuring him to do so.
Trump has been hinting at another run for president for months and told New York Magazine earlier this month that he has already decided whether he will run again. He said the question is when he will announce his decision.
metmike: Some republicans and sources are also paying attention to all the new evidence that has emerged from the hearings.
Trump’s silence on Jan. 6 is damning
https://nypost.com/2022/07/22/trumps-jan-6-silence-renders-him-unworthy-for-2024-reelection/
As his followers stormed the Capitol, calling on his vice president to be hanged, President Donald Trump sat in his private dining room, watching TV, doing nothing.
For three hours, seven minutes.
There has been much debate over whether Trump’s rally speech on Jan. 6, 2021, constituted “incitement.” That’s somewhat of a red herring. What matters more — and has become crystal clear in recent days — is that Trump didn’t lift a finger to stop the violence that followed.
And he was the only person who could stop what was happening. He was the only one the crowd was listening to. It was incitement by silence.
Trump only wanted one thing during that infamous afternoon: to pressure Vice President Mike Pence to decertify the election of Joe Biden.
He thought the violence of his loyal followers would make Pence crack, or delay the vote altogether.
To his eternal shame, as appalled aides implored him to publicly call on his followers to go home, he instead further fanned the flames by tweeting: “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution.”
His only focus was to find any means — damn the consequences — to block the peaceful transfer of power.
There is no other explanation, just as there is no defense, for his refusal to stop the violence.
It’s up to the Justice Department to decide if this is a crime. But as a matter of principle, as a matter of character, Trump has proven himself unworthy to be this country’s chief executive again.
so "some repubs" you say? if this is such news so large that it must shouted like nobody else ever thought like that??? How come 2 of the very most conservative people on this forum {Tim and me} have saying for months we hope and pray Trump does not run again and would not support him if he did?
Even as Republican support for another Trump Presidential bid appears to be slipping, he can’t be counted out.
How much political damage did Trump actually do to himself? In eight televised hearings since early June, the January 6th committee has shown in great detail how the now former President incited the riot, cheered it on, expressed sympathy with the rioters’ desire to hang Vice-President Mike Pence, and, finally, as he belatedly asked the insurrectionists to leave the Capitol, told them that he loved them and that they were “very special.” The committee also convincingly illustrated how Trump pursued his false claims about the 2020 election being stolen from him even after his own legal advisers repeatedly told him these claims were “completely bullshit,” as the former Attorney General Bill Barr put it. In other words, Trump knew exactly what he was doing—using baseless claims to try and pull off a self-coup, an autogolpe.
In a properly functioning political system, these facts would surely disqualify Trump from holding any public office again, let alone the Presidency. But, at his second impeachment trial, in February, 2021, forty-three Republican senators prevented the two-thirds conviction vote that would have put him out to pasture. So here we are, eighteen months later, with the coup plotter indicating that he intends to run again in 2024, and suggesting he might even declare before the November midterms. If the Justice Department does eventually charge him, and a court convicts him, that wouldn’t prevent him from running, legal experts say."
By demonstrating so clearly and comprehensively Trump’s culpability before, on, and after January 6, 2021, the House select committee has strengthened the hands of his potential G.O.P. rivals, and this could conceivably be its biggest legacy. But, even after all the committee’s sterling work, a Republican effort to take down Trump would attract a barrage of counterattacks from him and his supporters, and it would take courage and fortitude to withstand the onslaught. Outside of the offices of Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, Mitt Romney, and a few others, these attributes are still in extremely short supply in G.O.P. circles. That’s another thing in Trump’s favor. ♦
metmike: It's just as much lacking from the far left and their made up climate crisis.
Unlike the Trump people, who rightfully deserve to be labelled with a lack the honestly and integrity, the fake climate crisis crowd is seen as the 100% polar opposite.
THEY are the ones that supposedly care about the environment and planet. They are the ones telling you and me how to live our lives(while they burn 20 times more fossil fuels than the rest of us.......some completely for convenience, luxury and pleasure) while making economy wrecking decisions that only makes a small dent in their stock portfolio's and has 0.0000% benefits to the non problematic climate.
They can afford the cost of living X 10 while some people are struggling from pay check to pay check.....and they are supposed to be for the poor.
If we really were killing the planet, then of course this tough medicine would be absolutely needed.
Not only are we not killing the planet..........CO2 is a beneficial gas and the slight warming has been beneficial to most life, including humans, where cold still kills 10 times as many of us than heat.
It's absolutely a climate OPTIMUM. The crisis part of increasing CO2 and global warming is manufactured.
Hot Summer NOT caused by climate change
Started by metmike - July 22, 2022, 7:08 p.m.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/24/politics/liz-cheney-donald-trump-january-6-cnntv/index.html
"I think that Donald Trump, the violation of his oath of office, the violation of the Constitution that he engaged in, is the most serious misconduct of any president in the history of our nation. I think that, as I said, the committee has not decided yet whether or not we'll make criminal referrals. That's something we take very seriously. And I would also say that the Department of Justice certainly is very focused based on what we see publicly on what is the largest criminal investigation in American history. But there's no doubt in my mind that the President of the United States is unfit for further office."
Cheney also said she believes the missing Secret Service texts are "deeply troubling."
"I will also say this, I'm not going to lie. I'm not going to say things that aren't true about the election," she said. "My opponents are doing that certainly simply for the purpose of getting elected ... if I have to choose between maintaining a seat in the House of Representatives, or protecting the constitutional republic and ensuring the American people know the truth about Donald Trump, I'm going to choose the Constitution and the truth every single day."
While a possible Trump prosecution is a matter for the Justice Department, the committee has used its hearings to try to make a case about his political viability as he mulls running in 2024. Some of the most damning testimony aired by the committee has come from Trump’s own top Republican advisers, military leaders and confidants, who admitted to a loss of confidence in his judgment and dedication to the rule of law in the days leading up to and after the Jan. 6 attack.
https://www.npr.org/2022/07/24/1113026626/donald-trump-midterms-2024-elving
The House committee has had much to do with that, serving up the cream of its evidence in eight hearings that might have been episodes in a streaming TV series. The season-ender Thursday night was a three-hour special and arguably its most dramatic to date.
Mixing live testimony and riveting videotape, the panel took us back to the 187 minutes of Jan. 6, 2021, when Trump, then still president, refused to do anything to halt the invasion.
Even as the protesters became rioters, breaching the closed Capitol and shouting "Hang Mike Pence," and even as Pence's Secret Service detail feared for their lives, Trump sat in a dining room off the Oval Office. He watched the mayhem while phoning senators he thought might still help him overturn the results of the election he had lost.
We also saw the president struggling to tape a video the next day, complaining: "I don't want to say the election's over."
++++++++++++++++++
metmike: They make a comparison to the Mueller investigation, completely lacking the understanding.......assuming that Trump was guilty of crimes then but "got off" because there wasn't enough evidence.
There was NO evidence that Trump did anything wrong and the extremely corrupt Mueller investigation for 2.5 years was in fact a political Witch Hunt trying to destroy Trump without any legit evidence at any point in time. Even after that was crystal clear........they continued for 2 more years to maximize the time for the MSM and Dems and others to convince people that he was guilty based on.........not a dang thing substantive, just a bunch of made up crap and crimes created by the diabolical investigators and the longer they could drag it on before showing the NON evidence, the more convinced people would be that it was taking so long because of the so called mountains of evidence and his enemies being able to speculate with impunity. Trump did NOTHING wrong then and they knew it 2 years before they were done.
This time, however Donald Trump is as guilty as sin and the authentic evidence that we all saw and heard, live and in truth is more than 10 times greater than what would be needed to know exactly what he did.
But NTR can't make the distinction because they are just like the far right on everything..........only with the exact opposite view on EVERYTHING..........not because the objective evidence takes them there but, instead they make a conclusion first, then interpret all information in a way that supports that conclusion.
Anyway, the crime this time was 100 times worse than what Nixon did with Watergate.
Trump besides vehemently violating his oath to defend the Constitution and our democracy has messed up all future elections and the heads of over half the republicans.......PERMANENTLY(or at least for many years to come).
The far right sites are assisting him, especially Fox.
But this is what I actually see from interacting with Trump loyalists in person.
The more evidence you show them that Trump committed these crimes.........the more determined they become to defend him and claim that HE'S the victim or those showing the evidence of his crimes.
It sounds insane and is completely irrational and illogical but this is also what defines the status of a cult leader to his cult when you try to deprogram them initially.
Their brains are UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE TRUTH because the brainwash by the cult leader and his high priests (Fox) is much more powerful than the truth.
I watch Tucker lie every night and his high ratings tell us that people swallow the lies and want more of them because he completely manufactures things that they want to hear.........like blaming the insurrection on Ray Epps(and the FBI) and Nancy Pelosi and NOT Donald Trump.
Most people that watch Tucker actually believe that!
https://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-bret-baier-jan-6-hearing-trump-look-horrific-2022-7
"Trump has proven himself unworthy."
6 years late on that pronouncement.
It was obvious to the MAJORITY of voters when Trump went into unhinged mode in the first GOP debate.
Not to mention tax fraud, Trump university, Russian money laundering, multiple rape allegations and numerous small businessmen who he bilked.
Thanks joj!
I voted for him the first time and not only gave him the benefit of the doubt on many of those allegations, I vehemently defended him during the extremely corrupt Mueller investigation.
Compared to what Mueller did to Trump, using corruption, what Mueller actually found on Trump made Trump look like a saint at the time and left me no option but to condemn corruption and defend Trump's innocence.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/87230/#87231
When you see that coming from the DOJ and others that are supposed to be neutral, it's pretty tough to believe biased sources about the other stuff.
I figured that Trump did the Stomy Daniels thing too......but look at the source and the way some of the media sensationalized it to demonstrate their vendetta vs Trump.
President Kennedy and other presidents cheated too.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/85162/
However, I got to see him in office for 4 years and was losing patience with his negative, really bad behavior traits that were becoming greater than some of his good for America policies.
The most important fact that you failed to capture. You compared Trumps incidents, many alleged with nothing.
The rest of us were comparing them with.........Hillary Clinton's extreme corruption that was clearly being protected by the DOJ AND SHE DID WHILE IN OFFICE WORKING FOR THE PEOPLE.
June 2016: Loretta Lynch-Bill Clinton meeting.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/24146/#24224
The Ds will see this one way and Rs the other just because of party loyalty. I have ZERO allegiance to any party......only to the objective facts.
The verifiable facts, for me in 2016 showed Clinton had MUCH MORE corruption than Trump.
So I was NEVER Clinton. Trump had some great ideas with him being the lesser of 2 evils.
We added NEW facts since then and Trumps crimes after losing the election were greater than the next 10 presidents combined and continue to severely damage (and divide) the minds of half of the republicans, wrecking his own party and have permanently damaged the trust in our electoral system, the foundation of our democracy......for completely bs reasons.
So I guess your party affiliation allowed you to weight Trump's extreme vices and corruption before me and use that to be against him before 2016.
However, those previous things were NOT a good predictor of what he just did to an objective mind in 2016.
Just before the election, in 2020, his behavior in office suggested this possibility with you nailing the risk for this to happen BEFORE it did and I doubted you then but you were right and I was wrong.
So you got the Posts of the Decade award for it, joj!
https://www.marketforum.com/library/
POSTS OF THE DECADE
BEFORE the election WxFollower and especially joj posted about how they thought President Trump would try to overturn the election results if he lost.
This event.........by a very wide margin was the most organized attempt to do the most damage possible to the most cherished element in our Constitution........overturning the presidential election results and will of the people using blatant fraud!
Thread #1:
Constitutional Crisis? (Trade related?)
13 responses |
Started by joj - Aug. 15, 2020, 9:22 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/57677/
"Put it in NTR if you like Mike.
What about the election? Trump is not only rigging it by gutting the USPS, but he's preparing the refusal to admit defeat due to a fraudulent election. (He has state so multiple times). I can't imagine him admitting defeat."
Thread #2:
Constitutional Crisis?
14 responses |
Started by joj - Oct. 30, 2020, 9:44 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/60600/
Trump will pull all the stops to stop the vote count:
I will vote for Biden
5 responses |
Started by metmike - Nov. 1, 2020, 12:26 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/60637/
If Biden and Trump ran again.
I would be never Biden.
But...............NEVER EVER over my dead body Trump.
These are NOT the best that America has.
There are thousands of people much more qualified.
My party affiliation may influence my bias against Trump but my disgust of him goes back to the 1980s before anyone knew his politics (even himself)
Did you think that the dozen or so women who accused Trump of rape / sexual harassment were lying?
Trump university was not a "witch hunt". He defrauded people and had to pay the piper through a settlement.
Boasting at his political rallies that he would pay the legal bills of his supporters who committed violence against any opposition.
But come on. If all these verifiable facts aren't enough, how about the constant lying throughout his 2016 candidacy. Or, his unhinged performances in the GOP debates of 2015?
------
I don't agree with your characterization of the Muller (REPUBLICAN) investigation, half of which had nothing to do with Trump. (Russian infiltration into our security)
But I must agree with you on the following:
"These are NOT the best that America has.
There are thousands of people much more qualified."
Thanks joj!
You make a great point in knowing Trump before the rest of us, independent of your party affiliation.
For sure, since you followed Trump that long, I can totally understand why you already knew him. Since I didn't follow politics that closely until becoming moderator and I definitely, still never follow celebrities(flawed people famous because of great talents that people worship them for). My wife is the authority on those and still is.
We'll always disagree strongly on the Mueller investigation. I provided the link to document my case.
The fact that people say that Mueller was a republican is supposed to mean that he couldn't have done what he did? This was just part of the false narrative package used to try to convince people that Trump cheated to beat Clinton.
Makes it less likely for him to go after a R but the facts mean 100% and trump the speculative partly affiliation assertion.
One thing that is undeniable, is that during the 2.5 years, excessively long investigation, the media and Dems made blatantly wrong assumptions about the extreme nature of Trump's guilty that wildly speculated(as people will always do in the land of the unknown) creating completely unsubstantiated talking points that were repeated in unison during that entire time, until the targets (Americans) assumed Trump was guilty of being a traitor and Mueller had the goods, or he wouldn't be taking so long.
Mueller and company aren't dumb. They understand people and the mindset that was creating a favorable environment to taking down Trump. At any point in time, they could have stopped it and they went light years past investigating things related to why they started the investigation and ended up creating more crimes FROM the investigation than existed before it.
Once people decide something, as you well know, it's almost impossible to change their mind, especially in politics. Every day that passed during the investigation resulted in more people being more convinced that Trump was guilty of some major crimes.
If Mueller had ended the investigation after 1 year, for instance......he would have lost an additional 1.5 years worth of the media portraying him as this honest, apolitical, truth seeking Republican collecting more and more evidence on Trump TO SHOW WHY TRUMP USED RUSSIA TO BEAT CLINTON.
Not only was it effective, there are still tons of democrats, even smart ones that believe that bs.
Then, when 10s of millions of Rs are convinced that Biden cheated to win.....D's see it so clearly because lies by the opposition are always obvious since they also contradict our own belief system. Lies from ones own party support what our belief system tells us is the truth, so we usually believe those lies.
Ds got bamboozled by a similar scheme, (only this one used the DOJ and legal channels that were hidden but still criminal) after the 2016 election to make people think that Trump cheated to win. You will never see it that way but if you seriously look at the link, it's all documented.
Just like I spent so much time in 2020/21/22 exposing the tactics of the side that lost in 2020, I spent a great deal of time in 2017/18/19 exposing Mueller and company and that sides tactics designed to show that Trump stole the 2016 election using Russia.
I know you totally don't see it and I can show you this link again and 100 other things and it won't change your mind, even though, to your credit you are extremely logical and usually base everything on facts and have made adjustments in the past.
On this one, they did such a convincing job with a clever scheme using credible sources that had the ability to do things nobody sees or scrutinizes that millions of others believe just like you do. ......unlike Trump and company, which was open to all eyes.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/87230/#87231
Mike,
You have completely misrepresented (or misremembered) my claims during the investigation into the 2016 Russian infiltration. You repeatedly connected me with Dems who said Trump worked with the Russians to steal the election.
I never claimed a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia. Neither did Mueller!!!
Mueller found, and having read about 500 pages of his 2000 page report I agree, that the Russians ran a deliberate disinformation campaign. (they still are, which was one of Mueller's main points - ignored by everyone). This disinformation blitz did change the outcome of the razor close election, even if Trump wasn't in on it with the Russians. Unless you believe that every corporate advertisement is a waste of money and that nobody is ever influenced to buy a product through media advertisements.
Though a conspiracy could not be proven, Trump did agree to a meeting with the Russians to get dirt on H. Clinton. That nothing came of it does not change the fact. That meeting alone disqualifies him to be president in my opinion.
I apologize if anything I stated mischaracterized you but you are completely missing my point, apparently.
Mueller was clearly biased and dishonest if you look at the documentation in the threads. He repeatedly did things that were intended to be used by the media to report the narratives the he wanted out there, that involved alot of wild speculation that he knew was wrong but never corrected.
And we know that he was paying attention because he spoke out and corrected a speculative story one time.
Here, let me help you with an indisputable, blatant example of it.
Prior to the Roger Stone arrest, they tipped off a CNN reporter about it, so that they could have a photographer there to record it and play it back on the air with the narrative that Mueller wanted on his favorite anti Trump station.
The FBI blocked off the entire street and told all the neighbors to stay in their houses and of course, would never allow any unauthorized non FBI people there, especially the media but low and behold, CNN was right there in the middle of it with the cops and Stones cameras from the front of his house, show the CNN vehicle pulling up an hour before the dozen armed FBI people arrive and meeting with an FBI agent who is directing them on, what we assume will be where to set up to get the best shots.
It was right there on Stones camera.
The explanation afterwards from CNN was that this particular reporter had gifted reporter instincts that no other reporters at any other media outlets have and figured it out by reading between the lines of some statements.
100% lying! The Mueller team tipped him off. Even if this reporter had ESP and figured it out that way, the FBI absolutely violated protocol by allowing them there and the camera footage proves it wasn't just a surprise showing up and being allowed..........the CNN reporter and photog were being instructed by the FBI.
No unbiased investigator or honest investigation would have ever done this.
Amazingly, the media let Mueller and company off the hook! I worked in tv for 11 years, so maybe I understand more about what goes on behind the scenes but this was the absolute dumbest thing that Mueller did. I honestly think that he was getting so carried away with his scheme working so well with false narratives on CNN and other stations that he was feeling so invincible that he got carried away and did something so blatantly dishonest based on obvious, verifiable facts.
I'm not stating whether you fell for this or not, joj just describing Mueller.
Here was one of the several times previously that I discussed this incident, along with more details......I mean, c'mon man how is this not crystal clear to anybody that is placing critical thinking ahead of politics.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/55925/#55961
This is just one obvious example of Mueller using the media for 2.5 years to push false narratives he wanted out there using blatantly dishonest tactics.
I actually did read most of the report at one point and assumed that much of this stuff that Russia did.............they did previously and for other elections and the US also does similar stuff and sometimes worse stuff in other countries to try to affect politics.
Again, you insist that this changed the outcome of the election........so it's YOU stating it, not me mischaraterizing you to believe that Clinton lost the 2016 election because of the interference from Russia. You just said it.
And you said that Trump agreed to a meeting to get dirt on Clinton that never happened as evidence that he committed a crime.
You say that with a straight face? in the age of many major campaigns devoting a tremendous amount of resources trying to dig up dirt on their opponents........but there is a specific rule that says it can't be dirt/evidence from outside the US.......and even if you never follow thru to try to get that evidence, its a crime.........if it's somebody from the other party.
How about the REAL meetings between dishonest anti Trumpsters in the DOJ based on FAKE evidence to start this Mueller investigation in the first place with the Clinton people having their fingerprints all over that?
Either you don't have the time or the desire to read those threads with the clear evidence, which I understand completely or you are ignoring all the facts and evidence but then, you are taking a position that completely contradicts the authentic facts of my position and base it on?
Mueller is a republican, so he must have been honest.
This is the basis for you to believe everything from Mueller.
I just proved to you that Mueller was EXTREMELY DIShonest.
I revisited the Roger Stone arrest for you to see what your explanation is.
What say you joj?
So you think it's ok to take a meeting with Russian agents? Hmmm.... You think it's ok because we do nefarious stuff in other countries. Hmmm.... Well, I disagree with that. I think sitting down with Russian agents is a disqualifier. Fast forward to his publicly taking Putin's word over his own intelligence teams. Disqualified! They couldn't even get him to read the daily briefs. Disqualified.
And you don't think the Russian interference with disinformation could have changed the outcome of a razor thin election? (If I understand you correctly). I repeat what I said previously. I never said Trump was guilty of conspiracy. All I ever said was that he was a useful tool of Russia/Putin.
Roger Stone is a complete distraction from the 2000 page report but I will engage with you in this side show.
How do you know that it was Mueller who did the dastardly deed and not some individual FBI agent?
And the example you gave of Mueller firing someone on his investigation unit who had gone astray is evidence of Mueller's integrity.
Thanks Joj,
Obviously, you've decided to not acknowledge any facts that damage what you want to believe. No amount of evidence is going to change your mind.
On one hand, you think that Mueller fires people that go astray because he has integrity but then contradict that position with a rationalization to not hold Mueller responsible for the blatant fraudulence/dishonesty with the Roger Stone arrest because it might have been somebody that went astray..............so why no firing that time joj?, if Mueller fires people like that?
And you also rationalize not having to embrace the reality of what Mueller's crew did in the example by claiming it was nothing but a distraction.
You continue to ignore the point. It happened, man and it was part of the investigation.........go ahead and creatively rationalize away reasons to NOT acknowledge what actually happened and what it really says about the integrity of people doing the investigation LED BY MUELLER.
I have other examples because it's a pattern of behavior but if you will rationalize every which way to not see that last example as a major problem and proves how those people were operating........nothing can do it.
So you think it's ok to take a meeting with Russian agents?
No I don't. You're mischaracterizing/twisting it to attack a position I don't have to attack it.
You think it's ok because we do nefarious stuff in other countries.
No I don't you're mischaracterizing/twisting to attack a position I don't have because I stated a fact.
And you don't think the Russian interference with disinformation could have changed the outcome of a razor thin election?
I never said that either, joj. I said that Russia does this all the time and did so in previous elections, just like the US does it. I actually think that Fox News and a few other US sources had a 100 times greater impact on Clinton not getting elected than bogeyman Russia.
I never said Trump was guilty of conspiracy. All I ever said was that he was a useful tool of Russia/Putin.
joj, Are you having another conversation with somebody else tonight on this same topic and confusing me with statements that other person made (-:
What's the deal with so many mischaracterizations of my position and then claiming that I'm the one mischaracterizing you with things I never stated or even thought, while rationalizing so you don't have to acknowledge the clear points of the very legit huge problem dynamics related to this investigation based on solid facts.
BTW, Roger Stone, in my opinion is a dirt bag and I would not be saddened by any legal consequences he faces for stuff he's done.
But that doesn't change the facts that I mentioned regarding Mueller.
I'm not taking sides but instead just making observations of what happened and how/why when it comes to Mueller and company.
We should definitely go on to a different subject.
Don't you agree?
Since I posted this a dozen+ times when posters from the right were believing lies from their side..... I thought it only fair and very appropriate/relevant to do it in this thread regarding lies from the other side.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/86170/
Neither political party has a franchise on the truth.
Ifyoubelieve one party all the time......................you will believe in lies some of the time. https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/77011/#77012
Hey Mike,
I'm not offended by the following:
"Obviously, you've decided to not acknowledge any facts that damage what you want to believe. No amount of evidence is going to change your mind."
I could say the same to you.
But in fact, I did acknowledge a fact. The missing part here is in your faulty logic. I don't mean to offend, but merely to help you improve yourself. (no condescension intended)
Did you consider the possibility that Mueller didn't know which of the many FBI agents might have leaked the arrest to CNN? It only takes one agent or person with knowledge. My guess is that the majority of press leaks go undetected in such matters. Why you would come to the conclusion that Mueller did it seems like faulty logic to me. Particularly given his impeccable reputation. And even if it were somehow to be proven that Mueller did orchestrate the Stone arrest as you suggested, it would not prove (logic again) that all his findings about Russia are false.
Mike, you might also take feedback from others who have engaged you in debate on this forum (and perhaps in your personal life as well) about your logical leaps. I'm just trying to help you out.
I applaud you in your efforts here on MF. I am certain, even when I disagree with you, that you mean well.
Best,
joj
Appreciate that joj.
As always, my FAVORITE posts are those that disagree with me, especially because they offer the most opportunity to learn.
I always, strictly try to practice the scientific method, even with politics.
This requires the scientist to first, question their own work and include information from others that contradicts it to test the hypothesis and sincerely try to prove oneself wrong.
If it passes those tests, then there can be high confidence in the conclusions.
Just to be clear..........I used the scientific method regarding this topic and have already provided my work/shared the evidence/data.
I can't make anybody else trapped in a political mindset objectively look at that evidence........but only show my work.
In today's age, politics has a tremendous impact on how people interpret information.
As anybody that has come here knows, I go after BOTH parties with the same amount of gusto for DISinformation, conspiracy theories and dishonesty, which is powerful evidence of politics playing NO role in my discernment.
Always based on authentic data, facts, evidence and science applied objectivity with no political affiliations.
I've learned more the past 4 years, then the previous 24 years, partly just from gathering massive information in doing research on the million different topics here in order to fact check or make a positive contribution towards authentic understanding of those topics for everyone to learn from.
When it comes to politics, however, there is rarely any learning.
Both sides have already decided they know more than whatever is shown here.
One side will just consider it reinforcement for what they think that they know already and the other side will often not believe any of it because it contradicts what they are positive that they know.
And almost every person reading this will think that this dominant political mindset dynamic applies to other people BUT NOT THEM.
joj,
To your credit, you have displayed on open mind here and willingness to see points that you disagree with frequently at MarketForum. So I would actually consider you an exception to the dominant mindset above.
I just realized that I never responded specifically to this point by joj.
"Did you consider the possibility that Mueller didn't know which of the many FBI agents might have leaked the arrest to CNN? It only takes one agent or person with knowledge. My guess is that the majority of press leaks go undetected in such matters. Why you would come to the conclusion that Mueller did it seems like faulty logic to me."
joj,
Yes, I did consider that seriously and it was rejected.
They did not just LEAK the information to CNN, they INVITED THEM to have a front row seat and to record the entire event.
Stone's camera in front of his house showed CNN getting there a couple hours early and a guy from Muellers team came out to meet/greet them and go over the details.
We didn't hear the conversation but you can see the guy pointing directions and making gestures that demonstrate where they and CNN will be situated.
The fact is that they then, proceed to record everything, not just from that location parked in front of Stone's house but got out and went WITH them to record everything close up.
This was an off the charts blatant violation of protocol, while no other person, even neighbors were allowed to be on the street during that time frame and every single well trained agent, of the dozens knew it.
To try to justify it as a loose cannon, isolated leaker is actually the extremely faulty logic, joj.
Every single FBI person there accepted/followed it, from the time CNN showed up which means the order came from the top down and imagining how Mueller would not know about this is totally illogical.............except for somebody convinced that Mueller wouldn't do this and they have to create scenarios in their mind to explain why he couldn't do what he really did based on the authentic facts clearly demonstrating that he did it.
"Particularly given his impeccable reputation. And even if it were somehow to be proven that Mueller did orchestrate the Stone arrest as you suggested, it would not prove (logic again) that all his findings about Russia are false."
joj,
No this is not proof that the vast majority of the crimes in the Mueller investigation were created by the investigation. I showed that previously.
This is absolute proof though. That an opinion that Mueller has an impeccable reputation is blatantly flawed and people trusting all his other stuff based purely on that is flawed too.
Again, I didn't know Mueller from anybody before the investigation and am not affiliated with any party or a Trump defender, as you should be able to tell by now.
The objective facts and evidence here are the authentic facts and evidence.
Political views are political views and half the time, 1 party has most of it wrong.
Guess which one it is this time?