Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Don't dilute your personal brand now. When the going gets tough, the tough double down.

Read the paragraph in its entirety. The line where he explains why he’s fucked is curiously omitted in the press.

Has the press been hanging with Barr too much lately?

ETA: It’s the last paragraph on P. 78 of the report. Focus on the sentence quoting Trump saying he is fucked because he won’t be able to get anything done in his presidency. That’s omitted obviously because it cuts against the narrative he was worried about criminal acts or conspiracies being uncovered.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Meanwhile, your liberal media at work.

Don’t miss my point. I don’t think the media is out get Trump in its selective quotes at this moment. Everyone invested in that effort via this investigation just went down in flames (delude yourself otherwise if you like).

The press is just trying to keep this battle going as much as possible. It needs to keep the fight alive. There are shit tons of advance media sales on the line here, and Watergate II would’ve allowed them to jack the price XXX. Now they’re stuck hoping for XX. Screws up a lot of revenue projections.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Clouseau might be the more apt Sellers analogue.

The news on this is as insipid and craven as I expected. The same people accusing Barr of selectively quoting Mueller are doing the exact same thing.

The quote from Trump that he’s “fucked” is cited endlessly. The rest of the paragraph of the report from which that quote was lifted, which places the quote in a far less dramatic, and indeed exculpatory context, is never mentioned.

Again, the very worst in this? Our media.

Hahaha! Yes, brilliant! Because NOTHING screams "exculpatory" more than a president firing the attorney general for failing to protect him.

Dude, you are bending over backward so far here, if you stick out your tongue you could lick your own ass. And while I can, in an abstract way, understand why you might consider that a worthy goal, it's just embarrassing for the rest of us to have to watch.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

Hahaha! Yes, brilliant! Because NOTHING screams "exculpatory" more than a president firing the attorney general for failing to protect him.

Dude, you are bending over backward so far here, if you stick out your tongue you could lick your own ass. And while I can, in an abstract way, understand why you might consider that a worthy goal, it's just embarrassing for the rest of us to have to watch.

I’ll say it again: Many posters here are the left wing mirror of my dipshit right wing friends.

(Those morons are currently crowing about Trump being a genius and “innocent.”)

I like arguing with Ty and Hank. I don’t think very highly of your analytical powers on politics, so I don’t really give a shit about an insult or a compliment you might offer. That’s why, if you notice, I generally don’t respond to you.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

Hahaha! Yes, brilliant! Because NOTHING screams "exculpatory" more than a president firing the attorney general for failing to protect him.

Dude, you are bending over backward so far here, if you stick out your tongue you could lick your own ass. And while I can, in an abstract way, understand why you might consider that a worthy goal, it's just embarrassing for the rest of us to have to watch.

When I was like 11 I was still very flexible, and I started getting boners (tmi?). I tried to suckle myself. All I could do though was touch my tongue to the head of my penis. It felt nice but not worth the effort, get that?


Why do you engage on this nonsense?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

When I was like 11 I was still very flexible, and I started getting boners (tmi?). I tried to suckle myself. All I could do though was touch my tongue to the head of my penis. It felt nice but not worth the effort, get that?


Why do you engage on this nonsense?

That’s the whole point. If this idiot gets you lathered, you need to re-examine your emotional stability.

He’ll be done in 2020. Build some model airplanes in the interim. Masturbate more often. Buy a Craftmatic bed and make that pubescent curiosity re self fellatio a reality.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Clouseau might be the more apt Sellers analogue.

The news on this is as insipid and craven as I expected. The same people accusing Barr of selectively quoting Mueller are doing the exact same thing.

The quote from Trump that he’s “fucked” is cited endlessly. The rest of the paragraph of the report from which that quote was lifted, which places the quote in a far less dramatic, and indeed exculpatory context, is never mentioned.

Again, the very worst in this? Our media.

This does not look good for Barr’s integrity: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/19/u...-excerpts.html

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Being so dumb and ADD addled that one appears unable to marshall the mental faculties to intend a criminal scheme is a pretty compelling defense to a criminal charge.

This guy so doesn’t know what he’s doing that he can’t intend anything. He’s truly blundering through his presidency.

The strange reality emerging is that, had McGhan been compliant in firing Mueller, both McGhan and Trump would probably face obstruction charges. Trump sought to do something arguably illegal, but McGhan saved him by refusing to join the conspiracy. The criminal code needs to amended to include a crime for attempted obstruction of justice.

I’ve no doubt some officious sort is working on it right now.

Dude, if he attempted to obstruct, he had the requisite intent and thus did obstruct.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Don’t miss my point. I don’t think the media is out get Trump in its selective quotes at this moment. Everyone invested in that effort via this investigation just went down in flames (delude yourself otherwise if you like).

The press is just trying to keep this battle going as much as possible. It needs to keep the fight alive. There are shit tons of advance media sales on the line here, and Watergate II would’ve allowed them to jack the price XXX. Now they’re stuck hoping for XX. Screws up a lot of revenue projections.

Ah, yes, the media is only reporting on the details of a report of a major investigation into foreign influence on our election, the campaign’s knowledge of and desire to benefit from it and the president’s substantial attempts to interfere in the investigation of it while publicly denying there was any such interference for bottom line reasons. Otherwise, just nothing to see here.

If only you had as much concern for your reputation as Barr, you might not say much monumentally silly things.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I like arguing with Ty and Hank. I don’t think very highly of your analytical powers on politics, so I don’t really give a shit about an insult or a compliment you might offer. That’s why, if you notice, I generally don’t respond to you.

Floriferous insults are the best. Nothing better than a response like this, from someone who doesn't get the joke.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Floriferous insults are the best. Nothing better than a response like this, from someone who doesn't get the joke.

You’re like a metronome.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Ah, yes, the media is only reporting on the details of a report of a major investigation into foreign influence on our election, the campaign’s knowledge of and desire to benefit from it and the president’s substantial attempts to interfere in the investigation of it while publicly denying there was any such interference for bottom line reasons. Otherwise, just nothing to see here.

If only you had as much concern for your reputation as Barr, you might not say much monumentally silly things.

The issue isn’t the media reporting generally. The issue is the media reporting using quotes out of context to give a false and salacious spin to a more more complex exchange.

You knew that. I cited the exact line the media have been purposefully ignoring.

They do this to gin up ratings. To state as much is not at all controversial. They want the goriest battle.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Dude, if he attempted to obstruct, he had the requisite intent and thus did obstruct.

If you intend to do something you think is legal and it turns out it is actually illegal, do you have requisite mens rea? People like to say ignorance is no excuse, but thinking you've the legal right to do something is a defense to intent based crimes.

I think a similar defense was used by Cheney regarding torture. Didn't his office use the "John Woo gave us an opinion saying it was legal" defense?

If you use the broadest possible definition of obstruction, almost everything one does to avoid being charged or convicted can be deemed obstructive. You could make the argument that Trump, his lackeys, and even his lawyers, by playing the media, badmouthing the investigation and stonewalling on Mueller's demands for an interview were engaged in obstruction. Where'e the line? Is a target obligated to sit back and take it and not try to avoid being charged or convicted if he can do so? Because here, it appears to me that in stonewalling Mueller, Trump and his lawyers did the smart thing (and the only thing they could do with a chain-lying client). And it worked. To not have engaged in that obstructive behavior would seem to be malpractice on the part of Trump's lawyers.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You’re like a metronome.

You're more a suburban garden gnome.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

If you intend to do something you think is legal and it turns out it is actually illegal, do you have requisite mens rea? People like to say ignorance is no excuse, but thinking you've the legal right to do something is a defense to intent based crimes.

I think a similar defense was used by Cheney regarding torture. Didn't his office use the "John Woo gave us an opinion saying it was legal" defense?

If you use the broadest possible definition of obstruction, almost everything one does to avoid being charged or convicted can be deemed obstructive. You could make the argument that Trump, his lackeys, and even his lawyers, by playing the media, badmouthing the investigation and stonewalling on Mueller's demands for an interview were engaged in obstruction. Where'e the line? Is a target obligated to sit back and take it and not try to avoid being charged or convicted if he can do so? Because here, it appears to me that in stonewalling Mueller, Trump and his lawyers did the smart thing (and the only thing they could do with a chain-lying client). And it worked. To not have engaged in that obstructive behavior would seem to be malpractice on the part of Trump's lawyers.

He's fucking President. His adult children are fucking advisors the President. As a candidate, he had an army of top lawyers and experienced advisors available to him. As President, he has the entire DOJ ready to serve.

And folks want to let him off because he didn't understand the law he swore to uphold?

WTF?