Robert Mueller, Former F.B.I. Director, Is Named Special Counsel for Russia Investigation

Of course, that hypothetical isn't anything like what happened... probably why you chose it...

 

Ya that’s not what Trump did. He ordered a subordinate to tell someone to carry out the action. He didn’t just wish it would happen. And then of course the subordinate refused and threatened to resign. Plus it’s a different crime.

Keep hope alive though.

 

Do you know if those were serious orders or just a blowhard being a blowhard kind of orders? Intention matters

 

Well it was enough for a someone who holds the title of White House Counsel to resign.

I mean I wouldn't just quit thar job so easily if it was merely a joke.

 

The guy who he gave the order to threatened to resign so I would say at least he thought it was a serious order. And since Mueller included it in his report I’m guessing he thought it was a serious order too. So yes I’m assuming it was a serious order.

 

Are there really two kinds of orders or are you just making excuses for the President?

Do people in the armed service get two different kinds of orders? Do they just get the blowhard kind of orders or serious orders?

When the CEO of a company comes in and orders an employee to do something, does he sometimes just order them to do things in a blowhard kind of way or are they expected to follow the directions they are given?

 

"How To Give Orders Like a Man"

https://www.nytimes.com/1994/08/28/magazine/how-to-give-orders-like-a-man.html

The point being, unless you were actually in the room, it's difficult to say WHICH kind of orders were given . . . or ignored.

 

As has already been pointed out, the people who received the orders believed they were real. To make up up an out such as 'maybe they were orders that weren't really meant to be followed', is silly.

When Pol Pot ordered the genocide, was he just giving blowhard orders, or did he really mean it? It is literally a made up excuse for someone. Either they gave orders or they didn't. There is evidence to back the idea that Trump did, in fact, give those orders.

As President of the United States and leader of the free world, you don't get to play the 'I didn't really mean those orders' card. Nobody should offer that as an excuse for that kind of leader.

 

fair enough

 

So this is what we've come to... Maybe just don't support a blowhard then?

 

A very good article on this fiasco from Matt Taibbi at the Rolling Stone. Here are the concluding sentences:

The Press Will Learn Nothing From the Russiagate Fiasco

This fiasco will surely end up being a net plus for Trump. The obstruction parts of the report make him look like a brainless goon and thug, but the absence of what Mueller repeatedly calls “underlying crime” make his ravings about an elitist mob out to get him look justified. This is not an easy thing to achieve, but we’re there, and the press is a big part of that picture.

News audiences were betrayed, and sooner or later, even the most virulently Trump-despising demographics will realize it and tune us out. The only way to reverse the damage is to own how big of a screw-up this was, but after the last three years, who would hold their breath waiting for that?​

 

The problem I think you are running into is that no one is as gullible as you are. People can read the Mueller report and interpret it for what it is.

 

"Gullible"? Disingenuous? Blind? Callous?

 

Update on butina...

Russian agent sways Trump secretary of state pick, prosecutors say
Court documents say the former American University student asked Russian officials about a potential pick, and said ‘our opinion will be taken into consideration.'

https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/...s-say/65-7d0f62a3-9569-4510-add8-c4a6280764e8

 

It must be noted here how Trump's use of purposeful ambiguity is effective in manipulating the public at large.

He constantly employs insults, rage, cruelty, and threats, and mixes ambiguous words and shrugs and body language.
He'll say something horrible for any adult to say, something unconscionable for a leader to say, and either employ ambiguity or let his past history of "joking" and "being a blowhard" provide ambiguity for interpretation.

If he really does take it a step too far, he does the "jeez, I'm just joking, relax."
If anyone calls him out for making actual threats or something beyond the pale, he says "look at these lefty losers getting all worked up" and winks at his fans, who adore love him for ******** on liberals.

The ambiguity allows his enemies, his fans, and soft supporters to interpret him in whatever light they wish. His enemies take his word directly. He shrugs and mocks them. His supporters 'interpret' his awfulness as just another joke. It's a win-win. He riles up both sides in one shot, and with repetition builds a cloud of ambiguity and lies in which his supporters always interpret him in the best light, and the truth unknowable.

Example above is Os who at least claims not to support Trump, but falls for this tactic by reinterpreting a criminal act in a light that benefits the president.

 

I didn't know that asking a question was an act of "reinterpreting a criminal act"

 

Intentions matter.

 

I don't think you're all in for the guy, or will defend anything/everything he does like several others here do.
But you're using his belligerence and ambiguity to interpret his actions in a way that benefit him. And that's exactly what he wants.

 

[insert gif]Damnnnnnnnnnnn[/insert gif]

 

What?

Georgian Businessman Offers More Texts With Cohen to Rebut Mueller Footnote

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-24/rtskhiladze-cohen-trump-russia-tapes