Mueller Investigation pt4

Status
Not open for further replies.
The "Mueller probe" been "going to drop any day now" for about 10,000 years it feels like.
 
Belz... said:
Wow, that was surprisingly content-free, even for you.
Click to expand...

Fine example of irony.

can I break it down for you? People link to Seth Abramson, who is a known prevaricator, and people said he is more thorough than Maddow (which: :D ) he is thorough thorough. Yet in his first few tweets he says that Whittaker said the Mueller probe was legitimate. Which utterly destroys his silly little tweet rant.

Although what made it special was when you posted a statement that was the quintessential example of irony one is every likely to see.

And that is fantastic.
 
The Big Dog said:
Fine example of irony.
Click to expand...

Oh I own the fact that my own response to you was otherwise content-free. I'm just pointing out that you missed a great opportunity to make your contribution to this forum useful, for once.

can I break it down for you?
Click to expand...

Please don't.

People link to Seth Abramson, who is a known prevaricator
Click to expand...

Known by whom? Aside from yourself, I mean.

and people said he is more thorough than Maddow (which: :D ) he is thorough thorough. Yet in his first few tweets he says that Whittaker said the Mueller probe was legitimate. Which utterly destroys his silly little tweet rant.
Click to expand...

I think you're a bit confused about what he said Whittaker said.

Although what made it special was when you posted a statement that was the quintessential example of irony one is every likely to see.
Click to expand...

No, that's just you. If you post something vacuous and someone points it out, it doesn't magically make that other person vacuous as well. You're still trying to score points rather than participate in discussion.
 
Belz... said:
Oh I own the fact that my own response to you was otherwise content-free. I'm just pointing out that you missed a great opportunity to make your contribution to this forum useful, for once.



Please don't.



Known by whom? Aside from yourself, I mean.



I think you're a bit confused about what he said Whittaker said.



No, that's just you. If you post something vacuous and someone points it out, it doesn't magically make that other person vacuous as well. You're still trying to score points rather than participate in discussion.
Click to expand...

TBD is going full-logger.
 
2 hours ago: https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/1090261224036548617

Roger Stone's lawyers still aren't cleared to be his lawyers at the arraignment starting in 69 minutes.
Click to expand...

1 hour ago: https://twitter.com/ZoeTillman/status/1090271565973868544

It appears Roger Stone's lawyers are now taking steps to make sure they can appear in court — a local counsel who does belong to the DC federal court bar just entered an appearance

And now the DC lawyer who entered an appearance has filed motions to allow Stone's Florida-based lawyers to appear in this court for this case — will this resolve this very in-the-weeds issue that has arisen in the hours before Stone's arraignment? Tune in to find out!

And now the judge has granted the motions to allow Stone's lawyers to appear in the case. That's a wrap, everyone can go home now.

(just kidding, the arraignment starts in 14 minutes)
Click to expand...

Documents embedded in tweets.

He pled not guilty, but this is the real take: https://twitter.com/JeffMacIsHere/status/1090275587405471745

I am in love with the fact that their big legal victory for the day is finding a lawyer who is allowed to participate.
Click to expand...

Given how much money they earn, shouldn't the lawyers for Trump & co be a little better at their jobs?
 
Belz... said:
Yes, I saw it. You're still confused about what he's saying. Your ability to quote and highlight his words changes nothing of this.
Click to expand...

protip: I'm not.

Say, y'all remember a few minutes ago badgering me for an allegedly content free post?

Yeah, about that.....
 
The Big Dog said:
protip: I'm not.
Click to expand...

How do you explain your interpretation that there's some sort of contradiction, then? If you understood what he's saying, you'd know there isn't one, so what gives?

Say, y'all remember a few minutes ago badgering me for an allegedly content free post?

Yeah, about that.....
Click to expand...

Telling you that you're wrong isn't content-free.
 
Belz... said:
How do you explain your interpretation that there's some sort of contradiction, then? If you understood what he's saying, you'd know there isn't one, so what gives?



Telling you that you're wrong isn't content-free.
Click to expand...

Au contraire, you see I quoted what he said and my characterization of what he said is 100% correct.

Now in light of that simply disclaiming that TBD is wrong ain't gonna cut it.

Seth claimed that Whittaker said "that the probe was legitimate."

Now, the ball is in your court, impress us with some content!
 
The Big Dog said:
Au contraire
Click to expand...

Well at least you wrote the French properly.

you see I quoted what he said and my characterization of what he said is 100% correct.
Click to expand...

Ok I guess I'll have to break it down for you, which I really thought you could do yourself.

Seth claimed that Whittaker said "that the probe was legitimate."
Click to expand...

Before he became AG, and he is now claiming that it's just about to finish, which doesn't sounds probable. Abramson pointing this out has little to do with the aforementioned probability of the probe coming to an end soon, so I don't see what you think that does to his arguments.

None of this should be difficult to understand for an adult who, presumably, can tie his own shoelaces.

Now, the ball is in your court, impress us with some content!
Click to expand...

Please stop talking about yourself in the plural, that's very strange to us.
 
Belz... said:
Before he became AG, and he is now claiming that it's just about to finish, which doesn't sounds probable. Abramson pointing this out has little to do with the aforementioned probability of the probe coming to an end soon, so I don't see what you think that does to his arguments.

None of this should be difficult to understand for an adult who, presumably, can tie his own shoelaces.
Click to expand...

Can a brother get a laughing dog. It wasn't just the argument from ignorance ("so I don't see what you think that does to his arguments"), nor the obvious fact that there is literally no attempt whatsoever to show that I "was confused about" what he said, that is a pure howler.

It is the snarky little comment about tying one's shoelaces. Hilarity.

Hey folks, all those comments about the Poet being thorough thorough, etc, and our correspondent claiming I did not understand what he was saying, I gotta ask you, is Seth's claim here:

"pre-AG he said, in effect, that the probe was legitimate."

factually accurate or not factually accurate?

I mean our boy is thorough thorough, even better than Maddow!
 
The Big Dog said:
Can a brother get a laughing dog.
Click to expand...

That seems to be the only thing you get.

It wasn't just the argument from ignorance ("so I don't see what you think that does to his arguments")
Click to expand...

Oh dear. You ALSO don't know what an argument from ignorance is? Protip: it's when someone uses their ignorance to support a claim, not, as I did, simply expressing lack of understanding of a claim.

Hey folks
Click to expand...

Stop talking to yourself.

"pre-AG he said, in effect, that the probe was legitimate."

factually accurate or not factually accurate?

I mean our boy is thorough thorough, even better than Maddow!
Click to expand...

Stop stringing buzzwords and nonsense together, and instead make your case: you claim that this sentence nullifies Abramson's argument. Explain yourself and support your claim.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom