Mueller Investigation pt5

Status
Not open for further replies.
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
For someone who is always calling other people out for being argumentative without substance., posting a straw man as egregious as this seems like something of an own-goal.
Click to expand...

But is it a strawman, there? Obviously there's always going to be a power imbalance when one of the participants is POTUS, or CEO of Apple, or Chief Justice, or whatever. I mean, that can't be the only criterion.
 
1. I cared about being called out for "strawmen" back when that word meant anything other than "Your statement made my argument look bad so I'm going to call it a name."

2. This is another version of "White Man's Burden" style Feminism, the idea that "rank and file women" are so stupid they can't make decision and need the Feminist Master Race to do it for them.

Feminism "Monica did you want to blow the President?"
Monica "Well yeah, I did."
Feminism "And see that's where you are wrong! You only 'think' you wanted to it."

For a movement that's all about consent it seems to have no problem second guessing a woman giving consent to suit their narrative.

Does anyone honestly think the that the pecker that as in her mouth belonged to the leader of the free world was a fact that ever slipped Monica Lewinsky's mind?
 
Belz... said:
But is it a strawman, there? Obviously there's always going to be a power imbalance when one of the participants is POTUS, or CEO of Apple, or Chief Justice, or whatever. I mean, that can't be the only criterion.
Click to expand...
We could start from the other end and recognize that "someone who works for you" is among the first group to avoid having sex with.

ETA: Or we could (myself included) recognize we're not talking about the legal processes around a previous SC report.

Were litigating workplace sexual harassment vis-a-vis "Clinton blowjob."
 
Last edited:
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
I like how the internet lawyering in this thread has stepped up to the level where Random Internet Stranger #3,739 is claiming to know more about the law than the person who actually wrote the law in question.
Click to expand...


A random internet stranger who can read DOJ regulations. Here's the text from the regulation that covers what happens to the SC report after it is delivered to the AG. I'll quote the relevant part.
(c) The Attorney General may determine that public release of these reports would be in the public interest, to the extent that release would comply with applicable legal restrictions. All other releases of information by any Department of Justice employee, including the Special Counsel and staff, concerning matters handled by Special Counsels shall be governed by the generally applicable Departmental guidelines concerning public comment with respect to any criminal investigation, and relevant law.
Click to expand...

What Neal Katyal thinks should happen is different from what the regulations say.

Alan Dershowitz, ViceNews, FactCheck.org and dozens of other media outlets that I did not link to are not random internet stranger #3739.
 
JoeMorgue said:
You're saying the President banging an intern who consented to the sex is still inherently problematic because of the power imbalance.
Click to expand...

There's a power imbalance in almost all relationships. That doesn't mean that all power imbalances are equivalent to that between the POTUS and a 22 year-old intern. And, if you look closely, you'll see that I didn't say that I concurred with Lewinski (although I'm sure she's got a better idea what actually went on than any of us have), I was just mentioning things that people should bear in mind before dismissing the whole thing to be about "just a blowjob".

Come on, Joe. You're better than this.
 
JoeMorgue said:
1. I cared about being called out for "strawmen" back when that word meant anything other than "Your statement made my argument look bad so I'm going to call it a name."

2. This is another version of "White Man's Burden" style Feminism, the idea that "rank and file women" are so stupid they can't make decision and need the Feminist Master Race to do it for them.

Feminism "Monica did you want to blow the President?"
Monica "Well yeah, I did."
Feminism "And see that's where you are wrong! You only 'think' you wanted to it."

For a movement that's all about consent it seems to have no problem second guessing a woman giving consent to suit their narrative.

Does anyone honestly think the that the pecker that as in her mouth belonged to the leader of the free world was a fact that ever slipped Monica Lewinsky's mind?
Click to expand...

Perhaps I was wrong that you're better than this, then. I'll bear that in mind next time you get on your high horse about someone whose debating style isn't up to your standards.
 
To the extent that it applies, I think the Clinton era scandal is more relevant as an example of political expedience and hypocrisy. Same people involved in applying the law back then to the impeachment proceedings and the report that was done back then are the same ones now pushing for completely unredacted copies of the Mueller report for hell or high water no matter if it exposes private citizens to undue attention.

We can discuss the issues with Trump to death and have a legitimate point to make there. But as it relates to to e Mueller report and how much of it is unredacted I feel like the Democrats up there in DC have gone into full stupid mode
 
I love it how people think people they normally agree with are magically arguing using different standards/tactics on the point they happen to disagree with them over.

Here's an idea. Maybe I'm the same person who agrees you / you agree with him most of the time... I just have the point that doesn't work in your favor this one time.

I promise you I don't break out a whole new persona when I need to disagree with Squeegee.
 
Bogative said:
A random internet stranger who can read DOJ regulations. Here's the text from the regulation that covers what happens to the SC report after it is delivered to the AG. I'll quote the relevant part.


What Neal Katyal thinks should happen is different from what the regulations say.

Alan Dershowitz, ViceNews, FactCheck.org and dozens of other media outlets that I did not link to are not random internet stranger #3739.
Click to expand...

Dershowitz is Giuliani mk 2. As for the rest, you're equivocating between releasing the report to the public and releasing the report to Congress.
 
JoeMorgue said:
I love it how people think people they normally agree with are magically arguing using different standards/tactics on the point they happen to disagree with them over.

Here's an idea. Maybe I'm the same person who agrees you / you agree with him most of the time... I just have the point that doesn't work in your favor this one time.

I promise you I don't break out a whole new persona when I need to disagree with Squeegee.
Click to expand...

I didn't say I agreed with you on anything. TBH, my impression of your usual behaviour is that you rarely say anything unless you're speaking about the conduct of other posters. It could be that you post things that I agree with, but I honestly don't tend that often to pay much attention to who says what.

I will note here, though, that you are again making up things that you'd have liked me to say/think in order to argue against them, rather than responding to what I actually have said or think. This has now definitely gone into my mental model of what kind of a poster you are.
 
newyorkguy said:
Good point. The claim was made that 28 CFR § 600.8 requires the "Special Counsel to turn over the confidential report to the Attorney General, no one else." No quote was provided, but the text in the link does not include the words 'no one else.' Here's what seems to be the relevant portion:


The law quoted obviously mandates the Special Counsel to make a report to the U.S. Attorney General at the conclusion of an investigation. It doesn't outline how or why the report is to be restricted. Anyway, people haven't been asking the Special Counsel to release the report, people have been asking the Attorney General to release the report.
Click to expand...

The AG is not required to release the report to anyone according to DOJ regulations (see my post above). Special Counsel reports were required by law to be made public until 1999 when Congress allowed the "Ethics in Government Act of 1978" to expire after the Starr Report came out. The Reno DOJ wrote the current regulations giving the AG discretion on whether or not to release special counsel reports.

Attorney General Janet Reno sent Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder to Congress so he could argue on behalf of the DOJ for Congress to allow the Special Counsel Act to expire, in part, because the act required special counsel reports to be released to the public. Hilarious now he's arguing that special counsel reports should be made public.

Link
 
Listen if the President of the United States is doing shady crap in league with, under orders, or under influence from a... at very best "uneasy alliance" foreign power, I don't think procedural compliance should be our major concern right now.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Dershowitz is Giuliani mk 2.
Click to expand...
I'm old enough to remember when Dershowitz was a hero of the left. Now he is to be dismissed because he does not propagate the "Orange Man Bad" mantra.


As for the rest, you're equivocating between releasing the report to the public and releasing the report to Congress.
Click to expand...

DOJ regulations require neither, so it doesn't matter.
 
Bogative said:
I'm old enough to remember when Dershowitz was a hero of the left. Now he is to be dismissed because he does not propagate the "Orange Man Bad" mantra.
Click to expand...

I'm not "the left", and he's never been a hero of mine.

Honestly, I wish people would respond to the words I type, rather than some imaginary image of me.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
To the extent that it applies, I think the Clinton era scandal is more relevant as an example of political expedience and hypocrisy. Same people involved in applying the law back then to the impeachment proceedings and the report that was done back then are the same ones now pushing for completely unredacted copies of the Mueller report for hell or high water no matter if it exposes private citizens to undue attention.

We can discuss the issues with Trump to death and have a legitimate point to make there. But as it relates to to e Mueller report and how much of it is unredacted I feel like the Democrats up there in DC have gone into full stupid mode
Click to expand...

It should be redacted for sensitive information, sure. But no more than required.
 
- The public reports should have (reasonable) redactions for sensitive information as needed.

- The report Congress sees should not.

- It shouldn't take this long to redact sensitive information from a report.
 
JoeMorgue said:
- The public reports should have (reasonable) redactions for sensitive information as needed.

- The report Congress sees should not.

- It shouldn't take this long to redact sensitive information from a report.
Click to expand...

Especially as the man preparing the report knew what information would need to be redacted and likely wrote the report in such a way as to facilitate the redactions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom