Mueller Investigation pt 6

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Great Zaganza said:
Chris, if someone robbed your house and you reported it to the police, you would want them to investigate you before they even start looking for the culprit?
Click to expand...

If someone robbed my house the only difficulty would be deciding whether to shoot them with one of my AR-15's or one of my AK-47's. The culprit would be easy to locate, however my wife would probably disapprove of the red stains on the new carbonized bamboo flooring.

Chris B.
 
I
ChrisBFRPKY said:
If someone robbed my house the only difficulty would be deciding whether to shoot them with one of my AR-15's or one of my AK-47's. The culprit would be easy to locate, however my wife would probably disapprove of the red stains on the new carbonized bamboo flooring.

Chris B.
Click to expand...

Obvious evasion is obvious.

To make it easier for you: you want to report a break-in that happened while you were on holiday. According to you, the primary focus of the investigators must be to determine whether you didn't do something illegal on your holiday before they decide to take up the case
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Perhaps you missed it, so there it is again for you to not only read but to comprehend.

Chris B.
Click to expand...

Nope.

You said... and I quote

"Barr is on the record as saying 'spying did occur'"

You are claiming that he made that statement as a statement of fact. HE DID NO SUCH THING. What he actually said was " I think spying did occur"... that is a statment of OPINION, not fact.

I can understand how you might not see the difference between opinion and fact, given your stance on the existence of bigfoot... but that is a another story isn't it... one that speaks to your credibility.
 
Last edited:
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Perhaps you missed it, so there it is again for you to not only read but to comprehend.

Chris B.
Click to expand...

I comprehend that “struck a chord” seems to mean “confirmed my bias”. Barr has a history of Republican partisan spinnery going back to one of the Bushes. I forget which, at the moment. If you are you are looking to him for clues about what’s really going on, you might as well go straight to the horse’s mouth and blindly accept whatever nonsense comes out of Trump’s mouth.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Chris, if someone robbed your house and you reported it to the police, you would want them to investigate you before they even start looking for the culprit?
Click to expand...

I know this will come across as highly cynical, but...

...when I was being trained as a police officer, one thing we were taught was to “Always <insert code for warrants check> your victims”.

It would generally not be the first thing to come to mind on a burglary call, unless we thought it was drug-related. But it’s not uncommon for victims of street crimes to have records and/or warrants themselves.

Like I said, kinda cynical. But assuming that society wants people with outstanding warrants to be brought in to face justice, a practical rule to follow.
 
Upchurch said:
I comprehend that “struck a chord” seems to mean “confirmed my bias”. Barr has a history of Republican partisan spinnery going back to one of the Bushes. I forget which, at the moment. If you are you are looking to him for clues about what’s really going on, you might as well go straight to the horse’s mouth and blindly accept whatever nonsense comes out of Trump’s mouth.
Click to expand...

H.W. He was his AG that helped him pardon the worst of Iran/Contra away.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
I know this will come across as highly cynical, but...

...when I was being trained as a police officer, one thing we were taught was to “Always <insert code for warrants check> your victims”.

It would generally not be the first thing to come to mind on a burglary call, unless we thought it was drug-related. But it’s not uncommon for victims of street crimes to have records and/or warrants themselves.

Like I said, kinda cynical. But assuming that society wants people with outstanding warrants to be brought in to face justice, a practical rule to follow.
Click to expand...

Rule number one: suspect the victim
-Sam Vimes
 
Cabbage said:
No he did not. What he said was, "I think spying did occur". "Think"....that's a weasel word that could make his statement true even if he has no evidence spying occurred.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFtSfl9uvtU

Some people think Bigfoot exists. That does not imply there is any good evidence for Bigfoot.
Click to expand...


The Attorney General of the United States is not "some people".

He speaks from a position of authority with all the weight of the government apparatus under his purview as implicit support.
 
quadraginta said:
The Attorney General of the United States is not "some people".

He speaks from a position of authority with all the weight of the government apparatus under his purview as implicit support.
Click to expand...

And he has opinions and an a****** just like everyone else


Appeal to Authority noted
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
Nope.

I can understand how you might not see the difference between opinion and fact, given your stance on the existence of bigfoot... but that is a another story isn't it... one that speaks to your credibility.
Click to expand...

I'm sure there is some logical fallacy lurking in there somewhere, but I could not help feeling the same way.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
If someone robbed my house the only difficulty would be deciding whether to shoot them with one of my AR-15's or one of my AK-47's. The culprit would be easy to locate, however my wife would probably disapprove of the red stains on the new carbonized bamboo flooring.

Chris B.
Click to expand...

Golly. You could have answered the question, but I think you made the right choice. Talk instead about what a manly man you are and add something about your decorating style. I can't speak for others, but I'm mighty impressed.
 
Upchurch said:
I comprehend that “struck a chord” seems to mean “confirmed my bias”. Barr has a history of Republican partisan spinnery going back to one of the Bushes. I forget which, at the moment. If you are you are looking to him for clues about what’s really going on, you might as well go straight to the horse’s mouth and blindly accept whatever nonsense comes out of Trump’s mouth.
Click to expand...

Trump's been right before. I feel it highly unlikely Barr would attempt to "spin" something while under oath at a Congressional hearing. "Spinning" there would likely put himself in jeopardy, why would he do that? I don't think so.

Chris B.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Trump's been right before. I feel it highly unlikely Barr would attempt to "spin" something while under oath at a Congressional hearing. "Spinning" there would likely put himself in jeopardy, why would he do that? I don't think so.

Chris B.
Click to expand...

How would spinning put him in jeopardy? Suppose that he really didn't think that "spying" is an accurate term for what happened in Trump's campaign, but he chose to use it anyway. There is no possibility I can see, absent a memo saying "There was no spying," that he could be charged with lying under oath.

Do you extend this same reasoning to Democratic officials? Hillary Clinton, for instance, never used spin while under oath as Secretary of State, because of fear of jeopardy?
 
phiwum said:
Golly. You could have answered the question, but I think you made the right choice. Talk instead about what a manly man you are and add something about your decorating style. I can't speak for others, but I'm mighty impressed.
Click to expand...

I do have some time to waste. I don't have so much of it that I want to delve too deeply into unrelated hypotheticals.

Chris B.
 
phiwum said:
How would spinning put him in jeopardy? Suppose that he really didn't think that "spying" is an accurate term for what happened in Trump's campaign, but he chose to use it anyway. There is no possibility I can see, absent a memo saying "There was no spying," that he could be charged with lying under oath.

Do you extend this same reasoning to Democratic officials? Hillary Clinton, for instance, never used spin while under oath as Secretary of State, because of fear of jeopardy?
Click to expand...

I think Hillary was obligated to tell the truth when placed under oath at congressional hearings. What bothered me about Hillary is that she wasn't placed under oath during questioning by the FBI, doesn't that seem odd or improper to you?

Chris B.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom