Mueller Investigation pt 6

[theprestige]

Special Pleading

Thank you for raising this concern. It was not my intention with that post to condemn what I elsewhere excused, nor vice-versa. If you can point out where I did so, I will happily correct or retract my error.

 

[theprestige]

So in your mind only a full direct confession counts as evidence?

Kinda hard to prove intent without actual evidence of intent.

 

[theprestige]

Only if there is reason to assume that China has undue influence over her - that is why you do investigations.

I'm pretty sure the investigations are supposed to come before the assumptions. The reason to assume is what emerges from the investigation. Perhaps you meant "reason to suspect"?

Of course, if Trump bases his order on nothing but a hunch, it would be an abuse of power.

Sure. But "hunch" is a weasel word.

 

[Paul2]

Mueller didn't charge the President with a crime. Unless I've missed something in the last few minutes. Does that mean Mueller did not do his job? Or does it mean Mueller did his job but did not attain the outcome the other sides were hoping for..

Mueller did his job, as far as anyone can tell.

Barr released the report.

Barr has released the redacted report to the public. I wouldn't want your more general statement to imply that there could not possibly be anything else to release to some party (like an unreacted report to Congress).

If Congress finds there is evidence to Impeach they should do so without delay. They won't, because the evidence is not there.

Didn't Mueller lay out how Trump committed all the elements necessary for obstruction of justice?

Lastly, I couldn't find anything in your reply to my post that actually addressed the point of my post, which was that Barr actually didn't have the responsibility to make a legal determination, as that injects a political appointee into a process designed to remove the influence of political appointees in order to increase public trust in the results of an investigation (particularly important when the person appointing the political appointee is a subject of the investigation).

 

[phiwum]

To be clear: A sizeable chunk of the population is bigots who just happen to vote Democrat, too.

Hey, I have an idea. Let's condemn bigoted voters no matter who they are and let's add especial condemnation to bigoted politicians, the more powerful, the greater the condemnation. And when bigotry influences policy, let's be sure to condemn that too.

I don't see any issues there. And Trump has displayed bigotry. I don't really care whether it's worse than the bigotry of some Democratic voters or not. He's loathsome because he's bigoted, he's powerful and I think it's clear that his bigotry has influenced his official actions. All of this is good reason to condemn him.

If you think others are similar in their bigotry, their power and their willingness to act on bigotry in an official capacity, I'll condemn them too, so long as it's clear that you can demonstrate all three features mentioned above. Insofar as they have less power, say, I'll still say they are bad people, but not to the same degree.

So to hell with your repeated crutch of claiming "special pleading". Relevant differences are (stay with me here) relevant.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I'm pretty sure the investigations are supposed to come before the assumptions. The reason to assume is what emerges from the investigation. Perhaps you meant "reason to suspect"?

experts have a pretty clear idea what is and what isn't a Red Flag.

 

[pgwenthold]

Evidence?

This is all part of the false equivalency nonsense. It's just like when people complain about the president's lies, the response is that all politicians lie. Because, you know that makes them all equally bad. So while Trump has passed the 10000 lie mark in 2 years, Obama said "if you like your insurance, you can keep it" and therefore they are the same.

 

[quadraginta]

Where did he say he didn't see himself as the AG?

So in your mind only a full direct confession counts as evidence?

He didn't say "promise".

 

[Belz...]

This is all part of the false equivalency nonsense. It's just like when people complain about the president's lies, the response is that all politicians lie. Because, you know that makes them all equally bad. So while Trump has passed the 10000 lie mark in 2 years, Obama said "if you like your insurance, you can keep it" and therefore they are the same.

You noticed?

 

[varwoche]

Hmm? For the former, he's really not more bigoted or racist than a sizable chunk of the population. A sizable chunk that just happens to tend to vote Republican.

I'm not comparing him to the general population. I'm comparing him to presidents, aspiring presidents, and other national leaders.

In modern times there has never been a person in the upper echelon of US leadership this racist, this bigoted, this misogynistic, this disrespectful of democratic institutions, this worshiping of brutal dictators, this dishonest, this disregardful of facts, this ego maniacal, and this infantile.

And before anyone waves marginal exceptions, bear in mind that Trump embodies all of these traits. His loathsome characteristics are so over the top, so transparent, so cartoonish, that sometimes it doesn't seem real; it's a vivid dream nightmare.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Kinda hard to prove intent without actual evidence of intent.

Do we need a confession of intent or might lying outright about the Mueller report and taking a number of actions to quash what it says about Trump to recognize Barr works as Trump's lawyer, not the US AG?

 

[Cabbage]

It's a good thing I neither think nor want it to be, then.

That certainly doesn't show through when you post garbage like this:

We get a bigoted government no matter which voters win at the polls, and no matter which party is running it. Calling out this administration as especially bigoted is special pleading.

...which certainly seems to imply that, to you, bigotry is a binary black/white (no pun intended) issue: You're either a bigot or not, period. Do you really think that, for example, the bigotry of Abraham Lincoln (by modern standards) is equivalent to the bigotry of Hitler? Maybe I'm reading you wrong; can you help me out?

 

[BobTheCoward]

Do we need a confession of intent or might lying outright about the Mueller report and taking a number of actions to quash what it says about Trump to recognize Barr works as Trump's lawyer, not the US AG?

That would not be sufficient. That still completely leaves open the question if Barr views those actions as the appropriate role of the US AG.

 

[Cabbage]

And this is why the few conservatives here don't seem to have much interest in making substantive posts about what they think and why. After getting this kind of response from you and smartcooky all day yesterday, what's in it for me to come back today and resume the conversation? Do you actually want to have a discussion, or are you just trolling for straight lines to feed whatever comedy routine you're working on?

Blaming Trump's ignorance on the school system is an absurd claim that deserves an absurd response. If you want discussion, please provide something worth discussion.

I guess you don't like it when your BS is pointed out to you. I'll be sure to remember that.

 

[Cabbage]

Thank you for raising this concern. It was not my intention with that post to condemn what I elsewhere excused, nor vice-versa. If you can point out where I did so, I will happily correct or retract my error.

Because those people are unrepresentative exceptional nutjobs that have no purpose in the debate except to rhetorically invoke an emotional response. I will also admit to mocking your own overuse of the term.


Now that I have answered your question, can you please answer mine and explain to me how my quote is special pleading:

If you were truly frustrated with lies and corruption in the GOP, I would have recommended you vote for less corruption, not more...but it's your vote, not mine.

Special pleading.

 

[Aridas]

To be clear: A sizeable chunk of the population is bigots who just happen to vote Democrat, too.

Hence "tend," rather than a stronger word. Still, if you're trying to make a defense like this, you could also do what a number of Republicans do and cite things like how the Democrats were the obvious racists at the time of the Civil War. It's not much of an actual defense, in other words. The real problem, of course, is how the GOP's been handling that. Rather than actually rejecting racism and bigotry, they've been pandering to such.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That would not be sufficient. That still completely leaves open the question if Barr views those actions as the appropriate role of the US AG.

So if Barr views his role as protecting the POTUS who has committed crimes then Barr's intent was noble.

 

[BobTheCoward]

So if Barr views his role as protecting the POTUS who has committed crimes then Barr's intent was noble.

Totally bizarre interpretation of my post. Let me try to clarify.

You don't know if he views his actions as protecting the president. He could just view them as acting as an independent AG. You actually need evidence of intent to make that determination.

 

[tyr_13]

Did you honestly “miss” the DOJ guidelines that a sitting president cannot be charged with a crime? Mueller’s report clearly references that.

Yes, but it wasn't honest.

I'm being serious. I'm glad there are still conseravtives like you who look at the evidence, the obvious and overwhelming evidence, that Trump et al are criminal, unfit, and a threat to our country/democracy (not that he will destroy it mind, not all harms are destroying).

But I'll share with you something that helped me once I fully incorporated it into my mental model of reality; people on Trump's side normally aren't trying to address you. They aren't trying to reason through reality but impose their feelings on reality like any other woo group.

Not the specific you, but anyone outside their tribe. Generally speaking there are three somewhat overlapping motivations for those on Trump's side to talk to those who are not about Trump and related subjects. Only one is about you at all. That is trolling. The intent isn't to process what is said, reason, or anything but just to make you feel bad. This is very easy to do to me, because I suffer heavily from 'vicarious embarrassment', and just observing them trying to defend Trump makes me feel horrible on their behalf. It's worse than in rom-coms where they make people go through a lot of cringworthy pain. In any case, the argument isn't come by 'honestly'.

The second is virtue signaling. Now this often overlaps with trolling, because making 'enemies' feel bad is a virtue for their tribe ("the cruelty is the point"), but it doesn't have to. Making a defense shows their worth to the tribe. In those cases you might think only strong arguments would be valued because it shows off their worth the tribe by their intellect being helpful in convincing others. In the case of Trump et al, there are basically no strong arguments. Because of that, the more total the embarrassing, moronic, degrading the argument is for the Trump defender, the more loyalty it is signaling to the tribe.

The last is rationalizations for themselves. It doesn't have to make sense rationally; it is just to make themselves feel like they aren't wrong. Or they are still moral. They're using you to tell themselves their reasoning stands up to real challenge, but it's ultimately a masturbatory exercise.

Now that isn't me arguing that you (specific you this time) or anyone should stop making rational arguments in response, nor anything like that. I'm basically relating this in the chance that helps reduce frustration in people who might think they're the crazy one when those on Trump's side just keep saying straight up wrong things that ignore reality. It isn't you, and it isn't your argument. (As always, that's not an excuse to not actually give new evidence a fair hearing.)

Sorry for using your post as a jumping off point for my rant.

 

[Lurch]

Evidence gathered during counter-intelligence is more useful for extra-judicial executive action. Bid Laden wasn't blessed by Obama's use of intelligence services, without the goal of sending him to prison.

The main power of the presidency is the license to act swiftly and secretly. For a sitting president to mount a secret intelligence campaign against a presidential candidate, without any of the due process or accountability that would attend a criminal proceeding, is - or should be - deeply concerning. If Trump were to direct the FBI to mount a secret counter-intelligence campaign against Senator Feinstein, on account of her possibly being a tool or stooge of Chinese spies, it would be concerning. Wouldn't it?

If she was demonstrably consorting with questionable Chinese nationals, a counter-intel op could be supported.

Trump's campaign was consorting with questionable Russian nationals.