• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Mueller Investigation pt 7

wareyin said:
We even have a lawyer (iirc?) being lectured by Squeegee (who doesn't practice law iirc) about how to parse this "clear" testimony by Mueller.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you're talking about, but I do wish you'd stop trying to start fights between me and other posters.
 
Belz... said:
It's no less a fallacy here. Whether or not I am a minority is completely irrelevant unless we're taking a vote, which we're not, and were you in the minority you wouldn't think it relevant, either.
Click to expand...

Bollocks. If one person out of 100 (for example) claims something is clear while the other 99 disagree, then that one doesn't get to tell everyone else that they're wrong. As you are attempting to do. At best, it's clear to you but as you go on to state later, it wasn't even clear to you. You're just arguing for the sake of arguing now.
 
wareyin said:
Thank you. I'll notch you down in the "Mueller did not clearly state Trump committed perjury" column. So this leaves us with Squeegee and Belz... as the only participants who seem to think Mueller did clearly state such.
Click to expand...

No you can just leave me out of it.

I think he was very clear in what he said as to the matter, and I understand Squeegee and Belz's position, that his being clear in giving the facts, it could very possibly lead to the conclusion that Trump committed perjury by being untruthful under oath in his written answers. In the same way Mueller didn't say that Trump had obstructed Justice, but the evidence he laid out does strongly lead to a conclusion of him having done so.

Now yes, because Mueller didn't take those facts and create a conclusion there is always the ability to say, well yeah there is evidence, but that doesn't mean he actually did it. But to do so really ignores the bulk of the evidence.

It's like saying we have the following facts:

(a) Bob told people that he hated Jeff and he was going to kill him.
(b) Bob purchased a gun and ammo
(c) Bob was seen by multiple people entering Jeff's office while carrying the gun
(d) Multiple people heard gunshots coming from Jeff's office after Bob entered
(e) Bob was then seen running from the office still holding the gun
(f) Jeff was found dead in his office
(g) The cause of Jeff's death was determined to be blood loss and trauma from multiple bullet wounds
(h) The rifling on bullets recovered from Jeff's body and office matched that on bullets later test fired from Bob's gun.

Did Bob kill Jeff?

Simply giving those facts clearly is not an accusation of murder, but taken together, the evidence if pretty overwhelming that Bob did indeed commit murder. Of course it is also microscopically possible that Bob took the gun into the office and handed to Jeff, who them used it to commit suicide, and Bob's defense and supporters might even argue that, but does that change that the facts for murder were clearly given?
 
Last edited:
wareyin said:
Bollocks. If one person out of 100 (for example) claims something is clear while the other 99 disagree, then that one doesn't get to tell everyone else that they're wrong.
Click to expand...

They absolutely do. Being numerous does not make someone correct. Maybe those 99 just don't understand the English language very well.

I suppose that's one meaning of "unclear", but then one that's on the listener.

At best, it's clear to you but as you go on to state later, it wasn't even clear to you.
Click to expand...

That's a lie. I never said that.

You're just arguing for the sake of arguing now.
Click to expand...

No, you're just wrong. I know it's a difficult concept to grasp, and not wanting to admit it, you want to find a way to blame it on me.
 
Last edited:
wareyin said:
Bollocks. If one person out of 100 (for example) claims something is clear while the other 99 disagree, then that one doesn't get to tell everyone else that they're wrong.
Click to expand...

So if one person said that it was clear that the Earth was a globe, and the other 99 claimed that they were wrong, it's flat, then the one isn't right? I believe that there is a fallacy here somewhere....
 
PhantomWolf said:
So if one person said that it was clear that the Earth was a globe, and the other 99 claimed that they were wrong, it's flat, then the one isn't right? I believe that there is a fallacy here somewhere....
Click to expand...

I believe wareyin is saying that since it's a matter of understanding, and not of facts, popularity is not a fallacy.

However, I think we've amply demonstrated that the "unclearness" of Mueller's testimony is simply due to reality not matching these posters' expectations.
 
PhantomWolf said:
So if one person said that it was clear that the Earth was a globe, and the other 99 claimed that they were wrong, it's flat, then the one isn't right? I believe that there is a fallacy here somewhere....
Click to expand...

The claim was that when discussing how clear a description or communication is, numbers do matter.

Let's go back to the origin of this particular argument, shall we? Squeegee stated: "You don't have to "read between the lines" to recognise that Mueller accused Trump of perjury, or that he wasn't exonerated."

I responded that it wasn't as clear as that. Squeegee attempted to prove Mueller clearly accused Trump of perjury by quoted several back and forth exchanges from Mueller's testimony which do not amount to a clear accusation.

Lots of back and forth among many posters occurred, with the general consensus being that Mueller did not accuse Trump of perjury whether because he couldn't, he didn't want to appear partisan, or what-have you. Squeegee claims I was only making assertions and not arguments (as though proving the negative of his claims was my responsibility) and drops out.

At this point, Belz... jumps in to defend Squeegee that it was my mistake, and Mueller was clear in his accusation. At no point has anyone been able to provide a clear accusation or claim of perjury. Yet Belz... is quite adamant that Mueller was clear in his accusations, and the fault in not seeing that is mine. We have 2 posters who originally claimed the accusations were clear, and we have far more than 2 arguing that not only was there no clear accusation, Mueller was unable to give one. Of course at this point, Squeegee has stopped making the claim and Belz... is arguing for the sake of argument again.

So we do not even have one person out of all participants arguing that there was a clear accusation of perjury. We at best only had one, maybe 2 arguing that there was. If only 1 or 2 people out of a group can understand your description, you didn't provide a clear description.
 
Belz... said:
I believe wareyin is saying that since it's a matter of understanding, and not of facts, popularity is not a fallacy.

However, I think we've amply demonstrated that the "unclearness" of Mueller's testimony is simply due to reality not matching these posters' expectations.
Click to expand...

Which posters? The posters that I was arguing with who claimed there was a clear accusation of perjury? (that would be Squeegee originally, then you)
Or the general consensus now among posters (including you, apparently) that Mueller did not clearly accuse Trump of perjury?
 
wareyin said:
Which posters?
Click to expand...

...the ones who expected Mueller to say Trump had committed perjury.

Dude, we were just talking about that. Pay attention, for pete's sake.

The posters that I was arguing with who claimed there was a clear accusation of perjury? (that would be Squeegee originally, then you)
Click to expand...

Quote me.

Or the general consensus now among posters (including you, apparently) that Mueller did not clearly accuse Trump of perjury?
Click to expand...

I suggest you go back and read the exchanges again because I think we lost you somewhere.
 
Mueller played within the rules he was given and also played the "be as non-partisan as can be" role too much. He was trying his best to not make this seem a witch-hunt, which is was not. Because of this, Mueller's investigation produced no immediate actions.
By doing this, he was unlike Ken Starr, who was on a witch-hunt and was partisan AF. Starr's tactics produced an impeachment for a process crime.
 
Last edited:
thaiboxerken said:
Mueller played within the rules he was given and also played the "be as non-partisan as can be" role too much. He was trying his best to not make this seem a witch-hunt, which is was not. Because of this, Mueller's investigation produced no immediate actions.
Click to expand...

That's on Congress, not Mueller.

I'm sorry that the special prosecutor wasn't the saviour of America that many would have wanted him to be, but it was never going to be the case that he would slay the dragon for us.
 
Belz... said:
That's on Congress, not Mueller.

I'm sorry that the special prosecutor wasn't the saviour of America that many would have wanted him to be, but it was never going to be the case that he would slay the dragon for us.
Click to expand...

Congress shares the blame, yes. However, if Mueller wanted to, he could have gone full Ken Starr and made it very hard for Congress not to pursue impeachment.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Congress shares the blame, yes. However, if Mueller wanted to, he could have gone full Ken Starr and made it very hard for Congress not to pursue impeachment.
Click to expand...

Not really, the rules got changed after Starr exactly because Starr did what he did.
 
PhantomWolf said:
Not really, the rules got changed after Starr exactly because Starr did what he did.
Click to expand...

I don't think so. I think Mueller was hamstrung from the beginning because Republicans would only agree to an independent investigation as long as it had no teeth. I also still believe Mueller could have done more than he did.
 
thaiboxerken said:
I don't think so. I think Mueller was hamstrung from the beginning because Republicans would only agree to an independent investigation as long as it had no teeth. I also still believe Mueller could have done more than he did.
Click to expand...

The report has plenty of teeth. It's up to Congress to use them, which they seem to be rather slow to do so, though a lot of the house are certainly talking towards that with well over half the Democrats now openly calling for impeachment.
 
PhantomWolf said:
The report has plenty of teeth. It's up to Congress to use them, which they seem to be rather slow to do so, though a lot of the house are certainly talking towards that with well over half the Democrats now openly calling for impeachment.
Click to expand...

Enough teeth for reasonable people, but not enough to shame Trumpublicans into doing the right thing.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Enough teeth for reasonable people, but not enough to shame Trumpublicans into doing the right thing.
Click to expand...

Nothing was going to be enough to that. Mueller testified that the Russians were attacking the US as he spoke, and that they were planning to interfere in the Elections in 2020, and other countries were developing the techniques to do the same. He couldn't have been more clear or forceful in his message. And the reaction of Moscow Mitch? The very next day, he blocked legislation that would have given Federal help to the States to combat any such attacks.

Mueller could have jumped on the table and screamed that Trump was as guilty as sin and the Trumpublicans would still being ignoring it. Blaming him because they refuse to accept the bleeding obvious is targeting the wrong person.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom