FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe fired

[Mountain Man]

"Your honor, I can prove that I'm innocent."
"And what's your evidence?"
"I have these memos that I wrote to myself in which I told myself that I'm innocent."

[Charles]

"Your honor, I can prove that I'm innocent."
"And what's your evidence?"
"I have these memos that I wrote to myself in which I told myself that I'm innocent."

Or:

"Your honor, I can prove that I'm innocent."
"And what's your evidence?"
"I have these tweets that I wrote in which I told that I'm innocent."

[firstfloor]

[Mountain Man]

You need to start citing sources.

[carpedm9587]

Yes, let's ignore all the crimes he may have committed along the way.

No - let's see evidence of crimes presented before a court of law before we convict. That is, after all, the American way.

[carpedm9587]

Which means it's really far-left and questionably accurate.

To be fair, the first half of the article seemed reasonably accurate and unbiased. It's the second half where they started to engage in soft conspiracy theory peddling that they lost me (I love it when someone says, "We don't want to speculate, but..." and then they go straight into speculating), though to their credit they're not nearly as strident about it as other liberal sources.

A very balanced evaluation, MM...

[carpedm9587]

While it is dangerous to read too much into language choice - in my experience, when people insist on including "fair" in their description, it is usually because there is some question about whether it actually was. Most district attorneys, when announcing a public indictment, don't seem to need to insist the process was "fair." Yet Sessios seemed to feel a need to insist the review process, which was apparently substantially truncated to ensure a decision before McCabe's retirement date, was "fair."

Something does not smell right.

[Mountain Man]

While it is dangerous to read too much into language choice - in my experience, when people insist on including "fair" in their description, it is usually because there is some question about whether it actually was. Most district attorneys, when announcing a public indictment, don't seem to need to insist the process was "fair." Yet Sessios seemed to feel a need to insist the review process, which was apparently substantially truncated to ensure a decision before McCabe's retirement date, was "fair."

Something does not smell right.

Almost word-for-word from the latest liberal talking points memo, that this was somehow "fast tracked". That's what McCabe's lawyer is insisting even though they've known that something was brewing for several weeks at least. How do you think both McCabe and his lawyer were able to release lengthy and detailed responses so quickly after Sessions took action? They weren't caught off guard like they want you to believe.

Source: Interesting Response Statement By McCabe Attorney Michael Bromwich…

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...hael-bromwich/

© Copyright Original Source

It's a classic "I was for it before I was against it" flip-flop. As Sundance put it, "The thing about advocating for the Sword of Damocles, is never knowing when you might be under it."

[Charles]

While it is dangerous to read too much into language choice - in my experience, when people insist on including "fair" in their description, it is usually because there is some question about whether it actually was. Most district attorneys, when announcing a public indictment, don't seem to need to insist the process was "fair." Yet Sessios seemed to feel a need to insist the review process, which was apparently substantially truncated to ensure a decision before McCabe's retirement date, was "fair."

Something does not smell right.

If you have got the time watch Carl Bernstein giving his analysis of the recent development with regard to Trump. I especially like his the part in which he points out that Trump is a demonstrable liar and thus we have no reason for trusting him with regard to what he says about a possible collusion. I also really like the part in which he points out that even if this is a witch hunt then handling those guilty of it will be much easier if the investigation is allowed to come to an end and is not shut down. Enjoy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGZTFEUYC24

[carpedm9587]

This is the first real breakdown of the Meuller team I have seen. I have to admit that it gave me a bit of pause. The team does lean more Democrat than Republican, but then again the pool from which it is drawn also leans more Democrat than Republican. The donations don't bother me: the $57K donated by nine people is comparatively inconsequential, when you realize that $30K came from one person, and $12,000 from a second, meaning the other 7 donated an average of $2.1K. Those two people pass my personal comfort level, but the rest do not. I donate more than that and I have no question that I could look at the data objectively (why do I think THAT sentence will earn me an MM ?).

Mueller also has a reputation for immediately dismissing anyone who has any taint of letting their political/personal bias taint their work (or he did until he came under political attack for tacking on THIS particular assignment). But I do wish there were more people on this team that leaned right - if for no other reason than it would gut the negative optics.

That being said - Trump has argued that his almost completely white/male Cabinet, and his almost 100% refusal to have Democrats serving in his administration is because he "uses the best people for the job - rather than what 'politically correct' people say he should use." So why, I wonder, is the rule different for Mueller?

[carpedm9587]

If you have got the time watch Carl Bernstein giving his analysis of the recent development with regard to Trump. I especially like his the part in which he points out that Trump is a demonstrable liar and thus we have no reason for trusting him with regard to what he says about a possible collusion. I also really like the part in which he points out that even if this is a witch hunt then handling those guilty of it will be much easier if the investigation is allowed to come to an end and is not shut down. Enjoy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGZTFEUYC24

That Trump is a liar is well documented - both by him and others. He defends the practice as an appropriate way to negotiate (i.e., throw up smoke, keep the other person off balance, etc.). See the most recent admission about Trudeau. In short, morality takes a back seat to "winning the negotiation." It's not the way I have ever done, or ever will do, business. And there are many other business people who seem to be able to be successful without resorting to such tactics. It is an indictment of our current president that he seems to feel this is justified and "right." It is an indictment of those who support him that they endorse such an approach.

[carpedm9587]

Almost word-for-word from the latest liberal talking points memo, that this was somehow "fast tracked". That's what McCabe's lawyer is insisting even though they've known that something was brewing for several weeks at least. How do you think both McCabe and his lawyer were able to release lengthy and detailed responses so quickly after Sessions took action? They weren't caught off guard like they want you to believe.

Source: Interesting Response Statement By McCabe Attorney Michael Bromwich…

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...hael-bromwich/

© Copyright Original Source

It's a classic "I was for it before I was against it" flip-flop. As Sundance put it, "The thing about advocating for the Sword of Damocles, is never knowing when you might be under it."

I didn't read the "liberal talking points memo." I responded from my own observations and own responses. But if these memoes exist, and they reflect the same observation, maybe there's a reason for that? Basic psychology tells us that when someone says, "Honestly, I didn't do it," it's usually an indicator that they feel a need to convey a sense of "honesty." Usually, it is because they are not actually being honest....

Fair and balanced....

[Mountain Man]

I didn't read the "liberal talking points memo."

The Lawfare blog you cited earlier went all in promoting this "fast-tracked firing" conspiracy theory, but they did with admirable subtly, which is likely why you didn't notice you were being sold a bill of goods. Analyzing reporting from the left is like trying to figure out a magician's secret: always look for what they don't want you to notice.

[carpedm9587]

The Lawfare blog you cited earlier went all in promoting this "fast-tracked firing" conspiracy theory, but they did with admirable subtly, which is likely why you didn't notice you were being sold a bill of goods. Analyzing reporting from the left is like trying to figure out a magician's secret: always look for what they don't want you to notice.

I didn't just read this blog, MM. Unlike you, I read across the entire political spectrum - from Brietbart/Blaze to Mother Jones/Jezebel (though I spend far less time on the far right and left than I spend on the more centrist sites). I think I'm a bit better at seeing "talking points" (from right OR left) than you will probably ever concede.

[Charles]

[...] Analyzing reporting from the left is like trying to figure out a magician's secret: always look for what they don't want you to notice.

The fact that you only apply this to the left explains quite a lot...