FBI raids Trump lawyer Michael Cohen's office

[JimL]

There is no evidence that Flynn conspired with Russia. He was indicted for and plead guilty to lying to investigators, not for conspiracy, which is a big, big deal, because the latter would have allowed Mueller to use Flynn's guilty plea as evidence that the conspiracy existed while the former simply impeaches his credibility as a witness.

But none of that was in Rosenstien's letter to Mueller.

Trump had every right to fire Comey. A president enacting his executive powers is a not a crime.

But again, none of that was in Rosentien's letter to Mueller.

Further, Comey conceded in his testimony before Congress that Trump never asked him to drop the investigation against Flynn:

Source: Comey Testimony

He did not direct you to let it go?

COMEY: Not in his words, no.

RISCH: He did not order you to let it go?

COMEY: Again, those words are not an order.

RISCH: He said, I hope. Now, like me, you probably did hundreds of cases, maybe thousands of cases, charging people with criminal offenses and, of course, you have knowledge of the thousands of cases out there where people have been charged. Do you know of any case where a person has been charged for obstruction of justice or, for that matter, any other criminal offense, where they said or thought they hoped for an outcome?

COMEY: I don't know well enough to answer. The reason I keep saying his words is I took it as a direction.

RISCH: Right.

COMEY: I mean, this is a president of the United States with me alone saying I hope this. I took it as, this is what he wants me to do. I didn't obey that, but that's the way I took it.

RISCH: You may have taken it as a direction but that's not what he said.

COMEY: Correct.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/...stimony-239295

© Copyright Original Source

So clearly no obstruction of justice took place.

You said that "Once a special prosecutor is appointed the scope of the investigation is broadened," but that's not what the law says, kiddo. "The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted" and "The Special Counsel will be provided with a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated."

According to THE LAW, once a special prosecutor is appointed, the scope of the investigation needs to be narrowed to a SPECIFIC crime.

No, the above does not say that the scope of the investigation need be narrowed, you've pulled that notion out of you're ....... because it suits your own purposes, kiddo. Rosenstein determined that a criminal investigation was warranted and he provided a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated. You just don't happen to like the specifics that Rosenstein authorized.

[carpedm9587]

The problem with you MM, is that your sources are invariably suspect. Pointing this out is not a 'fallacy', but highlighting your bias.

Again - I think we have to be careful about the genetic fallacy. While MM does lean to sources that are strongly partisan, that does not make what they say "always wrong." The truth or falseness of a proposition rests in its alignment to reality, not the agency reporting on it. I question (and disagree with) many (most?) of MM's conclusions, and believe he regularly cherry-picks data to hold a position. But I base that on what he says, not the sources he uses.

[One Bad Pig]

Is there something wrong with you?

There are a whole host of things wrong with me. Proffering Wikipedia as a reputable source is not one of them, however.

Wall Street Journal is the most common one that I see regularly. Also the Economist but I don't use that one.

Personally I'd also consider WaPo and NYT to be "right-wing" but that's more nuanced and a matter of which right-left spectrum we are talking about. They cheer-led the way into the Iraq war, they viciously and continuously attacked Bernie Sanders when he ran, etc.

Yeah, you've said similar things about them in the past.

[One Bad Pig]

The Daily Telegraph site comes to mind.

I admittedly hadn't thought of that one.

I expect MM will ignore your use of the genetic fallacy.

Wikipedia has no business being cited as a reputable source, given that anyone with an internet connection can edit it and kooks have an outsize presence online. At best, it is a site which can be used to find other sources of information, which should be consulted and evaluated on their own merits.

[Zymologist]

Frankly, I find this talk about OBP and the genetic fallacy rather hilarious.

[Mountain Man]

Again, who says that the law/statue needs to be referenced in the letter?

The LAW says so, you moron. Once again:

"The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted" and "The Special Counsel will be provided with a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated."

At this point you're not arguing with me, you're arguing with the law.

[Mountain Man]

No, you're the pigeon, strutting around declaring victory in defiance of reality.

Oh, I don't need to declare anything.

[element771]

While MM does lean to sources that are strongly partisan, that does not make what they say "always wrong." The truth or falseness of a proposition rests in its alignment to reality, not the agency reporting on it. I question (and disagree with) many (most?) of MM's conclusions, and believe he regularly cherry-picks data to hold a position. But I base that on what he says, not the sources he uses.

This is the problem.

The propaganda sites of the far-left and the far-right have perfected mixing a little bit of truth with a lot of opinion. This is a huge problem because who is going to fact check the entire article to decipher everything that is being presented. This is why a lot of them will deny that they are journalists but are instead commentators. Commentators talk about facts and are not restrained by the truth. It is actually the media's fault that this happened. In an effort to spice things up, they started reporting opinions integrated with the facts of the story. The far-right and far-left just took the opinion part and cranked it up a notch.

This is now led us to the point that we are arguing over what are the facts as opposed to our own personal views. Anyone can find an article that fits the narrative that they are looking for. It is depressing that people will sit in their own bubble and just visit sites that present the facts in a way that they like. The fact that people take these sites as legit sources of news is a joke.

The internet has made it possible to flood the information landscape with so much crap that it is virtually impossible to determine what is the exact truth. Then fact checking websites pop up to help but they are then countered with other biased fact checking sites that continue with a narrative and discredit other fact checking sites.

These sites have gotten us fake child sex-rings at pizza parlors, people foregoing treatment and drinking apple cider vinegar to take care of their cancer, people actually harassing parents who lost their children in a massacre because they are convinced that the massacre didn't actually happen, and outbreaks of diseases we eradicated 50 years ago. The internet is great but the problem is that any jerk with a computer can publish anything at anytime and reach 6 billion people. And because it is in print on an official looking webpage, a certain segment of the population will buy it.

It saddens and depresses me that this is where we are as a country.

[Roy]

Again, who says that the law/statue needs to be referenced in the letter?

The LAW says so, you moron. Once again:

"The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted" and "The Special Counsel will be provided with a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated."

That does not say that the law/statute being contravened needs to be referenced.

It does leave us with the conclusion that MM might claim that

"The assassination of John F Kennedy in Dallas on Nov 22 1963"

is not a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated, but

"The assassination of John F Kennedy on Nov 22 1963, in contravention of US federal law 12345.6(c)"

is a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated.

At this point you're not arguing with me, you're arguing with the law.

I'm not arguing with you, I'm demonstrating beyond question that you're a blithering idiot. Job done.

[carpedm9587]

This is the problem.

The propaganda sites of the far-left and the far-right have perfected mixing a little bit of truth with a lot of opinion. This is a huge problem because who is going to fact check the entire article to decipher everything that is being presented. This is why a lot of them will deny that they are journalists but are instead commentators. Commentators talk about facts and are not restrained by the truth. It is actually the media's fault that this happened. In an effort to spice things up, they started reporting opinions integrated with the facts of the story. The far-right and far-left just took the opinion part and cranked it up a notch.

I will add that it doesn't help that 24-hour cable news sources are now replete with talking-head opinion segments. Fox has Ingraham and Hannity. CNN has Cooper and Tapper. They are even called "anchors," further reinforcing that they are providing "news." Sometimes they are "hosts," which is more in-line with their "talk program." People should not be turning to these sources for news anymore than they should be turning to John Oliver or Stephen Colbert. Much as I find the later funny, they are hosts of a comedy show - not news anchors.

This is now led us to the point that we are arguing over what are the facts as opposed to our own personal views. Anyone can find an article that fits the narrative that they are looking for. It is depressing that people will sit in their own bubble and just visit sites that present the facts in a way that they like. The fact that people take these sites as legit sources of news is a joke.

The internet has made it possible to flood the information landscape with so much crap that it is virtually impossible to determine what is the exact truth. Then fact checking websites pop up to help but they are then countered with other biased fact checking sites that continue with a narrative and discredit other fact checking sites.

These sites have gotten us fake child sex-rings at pizza parlors, people foregoing treatment and drinking apple cider vinegar to take care of their cancer, people actually harassing parents who lost their children in a massacre because they are convinced that the massacre didn't actually happen, and outbreaks of diseases we eradicated 50 years ago. The internet is great but the problem is that any jerk with a computer can publish anything at anytime and reach 6 billion people. And because it is in print on an official looking webpage, a certain segment of the population will buy it.

It saddens and depresses me that this is where we are as a country.

There was a belief, at one point, that the Internet would be the great unifier. Everyone would have access to all points of view, and the same body of data. The reality has been far different. The Internet has made it possible for individuals to find exactly the right information to affirm pre-existing views, and a means to filter out all narratives. We no longer have to move somewhere or join a community to engage with people who think as we do; we can solidify our bubble online and dismiss anyone who thinks differently with an electronic filter. We don't even have to be civil anymore - because the other view is a faceless post on a web page with a goofy avatar.

I share your dismay.

[rogue06]

I distinctly remember back when Jon Stewart was on the Daily Show there was a study that found that somewhere between a third and a half of self-described liberals under 30 or 35 used him as their primary source for news.

[Roy]

They are even called "anchors," further reinforcing that they are providing "news."

One of the few words in the English language with a silent 'w'.

[carpedm9587]

I distinctly remember back when Jon Stewart was on the Daily Show there was a study that found that somewhere between a third and a half of self-described liberals under 30 or 35 used him as their primary source for news.

Yeah. And THAT is a travesty. Like Brietbart, John would pick out nuggets of truth, and then spin them with his own personal bias. Unlike Breitbart, Stewart didn't claim to be a news source - he claimed to be a comedian. But that claim didn't stop a lot of young people from using his program as a news source, and he visually encouraged that with his set and format.

[carpedm9587]

One of the few words in the English language with a silent 'w'.

That made me wonder. So I went looking. Actually, any word that starts with "wr" has a silent w: wreck, wrestle, wrench, wrinkle, etc.

Then there's own, known, knowledge, know, etc.

https://www.spellzone.com/word_lists...m?wordlist=335

[Mountain Man]

That does not say that the law/statute being contravened needs to be referenced.

It does leave us with the conclusion that MM might claim that

"The assassination of John F Kennedy in Dallas on Nov 22 1963"

is not a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated, but

"The assassination of John F Kennedy on Nov 22 1963, in contravention of US federal law 12345.6(c)"

is a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated.

I'm not arguing with you, I'm demonstrating beyond question that you're a blithering idiot. Job done.

Fail. "Assassination" names a specific crime to be investigated. Vague allusions to "interference" and "coordination" do not.

Oh, but I do appreciate the irony of you calling me an idiot.