FBI raids Trump lawyer Michael Cohen's office

[carpedm9587]

It's not much of a leap when we have ample evidence of corruption in the DOJ/FBI, and then this story is leaked a few days after the raid on Cohen?

Because the "ample evidence" I have seen presented so far is of the same ilk (speculation piled on top of speculation), I see no reason to jump to this conclusion.

It's really not hard to connect the dots.

...and create any narrative that fits your political agenda. Sorry, MM, but I think you have forfeited any right to call yourself "supportive of law enforcement." Your tendency to conspiracy theories and willingness to throw law enforcement under the bus to meet a political ends kind of destroys that claim.

Heck, in another thread, you were arguing that evidence that Trump didn't say something counted as evidence that he could have said it, but here you suddenly ratchet up your standards. How convenient, especially when the evidence here is direct and damning.

Ummm... no... same standards, same application. And at no point did I present "evidence that Trump didn't say something." That is a fabrication on your part. What I don't know if is the fabrication is intentional, or if you simply have a difficulty with basic logical constructs. There is also evidence here that things are as you say: the timing. The evidence is completely inadequate to make a definitive claim, just as the evidence in the other thread was inadequate to make the claim, "Trump said that." I made that clear in multiple posts - but all you and Sparko seemed to hear was that I was "defending Starlight" and "impugning Trump." My posts were, from the beginning, about the incorrectness of the claim, "there is no evidence." The more appropriate/correct statement would have been, "there is inadequate evidence."

[Mountain Man]

Round and round he goes! Where he will stop, nobody knows!

[carpedm9587]

Round and round he goes! Where he will stop, nobody knows!

And yet another dismount from the discussion with an ad hom side-swipe and no actual content related to the discussion at hand.

Really, MM, you are somewhat predictable.

[One Bad Pig]

Really, MM, you are somewhat predictable.

Really, pot, you have no business talking about kettles.

[One Bad Pig]

I don't see how that makes anything better...

When people talk about law enforcement, they're almost always referring to local cops. I was merely pointing out that you were comparing apples to kumquats. Given the abundant leaks coming from the FBI/DOJ and subsequent revelations, MM is right to be skeptical. Government workers aren't any less partisan, or human, than we are.

[carpedm9587]

When people talk about law enforcement, they're almost always referring to local cops. I was merely pointing out that you were comparing apples to kumquats. Given the abundant leaks coming from the FBI/DOJ and subsequent revelations, MM is right to be skeptical. Government workers aren't any less partisan, or human, than we are.

OBP, given the degree to which the FBI has been under attack since before Trump took office, I think I can forgive them an impulse to try to defend themselves in the public media. It's unprofessional, and when they are caught at it, they certainly should not lie about it (as McCabe apparently did). But it simply does not rise to the level of "corruption." Human frailty, maybe.

And they are ALL law enforcement. Attacking any of them on the basis of guesswork, speculation, and innuendo undermines all law enforcement. Holding them accountable with valid evidence does not. So you may see it as apples to kumquats. I do not. The men and women who serve this country deserve the benefit of the doubt until there is solid evidence to suggest otherwise. Labeling the entire DOJ and FBI "corrupt," as is so often done here, dishonors the thousands of men and women who are doing their job and doing it well.

[One Bad Pig]

OBP, given the degree to which the FBI has been under attack since before Trump took office, I think I can forgive them an impulse to try to defend themselves in the public media. It's unprofessional, and when they are caught at it, they certainly should not lie about it (as McCabe apparently did). But it simply does not rise to the level of "corruption." Human frailty, maybe.

And they are ALL law enforcement. Attacking any of them on the basis of guesswork, speculation, and innuendo undermines all law enforcement. Holding them accountable with valid evidence does not. So you may see it as apples to kumquats. I do not. The men and women who serve this country deserve the benefit of the doubt until there is solid evidence to suggest otherwise. Labeling the entire DOJ and FBI "corrupt," as is so often done here, dishonors the thousands of men and women who are doing their job and doing it well.

I think I'm going to coin a new word for your semantic games - carpesplaining. You're doing it here. You're missing the point, badly, because MM is in no way attacking them for "try[ing] to defend themselves in the public media"; nor is he '[l]abeling the entire DOJ and FBI "corrupt,"' - which is not so often done here.

If MM disputes either of my explanations here, I'd like my crow served with ketchup.

[Mountain Man]

I think I'm going to coin a new word for your semantic games - carpesplaining. You're doing it here. You're missing the point, badly, because MM is in no way attacking them for "try[ing] to defend themselves in the public media"; nor is he '[l]abeling the entire DOJ and FBI "corrupt,"' - which is not so often done here.

If MM disputes either of my explanations here, I'd like my crow served with ketchup.

No, you're right. When I describe the FBI and DOJ as "corrupt", I'm referring to the corruption and "bad actors" that we know about because it has been documented and supported by evidence, and such remarks on my part should not be taken to mean that every single person within those organizations is corrupt, nor do I think any reasonable person would take them that way.

[carpedm9587]

I think I'm going to coin a new word for your semantic games - carpesplaining. You're doing it here. You're missing the point, badly, because MM is in no way attacking them for "try[ing] to defend themselves in the public media"; nor is he '[l]abeling the entire DOJ and FBI "corrupt,"' - which is not so often done here.

If MM disputes either of my explanations here, I'd like my crow served with ketchup.

So I am responding to the following exchange:

Michel: So let's just jump to the conclusion that our law enforcement people are corrupt. (posted ironically, part of a larger post)

MM: It's not much of a leap when we have ample evidence of corruption in the DOJ/FBI, (part of a larger post).

If MM is not accusing the DOJ/FBI of corruption, then I think he is being very sloppy with his language. And "carpesplaining" sounds cool! I may use it myself

P.S. And yes, I noted "corruption in" not "corrupting of." I stand by the observation that post after post from MM has been about the bad faith of the DOJ and FBI in general.

[Mountain Man]

P.S. And yes, I noted "corruption in" not "corrupting of." I stand by the observation that post after post from MM has been about the bad faith of the DOJ and FBI in general.

So you note a specific phrase I used which does not denote a general condemnation of the FBI/DOJ, but you're going to stand by your "observation" that my condemnation was general.

Classic carpesplaining, that. Of course we are talking to the guy who thinks that evidence that a claim is false can be construed as evidence that the it "could" be true, so I'm not sure what else we should expect.

[Tassman]

It's not much of a leap when we have ample evidence of corruption in the DOJ/FBI,

and then this story is leaked a few days after the raid on Cohen? It's really not hard to connect the dots.

Cohen has been under investigation for several months for suspected criminal activity. He will be entitled to due process. Not that this will mean anything to our very own conspiracy theorist MM, who is convinced that ALL the intel agencies AND the DOJ including the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General are corrupt with the ONLY innocent person being lying Donald Trump. They've got you fooled MM.

[carpedm9587]

So you note a specific phrase I used which does not denote a general condemnation of the FBI/DOJ, but you're going to stand by your "observation" that my condemnation was general.

Classic carpesplaining, that. Of course we are talking to the guy who thinks that evidence that a claim is false can be construed as evidence that the it "could" be true, so I'm not sure what else we should expect.

Since thuis last part of your post (again) completely misinterprets what I posted (I encourage others to read the actual post and see if it aligns with MM's comments), the rest of your post is dubious at best. You language, pretty much throughout the discussion, has been generally targeted to "the DOJ/FBI." I have found no places where you say "some people in" or "a few members of" or "a couple of bad apples." Instead, it is generally "corruption in" as a general observation. It is supported by your willingness to link to articles with statements like:

So… it is not a matter of ‘if’ the DOJ was/is a corrupt organization entirely infected by political ideologues at almost every level. That troubling reality exists, and it is supported by those who should know best; federal judges who see the gross ideological corruption.

Now I see you essentially trying to backpedal that view and trying to claim "oh no, I always thought it was just a couple bad apples." OBP gave you that opening and you're taking it.

I'm not buying it.

So technically this is not carpesplaining! (I DO like that word). It's just pointing out what you have said in past statements and holding you to them. Now - if you misspoke - just say so. I am guilty of having used language in a sloppy fashion, or posted links to articles I had not vetted as thoroughly as I should have. It happens. I am not one to try to "mind read" (as has been discussed before), and if your position IS actually that there are just a few bad apples to be weeded out, cool. But if you stand by your previous posts, then you sort of have to stand by the position they reflect.

[Mountain Man]

I'm not backpedaling. I stand by what I said. What I said, and what you quoted me saying, not what you falsely claim I said. We have solid, documented proof - not speculation or guesswork but cold, hard evidence - that the corruption in the FBI and DOJ is (or at least was) pervasive and exists (or at least existed) at a very high level in those organizations. That's not the same as saying that 100% of the people in those organizations are corrupt, which is what you falsely accused me of implying.

This is all a very big, big deal, but you need to take some time to understand the depth and complexity of it. This is a good article to start with:

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...ers-from-this/

[carpedm9587]

Permit me to carpesplain it to you!

I'm not backpedaling. I stand by what I said. What I said, and what you quoted me saying, not what you falsely claim I said. We have solid, documented proof - not speculation or guesswork but cold, hard evidence - that the corruption in the FBI and DOJ is (or at least was) pervasive and exists (or at least existed) at a very high level in those organizations.

Your quoted article says "almost all levels" and "entirely infected." You posted it, MM.

That's not the same as saying that 100% of the people in those organizations are corrupt, which is what you falsely accused me of implying.

This is all a very big, big deal, but you need to take some time to understand the depth and complexity of it. This is a good article to start with:

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...ers-from-this/

Actually, I don't think I ever said 100% or any specific percentage. I said you are impugning our law enforcement agencies, and the work of the men and women at the DOJ/FBI spuriously, with a wealth of assumptions and guesswork, and dishonoring their service. You broad-brush approach is reprehensible - and I think you have lost any standing to claim you "support law enforcement."

This "I hate government" mantra from the right is corrosive. The constant undermining of trust on the basis of idle speculation and guesswork prompted by partisan political objectives is destructive. Millions of honorable men and women go to work every day in government offices and in public service. The system is not perfect - and it could be vastly improve in many ways. But it is not pervasively corrupt, and to suggest otherwise is, IMO, pretty darned unpatriotic and unamerican.

[Mountain Man]

I like how you pick out isolated words and phrases that you think support your point while ignoring the numerous FACTS that support mine.

You seem to the think the "carpesplain" term is a cute badge of honor, so I'm just going to call it what it is: intellectual dishonesty. So any time you proudly announce, "I'm going to carpesplain," I read it as "I'm going to be intellectually dishonest."