Trump To Use Executive Privilege?

[carpedm9587]

Duplicate...

[carpedm9587]

Actually, you have.

Much as I regret it - I have to follow up this post, despite saying "last word," because I said something here that is not true. You're correct. My "I haven't spouted any liberal talking points" was a knee jerk reaction to the implication that I was just parroting without thought (and I think I actually probably had some reaction to being labeled a "liberal," yet again - another example of my own failure to live up to my own ideals ).

So - some of the statements I made in previous posts actually DO align with liberal talking points and I should have given more thought to my response. Mea culpa.

But I have to ask, "so what?" If the implication is that they are false because they are liberal talking points, then we are firmly into the genetic fallacy. If that is not the implication, then what purpose does it serve to point out that they are "liberal talking points?" Should we simply dismiss them because it aligns with what liberals say? Back to the genetic fallacy.

I am at a loss in understanding why some of my comments aligning with "liberal talking points" is an issue, or what it contributes to the discussion to note this.

[JimL]

No Jim, it is your double standard and the fact that you care nothing about democratic institutions or transparency when it is your guy. So spare us your fake outrage...

Regardless of whether or not you believe I have a double standard, you are showing that you definitely do. You know that Trump is stonewalling, and stonewalling is another way of obstructing justice, and the only reason for one to obstruct justice is because they are guilty. I believe you fought for these democratic institutions, and now you are helping Trump to bring them down. So sad!

[Mountain Man]

Much as I regret it - I have to follow up this post, despite saying "last word," because I said something here that is not true. You're correct. My "I haven't spouted any liberal talking points" was a knee jerk reaction to the implication that I was just parroting without thought (and I think I actually probably had some reaction to being labeled a "liberal," yet again - another example of my own failure to live up to my own ideals ).

So - some of the statements I made in previous posts actually DO align with liberal talking points and I should have given more thought to my response. Mea culpa.

But I have to ask, "so what?" If the implication is that they are false because they are liberal talking points, then we are firmly into the genetic fallacy. If that is not the implication, then what purpose does it serve to point out that they are "liberal talking points?" Should we simply dismiss them because it aligns with what liberals say? Back to the genetic fallacy.

I am at a loss in understanding why some of my comments aligning with "liberal talking points" is an issue, or what it contributes to the discussion to note this.

Looks like I hit a nerve.

But didn't you say...

I'll leave the last word to you.

[seer]

Regardless of whether or not you believe I have a double standard, you are showing that you definitely do. You know that Trump is stonewalling, and stonewalling is another way of obstructing justice, and the only reason for one to obstruct justice is because they are guilty. I believe you fought for these democratic institutions, and now you are helping Trump to bring them down. So sad!

Well Jim, we did not have anything like the Mueller investigation with fast and furious (if you want to impeach use that). Obama asserted executive privilege in a case that cost the lives of around 200 Mexicans and one border patrol agent. This was way worse than what Trump did but I don't remember you calling for transparency back then. Nor do you really care about democratic institutions. You are being hypocritical. This is a about getting Trump, no matter what, it is a political witch hunt and we all see through it.

[carpedm9587]

Looks like I hit a nerve.

Again, while true, I don't see the relevance to the discussion. Nor do I see a response to the relevance of labeling my responses "liberal talking points." Some basic realities:

1) You obviously cherry picked Mueller's report.
2) You've been selecting opinion statements from obviously partial individuals to make your case, with no substance provided.
3) You've been arguing that various things are "political" while liberally quoting politicians to make the case
4) Now you've labeled responses "liberal talking points" as if that says anything about their truth value
5) And now you're focused on my "nerves" and my "last word" - and still have not responded to 1-3

4) and 5) suggest you are somewhat desperately working to sidetrack the conversation away from 1-3.

[JimL]

Well Jim, we did not have anything like the Mueller investigation with fast and furious (if you want to impeach use that). Obama asserted executive privilege in a case that cost the lives of around 200 Mexicans and one border patrol agent. This was way worse than what Trump did but I don't remember you calling for transparency back then. Nor do you really care about democratic institutions. You are being hypocritical. This is a about getting Trump, no matter what, it is a political witch hunt and we all see through it.

That's a canard, seer. Fast and Furious, though called gun walking at the time, began under the Bush administration and it was a program designed to track the Mexican cartel. Although the program was flawed, being that the guns could have been used against U.S agents as in the case of border patrol agent Terry, it wasn't an attempt by a wannabe dictator to overthrow the U.S. government. It's also not the presidents responsibility to appoint a special prosecutor, it's the DOJ's responsibility. To compare that scandal, which was naught but a flawed attempt at national security with this current administrations treasonous corruption is a canard.

[Mountain Man]

I'll leave the last word to you.

[carpedm9587]

I'll take that as an acknowledgement that you have no response.

Thanks for the chat.

[Mountain Man]

I'll take that as an acknowledgement that you have no response.

Thanks for the chat.

It's an acknowledgement that I have nothing to say that I haven't already said.

Last word to you.

[seer]

That's a canard, seer. Fast and Furious, though called gun walking at the time, began under the Bush administration and it was a program designed to track the Mexican cartel. Although the program was flawed, being that the guns could have been used against U.S agents as in the case of border patrol agent Terry, it wasn't an attempt by a wannabe dictator to overthrow the U.S. government. It's also not the presidents responsibility to appoint a special prosecutor, it's the DOJ's responsibility. To compare that scandal, which was naught but a flawed attempt at national security with this current administrations treasonous corruption is a canard.

No Jim, Obama doubled down on the program, and walked way more guns than Bush. And the killings that we are speaking of were guns walked under Obama. So again why did Obama obstruct the Congressional investigation? Why weren't you railing about that? And where exactly is Trump trying to over throw the government?

And don't forget that the Obama administration used the IRS to target conservative groups:

The Internal Revenue Service deliberately targeted some conservative groups applying for federal tax exempt status, delayed processing their applications and requested unnecessary information, according to a copy of a report by the agency's inspector general obtained Tuesday by CNN from a congressional source. Read the report below.

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2013/...ine/index.html

Talk about undermining democratic institutions. I'm sure you also found this revolting.

[carpedm9587]

It's an acknowledgement that I have nothing to say that I haven't already said.

Which was essentially content free...as previously shown

Last word to you.

May you be better at it than I!

[Mountain Man]

Right - let's all adjust our beliefs based on a quote from a man who had already published his anti-Mueller position, who's 4-page summary was an amazing spin...

In a cordial and professional conversation, the Special Counsel emphasized that nothing in the Attorney General’s March 24 letter was inaccurate or misleading.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...obe/ar-AAAKJB8

[carpedm9587]

In a cordial and professional conversation, the Special Counsel emphasized that nothing in the Attorney General’s March 24 letter was inaccurate or misleading.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...obe/ar-AAAKJB8

I guess you're no better at "last word" than I...

And once again, you managed to cherry pick one sentence out an entire article that underscored Mueller's dissatisfaction with the report and the way the issues were conveyed to, and were reported by, the press.

What you continually fail to appreciate, MM, is that a document can be "technically" accurate, and still convey things with "spin" designed to minimize impact or distort points. Both sides do it. If I say, "eating X increases your chance of cancer by 100%, I can make the dangers of X sound amazingly bad. But if I then look at the details and note that it means my chance of cancer just went from 0.001% (one out of 10,000) to 0.002% (two out of 10,000), one realizes that the risk is trivial. Technically accurate - but articulated in a way to make things sound really bad and distort the urgency.

Brietbart is a master of such spin. So are Mother Jones and and the other left-wing Brietbart counterparts. That is the case with Barr's 4-page summary. I realize you regularly dismiss such things, and repeatedly jump on "it's true," but a thing can be true AND misleading.

[Mountain Man]

What you continually fail to appreciate, MM, is that a document can be "technically" accurate, and still convey things with "spin" designed to minimize impact or distort points. Both sides do it. If I say, "eating X increases your chance of cancer by 100%, I can make the dangers of X sound amazingly bad. But if I then look at the details and note that it means my chance of cancer just went from 0.001% (one out of 10,000) to 0.002% (two out of 10,000), one realizes that the risk is trivial. Technically accurate - but articulated in a way to make things sound really bad and distort the urgency.

... a thing can be true AND misleading.

Talk about spin.

You present an example of something that is accurate but misleading while happily ignoring the fact that Mueller said that Barr's letter was neither inaccurate nor misleading.

But I'm sure you didn't intend to be misleading yourself, right?