The Mueller Report

[oxmixmudd]

Why don't you put MM on ignore instead. Then you won't see any replies he makes to you and we can all live together in peace. It's really unfair to suggest that you get to continue to respond to his posts but he can't respond to yours.

Better yet, both of you ignore the other.

I rarely put people on ignore mossy. Just because someone disagrees with me doesn't mean I have the right to banish them or their views from my world. In fact, I prefer to be challenged by views other than my own. But I don't like it when people are dishonest about what I've said.

So usually, when I have put people on ignore is when I feel they persistently interact with me dishonestly - which MM gets to sometimes - but he usually returns to some level of real conversation fast enough I don't end up putting him on ignore. I try to allow for the fact sometimes people get into a snit and think better of it later.

I have never put anyone on ignore permanently. It's just contrary to what I believe about being willing to hear opinions different from my own.


Jim

[mossrose]

I rarely put people on ignore mossy. Just because someone disagrees with me doesn't mean I have the right to banish them or their views from my world. In fact, I prefer to be challenged by views other than my own. But I don't like it when people are dishonest about what I've said.

So usually, when I have put people on ignore is when I feel they persistently interact with me dishonestly - which MM gets to sometimes - but he usually returns to some level of real conversation fast enough I don't end up putting him on ignore. I try to allow for the fact sometimes people get into a snit and think better of it later.

I have never put anyone on ignore permanently. It's just contrary to what I believe about being willing to hear opinions different from my own.


Jim

Then perhaps consider that other people, including MM, might feel the same way about ignoring people as you do, and not suggest they put you on ignore when that allows you to respond to them but takes away their ability to respond to you.

[One Bad Pig]

Saying someone IS hateful is a personal attack.

And challenging ideas does not even remotely imply hate. If all one need do to be perceived as showing hatred is disagree with another person's point of view, then we are all in real trouble.


Jim

You are doing FAR more here than "challenging ideas." Forgive me for imagining that I could get you to possibly consider another point of view.

[Sparko]

Trying to get out of answering truthfully based on the assumption Mueller could NOT a member of his own team is the technicality.

As an example - if I lead a research team at work, I am ALWAYS listed as a member of said team. And most teams where I work have active supervisors, that is, they are working on the task along with the team members. So whether or not Mueller would be considered a member of 'Mueller's team' could depend on whether or not he actively participated in the task assigned to 'Mueller's team'. In this case, it is fairly obvious he was an active participant.


Jim

See you are playing the technicality game you were just complaining was a dishonest tactic. Listening to the exchange it is clear they are asking about the MEMBERS of Meuller's team, not including Mueller. Like in my last example: If they wanted to include Trump they might ask a question about Trump's administration, which would include Trump and his whole team. But if they start asking questions about members of Trump's team, they clearly are speaking of others under Trump, not including Trump.

But regardless, even if they meant Mueller and his team, Barr could have understood it to mean just members of Mueller's team not including Mueller. That is clearly logical. If they suspected he wasn't including Mueller, they could have clarified. They did not.

At worst this was a miscommunication, not a lie.

[Sparko]

Then perhaps consider that other people, including MM, might feel the same way about ignoring people as you do, and not suggest they put you on ignore when that allows you to respond to them but takes away their ability to respond to you.

No MM threatened to put Jim on ignore and Jim said, "fine"

[mossrose]

No MM threatened to put Jim on ignore and Jim said, "fine"

Huh?

[Sparko]

Huh?

Jim didn't tell MM to put him on ignore, it was MM's idea in the first place:

Seriously, man, you're losing it. You're almost as obsessed with me as you are with Trump.

Maybe I'll do you a favor and put you on ignore just so I don't ever respond to you and perpetuate your psychosis.

[mossrose]

Jim didn't tell MM to put him on ignore, it was MM's idea in the first place:

Oh. My bad.

[oxmixmudd]

Then perhaps consider that other people, including MM, might feel the same way about ignoring people as you do, and not suggest they put you on ignore when that allows you to respond to them but takes away their ability to respond to you.

I see sparko beat me to the clarification on that. Yeah, I wasn't trying to create any sort of unfair scenario.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

See you are playing the technicality game you were just complaining was a dishonest tactic. Listening to the exchange it is clear they are asking about the MEMBERS of Meuller's team, not including Mueller. Like in my last example: If they wanted to include Trump they might ask a question about Trump's administration, which would include Trump and his whole team. But if they start asking questions about members of Trump's team, they clearly are speaking of others under Trump, not including Trump.

But regardless, even if they meant Mueller and his team, Barr could have understood it to mean just members of Mueller's team not including Mueller. That is clearly logical. If they suspected he wasn't including Mueller, they could have clarified. They did not.

At worst this was a miscommunication, not a lie.

I'm not playing any kind of game. Bottom line, Barr knew there was dissatisfaction from Mueller at the very least. The quote I gave, that Barr thought the memo came from Mueller's staff and not Mueller, even more so. I don't understand why you guys keep pushing the limits on this. There is no way he made a mistake when he answered no. He knew, one way or the other, that there was dissatisfaction with his summary coming out of Mueller's office. And he admitted he thought that came more from the staff than Mueller. The rest 'It depends on what the definition if is is" kind of stuff. A truthful answer would have been:

"No-one actually spoke directly to me about it, but I was aware of the fact at least one or more people in Mueller's office were dissatisfied with my summary".

Above is what the truth was. And that is not what he said. What he said was deceptive, misleading: IOW, a lie.

Jim

[mossrose]

I see sparko beat me to the clarification on that. Yeah, I wasn't trying to create any sort of unfair scenario.

Jim

I apologize, Jim.

[Cow Poke]

This is kinda interesting...

Fact-checking Donald Trump's claims about Democrats on Robert Mueller's team

Politifact goes to great lengths to take Trump literally, and nitpick at every opportunity, then comes to this conclusion....

Our ruling

Trump tweeted that Mueller’s team has "13 hardened Democrats, some big Crooked Hillary supporters, and Zero Republicans."

Mueller’s team does have 13 registered Democrats and no registered Republicans, and several team members made donations to Clinton’s campaign in various amounts.

However, Trump leaves out a crucial registered Republican — Mueller himself — and glosses over the fact that we don’t know the identities, or the partisan affiliation, of other Justice Department or FBI staff who are working with the investigation. It’s also questionable to say that the multiple non-donors are "hardened" Democrats.

We rate the statement Half True.

This, again, is kinda nutty --- Trump KNEW Mueller was a Republican, and was referring to his "team" - those who work for him, who are by FAR majority Democrats.

This sounds like the same kind of logic employed by the TrumpHaters here.

[oxmixmudd]

How about he puts all of us on ignore, and then he can post whatever he wants without fear of seeing it challenged!

MM - you know you were the one that offered for YOU to put ME on ignore. I never said I would put anyone on ignore. And I never asked anyone to put me on ignore.

Is it really that hard to be truthful? Do you lack a conscience or something?


Jim

[rogue06]

I'm not playing any kind of game. Bottom line, Barr knew there was dissatisfaction from Mueller at the very least. The quote I gave, that Barr thought the memo came from Mueller's staff and not Mueller, even more so. I don't understand why you guys keep pushing the limits on this. There is no way he made a mistake when he answered no. He knew, one way or the other, that there was dissatisfaction with his summary coming out of Mueller's office. And he admitted he thought that came more from the staff than Mueller. The rest 'It depends on what the definition if is is" kind of stuff. A truthful answer would have been:

"No-one actually spoke directly to me about it, but I was aware of the fact at least one or more people in Mueller's office were dissatisfied with my summary".

Above is what the truth was. And that is not what he said. What he said was deceptive, misleading: IOW, a lie.

Jim

Mueller's dissatisfaction appears to be more about style than substance since he was clear that Barr's summary wasn't misleading or inaccurate.

[rogue06]

This is kinda interesting...

Fact-checking Donald Trump's claims about Democrats on Robert Mueller's team

Politifact goes to great lengths to take Trump literally, and nitpick at every opportunity, then comes to this conclusion....

Our ruling

Trump tweeted that Mueller’s team has "13 hardened Democrats, some big Crooked Hillary supporters, and Zero Republicans."

Mueller’s team does have 13 registered Democrats and no registered Republicans, and several team members made donations to Clinton’s campaign in various amounts.

However, Trump leaves out a crucial registered Republican — Mueller himself — and glosses over the fact that we don’t know the identities, or the partisan affiliation, of other Justice Department or FBI staff who are working with the investigation. It’s also questionable to say that the multiple non-donors are "hardened" Democrats.

We rate the statement Half True.

This, again, is kinda nutty --- Trump KNEW Mueller was a Republican, and was referring to his "team" - those who work for him, who are by FAR majority Democrats.

This sounds like the same kind of logic employed by the TrumpHaters here.

Typical pretzel logic employed by these so-called "fact checkers."