Release of the Mueller report is imminent, AG Barr has in-hand, judiciary committees being briefed

[Fugelmir]

I think Trump has a very excellent chance of winning. On name recognition alone, even those who disagree with his policy would pick him for that reason.

Given that, the onus is more on the opposition to convince us that he's not ideal. I don't think anyone here put forth anything other than the CNN talking points against him.

Maybe try something else, it's really not effective and the more you push it, the more people whose minds might change will ignore what you say.

At this point, the smartest thing the democrats could do is probably vet another celebrity like Oprah to run against him.

 

[KingVamp]

Yes, a popularity contest. Let's not pick people that are actually fit for the job.

 

[Lacius]

To be honest, this way is much funnier.

We have fundamentally different goals.

 

[SG854]

You said you'd rather talk to me than read the Mueller report, but you need to read/re-read the Mueller report.


I never said I wanted impeachment.

It kind of seemed that way since you were laying down ways for Trump to be impeached and never articulated that you didn’t want it. So someone can think your were for it.

You keep saying your positions are being mischaracterized but I don’t even know what your positions are. If some people are not understanding your positions then it’s probably because you are not explaining them well.


So let me see if I get this right. You don’t want impeachment now but you do want to see it after he left office right? Either if it’s 2020 or 2024.

So far I’ve seen people address your points when it comes to the Mueller report, that’s how it looks to me, and I’m not talking about when they attack your character, like saying you suffer from TDS for example. I’m talking about what seems like your actual points. You keep saying your argument is being misrepresented but people are really not understanding your interpretation of the Mueller Report.

Your counter argument boils down to “that’s not how I see it with the wording.” People can’t even settle on how to interpret the report. Which is why your point or your interpretation isn’t being addressed, because they don’t think your interpretation is right. So people are just talking past each other.

 

[Foxi4]

Yes, a popularity contest. Let's not pick people that are actually fit for the job.

It's been a long, long time since the president played an important political function - they're supposed to look good and give interviews, might as well elect a professional entertainer.

We have fundamentally different goals.

My goal is almost always entertainment - there is no other reason to have this conversation since we have no impact on the events. I don't think it's productive for me to try to explain why Trump can fire his immediate underlings like Comey or Mueller, or reconsider and not fire them. I also don't see the point in explaining why Trump is entitled to talk to McGhan, the White House Council. Or to Cohen, his former lawyer. Or anybody else involved in the investigation. Neither of those conversations would be fruitful since your default position is that he can't whereas in reality he merely shouldn't. It's not illegal, it's bad optics. Your "big point" number 2 is so general that I don't even know how to address it - to you just about anything impedes investigations, so it's not so much a point as it is a complaint.

 

[Lacius]

It kind of seemed that way since you were laying down ways for Trump to be impeached and never articulated that you didn’t want it. So someone can think your were for it.

You keep saying your positions are being mischaracterized but I don’t even know what your positions are. If some people are not understanding your positions then it’s probably because you are not explaining them well.


So let me see if I get this right. You don’t want impeachment now but you do want to see it after he left office right? Either if it’s 2020 or 2024.

So far I’ve seen people address your points when it comes to the Mueller report, that’s how it looks to me, and I’m not talking about when they attack your character, like saying you suffer from TDS for example. I’m talking about what seems like your actual points. You keep saying your argument is being misrepresented but people are really not understanding your interpretation of the Mueller Report.

Your counter argument boils down to “that’s not how I see it with the wording.” People can’t even settle on how to interpret the report. Which is why your point or your interpretation isn’t being addressed, because they don’t think your interpretation is right. So people are just talking past each other.

I haven't said anything about my political beliefs nor what I want to happen. I've only discussed the facts. Many responses to my posts make assessments about my political beliefs, desires, and character that are absurd, instead of addressing the content of my posts.

It's been a long, long time since the president played an important political function - they're supposed to look good and give interviews, might as well elect a professional entertainer.
My goal is almost always entertainment - there is no other reason to have this conversation since we have no impact on the events. I don't think it's productive for me to try to explain why Trump can fire his immediate underlings like Comey or Mueller, or reconsider and not fire them. I also don't see the point in explaining why Trump is entitled to talk to McGhan, the White House Council. Or to Cohen, his former lawyer. Or anybody else involved in the investigation. Neither of those conversations would be fruitful since your default position is that he can't whereas in reality he merely shouldn't. It's not illegal, it's bad optics. Your "big point" number 2 is so general that I don't even know how to address it - to you just about anything impedes investigations, so it's not so much a point as it is a complaint.

Entertainment is great, but when you clown around and mischaracterize my views, there's going to be a disconnect in our discourse that makes talking to you not worth the effort.

Edit: Certain mischaracterizations are also insulting.

 

[Foxi4]

I haven't said anything about my political beliefs nor what I want to happen. I've only discussed the facts.


Entertainment is great, but when you clown around and mischaracterize my views, there's going to be a disconnect in our discourse that makes talking to you not worth the effort.

I forgot that it's only serious business with you.

He raises a good point though - you can't rely in mind readery if you want to have a discussion that doesn't "disconnect". Since your motivation is unclear (ha!), it's talking to you that's not worth the effort. I can only "mischaracterise" your views since you refuse to present them.

 

[Lacius]

I forgot that it's only serious business with you.

He raises a good point though - you can't rely in mind readery if you want to have a discussion that doesn't "disconnect". Since your motivation is unclear (ha!), it's talking to you that's not worth the effort.

My motivation is to talk about the facts of the Mueller investigation. I don't think it's my fault if that wasn't clear.

 

[Foxi4]

My motivation is to talk about the facts of the Mueller investigation. I don't think it's my fault if that wasn't clear.

There's really not much to talk about then, how is this discussion supposed to be in any way interesting if we're all supposed to be either Don Lemon or Tucker Carlson?

 

[Lacius]

There's really not much to talk about then, how is this discussion supposed to be in any way interesting if we're all supposed to be either Don Lemon or Tucker Carson?

I don't think the threshold for whether or not a worthwhile conversation about the Mueller investigation can take place is whether or not we mischaracterize the views of each other in an effort to create entertaining and humorous drama.

I'm here to have a conversation about the Mueller investigation and correct some of the falsehoods people have posted. It doesn't take a mind-reader to know that. I'm also uninterested in dealing with people who mischaracterize my views and my character when they're losing.

 

[Foxi4]

I don't think the threshold for whether or not a worthwhile conversation about the Mueller investigation can take place is whether or not we mischaracterize the views of each other in an effort to create entertaining and humorous drama.

I'm here to have a conversation about the Mueller investigation and correct some of the falsehoods people have posted. It doesn't take a mind-reader to know that. I'm also uninterested in dealing with people who mischaracterize my views and my character when they're losing.

Losing? Oh, that's rich.

You... Carry on thinking that. Talk about delusions of grandure. We'll put that on the shelf with other delusions, it will be in good company.

 

[Lacius]

Losing? Oh, that's rich.

You... Carry on thinking that. Talk about delusions of grandure. We'll put that on the shelf with other delusions, it will be in good company.

Did I hit a nerve?

 

[Foxi4]

Did I hit a nerve?

Not in particular, no. You've always ridden on a horse two sizes too large for yourself, this surprises no one. I just find it very humorous that your conclusion from this exchange is that there's a victory to be had, and on top of that, you're convinced that you've won. I think you're confusing a discussion with a debate. Not that it matters, it's just a little silly.

 

[Fugelmir]

Did I hit a nerve?

Foxi makes the most consistently sensible posts. I think he definitely has a better handle on the situation than you or xzi.

 

[Lacius]

Not in particular, no. You've always ridden on a horse two sizes too large for yourself, this surprises no one.

I'm honestly not interested in personal attacks, particularly as a way to avoid defending bad arguments.

Not in particular, no. You've always ridden on a horse two sizes too large for yourself, this surprises no one. I just find it very humorous that your conclusion from this exchange is that there's a victory to be had, and on top of that, you're convinced that you've won. I think you're confusing a discussion with a debate. Not that it matters, it's just a little silly.

My point was that you and I have had disagreements, and I believe my points have been more consistent with the facts. There were also times you were objectively wrong. It wasn't much later that you started resorting to personal attacks instead of responding to the substance of my posts, but I don't blame you.

Foxi makes the most consistently sensible posts. I think he definitely has a better handle on the situation than you or xzi.

All I can say is that's surprising, given what I said above.

Edit: I was also referencing when Foxi said the same thing earlier. I'm not attempting to bait anyone, unlike some.

 

[Foxi4]

I'm honestly not interested in personal attacks, particularly as a way to avoid defending bad arguments.


My point was that you and I have had disagreements, and I believe my points have been more consistent with the facts. There were also times you were objectively wrong. It wasn't much later that you started resorting to personal attacks instead of responding to the substance of my posts, but I don't blame you.


All I can say is that's surprising, given what I said above.

Edit: I was also referencing when Foxi said the same thing earlier. I'm not attempting to bait anyone, unlike some.

So, in short.

1. You have no personal views on the case, except for the ones you do have, which you will not disclose so that anyone who catches you slipping can just be accused of "mischaracterising you"
2. You have a magical "Big Four" instances of supposed obstruction and anyone telling you that the President was entitled to doing any of the things listed by the virtue of his position is just defending a bad argument
3. This is a discussion, not a debate, but it's a special discussion with winners and losers
4. No fun is allowed, only facts
5. The fact that no prosecution is going forward is irrelevant

I think I got that right. Sounds like a whale of a good time.

 

[Lacius]

So, in short.

1. You have no personal views on the case, except for the ones you do have, which you will not disclose so that anyone who catches you slipping can just be accused of "mischaracterising you"
2. You have a magical "Big Four" instances of supposed obstruction and anyone telling you that the President was entitled to doing any of the things listed by the virtue of his position is just defending a bad argument
3. This is a discussion, not a debate, but it's a special discussion with winners and losers
4. No fun is allowed, only facts
5. The fact that no prosecution is going forward is irrelevant

I think I got that right. Sounds like a whale of a good time.

Sounds more like a whale of mischaracterizations to me.

1. I have personal views, but you're making bold and untrue assumptions about what mine are.
2. If you want to talk about how the big four are not actually examples of criminal obstruction, please do. I've been waiting for you to get back on topic.
3. If you want to argue the semantics of me conflating "losing" with "making a bad argument," I'm not particularly interested in that distraction.
4. Fun is allowed, but I prefer not to waste my time responding to personal attacks.
5. The fact that no prosecution is currently going forward is indeed irrelevant to whether or not Trump criminally obstructed justice, yes. It's also irrelevant to whether or not he will be prosecuted or impeached later.

Some of your points above were pretty misleading and disengenuous.

 

[Foxi4]

Sounds more like a whale of mischaracterizations to me.

1. I have personal views, but you're making bold and untrue assumptions about what mine are.
2. If you want to talk about how the big four are not actually examples of criminal obstruction, please do. I've been waiting for you to get back on topic.
3. If you want to argue the semantics of me conflating "losing" with "making a bad argument," I'm not particularly interested in that distraction.
4. Fun is allowed, but I prefer not to waste my time responding to personal attacks.
5. The fact that no prosecution is currently going forward is indeed irrelevant to whether or not Trump criminally obstructed justice, yes. It's also irrelevant to whether or not he will be prosecuted or impeached later.

Some of your points above were pretty misleading and disengenuous.

It seems that everything I say is either a mischaracterisation, a distraction, a personal attack or it's disingenuous. That makes it a little hard for me to respond, to be perfectly honest - it is mighty convenient though. I think this concludes this year's chat with you, I can cross it off my list. I've already addressed your points, you just didn't accept my response as valid, which is fine by me. We'll talk in a year's time again, like we usually do - I think we've been dominating the thread long enough and I want to let others speak their mind instead of just spectating the bloodsports. It's been a pleasure, as always.

 

[Lacius]

It seems that everything I say is either a mischaracterisation, a distraction, a personal attack or it's disingenuous.

You don't have to do these things.

 

[SG854]

I don't think the threshold for whether or not a worthwhile conversation about the Mueller investigation can take place is whether or not we mischaracterize the views of each other in an effort to create entertaining and humorous drama.

I'm here to have a conversation about the Mueller investigation and correct some of the falsehoods people have posted. It doesn't take a mind-reader to know that. I'm also uninterested in dealing with people who mischaracterize my views and my character when they're losing.

I don’t see any of your post’s as winning. And he did address your Big 4. You just didn’t accept them.

Obstruction of Justice has to be an illegal act. It’s not illegal if Trump acts within his authority that’s acceptable within Article 2 of the constitution. It is legal and authorized for him to fire the FBI director, he had constitutional authority to fire James Comey.

This is different from Nixon because Nixon acted outside of his authority, paying hush money, ordering people to lie to the FBI. If Trump told people to lie to the grand jury that would be obstruction. But him telling people to write letters and deliver messages is completely legal.



Don Mcgahn is not obstruction of justice because he didn’t tell him to lie to a government official. Trump telling him to lie in general is not obstruction. No where does it say in the law that it’s a crime to lie to the media. Only if it’s to government official like the FBI then it’s a crime. Every single politician we have lies about something. Not only that, every human has told a lie or told a white lie about something in their life.

If it was a crime for a general lie then all politicians will be out of office. And Trump will be Obstructing Justice or be considered a criminal every day every time he speaks. Like “Jobs are up and unemployment is down because of me.” Type stuff he says.

It’s only to a grand jury under oath that it’s obstruction. Lying to the media and the people. That’s called being a politician. It’s immoral what Trump did but it’s not illegal. And his aids didn’t act on what he said. Asking and doing are 2 different things.