Collusion...is there any doubt now?

[KCfromNC]

He didn't call him a democrat. However, he did say this about his staff: "...The case against Bob Mueller and his squad of Democrat witch-hunters..."

Which is a true statement.

It's a terribly-written statement. Does it mean that Mueller and his squad are all democrats (a falsehhood). Or that Mueller is hunting Democrats (also a falsehood)? I mean it does a good job of stirring up an emotional response because it contains the word democrat but it doesn't even seem to mean anything.

 

[Almost there]

It's a terribly-written statement. Does it mean that Mueller and his squad are all democrats (a falsehhood). Or that Mueller is hunting Democrats (also a falsehood)? I mean it does a good job of stirring up an emotional response because it contains the word democrat but it doesn't even seem to mean anything.

I understood it the first time he read it, but it may be because I read several articles about the makeup of his team before I read the article.

 

[KCfromNC]

I understood it the first time he read it, but it may be because I read several articles about the makeup of his team before I read the article.

So have I - ones showing the claims of Democratic bias on the team falsehoods.

 

[Almost there]

So have I - ones showing the claims of Democratic bias on the team falsehoods.

Not that I'm aware of.

The political donations made by Robert Mueller's team are not evidence of bias

 

[Almost there]

This may (or may not) add clarity to this whole Meuller thing:
Mueller might be the one who’s ‘draining the swamp’

Some are so shocked by some of the people pulled into his net that they are actually floating the idea that Trump wanted this investigation as a ruse to investigate the stuff that really NEEDED this sort of deep scrutiny, e.g. Hillary.

 

[DaisyDay]

I understood it the first time he read it, but it may be because I read several articles about the makeup of his team before I read the article.

What do you make of this gem (emphasis added):

The special prosecutor statute is invoked by the NYT-WaPo Axis of Evil, the Democrats, and the monsters of the deep only when they hate a president to death. How's that for constitutional law? It applies only to folks like Nixon, George W., and Donald J. Trump. These duly elected Republican presidents are nailed on the cross for the rock-hard faith of the media-Democrats-mad left that POTUS has committed crimes – without due process of law, needless to say.​

I don't recall that a special counselor was ever appointed to look into George W., but I do recall Kenneth Starr's 4.5 year, $47 million investigation of Clinton (not to mention the other special investigations which cost nearly another $40 million).

A Short History of Special Counsels and Presidents

This mentions that a special counselor was appointed to look into the Valerie Plame affair which occurred during the Bush administration.

 

[KCfromNC]

Some are so shocked by some of the people pulled into his net that they are actually floating the idea that Trump wanted this investigation as a ruse to investigate the stuff that really NEEDED this sort of deep scrutiny, e.g. Hillary.

Assuming they are serious, those people have no idea what they're talking about.

 

[KCfromNC]

Not that I'm aware of.

The political donations made by Robert Mueller's team are not evidence of bias

Then I still have no idea what you think that sentence meant. Which is just more evidence it is what I was talking about - great sounding rhetoric which fails to line up with reality.

 

[Almost there]

What do you make of this gem (emphasis added):

The special prosecutor statute is invoked by the NYT-WaPo Axis of Evil, the Democrats, and the monsters of the deep only when they hate a president to death. How's that for constitutional law? It applies only to folks like Nixon, George W., and Donald J. Trump. These duly elected Republican presidents are nailed on the cross for the rock-hard faith of the media-Democrats-mad left that POTUS has committed crimes – without due process of law, needless to say.​

I don't recall that a special counselor was ever appointed to look into George W., but I do recall Kenneth Starr's 4.5 year, $47 million investigation of Clinton (not to mention the other special investigations which cost nearly another $40 million).

A Short History of Special Counsels and Presidents

This mentions that a special counselor was appointed to look into the Valerie Plame affair which occurred during the Bush administration.

As you pointed out in your link: "Back in 2005, when he was a deputy attorney general, Comey named a special prosecutor to investigate who in the George W. Bush administration leaked the name of a CIA employee to syndicated columnist Robert Novak."

You are mincing words if you think this doesn't count. It was investigating the Dubya administration. And they got their sacrificial lamb out of it and moved on.

 

[Almost there]

Assuming they are serious, those people have no idea what they're talking about.

Could be. Do you?

Unless a person is actually a part of the investigation, they don't know what they are talking about. I think I made it pretty clear that those guys are speculating. What they are saying is, well, it seems to walk like a duck and quack like a duck...

 

[Almost there]

Then I still have no idea what you think that sentence meant. Which is just more evidence it is what I was talking about - great sounding rhetoric which fails to line up with reality.

Please keep in mind it is op-ed.

And perhaps I just need to refer you to my tag line.

 

[whatbogsends]

As you pointed out in your link: "Back in 2005, when he was a deputy attorney general, Comey named a special prosecutor to investigate who in the George W. Bush administration leaked the name of a CIA employee to syndicated columnist Robert Novak."

You are mincing words if you think this doesn't count. It was investigating the Dubya administration. And they got their sacrificial lamb out of it and moved on.

What do you think "only" means when talking about Special Prosecutors and then listing Republican Presidents?

"The special prosecutor statute is invoked by the NYT-WaPo Axis of Evil, the Democrats, and the monsters of the deep only when they hate a president to death. How's that for constitutional law? It applies only to folks like Nixon, George W., and Donald J. Trump. These duly elected Republican presidents are nailed on the cross for the rock-hard faith of the media-Democrats-mad left that POTUS has committed crimes – without due process of law, needless to say"

The special prosecutor statute didn't apply to Bill Clinton? Convenient omission by the author for the sake of political expediency? Who cares about the accuracy or honesty of the statement as long as it makes the point you want, right?

 

[Almost there]

What do you think "only" means when talking about Special Prosecutors and then listing Republican Presidents?

"The special prosecutor statute is invoked by the NYT-WaPo Axis of Evil, the Democrats, and the monsters of the deep only when they hate a president to death. How's that for constitutional law? It applies only to folks like Nixon, George W., and Donald J. Trump. These duly elected Republican presidents are nailed on the cross for the rock-hard faith of the media-Democrats-mad left that POTUS has committed crimes – without due process of law, needless to say"

The special prosecutor statute didn't apply to Bill Clinton? Convenient omission by the author for the sake of political expediency? Who cares about the accuracy or honesty of the statement as long as it makes the point you want, right?

Hey, I've been thinking about Ken Star ever since the whole "only republicans" thing came up. But I refer you to my tag line.

 

[whatbogsends]

Hey, I've been thinking about Ken Star ever since the whole "only republicans" thing came up. But I refer you to my tag line.

The opinion piece you posted was filled with these types of politically expedient, but woefully inaccurate or dishonest statements, yet you applaud them as bringers of truth. It strikes me as odd, regardless of Yogi Berra's oxymoronic statement.

If words can't be parsed accurately and repeatably, they're not particularly useful. When the parsing of the words show a disposition to frame the facts as a distortion of the truth, the merits of those words should, indeed, be in question.

 

[Almost there]

The opinion piece you posted was filled with these types of politically expedient, but woefully inaccurate or dishonest statements, yet you applaud them as bringers of truth. It strikes me as odd, regardless of Yogi Berra's oxymoronic statement.

If words can't be parsed accurately and repeatably, they're not particularly useful. When the parsing of the words show a disposition to frame the facts as a distortion of the truth, the merits of those words should, indeed, be in question.

I disagree on the use of the word "woefully". It's what I expect from all op-ed pieces from both sides. They are trying to make a point. Nobody goes there any more because it's too crowded.

 

[bhsmte]

I disagree on the use of the word "woefully". It's what I expect from all op-ed pieces from both sides. They are trying to make a point. Nobody goes there any more because it's too crowded.

LOL

 

[KCfromNC]

Could be. Do you?

About what?

Unless a person is actually a part of the investigation, they don't know what they are talking about. I think I made it pretty clear that those guys are speculating. What they are saying is, well, it seems to walk like a duck and quack like a duck...

And arrests people like a duck. Almost as if it is quacking like an actual prosecution of a real crime.

But I do appreciate the vague non-accusation that sounds like it means something.

 

[KCfromNC]

Please keep in mind it is op-ed.

That's filled with half truths and full on falsehoods. Not sure why people think that's a great source for informing an opinion, but maybe someone has an explanation.

 

[Almost there]

That's filled with half truths and full on falsehoods. Not sure why people think that's a great source for informing an opinion, but maybe someone has an explanation.

Often times getting multiple people's impression of the same event can be very enlightening.

This is exactly what the gospels do. They give the same story from four perspectives. And each person emphasizes what he tends to emphasize in his world view. And sometimes it even seems contradictory. I mean, do you want to get into a serious discussion about why one book says that before the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] crows, Peter will deny Jesus three times, but another one says, "before the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] crows twice...".

I mean, some would argue that that proves the bible is a bunch of made up baloney. To that I say, "Nobody goes there any more because it's too crowded." (see tag line)

 

[Almost there]

It just keeps getting funnier.

Rep. Devin Nunes Demolishes The Russian Collusion Delusion