Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
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.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.
Not that I'm aware of.So have I - ones showing the claims of Democratic bias on the team falsehoods.
What do you make of this gem (emphasis added):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.
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.
Not that I'm aware of.
The political donations made by Robert Mueller's team are not evidence of bias
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."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.
Could be. Do you?Assuming they are serious, those people have no idea what they're talking about.
Please keep in mind it is op-ed.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.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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...
Please keep in mind it is op-ed.
Often times getting multiple people's impression of the same event can be very enlightening.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?