Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
So is Barr the Attorney General or Trumps personal lawyer?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="NotreDame" data-source="post: 73930502" data-attributes="member: 212558"><p>What “should” or should not be done is irrelevant. I pose no position as to what “should” or “shouldn’t” happen. The point by Barr is obstruction cannot exist within a specific set of facts for a President when he terminates an investigation. Ostensibly, Barr is referring to the statutory crime of obstruction, based on his remarks. He may be speaking more abstractly, which is to say no obstruction outside the context of a statute under a certain set of facts. </p><p></p><p>Barr is asserting an element of obstruction is missing in his fact pattern, the element of intent/motive, hence no obstruction. In regards to your examples, if the subjects of your hypo lack the requisite intent/motive, then there’s no obstruction for ending the investigation. That’s the point. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Well, I’m part of the “most” as I do not either, but I digress, your point lacks relevance. The fact is Barr was asked a specific question, with specific words used, and he answered the question honesty. There’s no point trying to play the role of the Pythia in the temple and seek a divine interpretation of what was “meant” to be asked but wasn’t, because of inartful wording by the person asking the question. </p><p></p><p>No point in guessing what was meant, especially since, well, the questioner May have meant to ask exactly what he did in fact pose as a query to Barr. I know it’s perhaps a shocking revelation that people actually meant to ask the question they in fact posed to someone.</p><p></p><p>But your retort is reflective of a wider, systemtic problem, share by many wanting to impugn the integrity of Barr, which is wanting an outcome, that outcome being Barr lied, and then conjuring poorly conceived arguments to support the conclusion. </p><p></p><p>To defend your claim Barr lied you have to resort to the mysticism of “spirits” and suggest the question asked wasn’t meant to be the question, although there’s no evidence or good reason to believe the questioner meant another question than the one specifically asked. </p><p></p><p>Resorting to the mystic arts of reasoning to arrive to a conclusion Barr lied should</p><p>at least begin to hint at the notion the argument and fact Barr lied are lacking and rationally unpersuasive. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Except Barr did not do anything such thing, or better yet, there’s no evidence he did. Barr answered the specific question asked. Doesn’t make any sense to deride a person for comprehending what’s asked and answering the question posed. The problem here is doing so doesn’t fit your agenda. Your preconceived agenda is the problem.</p><p></p><p>And what ethical rule are you consulting? </p><p>What moral theory is it based on? What meta-ethical theory is it based on? Are you a moral realist, or a subjectivist, or a non-cognitivist, or an error theorist, or what?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="NotreDame, post: 73930502, member: 212558"] What “should” or should not be done is irrelevant. I pose no position as to what “should” or “shouldn’t” happen. The point by Barr is obstruction cannot exist within a specific set of facts for a President when he terminates an investigation. Ostensibly, Barr is referring to the statutory crime of obstruction, based on his remarks. He may be speaking more abstractly, which is to say no obstruction outside the context of a statute under a certain set of facts. Barr is asserting an element of obstruction is missing in his fact pattern, the element of intent/motive, hence no obstruction. In regards to your examples, if the subjects of your hypo lack the requisite intent/motive, then there’s no obstruction for ending the investigation. That’s the point. Well, I’m part of the “most” as I do not either, but I digress, your point lacks relevance. The fact is Barr was asked a specific question, with specific words used, and he answered the question honesty. There’s no point trying to play the role of the Pythia in the temple and seek a divine interpretation of what was “meant” to be asked but wasn’t, because of inartful wording by the person asking the question. No point in guessing what was meant, especially since, well, the questioner May have meant to ask exactly what he did in fact pose as a query to Barr. I know it’s perhaps a shocking revelation that people actually meant to ask the question they in fact posed to someone. But your retort is reflective of a wider, systemtic problem, share by many wanting to impugn the integrity of Barr, which is wanting an outcome, that outcome being Barr lied, and then conjuring poorly conceived arguments to support the conclusion. To defend your claim Barr lied you have to resort to the mysticism of “spirits” and suggest the question asked wasn’t meant to be the question, although there’s no evidence or good reason to believe the questioner meant another question than the one specifically asked. Resorting to the mystic arts of reasoning to arrive to a conclusion Barr lied should at least begin to hint at the notion the argument and fact Barr lied are lacking and rationally unpersuasive. Except Barr did not do anything such thing, or better yet, there’s no evidence he did. Barr answered the specific question asked. Doesn’t make any sense to deride a person for comprehending what’s asked and answering the question posed. The problem here is doing so doesn’t fit your agenda. Your preconceived agenda is the problem. And what ethical rule are you consulting? What moral theory is it based on? What meta-ethical theory is it based on? Are you a moral realist, or a subjectivist, or a non-cognitivist, or an error theorist, or what? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
So is Barr the Attorney General or Trumps personal lawyer?
Top
Bottom