[quote][url=https://mobile.twitter.com/OrinKerr/status/1110743768230232065]Imagine if the Starr Report had been provided only to President Clinton's Attorney General, Janet Reno, who then read it privately and published a 4-page letter based on her private reading stating her conclusion that President Clinton committed no crimes.[/url][/quote] Imagine not knowing the justice department already said they are going to release it in a few weeks. Imagine clinging to the ghost of an insane conspiracy theory even after most lefties have let it go. Imagine unironically believing the entire "right" including an acting attorney general would be dumb enough to straight up lie and claim the report says the opposite of what it says KNOWING that not only will it be released sooner or later but that it could be leaked at any time and not only would trump be screwed in that scenario... so would they. Tldr, lmao give it up pal.

[quote]Imagine if the Starr Report had been provided only to President Clinton's Attorney General, Janet Reno, who then read it privately and published a 4-page letter based on her private reading stating her conclusion that President Clinton committed no crimes.[/quote] Situation appropriate analogy. [quote]Imagine clinging to the ghost of an insane conspiracy theory even after most lefties have let it go. [/quote] Veiled insult. [quote]Imagine unironically believing the entire "right" including an acting attorney general would be dumb enough to straight up lie and claim the report says the opposite of what it says KNOWING that not only will it be released sooner or later but that it could be leaked at any time and not only would trump be screwed in that scenario... so would they. [/quote] Another veiled insult... a strawman fallacy...punctuated by an Appeal to the Masses fallacy. Grimley didn't say anything about "The entire right". He's challenging the clear conflict of interest that led to the appointment of the Special Counsel in the first place. . As well as indirectly referencing the fact that the Congressional Oversight phase of this story is likely only beginning. [quote]Tldr, lmao give it up pal.[/quote] Which is why I said there is no constructive engagement with you...and why I only respond now with nursery rhymes when you resort to this.

[quote][quote]Imagine if the Starr Report had been provided only to President Clinton's Attorney General, Janet Reno, who then read it privately and published a 4-page letter based on her private reading stating her conclusion that President Clinton committed no crimes.[/quote] Situation appropriate analogy. [quote]Imagine clinging to the ghost of an insane conspiracy theory even after most lefties have let it go. [/quote] Veiled insult. [quote]Imagine unironically believing the entire "right" including an acting attorney general would be dumb enough to straight up lie and claim the report says the opposite of what it says KNOWING that not only will it be released sooner or later but that it could be leaked at any time and not only would trump be screwed in that scenario... so would they. [/quote] Another veiled insult... a strawman fallacy...punctuated by an Appeal to the Masses fallacy. Grimley didn't say anything about "The entire right". He's challenging the clear conflict of interest that led to the appointment of the Special Counsel in the first place. . As well as indirectly referencing the fact that the Congressional Oversight phase of this story is likely only beginning. [quote]Tldr, lmao give it up pal.[/quote] Which is why I said there is no constructive engagement with you...and why I only respond now with nursery rhymes when you resort to this.[/quote] >imagine having to misconstrue reality to pull things like this and then accusing me of... whatever. >imagine jumping in at THIS point in the conversation like I'm the one being uncivil. You should see the things this guy has been calling people, if the ninjas didnt eat it. I didnt say, [i]he said[/i] the entire right. I said the entire "right" as a generalization because this isnt limited to trump, or barr. If you look around, you will see, pretty much all of the "right" are falling into trump's side on this. And in so doing, sticking out their neck for him. How would it bode for mitch, or whatever else, IF this turned out to be an insane conspiracy and they went with it? Fortunately, right now, Democrats are the ones with that problem. As for "veiled insult", that is misconstrued as well. I simply followed the "imagine. . ." Schtick. This is why you cant win an argument with a stick, let alone me, and feel compelled to resort to using nursery rhymes because you have [u]nothing else[/u]. And the funny part is you haven't figured out that at this point I'm just using you for the free thread bumps, which get my threads more attention than they would without you 😂

[quote]>imagine having to misconstrue reality to pull things like this and then accusing me of... whatever.[/quote] Baseless assertion and veiled Ad Hominem. [quote]>imagine jumping in at THIS point in the conversation like I'm the one being uncivil. You should see the things this guy has been calling people, if the ninjas didnt eat it. [/quote] Yet another veiled Ad Hominem. I chose this point BECAUSE you are not engaged in a conversation with me...and therefore have no legitimate basis to argue against my personality. Which allows me to very clearly demonstrate what is your PERSONAL pattern of engagement with anyone who disagrees with you. What he called you in other conversations is not relevant to the point he's making in THIS one. [quote] I didnt say, he said the entire right. I said the entire "right" as a generalization because this isnt limited to trump, or barr. If you look around, you will see, pretty much all of the "right" are falling into trump's side on this. And in so doing, sticking out their neck for him. [/quote] ROFLMAO. Did you really just type that with a straight face. No matter how you try to parse the language and draw distinctions-without-a-difference, the statement is still a Argumentum Ad Populum fallacy. Just because it would be stupid and reckless for lots of people to do something is not proof that they aren't in fact doing something stupid and reckless. ...and now that you've made the mistake of trying to double-down on it, You've also revealed it as Begging The Question fallacy. You assume the truth of your argument rather than trying to objectively support it...then present your assumption as proof of the truth its assuming. There is no "winning" an argument with someone who entire repertoire consists of engaging people with tone of contempt....and one logically fallacious "arugment" after another. Or outright factual distortion. Then when you point them out....he ratchets up the contempt...and then tries the muddies the waters. Then when you respond with the same level of contempt....he responds as if he's the aggrieved party. You do this to me as matter of course. ....and here you are doing the exact same thing to someone else who disagrees with you. Because----as usual---you have nothing of actual substance to say in counterpoint to his well-crafted argument via analogy.

[quote][quote]>imagine having to misconstrue reality to pull things like this and then accusing me of... whatever.[/quote] Baseless assertion and veiled Ad Hominem. [quote]>imagine jumping in at THIS point in the conversation like I'm the one being uncivil. You should see the things this guy has been calling people, if the ninjas didnt eat it. [/quote] Yet another veiled Ad Hominem. I chose this point BECAUSE you are not engaged in a conversation with me...and therefore have no legitimate basis to argue against my personality. Which allows me to very clearly demonstrate what is your PERSONAL pattern of engagement with anyone who disagrees with you. What he called you in other conversations is not relevant to the point he's making in THIS one. [quote] I didnt say, he said the entire right. I said the entire "right" as a generalization because this isnt limited to trump, or barr. If you look around, you will see, pretty much all of the "right" are falling into trump's side on this. And in so doing, sticking out their neck for him. [/quote] ROFLMAO. Did you really just type that with a straight face. No matter how you try to parse the language and draw distinctions-without-a-difference, the statement is still a Argumentum Ad Populum fallacy. Just because it would be stupid and reckless for lots of people to do something is not proof that they aren't in fact doing something stupid and reckless. ...and now that you've made the mistake of trying to double-down on it, You've also revealed it as Begging The Question fallacy. You assume the truth of your argument rather than trying to objectively support it...then present your assumption as proof of the truth its assuming. There is no "winning" an argument with someone who entire repertoire consists of engaging people with tone of contempt....and one logically fallacious "arugment" after another. Or outright factual distortion. Then when you point them out....he ratchets up the contempt...and then tries the muddies the waters. Then when you respond with the same level of contempt....he responds as if he's the aggrieved party. You do this to me as matter of course. ....and here you are doing the exact same thing to someone else who disagrees with you. Because----as usual---you have nothing of actual substance to say in counterpoint to his well-crafted argument via analogy.[/quote] I'll be back later. If you want to nitpick grammar I dont think you are going to win that CHEST match. Also, again, you want to talk about logical fallacies but are completely fine using them as a crutch. You have no evidence to prove there is some vast right wing cover up conspiracy. And your line of reasoning is the same tea kettle fallacy people use to say vaccines cause autism.. "the fact that we haven't found evidence doesnt mean there isnt evidence".. You make the claim. You present the evidence. That's how it's supposed to work. Who said anything about me feeling "aggrieved"? I'm just pointing out how much of a hypocrite you are to criticize somebody for doing something (which you do FALSELY most of the time) while doing the exact. Same. Thing. You can respond with as many petty insults, as much contempt, and as much silliness as you want. You wont be the first person to try and "troll" their way out of an argument with me and you wont be the last. But doing so and then whining about MY conduct is hypocritical.

....and around the squirrel cage yet again.... [quote]If you want to nitpick grammar I dont think you are going to win that CHEST match.[/quote] Strawman. I didn't nitpick your grammar. I said your argument was logically unsound, no matter how you tried to parse the language trying to legitimize it. Its a classic Argumentu Ad Populum fallacy. And I won't nitpick your spelling either. [quote]You have no evidence to prove there is some vast right wing cover up conspiracy. And your line of reasoning is the same tea kettle fallacy people use to say vaccines cause autism.. "the fact that we haven't found evidence doesnt mean there isnt evidence".. [/quote] Strawman....again. Neither Grimely nor I argued that there was some "vast conspiracy" (That was---in fact---your effort at a counterargument) We both pointed to a clear CONFLICT OF INTEREST. A similar conflict of interest is what led AG Sessions to (appropriately) RECUSE himself from the investigation. The same conflict of interest that led to the appointing of Special Counsel in the first place. [quote]I'm just pointing out how much of a hypocrite you are to criticize somebody for doing something (which you do FALSELY most of the time) while doing the exact. Same. Thing. [/quote] Ad Hominem. And effort to deny the clearly contemptuous tone you take in dealing with anyone who disagrees with you. Or point out the logical fallacies that lay at the root of your preferred tactics. [quote]You can respond with as many petty insults, as much contempt, and as much silliness as you want. You wont be the first person to try and "troll" their way out of an argument with me and you wont be the last. [/quote] ...and now (finally) we go from veiled insult to overt isult....with an escalation of the contempt. I'm not "trolling" my way out of anything. I'm actually subjecting your preferred tactics to a disciplined....and rational....deconstruction. Only I'm pointing out the provocations and logical fallacies, rather than being provoked into chasing after them.....or getting caught up in your efforts to distract FROM them. As you're used to. [quote]But doing so and then whining about MY conduct is hypocritical.[/quote] Another veiled insult....with another escalation of the contempt....and the fall back to the posture of the aggrieved party. This...is why I've taken to responding to you with nursery rhymes. Not because I cannot deal with your limited debate skills. Its that it is a complete waste of my time and energy to do so....and I'm tired of chasing you down the rabbit hole. This is why I said that there is no constructive engagement with you....because this merry-go-round will go on endlessly until your opponent decides to get off the ride....and you declare "victory". ...and this is where I step off. [i][b]BECAUSE YOU STILL HAVEN'T ADDRESSED THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST THAT WAS RAISED. Despite all the theatrics. [/b][/i] Declare your victory. I'm done. [i]"He followed her to school one day. And broke the teacher's rule, yeah. What a time did they have..... ...that day at school. "[/i]

[quote]....and around the squirrel cage yet again.... [quote]If you want to nitpick grammar I dont think you are going to win that CHEST match.[/quote] Strawman. I didn't nitpick your grammar. I said your argument was logically unsound, no matter how you tried to parse the language trying to legitimize it. Its a classic Argumentu Ad Populum fallacy. And I won't nitpick your spelling either. [quote]You have no evidence to prove there is some vast right wing cover up conspiracy. And your line of reasoning is the same tea kettle fallacy people use to say vaccines cause autism.. "the fact that we haven't found evidence doesnt mean there isnt evidence".. [/quote] Strawman....again. Neither Grimely nor I argued that there was some "vast conspiracy" (That was---in fact---your effort at a counterargument) We both pointed to a clear CONFLICT OF INTEREST. A similar conflict of interest is what led AG Sessions to (appropriately) RECUSE himself from the investigation. The same conflict of interest that led to the appointing of Special Counsel in the first place. [quote]I'm just pointing out how much of a hypocrite you are to criticize somebody for doing something (which you do FALSELY most of the time) while doing the exact. Same. Thing. [/quote] Ad Hominem. And effort to deny the clearly contemptuous tone you take in dealing with anyone who disagrees with you. Or point out the logical fallacies that lay at the root of your preferred tactics. [quote]You can respond with as many petty insults, as much contempt, and as much silliness as you want. You wont be the first person to try and "troll" their way out of an argument with me and you wont be the last. [/quote] ...and now (finally) we go from veiled insult to overt isult....with an escalation of the contempt. I'm not "trolling" my way out of anything. I'm actually subjecting your preferred tactics to a disciplined....and rational....deconstruction. Only I'm pointing out the provocations and logical fallacies, rather than being provoked into chasing after them.....or getting caught up in your efforts to distract FROM them. As you're used to. [quote]But doing so and then whining about MY conduct is hypocritical.[/quote] Another veiled insult....with another escalation of the contempt....and the fall back to the posture of the aggrieved party. This...is why I've taken to responding to you with nursery rhymes. Not because I cannot deal with your limited debate skills. Its that it is a complete waste of my time and energy to do so....and I'm tired of chasing you down the rabbit hole. This is why I said that there is no constructive engagement with you....because this merry-go-round will go on endlessly until I decide to get off the ride. ...and this is where I step off. [i][b]BECAUSE YOU STILL HAVEN'T ADDRESSED THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST THAT WAS RAISED. Despite all the theatrics. [/b][/i] [i]"He followed her to school one day. And broke the teacher's cool, yeah. What a time did they have..... ...that day at school. "[/i][/quote] A) you appeared to be referring to a typo when you put quotes around "argument" and spelled it wrong. Is that not what you were doing? Not a straw man. See that's the reason I dont take you particularly seriously. You call out "ad hominem" or "avada kedavra" or whatever and a) dont actually address the point, you use this to avoid discussion. "Card calling fallacy". And C) most of the time you aren't even correct about it. Like you don't know what those fallacies actually mean. Next. "Argumentu ad populum". See, you [u]almost[/u] have a valid point here. It is correct to say, that just it would be silly for a group of people to do something, doesnt mean they aren't doing it. However, heres the problem: it isnt unreasonable to expect people are acting like they have at least some common sense when there isnt evidence to the contrary. And this point doesnt [i]really[/i] matter anyway because like I have said to him, and like I am saying to you, and I'm pretty sure I've already said it, there is NO evidence there is some sort of cover up. None. Alleging a conflict of interest, which in the grand scheme of things, and considering how absurd this witch hunt is from the beginning, doesnt prove Mueller actually found something AND it doesnt prove Barr is lying about it AND it doesnt prove that the "right" political establishment is going along with the conspiracy. A dentist telling you to see a dentist every year is a conflict of interest too but that doesnt mean you shouldn't. As for the rest, I'll chalk it up to you getting impatient because I'm not uninformed enough to fall for your logical fallacies, misrepresentations, and half truths.

I did say "Endlessly". [i] "Tisket, Tasket, baby! A green and yellow basket. Sent a letter to my baby. On my way out past it. " [/i]

[quote]I did say "Endlessly". [i] "Tisket, Tasket, baby! A green and yellow basket. Sent a letter to my baby. On my way out past it. " [/i][/quote] Feel free to bump my threads, endlessly. >mfw you have such precious little time that you cant be bothered to find any evidence of me calling you names, a pedo specifically >yet you have time for "endlessly" shitposting nursery rhymes 🤔 I think there might be some dishonesty around here somewhere

[i]"Hold your Fire. Keep it Burning Bright. Hold the Flame till the dream ignites. A spirt with a vision is a dream..... ....with a mission. "[/i]

😩

[i]"I hear their passionate music Read the words that touch my heart. I gaze at their feverish pictures. The secrets that set them apart. "[/i]

[quote][i]"I hear their passionate music Read the words that touch my heart. I gaze at their feverish pictures. The secrets that set them apart. "[/i][/quote] 🤭

[i]"When I feel the powerful visions Their fires made alive. I wish I had that instinct. I wish I had that drive. "[/i]

[quote][i]"When I feel the powerful visions Their fires made alive. I wish I had that instinct. I wish I had that drive. "[/i][/quote] 🤔

[i]"Spirits fly on dangerous missions. Imaginations on Fire. Focused high on soaring ambitions, consumed... In a single desire. In the grip of a namelss possession. Slave to the drive of obsession. A spirit with a vision is a dream With a mission. "[/i]

[quote][i]"Spirits fly on dangerous missions. Imaginations on Fire. Focused high on soaring ambitions, consumed... In a single desire. In the grip of a namelss possession. Slave to the drive of obsession. A spirit with a vision is a dream With a mission. "[/i][/quote] That one was actually pretty good tbh.

Then there's hope. [i]"I watch their images flicker Bringing light to a lifeless screen. I walk through their beautiful buildings And I wish I had their dreams. But dreams don't need to have motion To keep their spark alive. Obsession has to have action. Pride turns on the drive."[/i]

[quote]Imagine not knowing the justice department already said they are going to release it in a few weeks. Imagine clinging to the ghost of an insane conspiracy theory even after most lefties have let it go. Imagine unironically believing the entire "right" including an acting attorney general would be dumb enough to straight up lie and claim the report says the opposite of what it says KNOWING that not only will it be released sooner or later but that it could be leaked at any time and not only would trump be screwed in that scenario... so would they. [/quote] Oh hey, did you miss me sparky? Imagine believing that the right will quietly step aside and not interfere in every way for the next couple weeks. Imagine being so blind stupid that any point of view you dont agree with is a conspiracy theory. Imagine that Barr crafted his summary to give himself an out, and a leaked report would not ignite another dem-bashing campaign from the right. Imagine that [u]you[/u] would give up your support of the Trump administration if the actual full report did show wrongdoing. [quote]Tldr, lmao give it up pal.[/quote] Cant wait to tell you the same thing, in a "few weeks". You get to a doctor yet?

[quote][quote]Imagine not knowing the justice department already said they are going to release it in a few weeks. Imagine clinging to the ghost of an insane conspiracy theory even after most lefties have let it go. Imagine unironically believing the entire "right" including an acting attorney general would be dumb enough to straight up lie and claim the report says the opposite of what it says KNOWING that not only will it be released sooner or later but that it could be leaked at any time and not only would trump be screwed in that scenario... so would they. [/quote] Oh hey, did you miss me sparky? Imagine believing that the right will quietly step aside and not interfere in every way for the next couple weeks. Imagine being so blind stupid that any point of view you dont agree with is a conspiracy theory. Imagine that Barr crafted his summary to give himself an out, and a leaked report would not ignite another dem-bashing campaign from the right. Imagine that [u]you[/u] would give up your support of the Trump administration if the actual full report did show wrongdoing. [quote]Tldr, lmao give it up pal.[/quote] Cant wait to tell you the same thing, in a "few weeks". You get to a doctor yet?[/quote] IF the report had compelling evidence of wrong doing? Sure. I would in fact drop my support of trump. So far there hasnt been any. Just fake news. >acting like the entire right is lying about what Mueller said with no evidence >acting like trump colluded with Russia or "obstructed justice" with no evidence even after a 2 year investigation turns up jack squat >acting like because I am here pointing out that the Russia/obstruction investigation that spanned 2 years, hundreds of witnesses and et cetera, turned out to be a dud, a nothing burger, that somehow straw mans it's way into: >"Haha everything you dont like is a conspiracy theory. You have a choice. You can indulge in that twisted, broken "logic" OR you can not be a massive hypocrite but you cant have both. IF, just for the sake of argument, Mueller had some compelling evidence that trump committed a crime and IF barr, and not just barr at this point, were simply speaking the exact opposite of what the report actually says like you're implying, with zero evidence to support that claim, that would arguably be the stupidest, biggest face plant in political history because: all Mueller would have to do is publicly come out and say that is false and lay out the evidence he has. A lot of people involved would have A LOT more to lose than they would to gain by participating in that to such a degree that common sense tells me they wouldnt. Why would any politician stick their ass out so far over something that could be so easily refuted? Even if the right continues to be a pain in their ass about releasing it, and they should, because we all know if theres even the flimsiest, slightest, vaguest hint that maybe trump possibly did something remote, even if Mueller himself knew it wouldnt muster, no matter how insubstantial it was, Democrats would be more than happy to take the ball and run with it like they have every other time. Mueller has been pretty quiet but he didnt seem to mind speaking up when buzzfeed published their "trump told Cohen to lie to Congress" whopper. Somehow I dont think he would be quiet if they took words out of, or added them to, his report. Tldr; he won get over it 😘

[quote]IF the report had compelling evidence of wrong doing? Sure. I would in fact drop my support of trump. So far there hasnt been any. Just fake news. >acting like the entire right is lying about what Mueller said with no evidence >acting like trump colluded with Russia or "obstructed justice" with no evidence even after a 2 year investigation turns up jack squat >acting like because I am here pointing out that the Russia/obstruction investigation that spanned 2 years, hundreds of witnesses and et cetera, turned out to be a dud, a nothing burger, that somehow straw mans it's way into: >"Haha everything you dont like is a conspiracy theory. You have a choice. You can indulge in that twisted, broken "logic" OR you can not be a massive hypocrite but you cant have both. IF, just for the sake of argument, Mueller had some compelling evidence that trump committed a crime and IF barr, and not just barr at this point, were simply speaking the exact opposite of what the report actually says like you're implying, with zero evidence to support that claim, that would arguably be the stupidest, biggest face plant in political history because: all Mueller would have to do is publicly come out and say that is false and lay out the evidence he has. A lot of people involved would have A LOT more to lose than they would to gain by participating in that to such a degree that common sense tells me they wouldnt. Why would any politician stick their ass out so far over something that could be so easily refuted? Even if the right continues to be a pain in their ass about releasing it, and they should, because we all know if theres even the flimsiest, slightest, vaguest hint that maybe trump possibly did something remote, even if Mueller himself knew it wouldnt muster, no matter how insubstantial it was, Democrats would be more than happy to take the ball and run with it like they have every other time. Mueller has been pretty quiet but he didnt seem to mind speaking up when buzzfeed published their "trump told Cohen to lie to Congress" whopper. Somehow I dont think he would be quiet if they took words out of, or added them to, his report. Tldr; he won get over it 😘[/quote] Yawn. Now apply everything you just said to Hillary's investigations and you get why no one will back off an inch from this. I never said the Barr summary is a lie, i said he carefully worded it to ensure his ass doesnt end up under investigation later. Guess you never saw Wag the Dog. A lot of people under investigation right now would take a charge of lieing to Congress over a charge of treason. May be more people under investigation after the full report comes out, ya never know 😏 Anyway, you once again declare a victory without seeing the evidence, but attack others on the flimsiest pretense of a logical fallacy. So while i admire your veracitude, i doubt you are qualified to get the whole picture here. Dont worry, i will remind you. "In a few weeks". [quote]IF the report had compelling evidence of wrong doing? Sure. I would in fact drop my support of trump.[/quote]