Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
See, this is bullshit. It's not an argument, it's an unfalsifiable hypothetical statement. Also, I don't speak for "the anti-Trump crowd," whoever they are, and they don't speak for me. And this line reduces any argument to an "anti-Trump" whose merits don't need to be engaged with.
Hack is your word. I'll stick with what I said.
|
You started this by offering an unfalsifiable proposition: Rosenstein is shading facts to aid Trump.
I can't prove that wrong. But I do have a lot more evidence to suggest it's laughable than you do to prove such allegation. You still have not gotten over the evidence I have offered showing Rosenstein has absolutely no reason to help Trump, and every reason to want Trump to be impeached, or worse.
Can you get around that? No. GGG tried and could only offer the facile comment that Rosenstein works for Barr. (While struggling to escape his paper bag, he missed that Rosenstein is gone in two weeks, and is a long time friend not of Barr, but of Mueller.)
I get your criticizing Barr. He favors an imperial executive branch, and he might not care about fallout if he's found to have shaded things after it's too late to turn the narrative and everyone has assumed Trump was "exonerated." I think it's far-fetched, but technically possible. But Rosenstein? There's no reason for Rosenstein to be in the tank for Trump. There's no rational basis to assume he even might be in the tank for Trump.
ETA: If you're not anti-Trump (which, btw, it's entirely fine to be), why accuse Rosenstein and Barr of shading facts before the facts come out? If one is neutral and only curious as to what happened, he'd view reality as it is: Trump did not engage in conspiracy with Russia but walked the line on obstruction according to Barr's report. That's factual. Saying Rosenstein and Barr are putting fingers on the scales here is making allegations. That's seeing nefariousness, and that indicates bias.
