Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 522311)

I should just trust Barr because another Republican political appointee says so. I don't think you are really such an idiot, but I question why your desire to be oppositional here impels you to say idiotic things.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 522316)

Talk about what? There is no honest conversation to be had here.

Whatever exculpatory information comes out will be dismissed by the anti-Trump crowd.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 522319)

Sebby,

If you want to understand why we think you can't think your way out of an open paper bag, just replace "Deputy Attorney General" and "Attorney General" with "subordinate" and "boss" in that stuff you're citing.

You're saying that because someone's staff backs them up, and throws around a few insults while doing it, we ought to give more credence to their words?

Really?

Thanks for the laugh, bozo.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 522315)

Seriously, go fuck yourself. You pretend to talk to me, but it's a pretense. You don't engage with what I say, but invent reasons to tell me that I'm thinking irrationally. It's intellectually lazy, and it's disrespectful. Go find someone who is impressed with your crap and will take it seriously, because I don't. If you want to have a conversation with me, it's starts with actually engaging with anything I say.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 522320)

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.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 522322)

Normally when a post bothers you, you just delete it. Why is this post different?

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 522323)

You started this by offering an unfalsifiable proposition: Rosenstein is shading facts to aid Trump.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 522323)

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.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 522326)

Rosenstein hasn't stopped being a Republican, and the gratuitous dig at Dems is a good example.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 522326)

Rosenstein hasn't stopped being a Republican, and the gratuitous dig at Dems is a good example. I have no doubt that Rosenstein has fought hard to maintain some semblance of professsionalism, but just that - a semblance, and he is still reporting to Barr, he is still expecting to be part of the Republican establishment for the rest of his DC life.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 522327)

By all means, let's have a debate between two flavors of Republicans, and just dismiss everything that Democrats say.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 522329)

He may want to preserve his holiday party invites, but the guy has little reason to take a huge risk to support the GOP. It was an accomplice to endless smear jobs by Trump against his mentor and Rosenstein himself. They’ll excuse him for feeling a bit angry and abandoned.

And he’s going to cash out like a rock star in a town where the party affiliations for lawyers and lobbyists are just marketing tools. They all eat at the same trough and you have to work both sides.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 522331)

You asserted Barr was putting his finger on the scale. I said I found that assertion a bit unhinged. I then saw Rosenstein second Barr's report. To assert that Barr is in a conspiracy now is to assert Rosenstein is also in the conspiracy. Or as Rosenstein put it, to raise a "bizarre" allegation.



I can't say Barr is up to something. I think he thinks there might have been improper surveillance, which is what he said. None of us knows what he knows, so I have no way of guessing the reason for what he said. And you have no evidence to assume he's "up to something."

But the lack of evidence has never stopped the Left or the Right in the past 30 years. Since the days of Clinton, each side believes it is right, goddamnit. They know in their bones that they are on the side of righteousness, justice (or in the case of many Right wingers, "preserving the character of the country"). So hey, even if you've no evidence, fuck it -- claim Barr is in league with Trump. Even if there's no evidence, fuck it -- Obama's a socialist, and Bill Clinton has committed everything from campaign violations to the murder of Vincent Foster. The FBI said it lacked basis to charge Hillary, but thought she grossly mishandled documents? Fuck it. She's guilty. Nevermind the difference between negligence and intent. That's too confusing.

The Left sees everything a GOP President does with an extremely jaundiced eye. Conclusion or suspicion first, facts second. The Right does exactly the same thing with Democrat presidents.

And both sides defend their Presidents on almost everything they do. It's teams, tribes, parties... And when they're sure they've got a win in their sights, as the GOP did with Starr, Benghazi, Hillary's emails, etc., and the Democrats have done with every investigation of Trump, and the win never materializes, they melt down.

The Mueller Report will come out Thursday and confirm what we all know: Trump is a lying, rotten shit. And the Left will then melt down. It will scream that justice has not been done. Just like the Right has screamed that justice has never been done in investigations of Democrats.

Thankfully, hopefully, as the NYTimes recently noted in its study comparing the loudest advocates on social and regular media to actual voters, nobody who matters will give a shit about the stupid spectacle.