(03-25-2019 11:24 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I found your comment of 'dad' to be rather churlish lad. And, tbh, someone that 'expects more from me' is most likely in the long run disappointed......

No sh** it was rude - that is what someone should expect when they condescendingly say they expect more of someone else.

(03-25-2019 11:23 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-25-2019 11:08 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-25-2019 10:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-25-2019 10:43 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  If somebody walks in and robs you blind, that is one thing. Saying they walked in at the request of a third party for his benefit is another. The issue is not that they were stolen - the issue was and is, were they stolen as part of an agreement between Trump and Russia, and Mueller says no.

Every leak is stolen property.

Ok, let me revise the hypothetical. You leave your house unlocked and you're robbed. The next day, you hear your neighbor talking to the mailman about how he knows who the robbers were and how he wants them to rob his other neighbor. Then, a few days later you find out that he was talking to a colleague of the robbers about what items were stolen and whether or not he wanted to take any of them.

The issue was both that emails were stolen and then whether or not Trump (who publicly requested that more emails be stolen by Russia) was involved, or if anyone in his team (say the people who were made aware of the stolen emails and who were giddy with delight about them) were involved.

As you said, Mueller's final conclusion is that they were not involved. I'm interested in reading the report and understanding his thinking behind that final conclusion.

Still hyperbole challenged I see. I suggest you actually post that tape segment. it doesnt have 2 pennies of the gravitas you imply.

Hyperbole?

Quote: Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnY7D4M4k68

So you take that as a serious comment, and an honest to goodness 'request.' Got it. Say no more.... lolz

(Where is the head thwack emoji when you need it....)

(03-25-2019 10:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-25-2019 10:43 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  If somebody walks in and robs you blind, that is one thing. Saying they walked in at the request of a third party for his benefit is another. The issue is not that they were stolen - the issue was and is, were they stolen as part of an agreement between Trump and Russia, and Mueller says no.

Every leak is stolen property.

Ok, let me revise the hypothetical. You leave your house unlocked and you're robbed. The next day, you hear your neighbor talking to the mailman about how he knows who the robbers were and how he wants them to rob his other neighbor. Then, a few days later you find out that he was talking to a colleague of the robbers about what items were stolen and whether or not he wanted to take any of them.

The issue was both that emails were stolen and then whether or not Trump (who publicly requested that more emails be stolen by Russia) was involved, or if anyone in his team (say the people who were made aware of the stolen emails and who were giddy with delight about them) were involved.

As you said, Mueller's final conclusion is that they were not involved. I'm interested in reading the report and understanding his thinking behind that final conclusion.

Man, your hypotheticals just get worse and worse.

If I publicly root for Rice to "kill" USM, that does not mean I am asking them to commit murder for me.

(03-25-2019 11:13 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-25-2019 11:05 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-25-2019 10:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-25-2019 10:36 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Truth is, I expected more from you Lad than innuendo that Barr's summary was biased for Trump.

Aw geeze, sorry to not live up to your expectations. Sorry to disappoint you, dad.

The truth is, we should all take a 4-page summary of a multi-year investigation with a grain of salt. Not because Barr might be disingenuous or lying - he is most certainly not. But because it is too short to glean anything from it outside of the final outcomes.

And the fact that Barr did not provide any supporting information as to why he found there to be no evidence of obstruction, when Mueller explicitly punted that question, should raise questions about how Barr came to that conclusion so quickly.

Question - if Obama had been investigated for conspiring with Iran, and Eric Holder provided the same short summary, would you be so happy to accept it without seeing the foundation it was built on? Would you not be suspicious that there were some politics at play in how Holder presented the findings?

First, as to the bolded, some of us hold the particular office (a very unusual office) in a tad more respect.

In that case, Eric Holder would be holding not just Eric Holder, but the legitimacy of the entire Justice Department up for grabs with such a 'summary'. So yes, when details will become available (and they will, trust me) I would probably bet my last dollar that the 'short summary' would in effect be accurate, in both cases.

But you choose to inject your personal myopia into that, which is your right to do.

As to the italicized, I suggest you go cipher on the elements of obstruction, then re-cipher them with the portion that "exonerates" Trump of any connection with collusion, or even cooperation. Instead of waving your Rachel Maddow talking points. As a matter, it was pretty fing easy to not to do so given fact presented.

As it 'being too short to glean anything', well, I guess that is true for some.

As for your comment on OO as 'dad', I suggest you tone that down some, son.

I too agree that Barr's summary will be accurate. I don't doubt that - he certainly is not going to lie in this case.

But I would not be surprised if he left out important details for a reason. We all want to make our boss look good, and you don't go getting into the nitty gritty when you can simply say, look guys, he's not charged! Do you have an idea as to why Mueller felt he needed to call out the fact that Trumps was not exonerated on obstruction of justice charges? This is something Barr seems to think is unusual, given that he writes for almost two paragraphs about it.

And Tanq, I'm disappointed that you feel the need to step in between a conversation between OO and I. I expected more of you...

Don't worry about it, son.

(03-25-2019 11:28 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-25-2019 11:24 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I found your comment of 'dad' to be rather churlish lad. And, tbh, someone that 'expects more from me' is most likely in the long run disappointed......

No sh** it was rude - that is what someone should expect when they condescendingly say they expect more of someone else.

But son, I do expect you to be more objective than, say, Boston Owl.

You have been saying all along to wait for the report and that you would accrpt it, and now you are looking for outs.

(03-25-2019 11:24 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I found your comment of 'dad' to be rather churlish lad. And, tbh, someone that 'expects more from me' is most likely in the long run disappointed......

I was disappointed that he turned to smearing Barr.

(03-25-2019 11:48 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-25-2019 11:28 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-25-2019 11:24 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I found your comment of 'dad' to be rather churlish lad. And, tbh, someone that 'expects more from me' is most likely in the long run disappointed......

No sh** it was rude - that is what someone should expect when they condescendingly say they expect more of someone else.

But son, I do expect you to be more objective than, say, Boston Owl.

You have been saying all along to wait for the report and that you would accrpt it, and now you are looking for outs.

Lo, what???

I am not looking for outs - I'm explicitly saying that I want to read the report, because a 4-page summary is insufficient.

I've also stated that Barr is not lying with respect to what the report says, which is that they did not find that Trump/Trump's campaign colluded with the Russian government.

My only comments are that: (i) this 4-page memo does not tell the whole story; (ii) I want to understand better why Mueller felt the need to explicitly state that he could not exonerate Trump on obstruction, but that Barr did; and (iii) Barr could have written it without significant detail as a way to minimize some of the details and conclusions outlined in the memo.

What shocking and outlandish comments!

(03-25-2019 11:42 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-25-2019 10:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-25-2019 10:43 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  If somebody walks in and robs you blind, that is one thing. Saying they walked in at the request of a third party for his benefit is another. The issue is not that they were stolen - the issue was and is, were they stolen as part of an agreement between Trump and Russia, and Mueller says no.

Every leak is stolen property.

Ok, let me revise the hypothetical. You leave your house unlocked and you're robbed. The next day, you hear your neighbor talking to the mailman about how he knows who the robbers were and how he wants them to rob his other neighbor. Then, a few days later you find out that he was talking to a colleague of the robbers about what items were stolen and whether or not he wanted to take any of them.

The issue was both that emails were stolen and then whether or not Trump (who publicly requested that more emails be stolen by Russia) was involved, or if anyone in his team (say the people who were made aware of the stolen emails and who were giddy with delight about them) were involved.

As you said, Mueller's final conclusion is that they were not involved. I'm interested in reading the report and understanding his thinking behind that final conclusion.

Man, your hypotheticals just get worse and worse.

If I publicly root for Rice to "kill" USM, that does not mean I am asking them to commit murder for me.

I know, that hypothetical is awfully crazy and in no way is realistically what could have happened. It's a bit beyond comprehension how I could even dream up such a strange hypothetical...

Im sure you think Hillary actually believes BleachBit is a kitchen cleaning product as well if that is the standard you employ.

(03-25-2019 01:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Im sure you think Hillary actually believes BleachBit is a kitchen cleaning product as well if that is the standard you employ.

But the legitimacy of the Secretary of State position would be up for grabs if she lied about that...

So the standard is one thing for what Trump says in a campaign spot, and completely another for Hillary in the same exact setting. Glad we are clear on that now.

I mean your full thrust is some odd **** comment made by Trump, with a good amount of hyperbole present due to the crowd there, and you take him at absolute full 100 percent 11-on the stereo volume seriousness there.

Yet you seemingly take the 'BleachBit being a kitchen cleaner action' as a joke, with the exact same type scenario.

Please do tell the amazing and fundamental differences here.

Why the full 100%, 11-on the stereo seriousness as the unvarnished truth in one case, and utterly discounting the other?

As for 'the legitimacy of the Secretary of State position would be up for grabs if she lied', this makes zero sense (except as some lame attempt at lightheartedness, that is, which it hopefully is.....)

Team player

(03-25-2019 12:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-25-2019 11:42 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-25-2019 10:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-25-2019 10:43 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  If somebody walks in and robs you blind, that is one thing. Saying they walked in at the request of a third party for his benefit is another. The issue is not that they were stolen - the issue was and is, were they stolen as part of an agreement between Trump and Russia, and Mueller says no.

Every leak is stolen property.

Ok, let me revise the hypothetical. You leave your house unlocked and you're robbed. The next day, you hear your neighbor talking to the mailman about how he knows who the robbers were and how he wants them to rob his other neighbor. Then, a few days later you find out that he was talking to a colleague of the robbers about what items were stolen and whether or not he wanted to take any of them.

The issue was both that emails were stolen and then whether or not Trump (who publicly requested that more emails be stolen by Russia) was involved, or if anyone in his team (say the people who were made aware of the stolen emails and who were giddy with delight about them) were involved.

As you said, Mueller's final conclusion is that they were not involved. I'm interested in reading the report and understanding his thinking behind that final conclusion.

Man, your hypotheticals just get worse and worse.

If I publicly root for Rice to "kill" USM, that does not mean I am asking them to commit murder for me.

I know, that hypothetical is awfully crazy and in no way is realistically what could have happened. It's a bit beyond comprehension how I could even dream up such a strange hypothetical...

True.

But of course, if Trump said something in this vein, you would call it a lie.

(03-25-2019 03:33 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  So the standard is one thing for what Trump says in a campaign spot, and completely another for Hillary in the same exact setting. Glad we are clear on that now.

I mean your full thrust is some odd **** comment made by Trump, with a good amount of hyperbole present due to the crowd there, and you take him at absolute full 100 percent 11-on the stereo volume seriousness there.

Yet you seemingly take the 'BleachBit being a kitchen cleaner action' as a joke, with the exact same type scenario.

Please do tell the amazing and fundamental differences here.

Why the full 100%, 11-on the stereo seriousness as the unvarnished truth in one case, and utterly discounting the other?

As for 'the legitimacy of the Secretary of State position would be up for grabs if she lied', this makes zero sense (except as some lame attempt at lightheartedness, that is, which it hopefully is.....)

I was actually referencing your earlier post about how you would absolutely trust Holder to be completely unbiased in how he presented information because of how it would affect the Justice Department, when I asked if you would trust him without seeing the foundation for his claims.

I don't trust that any AG would be above a bit of spin to save face. But as I said, I do trust that Barr is not outright lying.

(03-25-2019 04:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-25-2019 03:33 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  So the standard is one thing for what Trump says in a campaign spot, and completely another for Hillary in the same exact setting. Glad we are clear on that now.

I mean your full thrust is some odd **** comment made by Trump, with a good amount of hyperbole present due to the crowd there, and you take him at absolute full 100 percent 11-on the stereo volume seriousness there.

Yet you seemingly take the 'BleachBit being a kitchen cleaner action' as a joke, with the exact same type scenario.

Please do tell the amazing and fundamental differences here.

Why the full 100%, 11-on the stereo seriousness as the unvarnished truth in one case, and utterly discounting the other?

As for 'the legitimacy of the Secretary of State position would be up for grabs if she lied', this makes zero sense (except as some lame attempt at lightheartedness, that is, which it hopefully is.....)

I was actually referencing your earlier post about how you would absolutely trust Holder to be completely unbiased in how he presented information because of how it would affect the Justice Department, when I asked if you would trust him without seeing the foundation for his claims.

I don't trust that any AG would be above a bit of spin to save face. But as I said, I do trust that Barr is not outright lying.

To be honest, your comment equating the Justice Department and the State Department exhibits some very serious shortcomings as to the relationship each holds within the Executive Branch.

Bluntly, the AG fundamentally cannot be anything less than above reproach; and many times Justice actually acts in an adversarial role to both the Office of the President and to other portions of the Executive Branch.

I dont think you understand that fundamental difference.

The *job* of the Justice Department is the maintenance of the justice system, the AG *must* reflect this. Without that, the ability of the Justice Department to even function in the manner it must would be severely compromised.

I think I now understand your entrenchment with the Barr letter now, as seemingly you really do not understand that issue very well.

And by the way lad, did you catch the news item where Mueller gave Barr about 3-4 weeks to generate to the position on obstruction (not the short notice that you ascribe to it...)

Getting back to the original question: why do you take a Trump campaign rally statement at full face value, and seemingly dismiss an equivalent 'location/event' statement from Hillary? Or do you believe that Hillary actually thinks BleachBit is a kitchen cleanup chore?

I'm with Lad, and I don't care how old or young he is.

We still need to see the Mueller Report, whenever the Esteemed Right Honourable Infallible Knight of the Realm Sir William Barr gets around to releasing it.

It is a mistake to rely on Sir Bill's summary. Especially because he explained what he would conclude in his 19-page job application in June 2018. Here is a real quote from his memo:

"Apart from whether Mueller [has] a strong enough factual basis for doing so, Mueller's obstruction theory is fatally misconceived."

Here is another passage: "As elaborated below, Mueller's theory should be rejected for the following reasons..."

Look, Sir Bill may be a great carpool dad. He plays the bagpipes! That is really wonderful. And he clearly believes what he wrote in his memo. That's the problem. He prejudged the situation. He telegraphed what he would do. He was nominated on that basis. And he did it. Hooray for him! Now let's see the full Mueller Report so that we can see what other evidence exists that has not already been in plain sight.

(03-25-2019 04:51 PM)Boston Owl Wrote:  I'm with Lad, and I don't care how old or young he is.

We still need to see the Mueller Report, whenever the Esteemed Right Honourable Infallible Knight of the Realm Sir William Barr gets around to releasing it.

It is a mistake to rely on Sir Bill's summary. Especially because he explained what he would conclude in his 19-page job application in June 2018. Here is a real quote from his memo:

"Apart from whether Mueller [has] a strong enough factual basis for doing so, Mueller's obstruction theory is fatally misconceived."

Here is another passage: "As elaborated below, Mueller's theory should be rejected for the following reasons..."

Look, Sir Bill may be a great carpool dad. He plays the bagpipes! That is really wonderful. And he clearly believes what he wrote in his memo. That's the problem. He prejudged the situation. He telegraphed what he would do. He was nominated on that basis. And he did it. Hooray for him! Now let's see the full Mueller Report so that we can see what other evidence exists that has not already been in plain sight.

Good for you. 18 words and another 12 words from 19 pages.

Here is some of that 'number mumbo jumbo' that you wave around like a Jedi sword when you are retreating from actually answering questions:

30 words --- 19 pages -- probably 200 words per page. From my short shelf life math that works out to 3800 words, and you choose about 30 the characterize the entire document.

Here is the answer to your 'magic +4 sword of Barr slaying' excerpt skills -- less than 1 per cent.

Dude, even a quick skim notes that Barr is commenting on a *lot* of topics and sub-topics in that letter. I suggest you take up a little bit more on the 'in depth' read instead of the 'selective excerpt' skill you seemingly have a Yoda master grasp of.

And you have the gall to complain that 'not enough material is presented' re: the Mueller report. Here is another answer to your 'selective excerpting' leet skillz --- lolz.

You want to blow off the relationship of the Justice Department to the rest of the government as well? Well, if your 'excerpting skills' are an indication of your knowledge of the Justice Department, well, I would fathom about a 6-sigma certainty that I know the answer to that one as well. (Feel free to comment on the appropriateness or, more likely, the lack thereof on my 'stat insight', which is something I am reasonably certain you *do* have a decent grasp on).

Edited to add: the entire Barr memo that posted to was a discourse on the Constitutional implications of *potential* Mueller theories and/or facts. Funny thing, as I pointed out to lad, when you read the *first* finding regarding collusion (or whatever the fk the nom de jure today is for the actus), when you know what the *basic* elements are of obstruction, the finding isnt even 'Constitutional' or needs a definitional stance in the Presidential powers. So, while a cute lil ol read that has a couple of 'choice words' interspersed in its 5k words or so, the subject matter doesnt even reach the actual merits. But please keep tossing out cherry-picked words in pile, or, yet better, cherry-picked words in a pile that has zero confluence with the actual subject matter.

I liked what Lindsey Graham had to say today.

(03-25-2019 10:21 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  I liked what Lindsey Graham had to say today.

Yup

Not enough 'smoke' for some, apparently.