Congress Criminal Referral Clinton, Comey, McCabe, Lynch, Strzok, and Page to DOJ

[Mick]

OMFG. Those are both YOUR statements! I answered your questions

“Sure. A tactic to “poison” a specific action and make it undesirable to execute. But Barr executed a poison pill here sister?”



I already pointed out YOU confusing the two!

 

[evillawyer]

Poisoning the well: "Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a type of informal fallacy where adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing something that the target person is about to say."

This is Barr (or one of his proxies) trying to "poison the well":

"Dannehy, whom sources told the Courant is not a supporter of President Trump, was reportedly conflicted between politics and loyalty to Durham, a longtime colleague."

Barr knows the effect that her resignation (and the possibility that she talks about it) will have on the credibility of Durham's investigation, so his lackeys say she hated Trump and this is all about politics (as opposed to the rule of law) to get ahead of it.

In contrast, a poison pill is a defensive measure typically used by a company to prevent a hostile takeover. It has absolutely nothing to do with this situation.

Thanks for playing!

 

[RockyTop85]

I've been very clear as to what I've been saying. You're obviously bright enough not to have missed the "Or..." and "could..." in his statement. I'll just assume you're arguing to save face.

Good evening.

I’ll assume that you’re not saying that and we’ll just have to hope that my assumption is more accurate than yours.

So, the headline of the story, that she left over concern about Barr pressuring Durham was anonymously sourced.

If you’re someone who, less than a week ago, said “nobody gets to use anonymous sources” and then you read that article and see that the basis for the headline is anonymously sourced, you have at least two options:
A. “That’s more anonymously sourced stuff.”
Or
B. Use anonymously sourced statements to discredit the lady who resigned quietly.

If “nobody gets to use anonymous sources” was more than just a ridiculous face saving argument that you made up out of some sad compulsion to defend a ****** politician from maybe the fourth or fifth shittiest thing he said, then you go with A every time.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Poisoning the well: "Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a type of informal fallacy where adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing something that the target person is about to say."

This is Barr (or one of his proxies) trying to "poison the well":

"Dannehy, whom sources told the Courant is not a supporter of President Trump, was reportedly conflicted between politics and loyalty to Durham, a longtime colleague."

Barr knows the effect that her resignation (and the possibility that she talks about it) will have on the credibility of Durham's investigation, so his lackeys say she hated Trump and this is all about politics (as opposed to the rule of law) to get ahead of it.

In contrast, a poison pill is a defensive measure typically used by a company to prevent a hostile takeover. It has absolutely nothing to do with this situation.

Thanks for playing!

Hey I know. I asked YOU why you were bringing up a poison pill after going for poisoning the well first. Jees!

 

[NorthDallas40]

WTF are you talking about? What did Barr execute? How was it a poison pill?

Ok actually I see now I crossed my own signals and said pill instead of sticking on the poison well topic. That was me in making a hasty reply and I didn’t even notice I used pill instead of well. That is why I was confused asking why you brought up pill. Whoopsie in me

 

[evillawyer]

Ok actually I see now I crossed my own signals and said pill instead of sticking on the poison well topic. That was me in making a hasty reply and I didn’t even notice I used pill instead of well. That is why I was confused asking why you brought up pill. Whoopsie in me

Can I frame this? First concession ever from @NorthDallas40

 

[NorthDallas40]

Can I frame this? First concession ever from @NorthDallas40

That was on me. Didn’t pay attention and don’t even know how I got pill in there instead I was at work and typed it fast. But now you know why I’m like “why the hell did you move to a corporate takeover tactic?!”

 

[Orange_Crush]

I’ll assume that you’re not saying that and we’ll just have to hope that my assumption is more accurate than yours.

So, the headline of the story, that she left over concern about Barr pressuring Durham was anonymously sourced.

If you’re someone who, less than a week ago, said “nobody gets to use anonymous sources” and then you read that article and see that the basis for the headline is anonymously sourced, you have at least two options:
A. “That’s more anonymously sourced stuff.”
Or
B. Use anonymously sourced statements to discredit the lady who resigned quietly.

If “nobody gets to use anonymous sources” was more than just a ridiculous face saving argument that you made up out of some sad compulsion to defend a ****** politician from maybe the fourth or fifth shittiest thing he said, then you go with A every time.

He said that anonymous sources != proof. Then he didn't quote anonymous sources as proof.

 

[Carl Pickens]

Poisoning the well: "Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a type of informal fallacy where adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing something that the target person is about to say."

This is Barr (or one of his proxies) trying to "poison the well":

"Dannehy, whom sources told the Courant is not a supporter of President Trump, was reportedly conflicted between politics and loyalty to Durham, a longtime colleague."

Barr knows the effect that her resignation (and the possibility that she talks about it) will have on the credibility of Durham's investigation, so his lackeys say she hated Trump and this is all about politics (as opposed to the rule of law) to get ahead of it.

In contrast, a poison pill is a defensive measure typically used by a company to prevent a hostile takeover. It has absolutely nothing to do with this situation.

Thanks for playing!

She got paid off to quit and delay the results of the investigation until after the election

 

[RockyTop85]

He said that anonymous sources != proof. Then he didn't quote anonymous sources as proof.

Come again?

Never mind, I get it.

That’s not what he said. Since I’ve already posted what he actually said in this thread, I’ll assume you’re just arguing to save face.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Come again?

Never mind, I get it.

That’s not what he said. Since I’ve already posted what he actually said in this thread, I’ll assume you’re just arguing to save face.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Come again?

Here's the quote that you thought wassome sort of "gotcha".

Oh I won’t challenge that he couldn’t have said it. Especially when it comes to McCain. But in this day and age nobody gets the benefit of unnamed sources anymore. Either side.

And here's the quote where you thought he was claiming anonymous sources as some sort of proof, so you inferred hypocrisy.

Or... she needed to separate her politics from her job and was unable to do so. I can see you need to plant your spin story girl"could go several ways"... several ways not all have to do with Barr pressuring.

“Dannehy, whom sources told the Courant is not a supporter of President Trump, was reportedly conflicted between politics and loyalty to Durham, a longtime colleague. The career prosecutor has led high-profile investigations into leaders such as former Connecticut Gov. John G. Rowland (R)”

Now, in the first quote, he admitted that Trump very well could have said the offending statement. In other words, the sources may be right but they don't prove anything.

In the second quote, note the "could go" reference. In other words, the anonymous sources may be right, but there's no proof either way right now.

Like I said, he didn't offer anonymous sources as any kind of proof like the folks in the Trump thread were trying to do.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Come again?

Never mind, I get it.

That’s not what he said. Since I’ve already posted what he actually said in this thread, I’ll assume you’re just arguing to save face.

I just reposted what he said. You keyed in on a small part of it in an effort to get a "gotcha". He said the unnamed Trump accusers may actually be correct, no? Just like he said the unnamed sources he quoted may be right. And he didn't present either as proof.

Right?

 

[NorthDallas40]

I just reposted what he said. You keyed in on a small part of it in an effort to get a "gotcha". He said the unnamed Trump accusers may actually be correct, no? Just like he said the unnamed sources he quoted may be right. And he didn't present either as proof.

Right?

He’s not going to admit he jumped the shark. And it’s silly. I did stick my own foot in my mouth with sister evil and owned it, I hurriedly posted and crossed poison pill with poison well. Oh well

 

[RockyTop85]

I just reposted what he said. You keyed in on a small part of it in an effort to get a "gotcha". He said the unnamed Trump accusers may actually be correct, no? Just like he said the unnamed sources he quoted may be right. And he didn't present either as proof.

Right?

Incorrect.

The reason I didn’t bite in your earlier proven/plausible dichotomy is because it’s an oversimplification. There is a veritable cornucopia of other evidence that Trump would say something like that, and there was more than some outlet that I’ve never heard of confirming the story.

The concession that Trump may have said it did not reflect a willingness to consider unnamed sources. It was a concession to this other evidence.

That was clear from the reference to the McCain comments, which were not anonymously sourced. Also, the post he was replying to cites this other evidence as compelling while stating a negative opinion of anonymous sources.

Conversely, “Nobody gets the benefit of anonymous sources” is about as clear and unequivocal as it gets. It’s an agreement with the prior posters statement that the sources need to be named. It’s a full-stop refusal to consider them as evidence, whatsoever until they come forward.

I’m not even saying that’s imprudent, but it is inconsistent with the choice, here, to counter one anonymous allegation with another, rather than just dismiss the whole thing as anonymously sourced. That choice confirms that the attempt to dismiss anonymous allegations against Trump was not a principled belief.

The other half of the proven/plausible dichotomy suffered from the statement that the anonymous allegations about whatsherface made it apparent that she had an admitted inability to separate her politics from her work. Surely, no person blessed of the linguistic precision and purpose that this degree of statement parsing presupposes would use the word “apparently” in reference to an issue that they did not find to be... apparent.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Incorrect.

The reason I didn’t bite in your earlier proven/plausible dichotomy is because it’s an oversimplification. There is a veritable cornucopia of other evidence that Trump would say something like that, and there was more than some outlet that I’ve never heard of confirming the story.

The concession that Trump may have said it did not reflect a willingness to consider unnamed sources. It was a concession to this other evidence.

That was clear from the reference to the McCain comments, which were not anonymously sourced. Also, the post he was replying to cites this other evidence as compelling while stating a negative opinion of anonymous sources.

Conversely, “Nobody gets the benefit of anonymous sources” is about as clear and unequivocal as it gets. It’s an agreement with the prior posters statement that the sources need to be named. It’s a full-stop refusal to consider them as evidence, whatsoever until they come forward.

I’m not even saying that’s imprudent, but it is inconsistent with the choice, here, to counter one anonymous allegation with another, rather than just dismiss the whole thing as anonymously sourced. That choice confirms that the attempt to dismiss anonymous allegations against Trump was not a principled belief.

The other half of the proven/plausible dichotomy suffered from the statement that the anonymous allegations about whatsherface made it apparent that she had an admitted inability to separate her politics from her work. Surely, no person blessed of the linguistic precision and purpose that this degree of statement parsing presupposes would use the word “apparently” in reference to an issue that they did not find to be... apparent.

Wow you’re really butt hurt over this. This is hilarious. OC summed it up fairly easily but as usual you have to come back with five condescending paragraphs.

Sister evil made a declaration that Barr was attempting to poison the well. That’s a positive affirmation of a specific stance. I pointed out that the origin story actually several different alternatives and pointed to her stated conflicting political views and her job, I believe the article stated it as her loyalty to Barr but I did not taje an affirmative position on anything offered. I took no positive stance as to why she resigned. We simply don’t know and she herself offered no rationale. You really are arguing just to save face

“Or... she needed to separate her politics from her job and was unable to do so. I can see you need to plant your spin story girl but from the linked article this could go several ways not all have to do with Barr pressuring.”

I never offered my own affirmative stance on why she resigned. I pointed to the many offerings in the origin story but never put any one forth as proof. Period. The only statement of any possible stance was “could go several ways” and you’re being pedantic trying to imply that means I’m stating one of them must be true. I made no such statement.

 

[hog88]

So she resigned, never mentioned anything about political pressure in her resignation but since a reporter suggested it our resident chuckle heads take it as gospel. Is that about right?

 

[NorthDallas40]

So she resigned, never mentioned anything about political pressure in her resignation but since a reporter suggested it our resident chuckle heads take it as gospel. Is that about right?

That’s about it. It all started with sister evil trying to poison the well on it claiming Barr was trying to poison the well with the article. . But then Rocky had to pull a Corso “not so fast” and is now heavily invested on why my reply wasn’t that simple.

 

[RockyTop85]

Wow you’re really butt hurt over this. This is hilarious. OC summed it up fairly easily but as usual you have to come back with five condescending paragraphs.

Sister evil made a declaration that Barr was attempting to poison the well. That’s a positive affirmation of a specific stance. I pointed out that the origin story actually several different alternatives and pointed to her stated conflicting political views and her job, I believe the article stated it as her loyalty to Barr but I did not taje an affirmative position on anything offered. I took no positive stance as to why she resigned. We simply don’t know and she herself offered no rationale. You really are arguing just to save face

“Or... she needed to separate her politics from her job and was unable to do so. I can see you need to plant your spin story girl but from the linked article this could go several ways not all have to do with Barr pressuring.”

I never offered my own affirmative stance on why she resigned. I pointed to the many offerings in the origin story but never put any one forth as proof. Period. The only statement of any possible stance was “could go several ways” and you’re being pedantic trying to imply that means I’m stating one of them must be true. I made no such statement.

It’s entertaining to have even a semantic or trivial disagreement with someone who responds with relevant, challenging counter arguments and who isn’t burdened with an inferiority complex that drives him to bed wetting accusations of condescension and butt hurt.

 

[NorthDallas40]

It’s entertaining to have even a semantic or trivial disagreement with someone who responds with relevant, challenging counter arguments and who isn’t burdened with an inferiority complex that drives him to bed wetting accusations of condescension and butt hurt.

Nobody is buying your butt hurt pettifogging diatribe attempt at saving face counselor. You literally started your last chapter with “it’s an over simplification”. The only clear take away from this is I should be paying you rent

 

[RockyTop85]

Nobody is buying your butt hurt pettifogging diatribe attempt at saving face counselor. You literally started your last chapter with “it’s an over simplification”. The only clear take away from this is I should be paying you rent

Sometimes, the opposite kind of disagreement is amusing as well.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Sometimes, the opposite kind of disagreement is amusing as well.

Only clear point is you have a strong case for back rent pettifogger.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Incorrect.

The reason I didn’t bite in your earlier proven/plausible dichotomy is because it’s an oversimplification. There is a veritable cornucopia of other evidence that Trump would say something like that, and there was more than some outlet that I’ve never heard of confirming the story.

The concession that Trump may have said it did not reflect a willingness to consider unnamed sources. It was a concession to this other evidence.

That was clear from the reference to the McCain comments, which were not anonymously sourced. Also, the post he was replying to cites this other evidence as compelling while stating a negative opinion of anonymous sources.

Conversely, “Nobody gets the benefit of anonymous sources” is about as clear and unequivocal as it gets. It’s an agreement with the prior posters statement that the sources need to be named. It’s a full-stop refusal to consider them as evidence, whatsoever until they come forward.

I’m not even saying that’s imprudent, but it is inconsistent with the choice, here, to counter one anonymous allegation with another, rather than just dismiss the whole thing as anonymously sourced. That choice confirms that the attempt to dismiss anonymous allegations against Trump was not a principled belief.

The other half of the proven/plausible dichotomy suffered from the statement that the anonymous allegations about whatsherface made it apparent that she had an admitted inability to separate her politics from her work. Surely, no person blessed of the linguistic precision and purpose that this degree of statement parsing presupposes would use the word “apparently” in reference to an issue that they did not find to be... apparent.

"Trump very well may have said it."

"She very well may have left because..."

It's not hypocrisy, no matter your apparent need for it to be.

And as I've clearly pointed out, "Is a possibility among many" is a stretch to call the "benefit of the doubt".

And again... (It's becoming tiring to have to spell this out. It really shouldn't take much linguistic expertise.) The "apparently" was a reference to:

“Or... she needed to separate her politics from her job and was unable to do so. I can see you need to plant your spin story girl but from the linked article this could go several ways not all have to do with Barr pressuring.”

It's quite obvious that ND was stating that as one POSSIBILITY of many. Why not ask him? I'm sure he'll tell you what he meant if you're having trouble comprehending.

Have a nice day.

 

[Orange_Crush]

It’s entertaining to have even a semantic or trivial disagreement with someone who responds with relevant, challenging counter arguments and who isn’t burdened with an inferiority complex that drives him to bed wetting accusations of condescension and butt hurt.

I actually enjoy my interactions with you, or I wouldn't have them.

 

[Orange_Crush]

So she resigned, never mentioned anything about political pressure in her resignation but since a reporter suggested it our resident chuckle heads take it as gospel. Is that about right?

I asked RT85 earlier what she's actually on record with, since he mentioned that ND40 had attempted to discredit her, but I haven't seen anything or gotten an answer.

I don't know what she's on record about, but all I've seen is a reference to a short resignation letter that didn't mention pressure. I suspect this to be softening the blow of the report if/when it comes out.