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

[NorthDallas40]

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.

She’s said nothing that I have been able to find nor has Durham. And I looked. There is of course much telegraphing of implied reasons but both have been quiet. There is only the anecdotal comments and observations on the timeline of the job relative to how long it should have gone and from her colleagues but I haven’t found any strong case of “she quit because of ...” . And honestly this one is curious and I’d like to know the reasoning on the decision.

 

[RockyTop85]

"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 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:



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. If you play nice, I'm sure he'll even type slowly and as often as it takes.

Have a nice day.

This argument fails without your generous interpretation of the prior post, which was clearly erroneous. It was a good effort, though.

 

[NorthDallas40]

This argument fails without your generous interpretation of the prior post, which was clearly erroneous. It was a good effort, though.

It seems to be what everybody except you have taken from it. However... you...

 

[RockyTop85]

It seems to be what everybody except you have taken from it. However... you...View attachment 305941

Ackchyually, he gave up that facet of the argument in that last post despite pretty much going point by point on everything else. Draw your own conclusions.

Your attempts to retcon your statements to his defense is improving as you catch up to the conversation, but suffers from your inability to do so, despite multiple requests, yesterday.

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.

She’s not on record. And I didn’t say ND40 had tried to discredit her; “Sources” said she couldn’t separate work from politics, which, as EL pointed out, appeared to be someone poisoning the well. Between that and the use of quotes in the tweet, I assumed that she was on record.

It is apparent that this is not the case. The tweet was quoting “sources” in the article. That changes the analysis, but not the conclusion.

The Analysis:
The story’s hook is anonymously sourced. Anyone who truly thought “nobody gets the benefit of anonymous sources” would have used that here. (And there are now examples of others taking that tact.)

Instead, he felt the better argument was to use the benefit of anonymous office gossip about her to refute the anonymous office gossip that she left due to political pressure from Barr.

The conclusion:

 

[NorthDallas40]

Ackchyually, he gave up that facet of the argument in that last post despite pretty much going point by point on everything else. Draw your own conclusions.

Your attempts to retcon your statements to his defense is improving as you catch up to the conversation, but suffers from your inability to do so, despite multiple requests, yesterday.


She’s not on record. And I didn’t say ND40 had tried to discredit her; “Sources” said she couldn’t separate work from politics, which, as EL pointed out, appeared to be someone poisoning the well. Between that and the use of quotes in the tweet, I assumed that she was on record.

It is apparent that this is not the case. The tweet was quoting “sources” in the article. That changes the analysis, but not the conclusion.

The Analysis:
The story’s hook is anonymously sourced. Anyone who truly thought “nobody gets the benefit of anonymous sources” would have used that here. (And there are now examples of others taking that tact.)

Instead, he felt the better argument was to use the benefit of anonymous office gossip about her to refute the anonymous office gossip that she left due to political pressure from Barr.

The conclusion:
Hypocritical.

Just more pettifoggery... sad. #walkaway

 

[Orange_Crush]

This argument fails without your generous interpretation of the prior post, which was clearly erroneous. It was a good effort, though.

Uh huh.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Uh huh.

Please string him along. This is hilarious and enjoyable

 

[Orange_Crush]

This argument fails without your generous interpretation of the prior post, which was clearly erroneous. It was a good effort, though.

ND40, was my interpretation of your posts correct?

It's actually hard to know for sure due to your abysmal use of double-negative, but in the quote in dispute, were you actually saying that you weren't disputing that Trump may have made the disparaging comments about soldiers?

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, in the second quote in question, were you actually affirming the unnamed sources as merely possibly, among other potential possibilities (including the possibility that Barr had pressured?

“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 seems pretty blatant on reading, but we'll need the proverbial "horse's keyboard", I guess.

Thanks in advance.

 

[RockyTop85]

ND40, was my interpretation of your posts correct?

It's actually hard to know for sure due to your abysmal use of double-negative, but in the quote in dispute, were you actually saying that you weren't disputing that Trump may have made the disparaging comments about soldiers?



And, in the second quote in question, were you actually affirming the unnamed sources as merely possibly, among other potential possibilities (including the possibility that Barr had pressured?



It seems pretty blatant on reading, but we'll need the proverbial "horse's keyboard", I guess.

Thanks in advance.

Surely you see that conceding that it sounds like something Trump could have said, based on other evidence, and accepting the anonymous sources as evidence that he said it are two different concepts, right?

 

[NorthDallas40]

ND40, was my interpretation of your posts correct?

It's actually hard to know for sure due to your abysmal use of double-negative, but in the quote in dispute, were you actually saying that you weren't disputing that Trump may have made the disparaging comments about soldiers?



And, in the second quote in question, were you actually affirming the unnamed sources as merely possibly, among other potential possibilities (including the possibility that Barr had pressured?



It seems pretty blatant on reading, but we'll need the proverbial "horse's keyboard", I guess.

Thanks in advance.

I believe you’ve summarized it well, better than I could have you’re a better speaker. But honestly I felt it was rather clear in the first place even with the double negative

I felt it was rather obvious after reading the original story on the resignation which The Hill quoted that nobody, not even anonymous sources, stated an affirmative stance on why she resigned and I saw no evidence of a well poisoning from Barr narrative holding merit. That is merely more speculation on top of speculation in the article. However the sister’s post was rather humorous to me in presenting a poison well speculation using the same poisoning affirmative method. I literally laughed out loud on reading it

 

[NorthDallas40]

Surely you see that conceding that it sounds like something Trump could have said, based on other evidence, and accepting the anonymous sources as evidence that he said it are two different concepts, right?

#walkaway

 

[Orange_Crush]

Surely you see that conceding that it sounds like something Trump could have said, based on other evidence, and accepting the anonymous sources as evidence that he said it are two different concepts, right?

It sounds exactly like concession that the anonymous Trump-critical sources may be right, which sounds amazingly like stating that the anonymous Barr-supporting sources may be right. That is, unless you're thinking with the erection that needs a "gotcha" moment.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Surely you see that conceding that it sounds like something Trump could have said, based on other evidence, and accepting the anonymous sources as evidence that he said it are two different concepts, right?

And you'll need to show exactly where he accepted anonymous sources as evidence that Barr didn't pressure. He literally allowed that as one unproven possibility among many--including the possibility that Barr pressured.

 

[RockyTop85]

And you'll need to show exactly where he accepted anonymous sources as evidence that Barr didn't pressure. He literally allowed that as one unproven possibility among many--including the possibility that Barr pressured.

Where else did he get the idea that her inability to separate politics and work was a possibility? There is none. The anonymous statements were the only evidence of that.

That’s “accepting as evidence,” or, when you propose it as an alternative, “getting the benefit” of unnamed sources.

It sounds exactly like concession that the anonymous Trump-critical sources may be right, which sounds amazingly like stating that the anonymous Barr-supporting sources may be right. That is, unless you're thinking with the erection that needs a "gotcha" moment.

Then it should be easy to incorporate the McCain reference into a consistent explanation. Instead, you ignore it and keep repeating that you’re right and I’m wrong, without addressing any of the reasons I’ve put forth for why that’s clearly not the case.

P.S. - Nice Hail Mary attempt, “putting your client on the stand.” His incoherent word salad didn’t even answer the operative question. That’s almost as desperate as making up arbitrary rules restricting the crediting of anonymous sources that you don’t actually have any intention of following, later. Almost.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Where else did he get the idea that her inability to separate politics and work was a possibility? There is none. The anonymous statements were the only evidence of that.

That’s “accepting as evidence,” or, when you propose it as an alternative, “getting the benefit” of unnamed sources.

Then it should be easy to incorporate the McCain reference into a consistent explanation. Instead, you ignore it and keep repeating that you’re right and I’m wrong, without addressing any of the reasons I’ve put forth for why that’s clearly not the case.

P.S. - Nice Hail Mary attempt, “putting your client on the stand.” His incoherent word salad didn’t even answer the operative question. That’s almost as desperate as making up arbitrary rules restricting the crediting of anonymous sources that you don’t actually have any intention of following, later. Almost.

This isn't complicated.

He stated the possibility that Trump said the disparaging statements--especially considering what he said about McCain, or maybe he just said it about Mccain.

He then stated the possibility that she left because of an inability to separate politics.

Both would have been from anonymous sources, and thus would be analogous--thus not a hypocrisy.

It's critical thinking 101.

Anonymous sources == "Trump said XYZ..."

ND40. "Sure, Trump may have said XYZ."

Thus ND40: "Thus Trump-attacking anonymous sources may have been right."

Also ND 40: "The pro-Bar sources may or may not have been right."

You: "AH!!!! You said anonymous sources don't get any benefit! You have *** on your forehead."

Me: "Actually, he gave the anti-trump anonymous sources the same benefit he gave the pro-Bar sources."

You: "UH... But... But... He said anonymous sources didn't get benefit. He has **** on his forehead."

Me: "He actually gave both sources the same benefit."

You: "Well, you have to define his post narrowly to get that."

Me: "ND40, what did you mean?"

You: "Nice try! It's a hail Mary to let ND40 not allow me to narrowly define his post!"

Get a grip, man. Get a grip.

 

[Orange_Crush]

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.

That's the quote in question. You're trying to take an unnecessary and I believe an indefensibly narrow interpretation of that.

ND40 said that he won't challenge that T-Rump could have said "those things". And ESPECIALLY those things about McCain.

Your problem is two-fold.

The "especially" sets up two inclusive groups of items. That group that doesn't contain comments about McCain, and the group of comments about McCain. The construct seems to indicate that he could have said any of the comments, and especially the ones about McCain.

So, ND40 seems to have said that Trump may have made any of the comments. You'd have to somehow create a needlessly narrow interpretation to see anything else.

Secondly, I do believe the comments about McCain were public? You're saying that the sum total of ND40's concession was that Trump may have made comments that are publicly known to have been made?

Again... You're trying to create an unnaturally and indefensibly narrow interpretation while claiming that's what I'm doing, and while mocking the concept of ND40 giving clarification.

It's a pretty bad look.

 

[NorthDallas40]

This isn't complicated.

He stated the possibility that Trump said the disparaging statements--especially considering what he said about McCain, or maybe he just said it about Mccain.

He then stated the possibility that she left because of an inability to separate politics.

Both would have been from anonymous sources, and thus would be analogous--thus not a hypocrisy.

It's critical thinking 101.

Anonymous sources == "Trump said XYZ..."

ND40. "Sure, Trump may have said XYZ."

Thus ND40: "Thus Trump-attacking anonymous sources may have been right."

Also ND 40: "The pro-Bar sources may or may not have been right."

You: "AH!!!! You said anonymous sources don't get any benefit! You have *** on your forehead."

Me: "Actually, he gave the anti-trump anonymous sources the same benefit he gave the pro-Bar sources."

You: "UH... But... But... He said anonymous sources didn't get benefit. He has **** on his forehead."

Me: "He actually gave both sources the same benefit."

You: "Well, you have to define his post narrowly to get that."

Me: "ND40, what did you mean?"

You: "Nice try! It's a hail Mary to let ND40 not allow me to narrowly define his post!"

Get a grip, man. Get a grip.

Great summary

 

[NorthDallas40]

That's the quote in question. You're trying to take an unnecessary and I believe an indefensibly narrow interpretation of that.

ND40 said that he won't challenge that T-Rump could have said "those things". And ESPECIALLY those things about McCain.

Your problem is two-fold.

The "especially" sets up two inclusive groups of items. That group that doesn't contain comments about McCain, and the group of comments about McCain. The construct seems to indicate that he could have said any of the comments, and especially the ones about McCain.

So, ND40 seems to have said that Trump may have made any of the comments. You'd have to somehow create a needlessly narrow interpretation to see anything else.

Secondly, I do believe the comments about McCain were public? You're saying that the sum total of ND40's concession was that Trump may have made comments that are publicly known to have been made?

Again... You're trying to create an unnaturally and indefensibly narrow interpretation while claiming that's what I'm doing, and while mocking the concept of ND40 giving clarification.

It's a pretty bad look.

Ok I’m starting to feel like I owe you money man.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Ok I’m starting to feel like I owe you money man.

lol. It's merely a hobby to fill time. Some people do crossword puzzles.

 

[NorthDallas40]

lol. It's merely a hobby to fill time. Some people do crossword puzzles.

Maybe rocky owes you money then for the critical thinking schooling

Hey I’m sure his legal guidance will benefit from the refresher.

 

[ajvol01]

Hilarious

 

[volfanjustin]

So Mueller's team scrubbed their phones, I wonder where they got that idea from

 

[Orange_Crush]

Or where told them how!

 

[RockyTop85]

This isn't complicated.

He stated the possibility that Trump said the disparaging statements--especially considering what he said about McCain, or maybe he just said it about Mccain.

He then stated the possibility that she left because of an inability to separate politics.

Both would have been from anonymous sources, and thus would be analogous--thus not a hypocrisy.

It's critical thinking 101.

Anonymous sources == "Trump said XYZ..."

ND40. "Sure, Trump may have said XYZ."

Thus ND40: "Thus Trump-attacking anonymous sources may have been right."

Also ND 40: "The pro-Bar sources may or may not have been right."

You: "AH!!!! You said anonymous sources don't get any benefit! You have *** on your forehead."

Me: "Actually, he gave the anti-trump anonymous sources the same benefit he gave the pro-Bar sources."

You: "UH... But... But... He said anonymous sources didn't get benefit. He has **** on his forehead."

Me: "He actually gave both sources the same benefit."

You: "Well, you have to define his post narrowly to get that."

Me: "ND40, what did you mean?"

You: "Nice try! It's a hail Mary to let ND40 not allow me to narrowly define his post!"

Get a grip, man. Get a grip.

That's the quote in question. You're trying to take an unnecessary and I believe an indefensibly narrow interpretation of that.

ND40 said that he won't challenge that T-Rump could have said "those things". And ESPECIALLY those things about McCain.

Your problem is two-fold.

The "especially" sets up two inclusive groups of items. That group that doesn't contain comments about McCain, and the group of comments about McCain. The construct seems to indicate that he could have said any of the comments, and especially the ones about McCain.

So, ND40 seems to have said that Trump may have made any of the comments. You'd have to somehow create a needlessly narrow interpretation to see anything else.

Secondly, I do believe the comments about McCain were public? You're saying that the sum total of ND40's concession was that Trump may have made comments that are publicly known to have been made?

Again... You're trying to create an unnaturally and indefensibly narrow interpretation while claiming that's what I'm doing, and while mocking the concept of ND40 giving clarification.

It's a pretty bad look.

He didn’t give any clarification. You asked him about McCain and he answered about the subject of this thread. And the answer, coming from a guy with a history of lying to get out of admitting he is wrong, is essentially “whatever you said.” That deserves more mockery than I gave, but there was some progress shown in this thread on that front and there was football starting.

There are at least two problems with the rest is this analysis.

First, the person he was responding to cited character evidence and past behavior as a reason to believe Trump would say it, and also limited the weight given to anonymous sources.

Second, the McCain episode didn’t involve anonymous sources. Trump himself was the named source of the statement.

So, ND40 agreed with the possibility that he said it. “I won’t challenge that he couldn’t have said it. Especially about McCain...”

Then he uses the word “But” signaling a transition to a point of differentiation.

He goes on to make a more unequivocal rejection of anonymous sources, “in this day and age, nobody gets any benefit from anonymous sources.” There’s nothing equivocal or unclear about that. It’s an absolute statement that nobody can use anonymous sources.

This rules out your idea that he was giving weight to anonymous sources. He was clearly agreeing with the other evidence (Trump’s character and personal history). This interpretation is bolstered by a specific reference to an incident that was based purely on attributes statements (McCain). He then differentiates to be more unequivocal about his rejection of unnamed sources.

Trying to recast that as anything else is beyond overly generous, it’s disingenuous. You’re clearly too literate to honestly think that your reading has any merit. This leads me to believe that all of this extracurricular stuff about my state of mind and need to save face appears to be chest thumping or perhaps projection, given that you seem at least equally invested in arguing the point.

And Lol at “bad look.” You really think anybody else is reading this at this point? It’s two guys literally arguing semantics. At least we’re having a discussion. Anybody reading it for entertainment needs a life worse than we do.

 

[NorthDallas40]

He didn’t give any clarification. You asked him about McCain and he answered about the subject of this thread. And the answer, coming from a guy with a history of lying to get out of admitting he is wrong, is essentially “whatever you said.” That deserves more mockery than I gave, but there was some progress shown in this thread on that front and there was football starting.

There are at least two problems with the rest is this analysis.

First, the person he was responding to cited character evidence and past behavior as a reason to believe Trump would say it, and also limited the weight given to anonymous sources.

Second, the McCain episode didn’t involve anonymous sources. Trump himself was the named source of the statement.

So, ND40 agreed with the possibility that he said it. “I won’t challenge that he couldn’t have said it. Especially about McCain...”

Then he uses the word “But” signaling a transition to a point of differentiation.

He goes on to make a more unequivocal rejection of anonymous sources, “in this day and age, nobody gets any benefit from anonymous sources.” There’s nothing equivocal or unclear about that. It’s an absolute statement that nobody can use anonymous sources.

This rules out your idea that he was giving weight to anonymous sources. He was clearly agreeing with the other evidence (Trump’s character and personal history). This interpretation is bolstered by a specific reference to an incident that was based purely on attributes statements (McCain). He then differentiates to be more unequivocal about his rejection of unnamed sources.

Trying to recast that as anything else is beyond overly generous, it’s disingenuous. You’re clearly too literate to honestly think that your reading has any merit. This leads me to believe that all of this extracurricular stuff about my state of mind and need to save face appears to be chest thumping or perhaps projection, given that you seem at least equally invested in arguing the point.

And Lol at “bad look.” You really think anybody else is reading this at this point? It’s two guys literally arguing semantics. At least we’re having a discussion. Anybody reading it for entertainment needs a life worse than we do.

Oh FFS take the L and move on. Nothing I have said is inconsistent with the quote you provided and you’re resorting to pedantic diatribes in an attempt to keep the egg off your face. It’s waaaaaay too late for that now.

Edit: oh and....

He didn’t give any clarification. You asked him about McCain and he answered about the subject of this thread. And the answer, coming from a guy with a history of lying to get out of admitting he is wrong, is essentially “whatever you said.” That deserves more mockery than I gave, but there was some progress shown in this thread on that front and there was football starting.

If I didn’t know better I’d think you were trying to poison the well, pettifogger!

AAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!