kd4au 1,145 Posted July 26, 2019 Share Posted July 26, 2019 https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/alan-dershowitz-mueller-wrongly-introduces-dangerous-concept-of-exoneration-in-review-of-trump-actions This is from a big liberal so maybe you will understand him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aubiefifty 16,924 Posted July 26, 2019 Share Posted July 26, 2019 i dislike as many libs as i do repukes........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigbird 60,580 Posted July 26, 2019 Share Posted July 26, 2019 29 minutes ago, homersapien said: So, presumably you think Hillary is completely innocent of everything the Repubs tried to pin on her. @TitanTiger Is this whatboutism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McLoofus 35,182 Posted July 26, 2019 Share Posted July 26, 2019 Wait, so even though the Mueller report explicitly stated that it didn't exonerate trump, trump's immediate response was "Full exoneration!"? (That might explain why Mueller said it in testimony, but it doesn't explain why it was in the report. I'd like to hear Mueller's honest response to Dershowitz's opinion.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,518 Posted July 26, 2019 Share Posted July 26, 2019 28 minutes ago, bigbird said: @TitanTiger Is this whatboutism? From Wikipedia: Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument. Just so we can follow the conversation to this point, you started this particular line of discussion when you said that "Prosecutors do not determine guilt or innocence." kd4au then asked, "Why is this so hard for the dems to understand?" And then homer asked kd "So, presumably you think Hillary is completely innocent of everything the Repubs tried to pin on her." I'm finding it difficult to call this Whataboutism as I don't really see a case or argument kd is making for homer to be "whatabouting." But I am having trouble understanding the train of thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigbird 60,580 Posted July 26, 2019 Share Posted July 26, 2019 I believe the argument is that Dems continue to cling to Mueller's statement of exoneration as proof of something. When in reality he is not charged with supplying that type of response. KD asked a question ias to why they continue clinging to that, even with the knowledge that it's not in a prosecutor's scope. Homer then, rather than answering or addressing any of the comment, throws about stuff about HC and repubs. JMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,518 Posted July 26, 2019 Share Posted July 26, 2019 43 minutes ago, bigbird said: I believe the argument is that Dems continue to cling to Mueller's statement of exoneration as proof of something. When in reality he is not charged with supplying that type of response. KD asked a question ias to why they continue clinging to that, even with the knowledge that it's not in a prosecutor's scope. Homer then, rather than answering or addressing any of the comment, throws about stuff about HC and repubs. JMO. If your explanation is correct, then I'd say it is whataboutism. I'll also say this: it's not that pointing out the other side's hypocrisy is off limits. It's that pointing out that hypocrisy isn't a substitute for answering the charge that's being made. So in this situation, you should answer the charge about the Dems (either show why the accusation is invalid, or concede that it's a valid argument about them) and then ask why the Republicans don't take that same advice on Hillary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,447 Posted July 27, 2019 Share Posted July 27, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jj3jordan 2,061 Posted July 27, 2019 Share Posted July 27, 2019 On 7/25/2019 at 10:27 AM, McLoofus said: I would think that's exactly why Mueller said that trump could be charged. Agree with the rest. Still waiting on HOW the election was affected. Beuller? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jj3jordan 2,061 Posted July 27, 2019 Share Posted July 27, 2019 21 hours ago, homersapien said: So, presumably you think Hillary is completely innocent of everything the Repubs tried to pin on her. No. Storage and use of classified materials is not a crime "pinned" on anyone by anybody. They occur solely and purely by the criminal, in this case, Hillary. It's not even debatable that she is guilty of mishandling classified and destroying evidence. No stretch to prosecute her. And yes, I don't know why this has not already happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,455 Posted July 27, 2019 Share Posted July 27, 2019 23 hours ago, bigbird said: @TitanTiger Is this whatboutism? No, its testing the hypothesis by using same argument with a different subject. No convictions = total innocence. If it's true for Trump, then it should be also be true for Hillary. Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,455 Posted July 27, 2019 Share Posted July 27, 2019 2 hours ago, jj3jordan said: No. Storage and use of classified materials is not a crime "pinned" on anyone by anybody. They occur solely and purely by the criminal, in this case, Hillary. It's not even debatable that she is guilty of mishandling classified and destroying evidence. No stretch to prosecute her. And yes, I don't know why this has not already happened. I could make the very same arguments about Trump - only regarding different actions. Actions that are enumerated in the Mueller report and as you say, "not even debatable". Trump clearly colluded with foreign agents by accepting their offers of assistance and not notifying the FBI. (And then trying to cover it up by lying.) Trump clearly tried to obstruct justice by firing Comey and others because of the investigation. He even said so publicly. And he tried to influence testimony. As you say, not even debatable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toddc 13,194 Posted July 27, 2019 Author Share Posted July 27, 2019 On 7/25/2019 at 8:46 PM, aubiefifty said: ok mueller is supposed to investigate and give his findings to congress which he did. he did not think trump should be off the hook but he could not be prosecuted while in office. in my world they are called recommendations and if he cannot give those why even investigate? No, he is supposed to give his report to AGBarr and AGBarr gave it to congress because he knew there was nothing to hide. No collusion and no obstruction, period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aubiefifty 16,924 Posted July 27, 2019 Share Posted July 27, 2019 9 minutes ago, toddc said: No, he is supposed to give his report to AGBarr and AGBarr gave it to congress because he knew there was nothing to hide. No collusion and no obstruction, period. you understand the word redaction right? you think he redacted more than just classified stuff? lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toddc 13,194 Posted July 28, 2019 Author Share Posted July 28, 2019 On 7/27/2019 at 9:57 AM, aubiefifty said: you understand the word redaction right? you think he redacted more than just classified stuff? lol Grand jury testimony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AU64 10,122 Posted July 28, 2019 Share Posted July 28, 2019 9 minutes ago, toddc said: Grand jury testimony. not necessarily what was redacted......likely never was directly in the report since as I understand it, Grand Jury testimony is confidential. Redacted means that names, sources or whatever was in the written document...... and then deemed by the DOJ to have security issues. The problem with grand jury testimony as with this whole process …..nobody can challenge the veracity of the witnesses or cross examine them. It is all one sided from the prosecution standpoint.....and hey....no possibility of "exoneration" either since there is no response from the defense, no jury and no judge to make a ruling. It is totally a one-sided process and despite all of that....the result was " no evidence of collusion". Amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,447 Posted July 28, 2019 Share Posted July 28, 2019 Nadler is now demanding the GJ Testimony. Now he knows he is never going to get it, so why even bring it up? To beat someone up with it with the ignorant part of your base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.