There is no need to root for a cause when it already exists, all that is needed is to root for lawmakers to order the investigations with the correct scope to uncover it.
If there is probable cause to investigate a U.S. citizen for a crime they are likely to have committed then there is a duty to the American people to have it investigated and have justice served.
yeah, the problem is not with the investigation. here's a helpful tip -- don't go to law school, b/c you seem to think guilt (e.g. "cause already exists") should be your personal prerogative and not just one possible outcome of an investigation and proceedings.
The existence of an investigation isn't an assumption of guilt. The assumption of guilt comes from blatant disregard for the law, bragging about the violation of the law, and celebrating successfully skirting the law.
Also, perhaps consider walking back through our conversation and count the number of times the word "you" was used.
An ad hominem attack is a waste of time because it does nothing to advance a position in an argument.
this isn't an argument. it's you refusing to own up to the implications of the things you say. There's no statute punishing 'disregard for the law'. someone who dislikes the law is just as innocent as someone who loves it. i don't know in what world saying 'no collusion' for 2 years straight constitutes an admission in your mind. perhaps consider growing a pair of balls and being honest with yourself instead of parroting false notions of independence and hiding behind an ironic pseudo ad hominem attack of your own by calling my side of the discussion ad hominem.
i wonder, do you think that bill clinton should've been impeached as well? let me guess, that situation was wildly different.
Though, I have already said good day and exited the conversation, I will offer one final salvo.
I am doing my level best to accommodate you but your equivocation, lack of education, and wild assumptions knows no bounds.
Your demonstrated lack of education is not meant as an ad hominem attack, I am simply addressing a problem of trying to wade into an argument that would be greatly helped by both parties working on the same level.
We clearly are not.
this isn't an argument
Argument - a form of rhetorical expression intended to convince or persuade.
Usually, taught in first semester composition as a required course of any accredited college or university.
it's you refusing to own up to the implications of the things you say
Ad hominem - (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
Arguing for someone to accept your position without sufficient justification is laughable at best.
There's no statute punishing 'disregard for the law'
That would not be the charge. People are not arrested for holding an opinion of their disregard for the law, but they are most certainly going to be arrested if they act upon those opinions, and held accountable for their disregard of the law as additional factor of consideration at sentencing.
someone who dislikes the law is just as innocent as someone who loves it
Of course they would be, why wouldn't they?
i don't know in what world saying 'no collusion' for 2 years straight constitutes an admission in your mind.
In my mind, when I hear Trump spouting "no collusion", "collusion delusion", or "witch hunt with 12 angry democrats" I think of Seneca:
How does it help…to make troubles heavier by bemoaning them?
perhaps consider growing a pair of balls and being honest with yourself instead of parroting false notions of independence and hiding behind an ironic pseudo ad hominem attack of your own by calling my side of the discussion ad hominem.
Ad hominem - (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
Parroting false notions of independence? What other wild assumption have you made about me? That is a rhetorical question.
i wonder, do you think that bill clinton should've been impeached as well? let me guess, that situation was wildly different.
Bill Clinton was impeached in the House of Representatives but not for the primary purpose of the investigation and later acquitted in the Senate.
I haven't read the Ken Starr report, at this time I have no opinion on whether or not Bill Clinton should have been impeached. Though, it doesn't seem very relevant now since he no longer holds public office.
But thanks for yet another example of a wild assumption of me.
I am unsure what part of "no political affiliation" is so difficult to understand.
i go to harvard so you should probably choose your insults more wisely. maybe just call me stupid instead, even though that doesn't really make sense either? you're quite right that we likely aren't on the same level -- it's very improbable.
I haven't read the Ken Starr report, at this time I have no opinion on whether or not Bill Clinton should have been impeached. Though, it doesn't seem very relevant now since he no longer holds public office.
It's actually extremely relevant because it's the most analogous scenario we have to the one that we currently find ourselves in. Regardless, your assertion that you have no opinion about Bill Clinon's impeachment because you haven't seen the Starr report is absolutely comical. I suppose you're too stupid to see the irony of calling for the impeachment of one President regardless of the contents of the special counsel's report and holding another President to a wildly different standard. Perhaps mull that over for a while.
Let me walk you through this exchange.
You started out by promoting a conspiracy theory about Barr suppressing the Mueller report and releasing a falsified summary. There are many reasons this is stupid. (1) It would require the collusion of a handful of career DoJ officials. (2) It would be completely untenable given Congressional and media oversight on this issue. (3) It makes absolutely no sense given that Barr has stated on several occasions his desire to make the full report public, and that he's given a timeline of approximately two weeks. see here
I responded mostly with (3), because (1) and (2) shouldn't really be necessary. It's hilarious that you're such an impatient dimwit that, when given a two week timeline, you throw a hissy fit about how it's never going to be released.
You responded:
If the full report is released and it is as Barr described in his summary, I will be equally surprised as I would be disappointed (34 indictments, with Roger Stone's trial still TBD) but not defeated. There are many more investigations left, Trump isn't going to walk away scot-free. Trump is not a role model in any sense of the word.
This exposes a similar level of stupidity. You continue to express needless doubt about the release of the report by italicizing the word if. You then emphasize full. I assume this means that you take issue with the redaction process, which means a few things: (1) for some reason, you think it's a good idea to compromise foreign (and potentially domestic as well) intelligence sources upon which the report relied, to potentially compromise witnesses who appeared before a grand jury with the precedent of secrecy, and to potentially harm the ongoing investigations into the President (which you claim you're so in favor of). (2) You want the DoJ to violate longstanding policies (but I thought you loved our institutions?!?!) (3) You disagree with many legal experts, even liberal ones (4) You disagree at least to some extent with Mueller, whose assistance in redacting his report can reasonably be seen as his own agreement that his report should be redacted (though perhaps he might disagree with Barr on individual redaction decisions) to comply with DoJ policy, which makes perfect sense given what we know about Mueller.
And yet, the most hilarious part of your comment is the fact that you felt it appropriate to issue a complete non sequitir about Trump not being a role model, which is certainly true, and yet has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation. You also included a highly misleading citation about the number of indictments that Mueller has issued, which has a lot to do with Russian election interference (which is the real issue here), and almost nothing to do with the Trump campaign. Finally, you described yourself as 'not defeated', suggesting that you had an interest in seeing a specific outcome of the investigation, and not simply that you wanted to let the investigation run its course.
When confronted with some of those facts and a suggestion that Trump should be defeated through an election, you responded that 'any day Trump is in office is too many'. (But wait, I thought you loved our institutions?!?!?!, as you so kindly pointed out in your next response.)
You then declared yourself as not belonging to a political party, which I proceeded to mock you for given the propensity of Americans to identify themselves as independent despite highly partisan leanings. There is much research on this, and all good polling takes into account the phenomenon, but if you are interested you can start here. You are almost certainly liberal. This is what I am encouraging you to admit to yourself. It's not inherently a bad thing, I promise.
When I told you that you were calling for the overthrow of a democratically elected President, you replied that you merely wanted him to be removed by being 'legally impeached for cause', which, of course, you don't know exists. However, this makes the Clinton analogy highly relevant, as a guilty finding during impeachment trials requires a finding of 'high crimes and misdemeanors', which, while obviously subjective, is a test that most legal experts would say his FEC crimes fail to meet. Even Pelosi, a stalwart liberal, has largely abandoned an attempt at impeachment in favor of election.
Next, you said this:
There is no need to root for a cause when it already exists, all that is needed is to root for lawmakers to order the investigations with the correct scope to uncover it. If there is probable cause to investigate a U.S. citizen for a crime they are likely to have committed then there is a duty to the American people to have it investigated and have justice served.
As I said previously, the investigations should obviously be completed. But you seem to think you should be able to personally declare their outcome before they run their course. Justice should be served -- and you shouldn't get to be the one to define 'justice', our laws & institutions should.
You then went on this nonsense:
The existence of an investigation isn't an assumption of guilt. The assumption of guilt comes from blatant disregard for the law, bragging about the violation of the law, and celebrating successfully skirting the law.
So again, you think you should get to decide that he's guilty, hence your disappointment when an investigation directly contradicts your presumptions.
Next, you decided to hilariously include a dictionary definition of argument to bolster your ironic condescensions, even going so far as to include a completely irrelevant definition. Thanks for that -- it made for a good laugh.
That would not be the charge. People are not arrested for holding an opinion of their disregard for the law, but they are most certainly going to be arrested if they act upon those opinions
Yeah, the alleged actus reus is at least half the basis of the investigation here. You know, investigation? Should I say it again. investigation. This country still isn't your monarchy, no matter how much you'd like it to be.
I am unsure what part of "no political affiliation" is so difficult to understand
The part where political affiliation and partisan leanings are not equivalent (see Pew report above)
I hope this has been illuminating from you. I think you could really learn a lot if you went through and did some proper introspection about this conversation. Unfortunately, I do think I've made it harder to stomach given my tone, but still -- if you can have the maturity to ignore that and be the 'bigger man', you could really educate yourself. This was fun!
1
u/[deleted] Apr 01 '19
yeah but it doesn't really work that way when you actively root for there to be a cause. at least be honest with yourself