EAllusion wrote: ↑
Sun May 10, 2020 1:26 pm
Just because you are a sucker for middle-brow pundit articles that attempt to manufacture a case for a position where there is no reasonable doesn't mean you are considering a case like a very serious intellectual while people you are interacting with are not. That you can't fathom that other people are also weighing the evidence if they don't have your own fallacy of the golden mean hangups is like 75% of the problem here.
The very serious, reasonable position is not that while Flynn seems shady, regrettably the FBI poisoned its own case by engaging in misconduct and now have to lawfully drop charges. That's wrong on several different fronts, and represents you buying into a bad-faith, misleading series of arguments regarding law enforcement misconduct. You do this while trying to seem sober-minded by acknowledging that mayhaps Flynn isn't a good actor. That you call denial of that "extremism" is just ridiculous. And no, this isn't the first time you swallow the bulk of some propaganda effort while not going whole hog and cross your arms thinking this makes you the clear-thinking one.
Let's see. On the one hand we have Flynn lying to the FBI about his having talked with Kislyak. He plead guilty to it, and obviously and publicly acknowledged wrongdoing. It's not viewing him as "seeming shady".
But on the other hand, early reporting on the conversation assert Flynn was acting under direction of Trump as a candidate when it turned out he was doing so as a member of Trump's transition team post-election. You keep asserting it was "plausibly" part of a deal to swing the election. Conjecture isn't fact. And it's at odds with the known facts.
So what we have is a case where Flynn broke the law in lying to the FBI, but the subject he lied about being...complicated. With the John Dehlin asserting they don't feel they can defend the case given recent review of FBI investigative documents and recommending it be dropped, we will see next week what the judge in the case has to say about it.
And that's it.
Or, you know, RAGEBERRY JAM the internet's!!!!
That you don't do this on subjects like global warming is a borderline miracle and probably just represents a specific area that you have some paraprofessional expertise in that insulates you from taking a manufactured middle-ground . So at least I'm spared being called an "extremist" there.
In case anyone ever doubts EAllusion is a class act.
There is zero evidence inserting the Mueller investigation into that would have been beneficial to the case.
Yeah, no evidence at all. I mean, it's not like the report details out with extensive evidence numerous episodes of impeachable conduct or anything.
This is amazing. Point at the evidence, say, "See!!!??" And then fold arms with satisfaction. Yeah, that worked great for the Democrats so what would have made it really successful would have been to bring in the subject of countless hours of news, previous House committee public relations trainwrecks that entrenched rather than resolved partisan division, and the already publicly recalcitrant Bob Mueller for one more run on CNN. That sounds effective.
Hey, remember after the truncated impeachment when Trump massively increased an ongoing effort to purge and replace with amoral hacks all the government non-loyalist inspector generals, justice department attys, intelligence officials, and now military leadership while simultaneously retaliating against anyone who blew the whistle on his admin's malfeasance? Do you think that would've occurred during impeachment?
We've disagreed multiple times over the purpose of impeachment proceedings. In the above, you are again going public with their being used as a political tool rather than one for seeking justice. Using ongoing impeachment proceedings as a check on the opposition party? Jesus Christ. Do you even hear yourself? Can you even think past the current moment to reflect on the Pandora's Box that opens? Good God.
Remember how during impeachment house managers brought a crazy, worst scenario case in which the President would try to condition federal disaster relief on political loyalty, then President Trump did that exact thing not a few months after with likely deadly consequences and that's just a thing we tolerate now? Do you think that would've happened if impeachment were ongoing?
Ongoing? Jesus. Had the Democrats actually pursued the matters brought up or created during the impeachment proceeding prior to drafting and voting on articles I think we'd have been more likely to see the concerns resolved or opposed rather than what happened with impeachment - that being it was exploited and politicized to damaging effect.