ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags donald trump , Mueller investigation , Robert Mueller , Trump controversies , Trump-Russia connections , William Barr

Reply
Old 30th August 2019, 02:00 AM   #1
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 9,089
Mueller Investigation pt 7

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
He didn't wash his hands of it, he gave a comprehensive report on the affair.
... and then wanted to be never asked about it again

But as a former Prosecutor and Director of the FBI, he should aim beyond the bare minimum of telling his superior about a problem that he himself identified as of National Security, i.e. election interference.

Mod InfoContinued from here. You can quote or reply to any (on topic) posts from that thread here.
Posted By:kmortis

Last edited by kmortis; 30th August 2019 at 04:27 AM.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2019, 03:03 AM   #2
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,639
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
... and then wanted to be never asked about it again
Because he gave a comprehensive report that answered all the questions and the only response he can give is, "It's in the report."

Quote:
But as a former Prosecutor and Director of the FBI, he should aim beyond the bare minimum of telling his superior about a problem that he himself identified as of National Security, i.e. election interference.
He's not acting as a former Prosecutor and Director of the FBI, he's acting as a Special Counsel, and as such he is bound by the laws that say he must give his report to the USAG, and anything else has to be done with consideration to "the generally applicable Departmental guidelines concerning public comment with respect to any criminal investigation, and relevant law."

This is the thing, he isn't bound to your expectations, but to what he was legally required and then able to do. He doesn't have the ability to go around talking about it even if he wanted to because of the legal issues in that when speaking about the Report and investigation he is representing the DoJ and is bound by their rules.

Just because you expect something doesn't make it correct for him to do, or even legal. The issue is your expectations, not his actions.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2019, 04:46 AM   #3
jadebox
Graduate Poster
 
jadebox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 1,567
Quote:
What else is he supposed to do? If he had anything else to say, he would have put it in the report. The report is his testimony and that's all anyone can compel him to give.
What he is supposed to do is to answer the questions. We don't know that anything else he would need to say would have been in the report. That's one reason to call him to testify.

As a prosecutor, I don't think Mueller would have let a suspect or witness decide that they were only going to give answers that they would read from a specific book.
jadebox is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2019, 04:47 AM   #4
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 12,395
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
No, I brought this up while I was watching the testimony live - this is how people interpreted what he said, but I think the more accurate interpretation of what he said was that a sitting president could be prosecuted for crimes committed during the presidency once they had left office.

There was quite lengthy conversation about it in this thread at the time, if you want to go back and look.
I saw that, I still disagree

NADLER: Is it correct that if you had concluded that the president committed the crime of obstruction, you could not publicly state that in your report or here today?

MUELLER: Well, I would say you could -- the statement would be to -- that you would not indict, and you would not indict because under the OLC opinion a sitting president -- excuse me -- cannot be indicted. It would be unconstitutional.

NADLER: So you could not state that because of the OLC opinion, if that would have been your conclusion.

MUELLER: OLC opinion was some guide, yes.

NADLER: But under DOJ -- under Department of Justice policy, the president could be prosecuted for obstruction of justice crimes after he leaves office, correct?

MUELLER: True.
"the president", NOT, "a sitting president"
__________________
“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore - if they're white!"
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2019, 04:55 AM   #5
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 9,089
It's not just my expectations, Mueller himself has expressed his dismay at the level of Election Interference past and ongoing.
But it doesn't look like he is going to do something about it beyond kicking it up the Chain, where he knows nothing will be done about it as a matter of policy.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2019, 04:58 AM   #6
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 84,559
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
It's not just my expectations, Mueller himself has expressed his dismay at the level of Election Interference past and ongoing.
But it doesn't look like he is going to do something about it beyond kicking it up the Chain, where he knows nothing will be done about it as a matter of policy.
What would you have him do?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2019, 04:59 AM   #7
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,639
Originally Posted by jadebox View Post
What he is supposed to do is to answer the questions.
He did answer the questions. You just don't like the answers

Quote:
We don't know that anything else he would need to say would have been in the report. That's one reason to call him to testify.
He stated multiple times that everything he had to say on the matter was in the report and that it should be considered his testimony. What is it you don't get about that?

Quote:
As a prosecutor, I don't think Mueller would have let a suspect or witness decide that they were only going to give answers that they would read from a specific book.
What exactly do you think he could have done about if a witness had referred back to a document in evidence as his testimony? Do you think that Prosecutors have some sort of magical power that make people say the things they want them too?
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2019, 05:03 AM   #8
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,639
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
It's not just my expectations, Mueller himself has expressed his dismay at the level of Election Interference past and ongoing.
But it doesn't look like he is going to do something about it beyond kicking it up the Chain, where he knows nothing will be done about it as a matter of policy.
And what should he do? He's detailed the issue and sounded the alarm, he told the congressional hearing what the danger is. Should he put on his super tights and single handedly beat Moscow Mitch into submission until he is willing to let the legislation go to the floor for a vote?

This is the thing, you are creating expectations for him out of thin air and then lambasting him for failing to achieve those expectations. It's unfair and unskeptical.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2019, 05:12 AM   #9
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 9,089
I don't think it's unfair or unskeptical - the job of an investigator isn't done once and for all when he hands in his report; he also has to be willing to assist investigations resulting from his work - something that required a subpoena for Mueller to do.
In all fairness, Mueller is doing less than the bare minimum.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2019, 05:15 AM   #10
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 25,298
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
I saw that, I still disagree

NADLER: Is it correct that if you had concluded that the president committed the crime of obstruction, you could not publicly state that in your report or here today?

MUELLER: Well, I would say you could -- the statement would be to -- that you would not indict, and you would not indict because under the OLC opinion a sitting president -- excuse me -- cannot be indicted. It would be unconstitutional.

NADLER: So you could not state that because of the OLC opinion, if that would have been your conclusion.

MUELLER: OLC opinion was some guide, yes.

NADLER: But under DOJ -- under Department of Justice policy, the president could be prosecuted for obstruction of justice crimes after he leaves office, correct?

MUELLER: True.
"the president", NOT, "a sitting president"
Yes, but it still doesn't imply what you're inferring from it. It's like being asked the question "could the president take a trip to England after he leaves office?" The answer can be "yes" without implying that he has the motivation to. Here I believe Mueller was saying that it would be within DOJ guidelines for the president to be prosecuted for obstruction of justice once he's left office, not giving a concession that those are crimes that he has committed. In other words, I think there's an implied "if he is found to have committed such crimes" in Mueller's "true".

This is borne out by the fact that several times during the testimony he said that he never reached a conclusion as to whether or not Trump had committed obstruction of justice - that he specifically declined to reach a conclusion about that. I think it's a mistake to take this one interpretation of this one statement in isolation and ignore everything else that he has ever said on the matter, including during the same testimony. Including, in fact, in the portion of the testimony that you posted.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2019, 05:26 AM   #11
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 9,089
My core problem with Mueller is that he pretends to be non-political when clearly he is. I wouldn't mind so much if he didn't act like he had no choice but to avoid all litigation against the White House or Trump Campaign.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2019, 05:42 AM   #12
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 84,559
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
And what should he do? He's detailed the issue and sounded the alarm, he told the congressional hearing what the danger is. Should he put on his super tights and single handedly beat Moscow Mitch into submission until he is willing to let the legislation go to the floor for a vote?
I'd pay to see that.

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
My core problem with Mueller is that he pretends to be non-political when clearly he is.
Sorry, how is he political?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2019, 06:09 AM   #13
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,639
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
I don't think it's unfair or unskeptical - the job of an investigator isn't done once and for all when he hands in his report; he also has to be willing to assist investigations resulting from his work - something that required a subpoena for Mueller to do.
In all fairness, Mueller is doing less than the bare minimum.
You are just plain wrong here. A Special Counsel's job is over once the Report is handed over to the USAG. It's not the SC's job to prosecute or help with prosecution. That is the DoJ's job. You need to read up on the requirements and rules for the Special Counsel instead of making stuff up out of thin air.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2019, 06:36 AM   #14
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,151
Originally Posted by Belz...
Originally Posted by wareyin
In this case, it did.
In this case the failure is yours. It's quite clear.
In this case, there are only 2-3 of you claiming it is clear, which is a minority among those of us on this forum that agree Trump committed perjury. We even have a lawyer (iirc?) being lectured by Squeegee (who doesn't practice law iirc) about how to parse this "clear" testimony by Mueller. Face it, Mueller was not anywhere near as clear as he could have been.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2019, 07:11 AM   #15
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 84,559
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
In this case, there are only 2-3 of you claiming it is clear, which is a minority among those of us on this forum that agree Trump committed perjury.
Do I need to remind you that appeal to popularity is a fallacy?

Quote:
Face it, Mueller was not anywhere near as clear as he could have been.
Sure, he could've shouted TRUMP IS A LIAR AND A TRAITOR while writing it on a chalkboard, but that's only for the benefit of people who can't reat the report and understand what it says.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2019, 07:18 AM   #16
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,151
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Do I need to remind you that appeal to popularity is a fallacy?
Not when we are discussing how clear a description or communication is.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2019, 07:21 AM   #17
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,639
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
In this case, there are only 2-3 of you claiming it is clear, which is a minority among those of us on this forum that agree Trump committed perjury. We even have a lawyer (iirc?) being lectured by Squeegee (who doesn't practice law iirc) about how to parse this "clear" testimony by Mueller. Face it, Mueller was not anywhere near as clear as he could have been.
He was exactly as clear as he should have been, He wasn't there to make conclusions about the facts, but to deliver the facts.

The facts are that some of Trump's answers under oath were not consistent with other evidence. But that doesn't mean that he committed Perjury.

Mueller saying that Trump committed perjury would have been his making a conclusion and accusing a sitting president of a crime that could not be defended in court. It simply was never going to happen, and nor should it have happened.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2019, 07:29 AM   #18
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,151
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
He was exactly as clear as he should have been, He wasn't there to make conclusions about the facts, but to deliver the facts.

The facts are that some of Trump's answers under oath were not consistent with other evidence. But that doesn't mean that he committed Perjury.

Mueller saying that Trump committed perjury would have been his making a conclusion and accusing a sitting president of a crime that could not be defended in court. It simply was never going to happen, and nor should it have happened.
Thank you. I'll notch you down in the "Mueller did not clearly state Trump committed perjury" column. So this leaves us with Squeegee and Belz... as the only participants who seem to think Mueller did clearly state such.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2019, 07:42 AM   #19
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 84,559
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Not when we are discussing how clear a description or communication is.
It's no less a fallacy here. Whether or not I am a minority is completely irrelevant unless we're taking a vote, which we're not, and were you in the minority you wouldn't think it relevant, either.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2019, 07:45 AM   #20
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 84,559
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Thank you. I'll notch you down in the "Mueller did not clearly state Trump committed perjury" column. So this leaves us with Squeegee and Belz... as the only participants who seem to think Mueller did clearly state such.
I never said that he stated this. I said that he was being very clear where others said he was vague, including yourself.

The discussion is whether Mueller should have said more or whether he should say that Trump committed perjury. He was very clear about exactly what the facts are. I'm pretty much exactly where PhantomWolf is.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2019, 08:03 AM   #21
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 25,298
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
We even have a lawyer (iirc?) being lectured by Squeegee (who doesn't practice law iirc) about how to parse this "clear" testimony by Mueller.
I have no idea what you're talking about, but I do wish you'd stop trying to start fights between me and other posters.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2019, 09:22 AM   #22
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,151
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
It's no less a fallacy here. Whether or not I am a minority is completely irrelevant unless we're taking a vote, which we're not, and were you in the minority you wouldn't think it relevant, either.
Bollocks. If one person out of 100 (for example) claims something is clear while the other 99 disagree, then that one doesn't get to tell everyone else that they're wrong. As you are attempting to do. At best, it's clear to you but as you go on to state later, it wasn't even clear to you. You're just arguing for the sake of arguing now.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2019, 09:25 AM   #23
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,151
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
I have no idea what you're talking about, but I do wish you'd stop trying to start fights between me and other posters.
I'm not rising to your bait. If you can't figure out which poster you are lecturing this time, it's your own fault.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2019, 04:20 PM   #24
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,639
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Thank you. I'll notch you down in the "Mueller did not clearly state Trump committed perjury" column. So this leaves us with Squeegee and Belz... as the only participants who seem to think Mueller did clearly state such.
No you can just leave me out of it.

I think he was very clear in what he said as to the matter, and I understand Squeegee and Belz's position, that his being clear in giving the facts, it could very possibly lead to the conclusion that Trump committed perjury by being untruthful under oath in his written answers. In the same way Mueller didn't say that Trump had obstructed Justice, but the evidence he laid out does strongly lead to a conclusion of him having done so.

Now yes, because Mueller didn't take those facts and create a conclusion there is always the ability to say, well yeah there is evidence, but that doesn't mean he actually did it. But to do so really ignores the bulk of the evidence.

It's like saying we have the following facts:

(a) Bob told people that he hated Jeff and he was going to kill him.
(b) Bob purchased a gun and ammo
(c) Bob was seen by multiple people entering Jeff's office while carrying the gun
(d) Multiple people heard gunshots coming from Jeff's office after Bob entered
(e) Bob was then seen running from the office still holding the gun
(f) Jeff was found dead in his office
(g) The cause of Jeff's death was determined to be blood loss and trauma from multiple bullet wounds
(h) The rifling on bullets recovered from Jeff's body and office matched that on bullets later test fired from Bob's gun.

Did Bob kill Jeff?

Simply giving those facts clearly is not an accusation of murder, but taken together, the evidence if pretty overwhelming that Bob did indeed commit murder. Of course it is also microscopically possible that Bob took the gun into the office and handed to Jeff, who them used it to commit suicide, and Bob's defense and supporters might even argue that, but does that change that the facts for murder were clearly given?
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)


Last edited by PhantomWolf; 30th August 2019 at 04:21 PM.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2019, 05:39 PM   #25
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 84,559
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Bollocks. If one person out of 100 (for example) claims something is clear while the other 99 disagree, then that one doesn't get to tell everyone else that they're wrong.
They absolutely do. Being numerous does not make someone correct. Maybe those 99 just don't understand the English language very well.

I suppose that's one meaning of "unclear", but then one that's on the listener.

Quote:
At best, it's clear to you but as you go on to state later, it wasn't even clear to you.
That's a lie. I never said that.

Quote:
You're just arguing for the sake of arguing now.
No, you're just wrong. I know it's a difficult concept to grasp, and not wanting to admit it, you want to find a way to blame it on me.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward



Last edited by Belz...; 30th August 2019 at 05:41 PM.
Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2019, 06:15 PM   #26
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,639
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Bollocks. If one person out of 100 (for example) claims something is clear while the other 99 disagree, then that one doesn't get to tell everyone else that they're wrong.
So if one person said that it was clear that the Earth was a globe, and the other 99 claimed that they were wrong, it's flat, then the one isn't right? I believe that there is a fallacy here somewhere....
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2019, 06:23 PM   #27
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 84,559
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
So if one person said that it was clear that the Earth was a globe, and the other 99 claimed that they were wrong, it's flat, then the one isn't right? I believe that there is a fallacy here somewhere....
I believe wareyin is saying that since it's a matter of understanding, and not of facts, popularity is not a fallacy.

However, I think we've amply demonstrated that the "unclearness" of Mueller's testimony is simply due to reality not matching these posters' expectations.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2019, 07:34 PM   #28
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,151
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
So if one person said that it was clear that the Earth was a globe, and the other 99 claimed that they were wrong, it's flat, then the one isn't right? I believe that there is a fallacy here somewhere....
The claim was that when discussing how clear a description or communication is, numbers do matter.

Let's go back to the origin of this particular argument, shall we? Squeegee stated: "You don't have to "read between the lines" to recognise that Mueller accused Trump of perjury, or that he wasn't exonerated."

I responded that it wasn't as clear as that. Squeegee attempted to prove Mueller clearly accused Trump of perjury by quoted several back and forth exchanges from Mueller's testimony which do not amount to a clear accusation.

Lots of back and forth among many posters occurred, with the general consensus being that Mueller did not accuse Trump of perjury whether because he couldn't, he didn't want to appear partisan, or what-have you. Squeegee claims I was only making assertions and not arguments (as though proving the negative of his claims was my responsibility) and drops out.

At this point, Belz... jumps in to defend Squeegee that it was my mistake, and Mueller was clear in his accusation. At no point has anyone been able to provide a clear accusation or claim of perjury. Yet Belz... is quite adamant that Mueller was clear in his accusations, and the fault in not seeing that is mine. We have 2 posters who originally claimed the accusations were clear, and we have far more than 2 arguing that not only was there no clear accusation, Mueller was unable to give one. Of course at this point, Squeegee has stopped making the claim and Belz... is arguing for the sake of argument again.

So we do not even have one person out of all participants arguing that there was a clear accusation of perjury. We at best only had one, maybe 2 arguing that there was. If only 1 or 2 people out of a group can understand your description, you didn't provide a clear description.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2019, 07:36 PM   #29
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,151
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
I believe wareyin is saying that since it's a matter of understanding, and not of facts, popularity is not a fallacy.

However, I think we've amply demonstrated that the "unclearness" of Mueller's testimony is simply due to reality not matching these posters' expectations.
Which posters? The posters that I was arguing with who claimed there was a clear accusation of perjury? (that would be Squeegee originally, then you)
Or the general consensus now among posters (including you, apparently) that Mueller did not clearly accuse Trump of perjury?
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2019, 12:53 AM   #30
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 25,298
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
I'm not rising to your bait. If you can't figure out which poster you are lecturing this time, it's your own fault.
O..kay...
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2019, 02:26 AM   #31
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 84,559
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Which posters?
...the ones who expected Mueller to say Trump had committed perjury.

Dude, we were just talking about that. Pay attention, for pete's sake.

Quote:
The posters that I was arguing with who claimed there was a clear accusation of perjury? (that would be Squeegee originally, then you)
Quote me.

Quote:
Or the general consensus now among posters (including you, apparently) that Mueller did not clearly accuse Trump of perjury?
I suggest you go back and read the exchanges again because I think we lost you somewhere.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2019, 08:33 PM   #32
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 30,168
Mueller played within the rules he was given and also played the "be as non-partisan as can be" role too much. He was trying his best to not make this seem a witch-hunt, which is was not. Because of this, Mueller's investigation produced no immediate actions.
By doing this, he was unlike Ken Starr, who was on a witch-hunt and was partisan AF. Starr's tactics produced an impeachment for a process crime.
__________________
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

Last edited by thaiboxerken; 31st August 2019 at 08:34 PM.
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st September 2019, 02:22 AM   #33
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 84,559
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
Mueller played within the rules he was given and also played the "be as non-partisan as can be" role too much. He was trying his best to not make this seem a witch-hunt, which is was not. Because of this, Mueller's investigation produced no immediate actions.
That's on Congress, not Mueller.

I'm sorry that the special prosecutor wasn't the saviour of America that many would have wanted him to be, but it was never going to be the case that he would slay the dragon for us.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st September 2019, 03:24 AM   #34
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 30,168
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
That's on Congress, not Mueller.

I'm sorry that the special prosecutor wasn't the saviour of America that many would have wanted him to be, but it was never going to be the case that he would slay the dragon for us.
Congress shares the blame, yes. However, if Mueller wanted to, he could have gone full Ken Starr and made it very hard for Congress not to pursue impeachment.
__________________
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st September 2019, 08:59 AM   #35
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 23,904
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
Congress shares the blame, yes. However, if Mueller wanted to, he could have gone full Ken Starr and made it very hard for Congress not to pursue impeachment.

Starr got the job because he was an attack dog.

Mueller got the job because he wasn't.
__________________
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."

"Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st September 2019, 02:48 PM   #36
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,639
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
Congress shares the blame, yes. However, if Mueller wanted to, he could have gone full Ken Starr and made it very hard for Congress not to pursue impeachment.
Not really, the rules got changed after Starr exactly because Starr did what he did.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st September 2019, 07:07 PM   #37
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 30,168
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Not really, the rules got changed after Starr exactly because Starr did what he did.
I don't think so. I think Mueller was hamstrung from the beginning because Republicans would only agree to an independent investigation as long as it had no teeth. I also still believe Mueller could have done more than he did.
__________________
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st September 2019, 08:10 PM   #38
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,639
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
I don't think so. I think Mueller was hamstrung from the beginning because Republicans would only agree to an independent investigation as long as it had no teeth. I also still believe Mueller could have done more than he did.
The report has plenty of teeth. It's up to Congress to use them, which they seem to be rather slow to do so, though a lot of the house are certainly talking towards that with well over half the Democrats now openly calling for impeachment.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st September 2019, 08:20 PM   #39
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 30,168
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
The report has plenty of teeth. It's up to Congress to use them, which they seem to be rather slow to do so, though a lot of the house are certainly talking towards that with well over half the Democrats now openly calling for impeachment.
Enough teeth for reasonable people, but not enough to shame Trumpublicans into doing the right thing.
__________________
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st September 2019, 11:23 PM   #40
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,639
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
Enough teeth for reasonable people, but not enough to shame Trumpublicans into doing the right thing.
Nothing was going to be enough to that. Mueller testified that the Russians were attacking the US as he spoke, and that they were planning to interfere in the Elections in 2020, and other countries were developing the techniques to do the same. He couldn't have been more clear or forceful in his message. And the reaction of Moscow Mitch? The very next day, he blocked legislation that would have given Federal help to the States to combat any such attacks.

Mueller could have jumped on the table and screamed that Trump was as guilty as sin and the Trumpublicans would still being ignoring it. Blaming him because they refuse to accept the bleeding obvious is targeting the wrong person.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:30 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.