Ministry of Truth?

[Dill]

(05-17-2022, 10:22 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: Holy word salad, Batman. 
Am I conversing with Kamala Harris? 
I think we need to work together so that we can understand that working together will allow us to understand how important it is to work together to better understand how important working together is. 

If Im reading that right, Prasad is saying what you are claiming Califf's counter argument would be. 

BTW, it has been duly noted that you've yet to answer the question "if what was in the Mueller Report was so damning, why hasn't Merrick Garland indicted Donald Trump?"

Also, you skirted around addressing Biden's new Press Secretary lying and spreading misinformation in 2020 about Brian Kemp stealing the 2018 Georgia Gubernatorial election from Stacey Abrahams. 

Sounds like you missed my point about Prasad. YOu think it "word salad" if I say that identifying misinformation (and rather easily at that), is not the best way to argue that identifying misinformation is too difficult to entrust to government?  What do you think his argument is? Is yours that, because one official tried to scare people into taking a serious problem seriously, government is not to be trusted with vetting and promulgating medical research/information? For the history of small pox and polio vaccine have settled that. I'm glad the government steps in to insure that our food is hygienically prepared. I'm glad they protect dying people from scams like Laetrile. I'll bet Prasad agrees. So why is he using this minor example to undermine trust in government in general?   

As for Garland and the Mueller Report, I think the Juresic/Wittes article sums it up well enough. They give 5 reasons why Garland may or may not be acting on this.  I am fine with everything they say. What could I add? I hope you are not trying to argue that if Garland is not prosecuting, then the documented obstruction really wasn't there, and really wasn't illegal.

You have thrown up a lot of Youtube presentations. It would be difficult to respond to all. And it seems a bit one sided if I write
pages of critique and then you just post MORE videos or articles and want immediate answers, as if I were somehow shirking or deflecting.

Look at the work I have put into the first one you sent. Your man clearly had Mueller Report wrong. He was clearly
mislead by Barr, and was misleading his viewers. But you have not addressed that at all. Do you agree with my critique? 

So to repeat myself--why not begin with primary sources, with the Report itself, BEFORE throwing out other people's opinions as a kind of proxy argument? Why trust THEM before working through the evidence yourself? What is your arguments in your words, based on what? Mueller says Trump obstructed justice a number of ways, attempting to falsify documents and firing someone investigating him. That did Nixon in. So before you again show me what someone else said, tell me if YOU think Trump obstructed justice, and if not, why not? Do you agree that he did what Mueller says he did? If not, why not?

Meantime, on my side, I want to continue with the second "Russiagate" video. I'm kind of busy but hopefully I can post that tomorrow.