The Mueller Report thread

[Dill]

(04-22-2019, 11:45 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I guess there are some that feel being called bias and lazy is not a personal insult, I just happen not to fall in that category.

Make fun all you want, no one will stop you, but my opinion is I will rely on experts in the field to provide me with specifics the rest in innuendo. We all have bias as to recognize them is a plus. I am doing just that. I have not given my opinion (other than I have none) on the content of the report. 

Once again you lie to slur. No where have I said I refuse to educate myself on the topic; I simply said I have no inclination to read the 500 page report.

I'm willing to go out on a limb and suggest anyone who read the full report or claim to have done so. Have little if any more insight than I from getting mine from multiple reports on the report by those that are much more versed on reading legal documents than I. 

BTW, you might want to make fun of Pat. I understand he went to the beach this weekend instead of educating himself on the Mueller report.

Bfine, The NYT and WaPo and networks like MSNBC, CNN, CNS and NPR have all pretty much agreed on the obstruction story, presenting legal experts comments on specific examples of obstruction.

Others on this thread have been presenting THAT expert commentary to you along with examples of the evidence--not their unversed legal opinions. 

I think Dino and others are just a little perplexed that, given their ubiquity online at the moment, you cannot seem to find either the examples of the aforesaid expert commentary or of legal accounts of obstruction.  Outside of Fox News (which you never watch), and Barr, who himself clearly misrepresented the Report while asking us to just trust him, there is no one who thinks Trump was simply cleared of obstruction. It is not as if were just "mad" and didn't understand executive privilege and the underlings he ordered to break the law were just "setting him straight."  (That was Barr's spin. Is he your example of someone you can trust, "more versed on reading legal documents"?) Why would they have to set him straight over and over again over the course of a year?  Why would he fire Comey and publicly state it was because he continued the Russia investigation? Why would he appoint AG's likely to act as personal counsel? And why do we want some one in the top office in the land who has to be "set straight" over and over again?

Instead you frame your disagreement with others on this thread as your skeptical, no-nonsense, not-easily-fooled self that won't rely on "innuendo" vs people who are just making groundless claims and apparently relying on innuendo.

That is perhaps why Dino thought you biased and lazy. You're pushing Barr's contested framing of the obstruction issue while ignoring the ubiquitous counter-evidence to that framing.  So you appear to be selecting experts with the opinion you want (bias) and not fact-checking them (lazy). 

Rather than turning description into a "personal attack," you should be demonstrating why your "experts" should be taken more seriously than MSNBC or the NYT's.