The Mueller Report thread

[Dill]

(04-22-2019, 01:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I have not taken taken the word of one expert over another; you'd have to show me where I have done than instead of simply claiming it. I am taking the action(s) of our elected officials as my statute. I'm not even taking their words as they can be biased as well. 

As to Comey, I think it was pretty much universally accepted that he failed in his duties. I have not pushed Barr's framing nor have a pushed POTUS' stance of complete exoneration. From the very beginning I have said the complete un-redacted report should be made available to a qualified bi-partisan committee.  I have simply stated I have no intention of reading a 500 page, highly redacted, legal report and place my judgement in the findings of the experts. Do you think you and I could read a report on a zone reconnaissance and come up with the same conclusions?

But you'll forgive me if I consider being called lazy and bias to be a slur.   

Well I won't forgive you if you ARE being lazy and biased.   You did say that you preferred to rely on others' legal opinions.

Instead of simply claiming you have taken the word of one expert over another, I'll show you your own post--the one in which you clearly DO accept Barr's framing.  Outside of Fox news commentators and Barr, who else is saying Trump did not obstruct?  

(04-19-2019, 04:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As of 4/19/19 bfine's mindset is:
Russia tried to meddle in the 2016 Presidential Election
There is nothing to point to the fact that Donald Trump colluded with Russia in this meddling
Trump was mad that he was becoming the focus of the report and felt he had certain Executive privileges and over-estimated them, but was set straight by counsel.
Trump did not obstruct the investigation.

How is this not exoneration?
Instead of simply claiming you were being lazy, I'll show you the same post Dino was reacting to:

(04-19-2019, 02:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Oh I didn't mean nothing in the literal sense; I concede it has a lot of words in it. The purpose of the report was not to determine how Barr Acts as AG; it was to determine if their was Russian collusion/influence/medaling in the 2016 election. media made it more of an indictment into "Trump and the Russians". Until I am talking about President Pence I'm going to consider it to be nothing of merit.   One's bias will determine the damnation and I doubt 1 person that was already anti-trump will be swayed same as anyone pro-Trump.

I've asked for one example of obstruction listed in the report and all I get is "read the report". I have 0 inclination to read a document that I felt was not needed to be made public in the first place. have unbiased, qualified folks read and let them report.

Trump once said (paraphrasing) "I could shoot someone and not lose voters"; similarly he could save a life and not gain any. Folks minds are set.

While others are looking at evidence to determine what they should believe, you are ignoring evidence and asserting people will just believe what they want. And so you have "O inclination" to read the evidence directly, and 100% inclination to repeat a narrative created for Trump supporters.

Then you claim Dino has "slurred" you because that's just what it is when one person says someone else is lazy or biased--dismissing whether or not the terms are actually describing your behavior.  This is the same kind of disjunct apparent in your claim people just hate Trump, and that is why they criticize his disgusting and unpresidential behavior.  They don't hate him because he is unpresidential and disgusting.  A similar separation of cause and effect in both cases.