The Mueller Report thread

[*bfine32*]

(04-22-2019, 02:26 PM)Dill Wrote: 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?  
How is this not exoneration?
Instead of simply claiming you were being lazy, I'll show you the same post Dino was reacting to:


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.

As I thought you are unable to show me where I have taken one expert's opinion over another. Yes, I accept the DOJ's findings. Didn't he actually says Trump could not say yes or no to obstruction by Trump? I did read his report (does that count?) Now it's up to congress to determine if they accept the findings and it seems they did as they wanted to know more about possible obstruction.

Please share with me what insight you gained from reading the full report. Then maybe we can see if someone were being lazy or prioritized the implicit cost of their time and efforts. 

Only in PnR can being called lazy not be considered a slur. But of course it does matter who is doing the slurring. Can we at least agree that the reply was more and the person posting it than the subject at hand? I've heard we're not big fans of that, but of course with given earlier disclaimer.