• FBI conducted predawn raid of former Trump campaign chairman Manafort’s home
    66 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Chonch;52564114]I am sorry if I have upset you, that's not what I'm trying to do here. I'm familiar with the section you referenced, but i am not sure if it directly applies to Mueller's authorization. 600.4 - 600.10 are referenced specifically. It would appear Mueller is given the ability to look into criminal activity he sees as related to his investigation, but it is not the expressed purpose of the investigation to seek out such activity. Does this make sense? I am not intentionally misleading anyone, nor am I deliberately spreading false/misleading information, or lying. These are very strong charges, and I would not use them so flippantly if I were in your position. While this article is news to me, I do not believe it gives me any reason to change my stance on the question. Without a clear statement from Rosenstein -- who ultimately defines the boundary, scope, and aim of Mueller's probe, and clearly was not ever asked if this probe is now a criminal investigation -- this article leaves me with not much more than the brief comments of a few politicians, who may or may not have their own ulterior motives (political or otherwise) for giving the responses they choose to give to the press. I am particularly given pause by the reaction of Marco Rubio. Given this, and with respect for the seriousness of this subject as well as the great deal of knowledge neither you nor I have access to in regards to it, I am compelled to restrict my insight to what I know for a fact and can prove with documentation from primary sources -- such as Rosenstein or Mueller. To do otherwise would be be an irresponsible and unacceptable exercise of speculation on my part. I hope you can at least understand if not empathize with my decision here, as I do not take any pleasure in typing up these long form responses on my mobile device, and would prefer not to have to do so at all if the situation did not necessitate it.[/QUOTE] "I reject your reality and substitute it with my own." You're wrong, and you've been proven wrong. Blocks of texts don't make you less wrong. This is a criminal investigation by definition. If that makes you uncomfortable or threatens your worldview, tough shit - you don't get to deny it. You adjust your worldview based on the facts that appear - what you're doing is picking which facts you agree with to justify your worldview, which is how we got into this catastrophic mess in the first place.
[QUOTE=Chonch;52564114]I am sorry if I have upset you, that's not what I'm trying to do here. I'm familiar with the section you referenced, but i am not sure if it directly applies to Mueller's authorization. 600.4 - 600.10 are referenced specifically. It would appear Mueller is given the ability to look into criminal activity he sees as related to his investigation, but it is not the expressed purpose of the investigation to seek out such activity. Does this make sense? I am not intentionally misleading anyone, nor am I deliberately spreading false/misleading information, or lying. These are very strong charges, and I would not use them so flippantly if I were in your position. While this article is news to me, I do not believe it gives me any reason to change my stance on the question. Without a clear statement from Rosenstein -- who ultimately defines the boundary, scope, and aim of Mueller's probe, and clearly was not ever asked if this probe is now a criminal investigation -- this article leaves me with not much more than the brief comments of a few politicians, who may or may not have their own ulterior motives (political or otherwise) for giving the responses they choose to give to the press. I am particularly given pause by the reaction of Marco Rubio. Given this, and with respect for the seriousness of this subject as well as the great deal of knowledge neither you nor I have access to in regards to it, I am compelled to restrict my insight to what I know for a fact and can prove with documentation from primary sources -- such as Rosenstein or Mueller. To do otherwise would be be an irresponsible and unacceptable exercise of speculation on my part. I hope you can at least understand if not empathize with my decision here, as I do not take any pleasure in typing up these long form responses on my mobile device, and would prefer not to have to do so at all if the situation did not necessitate it.[/QUOTE] You're not making me angry, you're making me concerned and confused. Part 600 covers "general powers of special counsel", from the creation of a special counsel, the applications for said counsel, and everything that counsel would need to operate. By creating a special counsel, all of Part 600 is in effect because that's literally what makes a special counsel a special counsel... It may have been described to you as a "counterintelligence investigation" some where. However, a special counsel is, by it's very definition, an entity created to conduct criminal investigations. While it is dealing with intelligence/counterintelligence matters, to say that it is [B] only [/B] a counterintelligence investigation is to be disingenuous. To be told and explained to multiple times why it is not a counterintelligence investigation, and to continue to call such even still, is to be [I]genuinely[/I] disingenuous.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52564136] Honestly, I don't know why anyone bothers with you.[/QUOTE] Considering that someone recently get banned partly for 'being delusional', I half expect Chonch to be the next.
So I guess this was one of my biggest fears, speaking specifically about witnessing such self delusions as Chonch demonstrated here. We don't even work in the same reality anymore, there can't really be a bridge between us when the different political alliances almost seem to exist in different fundamental realities with their own sets of facts.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52564136]So, basically, you're ignoring firsthand sources reporting factual information from in-person briefings with Rosenstein confirming that this is, in fact, a criminal investigation as Fake News because it doesn't suit your political interests to acknowledge its legitimacy, and you fully intend to continue spreading intentionally misleading information in an effort to downplay the seriousness of the issues we are currently facing in order to unnecessarily cheerlead on behalf of your political role model? And all of this dishonesty is justified, in your mind, only for the fact that the Attorney General will not personally confirm what bipartisan leadership present at his briefings [I]have[/I]? [editline]12th August 2017[/editline] Honestly, I don't know why anyone bothers with you.[/QUOTE] How has he not gotten banned for this yet? This is basically an outright admission to willfully spreading misinformation which is negligently malicious at best and willfully malicious at worst.
He tries to frame his thought process as some sort of great search for a truth that everyone else has ignored, but it's so blatantly obvious that he's just desperately grasping at straws to avoid admitting something that contradicts his worldview.
It's difficult to pretend that someone as guilty as Trump is actually innocent, is all!
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.