Objectively intelligent.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

No, you dolt, you said we could all trust the AG to be straight with Congress about what was in the Report because he wouldn't risk his credibility.

Are you suggesting this judge requesting the unredacted report is proof that Barr misrepresented the report? I'd say that's a judge's opinion.

Now, I know you worship the courts and all, but judges are not infallible. Hence, they have these things called courts of appeal. Perhaps you've experience with them?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

You were dismissing her in a gendered way. And as usual, when called on it, you just get defensive.

Note, no one said they were offended. You just made yourself look like a dick. Again.

Oh, here we go with the "defending yourself against my argument proves my argument" shtick. I'm not engaging that 7th grade debate team nonsense. The circular reasoning on which its predicated alone renders it the sort of thing that can only be addressed with an eye roll.

I'm not defensive. I'm telling you if we were sitting here among a group of people and you said what you've written above, I'd snicker at you and dismiss you as a screwball.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Are you suggesting this judge requesting the unredacted report is proof that Barr misrepresented the report? I'd say that's a judge's opinion.

I'm saying that a federal judge saying that Barr isn't credible is proof that you were wrong when you said, don't worry, Barr won't do anything to risk his credibility. And BTW, if other people's opinion is that you aren't credible, you're not credible.

Now, I know you worship the courts and all, but judges are not infallible. Hence, they have these things called courts of appeal. Perhaps you've experience with them?

OK, why don't you explain to me how the court of appeal is going to review the trial judge's determination that Barr is not credible and that he therefor needs to review the redactions made by DOJ himself. You're predicting that DOJ will file an interlocutory appeal of the judge's order that the report be produced in camera, and in the course of that proceeding the DC Circuit is going to say that the judge was clearly erroneous in finding that Barr lacked credibility?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I'm saying that a federal judge saying that Barr isn't credible is proof that you were wrong when you said, don't worry, Barr won't do anything to risk his credibility. And BTW, if other people's opinion is that you aren't credible, you're not credible.



OK, why don't you explain to me how the court of appeal is going to review the trial judge's determination that Barr is not credible and that he therefor needs to review the redactions made by DOJ himself. You're predicting that DOJ will file an interlocutory appeal of the judge's order that the report be produced in camera, and in the course of that proceeding the DC Circuit is going to say that the judge was clearly erroneous in finding that Barr lacked credibility?

I see now that the Guardian and the New York Times played down what the judge actually said, which is that "Attorney General Barr distorted the findings in the Mueller Report."

[sebastian_dangerfield]

I'm saying that a federal judge saying that Barr isn't credible is proof that you were wrong when you said, don't worry, Barr won't do anything to risk his credibility. And BTW, if other people's opinion is that you aren't credible, you're not credible.

It's evidence that I possibly was wrong, not proof I was wrong. I know this may break your understanding of the world, but the judge may be wrong, and his opinion is not final. He can say whatever he likes, and then someone can read it and say, "He's wrong," and say why.

OK, why don't you explain to me how the court of appeal is going to review the trial judge's determination that Barr is not credible and that he therefor needs to review the redactions made by DOJ himself. You're predicting that DOJ will file an interlocutory appeal of the judge's order that the report be produced in camera, and in the course of that proceeding the DC Circuit is going to say that the judge was clearly erroneous in finding that Barr lacked credibility?

Whoa there... Xanax perhaps?

I was not getting into any of the procedure or standards. I was merely saying we have these things called appeals courts because judges are often wrong and their opinions need to be judged by other judges.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Oh, here we go with the "defending yourself against my argument proves my argument" shtick.

Did not say that. Said you were, again, reacting defensively when called on your bullshit. It's not like it's unexpected.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Did not say that. Said you were, again, reacting defensively when called on your bullshit. It's not like it's unexpected.

Because you're full of shit. Calling people out for "gender" shaming, or whatever nonsense you wrote, is shit. It's frivolous. Silly holier than thou behavior.

That stupid bullshit is polluting all sorts of discourse. People talk about an issue and attempt to get to subtance, then some twit starts scolding one or both for some insensitivity, or alleged bigotry, and then we're off to the races... We have to endure some shitty, dull conversation involving a truckload of virtue signalling.

Dreck. Your critiques in this regard are dreck. Insipid shit no one is informed or enlightened for having heard.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Are you suggesting this judge requesting the unredacted report is proof that Barr misrepresented the report? I'd say that's a judge's opinion.

Now, I know you worship the courts and all, but judges are not infallible. Hence, they have these things called courts of appeal. Perhaps you've experience with them?

You: Barr would never misrepresent the report. He would never risk his credibility just to cover for Trump.

Federal District Court Judge (and Bush-appointee): "The Court cannot reconcile certain public representations made by Attorney General Barr with the findings in the Mueller Report”

“The inconsistencies between Attorney General Barr’s statements, made at a time when the public did not have access to the redacted version of the Mueller Report to assess the veracity of his statements, and portions of the redacted version of the Mueller Report that conflict with those statements cause the Court to seriously question whether Attorney General Barr made a calculated attempt to influence public discourse about the Mueller Report in favor of President Trump despite certain findings in the redacted version of the Mueller Report to the contrary."

You: Ah, whatever, judges are wrong all the time, that's why there are appeals!

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Because you're full of shit. Calling people out for "gender" shaming, or whatever nonsense you wrote, is shit. It's frivolous. Silly holier than thou behavior.

That stupid bullshit is polluting all sorts of discourse. People talk about an issue and attempt to get to subtance, then some twit starts scolding one or both for some insensitivity, or alleged bigotry, and then we're off to the races... We have to endure some shitty, dull conversation involving a truckload of virtue signalling.

Dreck. Your critiques in this regard are dreck. Insipid shit no one is informed or enlightened for having heard.

Poor little boy.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

It's evidence that I possibly was wrong, not proof I was wrong.

You said that we should be confident that Barr would represent Mueller's Report fairly, because he wouldn't want to risk his credibility. Do you not now see how wrong that was?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

How many weeks away are we from the following:

Trump schedules a rally. Local officials say, don't, COVID-19 risk -- no big groups! Trump says, f*ck that, I like my rallies. People come and then get sick.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

How many weeks away are we from the following:

Trump schedules a rally. Local officials say, don't, COVID-19 risk -- no big groups! Trump says, f*ck that, I like my rallies. People come and then get sick.

That would probably be the end of him. In the absolute sense.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Poor little boy.

There you go! Feels good, doesn’t it?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

You said that we should be confident that Barr would represent Mueller's Report fairly, because he wouldn't want to risk his credibility. Do you not now see how wrong that was?

My views on Barr are evolving.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Just not at SXSW: https://www.kxan.com/news/coronaviru...d-19-concerns/