The Mueller Report, the persistence of Russiagate, and the conspiracy theory phenomenon
The reactions to the Mueller Report on the part of the press and the Democrats have been exactly as expected—ignoring collusion and focusing on supposed obstruction—and Mueller gave them plenty of red meat to energize them in their continued campaign.
Lots of people on the right are talking about what’s going on, but my favorite go-to-guy for anything legal, Andrew C. McCarthy says it soberly but says it best (and all the more meaningfully because McCarthy used to respect Mueller, was a long-time friend of his, and is no big fan of Trump) in an article entitled “Mueller completely dropped the ball with obstruction punt” [emphasis mine]:
The most remarkable thing about special counsel Robert Mueller’s 448-page report is how blithely the prosecutor reversed the burden of proof on the issue of obstruction…
Most important, the special counsel found that there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, and that the president’s frustration wasn’t over fear of guilt — the typical motivation for obstruction — but that the investigation was undermining his ability to govern the country. The existence of such a motive is a strong counter to evidence of a corrupt intent, critical because corrupt intent must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in an obstruction case…
In his report, Mueller didn’t resolve the issue. If he had been satisfied that there was no obstruction crime, he said, he would have so found. He claimed he wasn’t satisfied. Yet he was also not convinced that there was sufficient proof to charge. Therefore, he made no decision, leaving it to Attorney General William Barr to find that there was no obstruction.
This is unbecoming behavior for a prosecutor and an outrageous shifting of the burden of proof: The constitutional right of every American to force the government to prove a crime has been committed, rather than to have to prove his or her own innocence.
This is what I’ve been harping on for quite some time—that the anti-Trump Russiagate conspiracy theorists are requiring him to do something impossible, which is to prove his innocence. This is a violation of our entire system of law, but they don’t care, because their eyes are on the prize, which is to destroy Trump. The Mueller Report isn’t going to stop them, and wasn’t ever going to stop them, and in fact has given them plenty to go on with its “outrageous shifting of the burden of proof.”
McCarthy continues:
This is exactly why prosecutors should never speak publicly about the evidence uncovered in an investigation of someone who isn’t charged. The obligation of the prosecutor is to render a judgment about whether there is enough proof to charge a crime. If there is, the prosecutor indicts; if there is not, the prosecutor remains silent.
If special counsel Mueller believed there was an obstruction offense, he should have had the courage of his convictions and recommended charging the president. Since he wasn’t convinced there was enough evidence to charge, he should have said he wasn’t recommending charges. Period.
Anything else was — and is — a smear. Worse than that, it flouts the Constitution.
Outrageous. And yet that’s where we are.
The left and other anti-Trumpers would convict Trump of anything and everything, and forget about the Constitution they profess to hold dear (at least, some of them profess it; some think it’s just something a bunch of oppressive old white men wrote).
Now Trump is basically accused of thoughtcrime. He thought about maybe doing some things that would have at the very least interfered with the process of the investigation (such as firing Mueller), but desisted. As McCarthy writes:
…the special counsel’s evidence includes indications that the president attempted to induce White House Counsel Don McGahn to fire the special counsel (in June 2017), and then (in January 2018) to deny that the president had made the request.
Mueller’s report further suggests that the president dangled pardons…
Trump never fired Mueller, although he could have and arguably it would have been perfectly constitutional and legal to do so (and certainly more than understandable, especially since Trump knew that Trump was innocent and was probably in the process of being framed). He didn’t do things he was supposedly contemplating for a while, and whether he decided not to do them on his own or whether some aide or other convinced him not to is quite irrelevant. He didn’t do them, and he cooperated fully and completely with the investigation.
But this thoughtcrime offense is what the left is running with. And really, what choice do they have? The right sees them as looking foolish, but their fans see them as bravely leading the way. Ultimately they may end up destroying themselves (as Roger Simon points out in this piece). But for now I don’t see that they have any alternative but to keep going in the direction they’ve been going. It may be “time for Democrats to accept reality” (the title of this opinion piece by Elizabeth Harrington. But if they were to do so and move on, to what can they turn?
Some form of Russiagate has been their meat and potatoes for the entire Trump presidency. For a while it drove cable news and MSM ratings and readership, and although those rates have been falling lately, what else do the news purveyors (or the Democrats, for that matter) have? Joe Biden? AOC and the Green New Deal? Beto’s empty platitudes? The latest outrage from Ilhan Omar? So they turn back to the tried-and-true, seizing the lifeline Mueller gave them. And even though they know other things are coming—such as IG Horowitz’s report—they think if they repeat the Big Lie often enough it will somehow work its magic.
Maybe it will. I certainly don’t know. But I certainly hope not, because if that is the case we are headed for disaster.
Do the MSM and the Democrats believe their own conspiracy theories about Trump? I think that some do and some don’t, but the believers are quite numerous and it gives their drive more conviction. As with just about all conspiracy theories, we have the leaders and the followers, and the Democratic politicians and the press are the leaders here, and the Democratic voters are the followers. It helps if the leaders are true believers, but they don’t necessarily have to be.
Conspiracy theorists cling to their theories in the face of knowledge that contradicts those theories. Just take as one example the Kennedy assassination. I am pretty sure (based on previous experience here with my posts about the subject and the comments on those threads) that some of you ascribe to various such theories. They are very popular, have gone on a long long time, and have given rise to an enormous industry of books and many many websites to share and promote such theories. And they are 100% false.
I’m not going to argue it again; I refer you in particular, though, to this post of mine as well as this one. There’s much in there that’s relevant to now; the only difference is that the conspiracy theorists in the Kennedy case want to say that Oswald was innocent (or a co-conspirator) and that other people were behind him, and in Russiagate the conspiracy theorists want to say that Trump is guilty and to exonerate both themselves and the people who set Russiagate in motion.
On the question of whether the MSM believes its own Russiagate conspiracy theories, we have this relevant quote from Vincent Bugliosi about the Kennedy assassination conspiracy theorists :
The conspiracy theorists are so outrageously brazen that they tell lies not just about verifiable, documentary evidence, but about clear, photographic evidence, knowing that only one out of a thousand of their readers, if that, is in possession of the subject photographs. Robert Groden (the leading photographic expert for the conspiracy proponents who was the photographic adviser the Oliver Stone’s movie JFK) draws a diagram on page 24 of his book High Treason of Governor Connally seated directly in front of President Kennedy in the presidential limousine and postulates the “remarkable path” a bullet coming from behind Kennedy, and traveling from left to right, would have to take to hit Connally—after passing straight through Kennedy’s body, making a right turn and then a left one in midair, which, the buffs chortle, bullets “don’t even do in cartoons.” What average reader would be in a position to dispute this seemingly common-sense, geometric assault on the Warren Commission’s single-bullet theory?…But of course, if you start out with an erroneous premise, whatever flows from it makes a lot of sense. The only problem is that it’s wrong. The indisputable fact here—which all people who have studied the assassination know—is that Connally was not seated directly in front of Kennedy, but to his left front.
The point is that brazen lies don’t necessarily have consequences, and they convince many people. And if the truth doesn’t point the way one wants it to, unscrupulous people with a lot invested in their previous stories will turn to lies to bolster their credibility, and sometimes it works. They count on the relative ignorance of the public.
[NOTE: I may have more to say about this another time, but for now this post has gotten plenty long enough.]
Laws; such as laws of physics, not even laws passed by governments, rules, such as rules of evidence, logic and reason, they matter not to a conspiracy theorist. Don’t even think to ask about history, recorded or oral. Traditions and precedent? A Constitution or Bill of Rights? They (conspiracy theorists) are above all those things.
The persecution (and perhaps the prosecution) of thoughtcrime will, in all likelihood, become increasingly prevalent in the brave new world envisioned by leftists, aided and abetted by Big Media and Big Tech.
Belief in conspiracy theories is religious in nature. The belief is not BECAUSE of the evidence, but in SPITE of it. This sort of belief requires faith.
The concept of Russian/Trump collusion became dogma for the Dems and for most of the MSM. It was a matter of faith that the collusion occurred and that Mueller would find the proof (“…and the truth shall set you free.”) And now the messiah has just come down from the mountain and told them that it was all an elaborate hoax.
Is it any surprise that they are in mourning? They are clearly exhibiting first stages of grief, Denial and Anger, and are a long way from Acceptance.
Makes you wonder what would have happened with Barr as the AG. They knew he wasn’t going to buy their argument for obstruction so they went this route.
Bugliosi updated:
“The conspiracy theorists are so outrageously brazen that they tell lies not just about verifiable, documentary evidence, but about clear, photographic evidence, knowing that only one out of a thousand of their readers, if that, ” —
WILL GO TO THE TROUBLE OF LOOKING FOR THEMSELVES.
“The point is that brazen lies don’t necessarily have consequences, and they convince many people. And if the truth doesn’t point the way one wants it to, unscrupulous people with a lot invested in their previous stories will turn to lies to bolster their credibility, and sometimes it works. They count on the relative ignorance of the public.” – Neo
I quit bookmarking the MSM articles (left AND right) which “brazenly” lied or mis-stated what Barr said in his press conference. Some may have been just ignorant (sadly, not without precedent), but a lot was clearly malevolent.
Quoted by Ace today:
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/380942.php
Roy:
Mixing your metaphors a bit, such as who came down from the mountain. A bit tone deaf on this week. just sayin… 😉
Another nice compendium by Ace, including one directed at the flabbergastering writer, David French.
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/380948.php
Chris Buskirk: William Barr Was Right and the Media and Ruling Class Were Wrong About Everything. It’s Time for Them to Admit It.
Conspiracy theorists cling to their theories in the face of knowledge that contradicts those theories.
neo: I don’t think it’s that simple or it should include the likelihood that anti-conspiracy theorists equally cling to their theories in the face of knowledge that contradicts those theories.
It’s just good old confirmation basis. People believe stuff in line with what they already believe.
The ardent JFK anti-conspiracy folks were usually quite fundamentalist: “The Warren Commission said it, I believe it and that settles it,” even when it was clear they were ignoring troubling evidence to the contrary such as the counter-intuitive JFK headsnap or the original Warren timings on bullets fired or Ruby’s freakish success in killing Oswald while surrounded by LEOs and all the questions concerning Oswald’s mysterious associations and motives.
I don’t want to get into the weeds of the JFK assassination. I was never convinced there was a conspiracy but for a long time it seemed a strong possibility. Bugliosi settled those questions to my satisfaction and I moved on.
Most Warren Report defenders didn’t even try. They just harrumphed about “conspiracy theories” and “assassination buffs” and ignored contrary evidence. That’s plenty weak thinking as I assess these things. They get no credit from me.
Conspiracies happen. For instance, I say the current Deep State actors — Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page et. al. — were colluding and conspiring against Trump. You and most commenters here agree, I think.
But it is a conspiracy theory, which Democrats don’t buy and harrumph about. Don’t be absurd. After all Mueller and Comey were Republicans.
“If special counsel Mueller believed there was an obstruction offense, he should have had the courage of his convictions and recommended charging the president. Since he wasn’t convinced there was enough evidence to charge, he should have said he wasn’t recommending charges. Period.
Anything else was — and is — a smear. Worse than that, it flouts the Constitution.” Andrew McCarthy
What should be the consequence for a lawyer and high government official who purposely flouts the Constitution in a case upon which Constitutional order itself rests?
Disbarment seems the appropriate consequence.
And since the N.Y. State Bar Association will not bring disbarment proceedings against Mueller, the consequence for them should be the revocation of their licenses to practice before the bar.
When the organization responsible for professional ethical oversight abandons its sole purpose, it should be disbanded forthwith. Of course that also applies to Congress.
Politicians, lawyers, government officials, teachers, professors, etc., all professions that have a public responsibility, must be held to account when they behave in a manner injurious to the public’s welfare. That they are not held to account for their behavior is a large part of why America has devolved into its present circumstances. And they are not held to account because half the American public bases its moral compass upon personal feelings.
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams
IMO, by “a moral and religious people” Adams meant a people who base their moral standards upon the premise of a deity whose understanding of morality far transcends mankind’s necessarily limited perception. Mankind must believe itself ultimately accountable to a higher ‘court’ or as Dostoevsky pointed out, “If there is no God -then everything is permitted.”
“Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without.
It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.” Edmund Burke
Burke placed his finger firmly upon the issue; a people who cannot exercise self-discipline, will inevitably be ‘disciplined’ by those who see themselves as ordained to rule.
Another nice compendium by Ace, including one directed at the flabbergastering writer, David French.
I’ve gotten the impression that the most intense influence on David French and Jonah Goldberg is ‘in for a dime, in for a dollar’. It seems to trump every other consideration.
The Boston Globe just announced that Elizabeth Warren is calling for an immediate vote on impeachment. Everyone in the clown car is grabbing for the door frames so they won’t get kicked off.
Tinfoil Lizzie.
om,
I meant what I said. If you follow my comments, you will know that I am an Atheist. I view all forms of faith as intellectual weakness.
I had three immediate take-aways yesterday after watching the video of the press conference (about 2 pm), and the media responses to the report, which was released at 11am.
(1) Man, those pundits read fast! Some even claimed to have “read the whole report” by that afternoon or evening.
I can’t read a 500-page NOVEL that fast, and I am a very speedy reader. I suspect most did the same thing as my third-grader when he read LOTR: he skipped a lot.
That is, they looked at the precise parts of the report they were interested in, ignoring long passages of supporting or exonerating evidence, and shoe-horned it into their own theory.
(2) Man, those anti-Trump & Democrat pundits set a high virtue-bar for President Trump!
One seldom, if ever, cleared by any president, and that’s just the stuff that we know about.
Yes, they did different venal and/or corrupt things, but they were still venal and/or corrupt. Those who might NOT have been venal and/or corrupt were accused of it anyhow.
I can remember
hearingreading the taunts “Ma, Ma, where’s my Pa? Gone to the White House ha, ha, ha1” and even George Washington (gasp!) padded his expense accounts (and, oh yeah, he had slaves).At least David French didn’t publish his post until 10 pm, so he might even have read some of the report.
(3) Rod Rosenstein gave the most convincing impersonation of a Madame Tussaud Waxwork evah.
Footnotes:
(1) speedreading (a lot of posts don’t give times; some don’t even bother with dates)
Trump didn’t obstruct justice…because his surrogates wouldn’t do his dirty work
Jacob Heilbrunn -April 18, 2019 -1:58 PM
Mueller Report Details Trump’s Attempts to Influence Probe
By JACK CROWE -April 18, 2019 – 4:29 PM
The Mueller Report Should Shock Our Conscience
By DAVID FRENCH -April 18, 2019 -10:14 PM
(2) virtue-bar — well, just about everybody ojecting to Mueller’s conclusions, or the lack thereof.
(3) Ramrod Rosenstein – I went looking for someone else who had noticed his circus side-show taxidermic quality, as well as the identity of the Bearded Lady on the other side of Barr, and only got these two hits.
He is “Edward O’Callaghan, a former assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, who joined the Department of Justice earlier this month as a principal associate deputy attorney general.”
FWIW: Reading all of the titles of the FBI, DOJ, XYZ agencies the last couple of years has given me a new respect for Keith Laumer’s CDT.
(fair warning – Sarah Jones is not a conservative enabler of The Vindicated One, but her posts were kind of snidely amusing)
https://www.thecut.com/2019/04/rod-rosenstein-william-barr-mueller-press-conference.html
https://www.thecut.com/2019/04/bearded-man-barr-mueller-press-conference.html
The ardent JFK anti-conspiracy folks were usually quite fundamentalist: “The Warren Commission said it, I believe it and that settles it,” even when it was clear they were ignoring troubling evidence to the contrary such as the counter-intuitive JFK headsnap or the original Warren timings on bullets fired or Ruby’s freakish success in killing Oswald while surrounded by LEOs and all the questions concerning Oswald’s mysterious associations and motives.
Who do you have in mind? The subject of Kennedy’s head movements has been addressed again and again, and a casual consumer of magazine articles on the subject is surely familiar with the arguments pro and con. There was nothing ‘freakish’ about Ruby killing Oswald. It was 1963, and the sort of vigilance you’re retrospectively expecting was not common. Metal detectors in the inner city courthouse where I used to work were installed only in 1989, and only after a judge had been stabbed in his chambers. As for Oswald’s ‘associations’ and ‘motives’, try some inductive reasoning.
Impeachment, infanticide, immigration, sound like a trifecta of winning arguments for Democrats in 2020, but probably not.
I’ve gotten the impression that the most intense influence on David French and Jonah Goldberg is ‘in for a dime, in for a dollar’. It seems to trump every other consideration.
Art Deco: Pray tell, good sir, would you be so kind as to amplify on your (yet another) pronouncement?
I don’t agree with everything JP or DF say, but I read them as straight-shooters with integrity. In fact it is integrity that is their sore point with Trump, who is clearly not an individual with sterling integrity. Nor are many of those in his orbit.
I’ve made my peace with Trump’s lack of integrity, at least on the surface. There may be something harder and more solid deeper down. Otherwise, I don’t understand how he would be doing as good a job as POTUS.
Plus, of course, bragging, exaggerating to the point of deceit, and garden-variety fraud (Trump University) pale in terms of the wholesale lying, fraud and crime from the Obama and Clinton camps which have distorted the entire structure of the federal government.
That said, I found David French’s latest pearl-clutching over the Mueller Report silly.
A good summary of how the Democrat & anti-Trump changing positions continually contradict what they just said.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/04/mueller-report-release-william-barr-transparency/
I don’t agree with everything JP or DF say, but I read them as straight-shooters with integrity. In fact it is integrity that is their sore point with Trump, who is clearly not an individual with sterling integrity. Nor are many of those in his orbit.
I read them as soreheads who cannot adjust their conclusions in the face of new data. As for their integrity, I don’t think they’re lying; I think they’re being jerks.
Their current behavior is a huge testimony to the idea that such people really should not be in power, not the opposite as they see or wish it.
as i have said before, invest in ovens…
there is no brake on this train
and garden-variety fraud (Trump University)
The argument contra that project was that they hired people as instructors who were not real estate professionals, but cheesy rope-em-in sales types. This was the contention of the plaintiff’s attorneys, about whose utterances caveat lector. It wouldn’t surprise me if that were true, but since the case was settled out of court, some factual points are not established.
Art Deco & huxley – for you! (JP = JG??)
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/but-what-about/
By CHARLES C. W. COOKE
April 19, 2019 8:50 AM
“That said, I found David French’s latest pearl-clutching over the Mueller Report silly.” – huxley
Indeed.
On the scale of Never Trumpers Bill Krystol is by far the worst then Jennifer Rubin would be next for me then probably French.
Krystol because of his shamelessness Rubin for her many sudden total flip flops on numerous issues and French for his unending sanctimony.
Some of the others like Boot, Frum I had little respect for before so I don’t really care about them.
Goldberg may be the saddest of the bunch. Really used to enjoy his Friday column.
Apparently “Minority Report” is the most popular movie among Nadler, Warren, and the other Dems. Trump committed pre-crime!
Nadler, Schiff, et al remind me of the narco cops who get addicted while they’re undercover in the movie (IIRC) “Blow”. They literally tear apart their house to find just one more grain of dope. The Dems are tearing apart the Mueller Report to find just one grain of anti-Trump dope.
A pair of articles that show how much of a circus the “collusion” investigation was from the beginning.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/mueller-report-carter-page/
Where Does Carter Page Go to Get His Apology?
By RICH LOWRY
April 18, 2019 11:25 PM
More detail in this one.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/04/carter-page-is-mr-clean/
Carter Page Is Mr. Clean
By ERIC FELTEN
April 19, 2019 3:09 PM
RTWT
RoyNathanson:
And a sensitive atheist too (Nope). Notre Dame burns down, Holy Week is in progress and an atheist shows how smart he isn’t. You do your argument no favors by such tactics. Here is a hint, Moses came down from the mountain, not Jesus. You just sound ignorant of the faiths you mock. Bless your soul.
The comments on the old Kennedy assassination post were (of course) very interesting, particularly this one:
https://www.thenewneo.com/2011/06/18/the-kennedy-conspiracists-conspiracy/#comment-252132
Sergey on June 20, 2011 at 4:11 pm at 4:11 pm said:
Russian secret services never employ anybody with mental instability, in any capacity. This fact was so widely known during Communist epoch, that there was a standard trick (also widely known) to avoid being recruited into these organizations as informant without much fuss about it: play psycho. It worked every time, even if the recruiters knew perfectly well your ploy: they could not take a risk. This was a polite form of rejection of the offer.
* * *
That made me think about the US Armed Forces “section 8 discharge” for being mentally unfit for service; that made me think about Corporal Klinger in the M*A*S*H tv show (couldn’t get away with that kind of joke today!), and, well….
https://imgur.com/gallery/oebo7
Roy Nathanson on April 19, 2019 at 4:01 pm at 4:01 pm said:
Belief in conspiracy theories is religious in nature. The belief is not BECAUSE of the evidence, but in SPITE of it. This sort of belief requires faith.
* * *
https://babylonbee.com/news/cnn-god-allowed-the-mueller-report-to-test-our-unshakable-faith-in-collusion
Since Notre Dame came up tangentially, how about some good news?
https://nypost.com/2019/04/18/bees-living-in-notre-dame-cathedral-roof-survived-fire/
AesopFan:
Were they Babylon Bees?
There is also the insanity ploy in Catch 22 (by Joseph Heller) that Yosarrian learned about but didn’t save him IIRC.
Nunes reveals: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/devin-nunes-hidden-passage-in-mueller-report-shows-scope-memo-tainted-by-trump-dossier
**”When you look at what happened today, remember we talked a lot about the scope memo. What were the directions given to the special counsel? Well, we now know hidden on page 11, very thinly, still veiled, but we now know they used the Steele dossier, the Clinton dirt, the Clinton-paid-for dirt as part of the memo for the special counsel that directed the special counsel what to do,” Nunes told host Sean Hannity.**
I’m not a fan of Mark Levin stylistically because he gets so angry about everything that it dilutes things that he should be angry about but his rant on Fox News today was really good.
Hopefully guys like him and McCarthy will remember this in the future when commenting about the law even when it only involves the little guy. Their old pals are not who they thought they were.
Byron York: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/byron-york-mueller-michael-flynn-was-under-fbi-investigation-before-transition-calls
**Now comes news that there was an open, Russia-related investigation of Flynn before the Kislyak conversations ever took place. It’s unclear what such an investigation was based on, and what it involved. Were there wiretaps? Some other sort of surveillance? Informants? It’s all unknown, even after Flynn’s guilty plea and long period of cooperation. (Flynn is still awaiting sentencing.)**
om – forgot about Catch-22!
As for The Babylon Bee, it’s having to yield pride of place to the Associated Press.
https://www.redstate.com/ameliahamilton/2019/04/19/ap-insults-christians-description-notre-dame/
To say Twitter erupted would be too kind.
“Use of the word mecca, ignorance of history, and worship as an afterthought.”
“Okay, @TheBabylonBee, let’s see you try and satirize this headline:”
“Top notch work by @TheOnion right here… what the, WHAT?!”
Too bad about that goofy AP headline because the article is maybe the best I’ve read in the secular press about the religious significance of Notre-Dame. It’s opening paragraphs:
Sorry — didn’t intend to put so much text in the link. But the edit function wasn’t working, so… Also, make that “its” in my second sentence.
Ann – thanks for high-lighting the lede from the story.
It has long been a fact of life that the article writers don’t get to choose their own headlines. Still, the subordination of worship to tourism is evident in the factually accurate, but not very well-written, piece.
I think many people are also reacting to the totally tone-deaf use of “mecca” as a idiom for “popular destination,” which is not totally the headline writer’s fault, as the word is used in the article itself. That particular shorthand is always thoughtless (that’s what make an aphorism a cliche) and generally inappropriate, given that Mecca is a sacred site for Muslims, but under current circumstances in France it is particularly ignorant.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1119213535291166720.html
John Hayward@Doc_0
Stand by for important thread on how the Mueller report proves collusion by not finding any collusion because it takes collusion to cover up all the collusion I know was happening. I’ve asked Twitter to broadcast this to every single user except my therapist. Tweet 1 of 846.
Tweet 49 of 846: “Mueller.” Obviously a German name. Which Germany? East Germany probably. A Russian deep cover agent trained by KGB in the 80s, maybe even Putin himself. It was staring us in the face all along.
…
Tweet 389 of 846: I hear drums. Drums in the deep. They are coming.
…
om,
Religious conservatives chafe at being told that they need to be sensitive to the beliefs of Muslims. Yet you want me to be sensitive to the beliefs of Christians.
In a recent survey, 23% of Americans identified themselves as “None” when asked for religious affiliation. I think that it is you who should try to be more sensitive to the opinions of such a significant segment of the population. Actually, I am not expecting it… ?
But, it would be nice not to be called out on such an obvious analogy. Artfldgr found an article saying virtually the same thing as I did.
Do you refrain from criticism of Ilhan Omar and her overt racism just because it is Ramadan. I would think not. So why should I submerge my deepestly held beliefs simply out of fear that I might possibly offend you?
Do have a fine day, sir.
Roy Nathanson:
You have beliefs? An arrogant atheist who is sure he is “intellectually stronger” than non-atheists, a superman, who knew? Was it insensitive of me to question a specific Atheist, a representative of 23% of whatever? Nope. Try not to worry or fear Roy, this isn’t the Handmaids Tale.
Don’t hide behind the Muslim strawman, it’s not intellectually strong. Hint, don’t drop the racist card either.
You may have also have insulted Jews also with your “Messiah coming down from the mountain” “wit.” But bless your soul, we are all made in God’s image.
om,
Actually, it is the reverse. God is made in Man’s image. Every god ever invented by man seems to over represent man’s worst traits.
Roy, this is not a great site for constant agnostic atheistic arguing; hasn’t been; hope it doesn’t degenerate into another one.
Believers can certainly be non-rational about their beliefs. Whether religious, anti-religious, or belief in some event that never happened.
Those that believed that the Mueller Report would show that Trump colluded must come to grips with the fact, long “known” (strongly suspected?) to many of us, that there was no evidence of collusion, or of any crime.
This belief was always known to be falsifiable. Most religious beliefs are not falsifiable, and therefore not subject to the scientific method.
What is subject to that method, is comparing how extremist believers with different beliefs act, and making probabilistic estimates about future actions. Such estimates can then be checked with the facts, as they occur, or don’t.
Another fact about humans is that, as they change their beliefs, they can claim to themselves that they were never “really wrong”. I’m sure most Mueller Report believers are in the process of doing some versions of that, now. Also, some of them will just up and say, “They were lied to, they believed the lies by the Dem media and the Dem liars, and now … ?? (some will support Trump?)”
Mueller’s failure to find evidence against the non-guilty Trump is huge exoneration. The obstruction issues are going to be increasingly seen as distractions from going after the guilty deep state criminals: Comey, Lynch, McCabe; Clinton, Rice, Obama.
Actually, I’m waiting to find out the names of the 8 criminal referrals Nunes is supposed to be sending.
I’ll believe in indictments when I read that some of the criminals are indicted. I already believe they should be indicted, including HR Clinton.
Roy Nathanson:
You may have created a non-God for your mind. Others have considered the question of God at a far deeper and more rigorous level. You may want to read
“Five Proofs of the Existence of God” by Edward Feser.
ISBN 978-1-62164-133-9.
This life is short. God bless your soul.
Tom Grey,
Please read my first post in this thread. It was not offensive to anyone here and should not have been controversial. Yet, I have been defending myself since.
I request an end to the personal sniping. The question of religion—atheism vs. belief—is often a loaded one, and there’s no need for insults.
“Help, I’m being repressed!”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GS_1bzaj2fw
Everyone has moved to discussing obstruction; J. E. Dyer takes a long hard look at the allegations of Russian meddling, and how they didn’t make any difference to the election, until we were TOLD about them.
https://libertyunyielding.com/2019/04/19/mueller-report-the-unexplored-bias-of-the-russian-interference-in-the-election-case/
bonus article on who knew what and when
https://libertyunyielding.com/2019/04/18/the-2015-saga-a-weekend-with-john-brennan-and-bill-clinton/
huxley on April 19, 2019 at 5:18 pm at 5:18 pm said:
A pretty good post on fairness and balanced viewpoints. This sees the positive and negative traits of both pro conspiracy theorists and anti theorists.
Roy Nathanson I applaud, if only because he was able to elicit several paragraphs and posts in a debate with a christian that almost never makes those longer logical points to others. It was useful seeing the pro and con points made by members here, even if it led nowhere ultimately.
I am fine with Roy’s beliefs or lack of them. Not a threat to me personally or to my gods or to my Divinity. If I had to be respectful of other people’s beliefs, I would have to write some appalling apology to everyone after writing to them only a few sentences.
I burn it all down with Krittika, criticism, the sharp cutting blade. If it is pure, it will remain untouched from the Fire.
Also Neo, I don’t remember the JFK posts of yours that I have read, covering the issue with the SS removing their motor coverage of JFK’s vehicle, front and sides. JFK was out in the open and normal procedure would have the SS as escorts on the side, because they need to be close bodyguards not “far bodyguards” that can’t react in time to say, other vehicles or people ramming JFK.
This removal of the motor protection escorts provided a clear shot to the sniper(s).
Also, you have not covered the recent evidence unclassified by President Trum. There were several interesting details unveiled.