Of course you can't, it would challenge the doctrine of your religion, its heresy. The faithful must avoid such evil. The world is binary, Resistance or MAGA, there can no other option.
Sooo, not taking a stance based on belief is somehow the "doctrine of [my] religion"? Do you read your comments to yourself in your head as you write? Possibly after? You really should.
No, it's your binary nature that indicates a "religious" sort of attitude. It's either accept my beliefs or you must be part of the other side.
Politics is not binary. Trump is not binary. Rejecting one side is not an endorsement of the other. Both are often full of shit.
Nope. Independents notice it all the time.
Notice what?
That the world is not binary. That rejecting one side is not endorsing the other. That both are often full of shit. Hence, independent.
For crying out loud, I'm an independent. Why should I let you speak for me?
I am not speaking for you, I am correcting your bad guesses and mistakes.
Once again, I provide a specific example...
You provide party line misrepresentations, and when these are not accepted you accuse others of being mega. Such binary thinking is very atypical of an independent.
No, it wasn't Trump that lowered the bar, it was Biden, ...
Not on lawfare. Obama, then Biden, used gov't in an attempt to persuade voters to ignore a presidential candidate. That's fine for political parties, not gov't itself.
Actually I cited the Mueller report, which I read at the time. As I read various other primary sources, at the time
Name dropping is not the same as citing.
Citing Mueller's repeated claims of no collusion with the campaign, party, or Trump himself is not name dropping. Its citing what Mueller wrote.
You not hearing about these inconvenient truths inside you info silo does not make then untruths
See, the whole point here is that this is not an information silo. This is a discussion where, if you have specific information, you can provide it.
It would be far better for you to stray outside your silo and google it yourself. You could learn something.
The fact that you don't and just seem to be claiming that, if I weren't inside some posited information silo, I would just know the things you claim to know, suggests it is you that lives inside a silo.
Nope. I'm able to state the left, right, and independent perspectives of various issues. You seem only capable of providing the left. And then being rather close minded and willfully ignorant, refusing to do a google yourself.
>It's not irrelevant to the assertion made: that "lawfare" in that context is just a whiny excuse for being prosecuted for crimes by Republicans.
Nope. "Lawfare" was used in the context of government officials and agents being the law and procedure and norms to manufacture a narrative they knew to be false. Not to get a conviction, but to deter voters from supporting a candidate.
It is also interesting that you say that his prosecution has nothing to do with Trumps
The facts speak for themselves. Those prosecuted were overwhelmingly prosecuted for lying to federal agents, not over any collusion with Russians. That just the false conflation the dem party uses to mislead people.
The Mueller investigation explicitly avoided making claims against Trump citing DOJ policy forbidding indictments against a sitting President.
Now you conflate things to mislead. Again, very TDS like behavior, not so much independent behavior. The potential charges are with respect to obstructing an investigation. That is something separate. Again, Mueller explicitly stated, multiple times, that there was no evidence of collusion with the campaign, the administration, or Trump himself. Novel theories of obstruction are something entirely different.
It was delivered to the FBI fraudulently in terms of the person handing it over and its provenance.
How was it delivered fraudulently?
A Clinton attorney misrepresented himself to the FBI. Misrepresented the document's origin as paid research from foreign assets.
Who was the fraud against?
Initially the FBI. Then pro-Resistance FBI officials misrepresented it the FISA judges in order to get warrants.
Wrong. You are mistaken to think the goal of the lawfare was a conviction in court. The goal in the lawfare was to deter voters from considering Trump as a candidate.
The first part of that statement: "Wrong." is about me stating that they did not use the dossier in court.
They used it to defraud a FISA judge to get a warrant.
Actually, no. FISA expect evidence to be of a certain quality and legitimacy.
Sure. As I have already pointed out, in 99.96755% of cases,
Again, BS stats, Stats 101 caveat, "all other things being equal". 99.97% of cases are not bootstrapped with fraudulent evidence.
... the FISA courts grant a warrant for the request. It boggles the mind to even consider the possibility that their standards are so incredibly stringent that the evidence provided was lacking.
DOJ said the dossier was too unreliable to bring before a judge. The Pro-Reistance FBI officials brought it before a judge and misrepresented it.
Does not change the fact that suspected fraudulent evidence is not permitted. Even in your straw man police informant scenario. The informant's "evidence" still needs some credibility.
Only you seem to be claiming that it's fraudulent.
Again, you tout the party info silo. Step ousted, google, read things from independent sources. Gov't sources even.
There was sufficient credibility for the FISA court.
Actually FISA judges have stated they would not have accepted the dossier had they known its true origin. The judges say it was misrepresented to them.
Also, how is the police informant scenario a "straw man"? You keep using that phrase, I don't think it means what you think it means.
It's a straw man because you substitute a different defendable scenario for the actual undependable scenario. Evidence has to be credible to get a warrant, even evidence from a police informant. If an informant is known to be reporting something fraudulent it cannot be used. So it is something quite different than the dossier, not the heresy you false misrepresented things as.
You can keep telling yourself whatever you want, but there's never been any evidence of any outright fraud.
FISA judges say otherwise. Unreliable evidence was false presented to them as being credible.
>Wow. Talk about wallowing in ignorance. I mean, not being able to look up the numbers yourself is one thing, but not even knowing what the numbers actually are supposed to represent, even though it's right there in my post. To clarify, since you seem to have somehow missed it. The "99.97%" is not about any percentage of evidence being fraudulent (I can't really parse your sentence to quite figure out what you're even claiming there, but it's clear you're talking about fraudulent evidence. The "99.97%" is the percentage of FISA warrants that are approved. In other words, the percentage rejected is vanishingly small.
Nope. Warrants approved assumes the evidence behind the warrants were credible Stats 101 failure on your part. "all other things being equal fails".
Or in other words, you can't actually stick to what is actually being discussed, you have to distort whatever the other person is saying to twist things so that you can write about your own pet peeves.
Nope. It was an example of lawfare. Gov't pro-Resistance agents acting to persuade voters against a candidate, not actually convict the candidate.
You do understand that operatives in US campaigns accepting money from foreign governments intended to "soe [sic] chaos" is still something that is a perfectly legitimate basis for an investigation,
It was investigate, and Mueller found it to be insignificant in scale, unlikely to have altered the outcome of the election. But the real point here is that any such exchanges of money is something entirely different than the dossier.
right. Of course, plenty of sources seem to confirm that the Russians did, indeed, favor Trump as their candidate.
Money was spent attacking Hillary, Bernie, and Trump.
the Mueller report very specifically did not exonerate Trump.
Never claimed it did. Just that it repeated claimed no evidence of collusion.
