Trump may have gone too far now.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

Even Barr's summary specifically says that the report does not exonerate Trump, at least not from the obstruction of justice allegation:

Although the “‘report does not conclude that the President committed a crime,’” as Barr writes, quoting Mueller, “‘it also does not exonerate him.’” Barr continues that he and Rosenstein weighed the evidence presented in the report, and found it “insufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.”

I still just shake my head and laugh when I hear people, including Trump, spin this as a full exoneration.

They're going to have to release the full report or else the Dems will use their failure to do so against Trump in 2020. Heck, even Trump himself has said that he doesn't have a problem with a full release.

So someone says that you beat your wife every night. The police have launched an investigation into you and have interviewed every one who knows your wife, your friends, your family, put video cameras in your house watched every move you've made for two years and they come out and say, "we can not conclude that you beat your wife but we do not exonerate you from this either. We just couldn't prove that you do do it." Would that be the same? Yes. You can't prove a negative or prove that something "didn't happen". You can only prove that it DID happen.

Looking back, I think idhawkman was referring back to this, but there's other examples that could have been used.

[RiverDog]

So someone says that you beat your wife every night. The police have launched an investigation into you and have interviewed every one who knows your wife, your friends, your family, put video cameras in your house watched every move you've made for two years and they come out and say, "we can not conclude that you beat your wife but we do not exonerate you from this either. We just couldn't prove that you do do it." Would that be the same? Yes. You can't prove a negative or prove that something "didn't happen". You can only prove that it DID happen.

Looking back, I think idhawkman was referring back to this, but there's other examples that could have been used.

I don't care what the context was, it's still completely unacceptable to make an inflammatory and personal comment directed at another poster. Suppose I were to answer his question by using "examples" directed at him that evoked incest and sodomy and put a "LOL" after it? Can you see how easy it would be for it to escalate?

I appreciate your effort, but let the man speak for himself. If he has to resort to those kinds of tactics to make a point, then I'm not going to go down that road with him. In the meantime, I'm taking a bit of a timeout from the political subjects.

[idhawkman]

I don't care what the context was, it's still completely unacceptable to make an inflammatory and personal comment directed at another poster. Suppose I were to answer his question by using "examples" directed at him that evoked incest and sodomy and put a "LOL" after it? Can you see how easy it would be for it to escalate?

Exactly. There's no answer for hypothetical and unfounded questions. The only thing that can happen is an escalation of something that didn't actually happen.

[Aseahawkfan]

Exactly. There's no answer for hypothetical and unfounded questions. The only thing that can happen is an escalation of something that didn't actually happen.

None of the Trump Haters are going to stop digging until they get something. That's just how they are. They'd be screaming bloody murder if someone was doing this to a president they liked, but they'll pile on the wagon if it's one they don't like. Bunch of hypocrites that don't like being called on their hypocrisy when it's obvious.

All hawktawk could do was talk up Mueller while he was doing the job, but now that he didn't file charges he has to keep on reaching and whining and making proclamations. Seems Riverdog is hopping on that wagon I guess. This crap should be done. Waste of time and money for made up BS by a guy that been in this country leading a very public life for over fifty years.

[burrrton]

I don't care what the context was, it's still completely unacceptable to make an inflammatory and personal comment directed at another poster.

It wasn't the "context" that excused it- it was that it was a banal, run-of-the-mill, *non-personal* analogy.

I honestly can't figure out why (or *how*) you'd take it as a personal attack.

You ok? Serious question.

[c_hawkbob]

There's no answer for hypothetical and unfounded questions

Hogwash.

There is always an answer for a hypothetical, they are nothing more than an if/then scenario. And the foundation for that particular hypothetical is rock solid, the parallel between that scenario and the one that played out IRL are undeniable (even if not identical) with the primary differentiation being reversed roles.

The offensive question you threw at dog was not even a hypothetical, it was pure diversion, a tanget to turn the conversation away from you having to address the actual hypothetical.

[RiverDog]

It wasn't the "context" that excused it- it was that it was a banal, run-of-the-mill, *non-personal* analogy.

I honestly can't figure out why (or *how*) you'd take it as a personal attack.

You ok? Serious question.

Non-personal? He responded to my post in quotes then in his comments used the word "you". It's no different than me walking into a bar and saying "Hey, burrton! When did you stop beating your wife?...HAHAHAHA!" The mere thought of my laying a hand on the woman I've loved for 20 years and has never so much as raises her voice to me is abhorrent. How can I take that as being anything but personal? And to top it off, there was never any correction or explanation by him to indicate that he wasn't meaning it to be taken personally.

Secondly, as I mentioned to Mack, a comment like that, even if it wasn't meant to be taken personally, invites a retaliation and an escalation. There are just some things you don't joke about, particularly around people that you don't know all that well.

So as a result, at least for the time being, I have put Idahawkman on my ignore list and I will no longer comment on politically orientated subjects since it seems we can't have a discussion w/o it turning personal. Idahawk isn't the only offender and I'm not the first target. We seem to have lost our respect for one another, and since I'm not a mod and don't feel inclined to report the behavior, it's the only course of action available to me.

[burrrton]

It's no different than me walking into a bar and saying "Hey, burrton! When did you stop beating your wife?...HAHAHAHA!"

I read it more like you and I were arguing in a bar about something, and to make your point, you said "Ok, so let's say you were accused of beating your wife..."

Again, maybe I'm missing some context, but what I saw was an obvious analogy, not an accusation.

You do you, though.

We seem to have lost our respect for one another, and since I'm not a mod and don't feel inclined to report the behavior, it's the only course of action available to me.

You chose correctly (tiring of interacting with and/or reading postings from someone is never something a mod should be bugged for), and in fact, that's precisely what the mute list is for.

[RiverDog]

Again, maybe I'm missing some context, but what I saw was an obvious analogy, not an accusation.

You do you, though.

It wasn't directed at you and as you noted, you're not me. Top it off by some recent personal insults the same poster has made towards me to which I objected to but to no avail and it pretty much hit my limit so figured I was due for a timeout. Perhaps I'm just getting thin skinned in my old age, but I've been posting for 14 years on this site (and its predecessor) and feel that I deserve a little more respect than what was being offered.

We seem to have lost our respect for one another, and since I'm not a mod and don't feel inclined to report the behavior, it's the only course of action available to me.

You chose correctly (tiring of interacting with and/or reading postings from someone is never something a mod should be bugged for), and in fact, that's precisely what the mute list is for.

Thanks, and I agree. See ya in the Mariners thread!

[Aseahawkfan]

Even Barr's summary specifically says that the report does not exonerate Trump, at least not from the obstruction of justice allegation:

Although the “‘report does not conclude that the President committed a crime,’” as Barr writes, quoting Mueller, “‘it also does not exonerate him.’” Barr continues that he and Rosenstein weighed the evidence presented in the report, and found it “insufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.”

I still just shake my head and laugh when I hear people, including Trump, spin this as a full exoneration.

They're going to have to release the full report or else the Dems will use their failure to do so against Trump in 2020. Heck, even Trump himself has said that he doesn't have a problem with a full release.

In an innocent until proven guilty nation, this is a complete exoneration. How does our justice system work? You get a bunch of political enemies crawling up your behind and even they can't find enough evidence to take you down using millions or dollars and nearly two years of time, I would say that's more than an exoneration. it's a pretty big "HEY, this was a witchhunt exactly like I told you."

I'm quite sure this Mueller report we paid for will be cleverly used by both parties to screw the other. We'll see who comes out on top during the next major election cycle. All I know for sure is we Americans that paid for it won't benefit other than to scream at each other some more and feel empowered if your particular side wins. Politics as sport.