How Will Liberals Spin This? Andrew McCabe Recommended For Charges

reformedreformed Posts: 2,340

Looks like the lie of Russian Collusion and the attempted coup against a duly elected President of the United States is coming to a head.


https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2019/09/12/mccabe-n2553008

Comments

  • C_M_C_M_ Posts: 3,034

    The jury is still out. This is one more distraction. In short, it's a "Nothing Burger". CM

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,340

    Distraction? This is actual news. The nothing burger was all of the allegations against Trump that never got this far. This is different. Your bias is showing. Or ignorance, not sure which.

  • C_M_C_M_ Posts: 3,034

    Reformed,

    You are not a prophet or a son of a prophet. The jury is still out! CM

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,591


    @reformed posted:

    Distraction? This is actual news. The nothing burger was all of the allegations against Trump that never got this far. This is different.


    It's different how? You ARE familiar with the reporting about the grand jury in the McCabe case, yes? How prosecutors called the grand jury back together, but that body did NOT issue an indictment? Of course, they MIGHT have issued an indictment under seal, but as the Washington Post points out, there's no obvious reason for them to have done so given that the case has been very much in the public spotlight (e.g. the Justice Department's recent rejection of McCabe's appeal was well publicized).

    Another equally plausible explanation of the grand jury's failure to issue an indictment out of its recent session is that it issued what's called a "no true bill," or basically, a decision not to indict.

    The case against McCabe is weak, from what I've read. And coming on the heels of the Justice Department's slam dunk loss in its prosecution of Obama White House counsel Greg Craig - it took the jury just four hours to acquit Craig in a case New York prosecutors declined to pursue, but the Trump DOJ pursued anyway (big surprise) - it might be that there won't be any case brought against McCabe at all.

    The next stage of this story is still to be written - an indictment is surely still possible - but there are signs of trouble in paradise.

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,340

    That's not reporting. That is an OPINION piece from the Fake News Washington Post.

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,591

    @reformed posted:

    That's not reporting. That is an OPINION piece from the Fake News Washington Post.

    So you dispute the genre of the Washington Post article to which I linked. Do you dispute any of the content of the Washington Post article? For example, do you dispute that...

    • ...prosecutors recently called the McCabe grand jury back together?
    • ...the grand jury met, but did not publicly announce an indictment?
    • ...among the explanations of the lack of a publicly announced indictment is that the grand jury could have returned an indictment under seal?
    • ...also among the explanations of the lack of a publicly announced indictment is that the grand jury returned a "no true bill"?
    • ...the Justice Department's recent denial of McCabe's appeal was well publicized?
    • ...New York prosecutors declined to prosecute Greg Craig, but the Trump DOJ chose to, a case it lost when the jury acquitted Craig after four hours of deliberations?

    Those are several of the assertions of fact made in the "fake news" Washington Post's "OPINION" piece. Those are also the assertions of fact upon which I based my previous post. Do you dispute ANY of them? If so, please provide links to the sources upon which you base your dispute. If you don't dispute any of those assertions of fact, then when it comes to your response to the substance of my previous post in this thread, as you would say, "Try again."

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,340

    I don't deny COULD BE but I also don't put it as anything worth noting either.

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,591

    @reformed posted:

    I don't deny COULD BE but I also don't put it as anything worth noting either.

    The retreat of your response to the Post's piece continues.

    First you labeled it as one of the "fake news" paper's "OPINION" pieces, strongly suggesting that it contained falsehoods, But when asked to identify ANY inaccurate assertion of fact in the piece, you can't. All you can do is question its utility in our exchange (I guess that's what your sentence means).

    TRANSLATION: Your objection reduces to a claim that the "fake news" Washington Post published a factually accurate "OPINION" piece that wasn't "worth noting." That's one powerful argument.

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,340

    I didn't retreat from anything. It's not news. It's an opinion. No facts about the actual case, just speculation. I've not changed my position at all. You are just trying to make opinion rise to the level of news.

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,591


    @reformed posted:

    I didn't retreat from anything. It's not news. It's an opinion. No facts about the actual case, just speculation. I've not changed my position at all. You are just trying to make opinion rise to the level of news.

    Now we disagree as to what a "fact" is.

    In my view, but apparently not in yours, it is FACT that...

    • ...prosecutors in "the actual case" recently called the McCabe grand jury back together
    • ...the grand jury in "the actual case" met, but did not publicly announce an indictment
    • ...among the explanations of the lack of a publicly announced indictment in "the actual case" are that the grand jury could have returned an indictment under seal and that the grand jury returned a "no true bill"
    • ...the Justice Department's recent denial of McCabe's appeal in "the actual case" was well publicized

    Those items ARE facts about the "actual case," and all but the last one are contained in the article you claim contains "[n]o facts about the actual case, just speculation." (and the last one is suggested by the author's reference to the "public" prosecution of McCabe)

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,340
    edited September 19

    You really focus too much on nitty gritty when you know good and well what I mean.

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,591

    @reformed posted:

    You really focus too much on nitty gritty when you know good and well what I mean.

    Words matter. I focused on what you posted, which was that the Washington Post article contained "no facts about the actual case, just speculation." If you didn't mean to say there were "no facts about the actual case," you could have chosen not to assert that there were "no facts about the actual case."

    My use of the WAPO article did not depend on any "speculation." With the story's assistance, I noted that the McCabe grand jury had reconvened, but then did not publicly issue an indictment. That was unusual and therefore notable conduct for a grand jury in its particular circumstances. The story's unusual and notable characteristics, in my view, made it "worth noting" as possible evidence of trouble in the DOJ's prosecution of McCabe.

    And one other thing about the "speculation" in this thread. Recall the assertion with which you launched it: "Looks like the lie of Russian Collusion and the attempted coup against a duly elected President of the United States is coming to a head." How many "facts about the actual case" did you include in THAT claim?

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,340

    The fact that he was being recommended for charges. An actual fact. Not opinion. Not a what-if.

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,591

    @reformed posted:

    The fact that he was being recommended for charges. An actual fact. Not opinion. Not a what-if.

    It is indeed a fact that the DOJ rejected McCabe's appeal, and hence recommended him for prosecution. Unfortunately, that's a fact that's contained in the article to which you provided a link, and I didn't ask you about the article to which you linked. I asked you about the "assertion with which you launched" this thread - namely, that it "[l]ooks like the lie of Russian Collusion and the attempted coup against a duly elected President of the United States is coming to a head."

    So here's my question again: How many "facts about the actual case" - not opinion; not a what-if - did you include in THAT claim (the one I just quoted and italicized)?

Sign In or Register to comment.