How Will Liberals Spin This? Andrew McCabe Recommended For Charges

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.

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."

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.

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)

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?

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)?

ONE person, not multiple "people," has been "recommended for charges."

In THIS POST, I made a comment about the assertion which you introduced this thread, namely that in your view 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." Using a phrase YOU first brought into our exchange, I asked how many "facts about the actual case" THAT statement - your statement - included. Because you chose not to address that question in your reply post, I asked it again in THIS POST, and I ask it for the third time now: How many "facts about the actual case" - not opinion; not a what-if - did you include in THAT claim (the one I quoted and italicized at the beginning of this paragraph)?

If asking and then re-asking a question about YOUR statements using a phrase of YOUR creation is "blow[ing] everything into something else," then I guess it is.

As to whether it makes me a "liar," or "deranged and ignorant[,] or both," boy, that's a tough one because I think it might have to be "or all three," not just "or both"! Count 'em:

• Liar (one)
• Deranged (two)
• Ignorant (three; I'm pretty sure it's possible to be deranged without being ignorant, and ignorant without being deranged)

So, if I had to choose, I'd say I'm "deranged and ignorant," but not a "liar." (Our president has set the standard for liars so impossibly high that even we dishonest partisan liberals can't meet it.)

Probably true. He's made 12,000+ false and misleading public statements, not because he lied, but because he didn't know any better. The president has averaged 12-13 false or misleading public statements per day since he took office, nearly 1,000 days ago. It's probably not humanly possible to "lie" that frequently

First, congratulations on answering my question on just the third time I asked it; that's better than your average.

Second, in the title you gave to this thread you raised the possibility of things "coming to a head." But I've never asked you about the thread's title. I've only asked you about the statement with which you introduced the link to the article, the statement that you now finally acknowledge included no facts about the case... or anything else.

What does that matter? It doesn't, except that your response to the Washington Post article to which I linked complained that it offered "[n]o facts about the actual case, just speculation." Of course your assertion was false, as I showed in a subsequent post. But regardless of your claim's truthfulness, if content that offers "no facts about the actual case, just speculation" bothers you, then it seemed to me that the content of the sentence with which you introduced your OP - the one you now acknowledge offered "no facts about the actual case" - would bother you, too. But then again, consistency is overrated.

I lost my copy of "The How-to Guide to Modern Liberalism," so at the moment, I'm not sure whether I'm supposed to "twist things into something else," or "shout" them that way. For all I know, I might have to "twist and shout" them into something else. SO confusing.

Conservatism has always seemed a so much simpler approach to political philosophy. As many of your CD posts prove, the conservative way is simply to shout.

Again, as I noted in THIS POST, the Washington Post article to which I linked was grounded in facts. About the only pure "opinions" the author offered were his belief that the Justice Department would be unlikely to pursue a trial of McCabe if it couldn't persuade a Grand Jury to indict him, and his view that if the McCabe grand jury chose not to issue an indictment (a "no true bill") the case against McCabe should end.

We've been "over this before" only to the extent that you've claimed "before" that the Post's false and misleading statement count is wrong. What we've never been "over" before is any examples you cited to prove your claim. Why not? Because you've never provided any. I've asked you for them on multiple occasions! (So we HAVE been over THAT before!) But every time I've asked, you've refused to provide.

For the record, let's review the record of your responses to my requests for examples of the Post's mistakes:

July 2018 - You acknowledge that you claimed the Post's list was wrong without even looking at it!

"If I actually cared enough to review them individually (I don't) I would be able to let you know. But that would be an utter waste of time."

October 2018 - When asked to name one incorrectly labeled Trump falsehood, whether from the Post or me or any other source, you make a blanket claim about all assertions of the president's penchant for falsehoods, of course without any supporting evidence.

"Name any one of them. It's probably on that list."

March 29, 2019 - Yet again you accuse the Post of manipulating the truth... and yes, without supporting evidence.

"That being said, you keep talking about the thousands of lies of Trump. I contest quite a few of those as not real lies. WaPo twists things A LOT."

March 29, 2019 - When asked to back up your contention that the Post "twists things A LOT," you say basically what you've said in this thread.

"Plus, I have tackled the WaPo list before if I am not mistaken."

Of course you hadn't "tackled the WaPo list before" then anymore than we've "been over this before" now.

And in Your Most Recent Post - You repeat the meme that has defined your posts about the Post's fact check list... and yes, without supporting evidence.

"The President has not made as many misleading statements as you claim. We have been over this before. Your WaPo fact checker is just dumb. Their "fact check" is as misleading, if not more, than the President's supposed lies."

Your pattern on this matter has been clear and consistent: You claim that the Post's list is inaccurate in significant and multiple ways, but you refuse to back up your claim, in my view, most likely because you can't back up your claim... because your claim is false.

In my mind, your eloquence and deftness of phrase - on vivid display here - will always define you.