"Benghazi" Trey Gowdy gets an earful...

[heironymouspasparagus]

I knew. But again, point out to me where it has been shown repeatedly that bias didn't go into the FBI deciding to not pursue charges against Hillary when they have no right to make that decision. Admitedly the AG wouldn't have either but I'm sure there was no bias there either.

Again, the IG report did not rule out bias went into decisions, just that bias didn't cause them to make illegal/against policy decision. There is a difference.

Oh, come on....you are much better and smarter than this.  You can listen to them and investigate what they are saying...read all the reports..and you are more able to comprehend than most Minions.   And tell me again why a Republican would go after him and pass up a valid opportunity to go after Hillary, if there was one?  There wasn't...    If nothing else, just the fact that there are as many Republican supporters in the FBI as Democrat - and neither is gonna let the other get away with that kind of crap, if it were going on.


Especially after all the lies, distortions, and misrepresentations the Republicans have paid good money for decades to get her and Billy Bob...  As reported on by the two main paid agents the Repubs hired to go after them - Kenneth Starr and David Brock.  Both of whom finally had bouts of conscience and recanted all and apologized for their misdeeds.

[erfalf]

Oh, come on....you are much better and smarter than this.  You can listen to them and investigate what they are saying...read all the reports..and you are more able to comprehend than most Minions.   And tell me again why a Republican would go after him and pass up a valid opportunity to go after Hillary, if there was one?  There wasn't...    If nothing else, just the fact that there are as many Republican supporters in the FBI as Democrat - and neither is gonna let the other get away with that kind of crap, if it were going on.


Especially after all the lies, distortions, and misrepresentations the Republicans have paid good money for decades to get her and Billy Bob...  As reported on by the two main paid agents the Repubs hired to go after them - Kenneth Starr and David Brock.  Both of whom finally had bouts of conscience and recanted all and apologized for their misdeeds.

I'll continue to wait for the answer to my question I suppose.

[heironymouspasparagus]

I'll continue to wait for the answer to my question I suppose.

You are kidding, right?   It has been answered.  Repeatedly.  By every real news outlet in the world.

[erfalf]

You are kidding, right?   It has been answered.  Repeatedly.  By every real news outlet in the world.

Haven't been able to find it. Humor me.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Haven't been able to find it. Humor me.

Unbelievable.  Even your Fake Fox News people are blasting Trump...how bad do you suppose it has to get for that to happen?   Just another Russian Fellow Traveler.

[erfalf]

Unbelievable.  Even your Fake Fox News people are blasting Trump...how bad do you suppose it has to get for that to happen?   Just another Russian Fellow Traveler.

I'll just chalk that up as a you are going to stick with the talking points instead of answering the question.

herion's playbook exposed:
1. Make a claim.
2. Upon being presented with contradictory evidence, change the subject.
3. If that doesn't work, bring up Fox news or some derogatory name for a Trump supporter and move on.

[cannon_fodder]

My logic brain is hurting.

No one will ever definitively prove that alleged bias did not influence a decision.

It simply can't be done.  Not only can you not prove the negative, but it is basically impossible to eliminate the possibility the someones state of mind did, or did not influence any particular action or inaction.  Saying that there is no evidence to support that conclusion, or that available evidence supports the actions/inactoins in the absence of bias, is about as good as one is going to get.

The burden of proof would lie with the one holding the alternate (non-null) hypothesis.  Like some hypothesis that political beliefs exchanged in text messages resulted in some vaguely referenced judgments/actions/inactions that are disliked.  You can't state a vague hypothesis and then argue its merit because it cannot be disproved.   That's pretty much the definition of a conjecture or conspiracy theory.

Not comparing your example to this, but I think it illustrates the point:

I know a lady who claims she had Sasquatch living near her at Haickey Creek Park.  She heard them all the time, and will do an impression for you. They ate her chickens and left hair on the fencing several times.  She sent the hair to OSU for analysis, but they destroyed it because the government is helping hide the Squatch. She doesn't have any more hair.  She tried to get pictures, but they are nocturnal and smart, so she always failed. If you go out there, you won't hear them anymore because they left when the Creek went in.  I'm not making this up, and there is no way I can prove that there was not Squatch living near out there.

But that doesn't mean Sasquatch used to live near Haickey Creek Park.

[erfalf]

My logic brain is hurting.

No one will ever definitively prove that alleged bias did not influence a decision.

It simply can't be done.  Not only can you not prove the negative, but it is basically impossible to eliminate the possibility the someones state of mind did, or did not influence any particular action or inaction.  Saying that there is no evidence to support that conclusion, or that available evidence supports the actions/inactoins in the absence of bias, is about as good as one is going to get.

The burden of proof would lie with the one holding the alternate (non-null) hypothesis.  Like some hypothesis that political beliefs exchanged in text messages resulted in some vaguely referenced judgments/actions/inactions that are disliked.  You can't state a vague hypothesis and then argue its merit because it cannot be disproved.   That's pretty much the definition of a conjecture or conspiracy theory.

Not comparing your example to this, but I think it illustrates the point:

I know a lady who claims she had Sasquatch living near her at Haickey Creek Park.  She heard them all the time, and will do an impression for you. They ate her chickens and left hair on the fencing several times.  She sent the hair to OSU for analysis, but they destroyed it because the government is helping hide the Squatch. She doesn't have any more hair.  She tried to get pictures, but they are nocturnal and smart, so she always failed. If you go out there, you won't hear them anymore because they left when the Creek went in.  I'm not making this up, and there is no way I can prove that there was not Squatch living near out there.

But that doesn't mean Sasquatch used to live near Haickey Creek Park.

Hey, I was told bias played absolutely no part in this investigation by multiple people on here. They even told me that it was in every major publication (except FOX of course). I'm not the one holding the hard line hypothesis. I never once claimed that bias absolutely without doubt played a part in it, only that the IG report did not explicitly rule it out. I was then "corrected", incorrectly in my opinion.

[heironymouspasparagus]

I'll just chalk that up as a you are going to stick with the talking points instead of answering the question.

herion's playbook exposed:
1. Make a claim.
2. Upon being presented with contradictory evidence, change the subject.
3. If that doesn't work, bring up Fox news or some derogatory name for a Trump supporter and move on.

Projection.  Deflection.  Diversion.  Dissemination of half truths - and not even half....  

As I stated before, and you obviously ignored, "If nothing else, just the fact that there are as many Republican supporters in the FBI as Democrat - and neither is gonna let the other get away with that kind of crap, if it were going on."  

Asked and answered.  In more ways than one.  And more times than one.

I made no claim.  DOJ made one.  Every news source, including the Fake one made claims.  And now, even Republicans are making claims.  Known to the world at large as stating facts.   All I do is repeat what is stated publicly by others.  And you say I make a claim....Lol.  If you take the blinders off, you might be able to see the entire world.  Amazing place - you might enjoy some of it.

[erfalf]

Projection.  Deflection.  Diversion.  Dissemination of half truths - and not even half....  

As I stated before, and you obviously ignored, "If nothing else, just the fact that there are as many Republican supporters in the FBI as Democrat - and neither is gonna let the other get away with that kind of crap, if it were going on."  

Asked and answered.  In more ways than one.  And more times than one.

I made no claim.  DOJ made one.  Every news source, including the Fake one made claims.  And now, even Republicans are making claims.  Known to the world at large as stating facts.   All I do is repeat what is stated publicly by others.  And you say I make a claim....Lol.  If you take the blinders off, you might be able to see the entire world.  Amazing place - you might enjoy some of it.

I already pointed out how the DOJ made no such claim, yet I'm the one with blinders on. Got it. We'll move on. Just admit you made false claim every once in a while. It's endearing.

The really funny thing is you always say others are projecting, deflection, and diverting when that is literally your playbook when you can't backup your claims with evidence, which I'll admit is rare, but it does happen. You are just so fun to watch when it does.

[heironymouspasparagus]

I already pointed out how the DOJ made no such claim, yet I'm the one with blinders on. Got it. We'll move on. Just admit you made false claim every once in a while. It's endearing.

The really funny thing is you always say others are projecting, deflection, and diverting when that is literally your playbook when you can't backup your claims with evidence, which I'll admit is rare, but it does happen. You are just so fun to watch when it does.

Exact quote from IG report;

"But our review did not find evidence to connect the political views expressed in these messages to the specific investigative decisions that we reviewed; rather, consistent with the analytic approach described above, we found that these specific decisions were the result of discretionary judgments made during the course of an investigation by the Midyear agents and prosecutors and that these
judgment calls were not unreasonable."

Since you like to quibble and parse, ok, maybe that isn't a "claim" - it is a statement of the facts as they see them.  We can use statement of facts from now on....


What is most interesting about this is how you - and other Trump Minions - are so adamant to rationalize, excuse, and make light of the overall Trump history going back many decades right up through today.  None of my histrionics compare to the mental gymnastics and the moral ambiguity (and worse) shown in that effort.


What would it take to get them to admit to their wrongheadedness??  How bad does it have to get??  Would this be enough;

https://politics.theonion.com/gop-leaders-move-goalposts-on-opposing-trump-to-him-bei-1827640709