[2/2]
Again, you simply presume your partisan take as fact, dismissing any opposition without any real argument, as evidenced in so much of this post of yours.
You say such things as if they cannot be compared to the record. Like, if we go back to September (#741), we can consider what has happened since:
If nobody knows what to tell you, I explained,
it's because you apparently missed everything. And the next sentence asked:
You can't possibly be referring to the part where Trump asks for a favor and leads with a conspiracy theory about Hillary Clinton, right? And it's true, I looked it up; the conspiracy theory about skipping words isn't about that part, but, rather, ignores it entirely.
Honestly, is it that you fall for this stuff, or do you think other people will?
You seem to miss the simple fact that no one on the right gave a crap about Hunter Biden until the left wanted to make a big and hypocritical deal about Trump's interactions with Ukraine.
See, this is the part where we're obliged to put a foot down: We don't believe you're really so stupid.
Trump's pursuit of Hunter Biden results in a whistleblower complaint that compels pepole to ask why, and when the right says, "Hunter Biden", and left looks, of course here comes the follow-up in which the right complains that nobody cared about Hunter Biden until the left looked. We are very accustomed to the right wing complaining about people giving them what they want. Indeed, there is a reason why you sometimes encounter people who simply won't put up with your incompetent recycling of the same worthless dishonesty we've heard from the right for decades. They whine when they get their way, and bawl when they don't.
As a note aside, though, no, it's long past being funny watching antisocial know-nothing rightism get all self-righteous only to embarrass itself in the same breath.
I guess you imagine you've demonstrated such ignorance, but you have merely assumed it, belying any attempt at the principle of charity. It's a self-fulfilling prophesy seemingly designed to serve you with an unending font of supposedly justified ad hominem fodder. I think discerning readers are smarter than that.
Discerning readers will note the absence of any such consideration in your posts. Like the conspiracy theory about missing words, which omits consideration of the bit about the favor and the email conspiracy theory. Furthermore, since then the situation has only gotten worse; as we learn more about what the White House omitted from its improperly-handled call summary, which President Trump described as a transcript, his situation only worsens.
It's one thing to be so far behind, but you're not even trying to catch up.
Wow, I must have grown bored of those threads far to early for you to be so doggedly hanging onto them after all this time. Completely ignoring that no one ever disputed any history. Again, you merely presumed it.
That's a really clumsy effort for a straw man. But it's also true you've been screwing up all this time.
You presuming to connect dots you don't or cannot actually connect has nothing to do with me, no matter how much you may feel you need a scapegoat when called out. You seem incapable of defining your supposed "range" while endlessly complaining about it not being respected. Just vague arm-waving in the neighborhood of ad hominem.
What dots? That has to do with your consistent wrongness.
Meanwhile, if we follow the question of range, we find ourselves over a month ago, with your declaration that, "Presidents do have executive privilege and pardon power. Nothing unlawful about either" (
#757↑). Notice how your statement of executive privilege and pardon power are unbound; the truth of the matter is that there are limits. Thus, as I said, in
#758↑, executive privilege is not unlimited, neither is pardon power. Your response at
#768↑, argues, "Straw man. Never said either was unlimited." The thing is, you failed to limit your statement that presidents have executive privilege and pardon power; while it may be true that you never said the word "unlimited", the application of your observation of executive privilege and pardon power does, in fact, transcend or, at least, challenge the known limitations.
And in your comparisons of, say, Trump and Obama, it does help to understand something about history and process; the Republican move against Holder is what it is, but it was extraordinary, and we know they wouldn't tolerate such action toward themselves because of their response to the present, asymetrical circumstance. That is, hell, compared to how they're holding out, now, regarding extraordinary behavior, we cannot imagine they would have accepted a contempt vote against a Republican attorney general behaving within the bounds of historical models. Once again, your argument relied on ignorance.
Still, responding to your argument that you never said either executive privilege or pardon power were unlimited, I explained (
#776↑):
• The reminder that executive privilege and pardon power are not unlimited attends your unbound statement that, "Presidents do have executive privilege and pardon power. Nothing unlawful about either." Such as it is, those sentences might be generally correct, but they are not necessarily appropriate to the particular application.
And your best answer, apparently, was, "IOW, you just don't like the fact that they are, indeed, correct...and are backpedaling to what you personally deem is 'appropriate'" (
#792↑). At some point, it bears reminding: There are real facts in the world, and not everything is a thin political dualism derived from your need. In your dispute with another (#757), the argument that, "Presidents do have executive privilege and pardon power", overlooks the limitations already transgressed, such that the substantive question is how close Trump himself was to the dangling of pardons; recent pretenses of executive privilege and confusion thereabout are failing spectacularly, such that defying Congress and obstructing justice is all some of the Trump administration have left to hold out on. They long ago stopped citing the Fifth or executive privilege, and simply started refusing to answer.
But therein we start to see the range that confuses you. As I said in
#813↑, the problem here is your attempt to apply an unbound statement to subject matter that does not fall within its range. It's true, you skipped out on it in
#817↑, but since it tied into your question about why I raised the question of the Seventeenth, I reminded explicitly: "As with your prior failures to grasp either the basic facts or fundamental civic processes you purport to assess and critique, the current problem with your attempt to apply an unbound statement to subject matter that does not fall within its range is ignorance."
And all you can do, it seems, is complain of ad hominem (
#819↑).
Meanwhile, it's worth noting that, along the way, we encountered limitations of executive privilege (
#831↑), when the Trump administration tried to invoke executive privilege over Fiona Hill's testimony. Additionally, in a case related to Trump's tax returns, the federal court acknowledged the legality of the impeachment inquiry, which happens to have the effect of reinforcing Hill's response, that the appearance of government conduct outweighs executive privilege.
That hadn't happened, yet, when you continued whining about ad hominem in
#841↑, which in turn draws response in
#843↑—
• Inasmuch as you might bawl about ad hominem, the problem is that you just don't stop with this sort of vapidity. To reiterate: As with your prior failures to grasp either the basic facts or fundamental civic processes you purport to assess and critique, the current problem with your attempt to apply an unbound statement to subject matter that does not fall within its range is ignorance. The resulting unreliability about your assessments is a reputation that precedes you.
—and now here you are, desperately grasping after straws: You complain that I "seem incapable of defining your supposed 'range'", so here you go:
▸ Your unbound statement about executive privilege and pardon power intends application to people, issues, and circumstances that fall outside the range of such authority.
Would it have been better, then, to say that your unbound application of juristic principle exceeds its recognized prerogative and purview?
Yes, presidents have executive privilege. And?
Yes, presidents have pardon power. And?
Yes, impeachment is political, and relies on political will. And?
You leave arguments hanging, like that, a lot. Like this, from
another thread↗: Yes, a Certification of Live Birth is a different document than a long-form Birth Certificate. And?
If you understood more about those civic elements, you would be able to answer the "and".
[fin]
