It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Special counsel is investigating Trump for possible obstruction of justice

page: 24
23
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 07:45 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

So you're not inferring anything but you take him at his word but you're reaching a conclusion that's not in those 143 characters? Those don't reconcile. You've talked yourself into a pretzel and can't admit it. You're embarrassing yourself.




posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785



So you're not inferring anything but you take him at his word but you're reaching a conclusion that's not in those 143 characters? Those don't reconcile. You've talked yourself into a pretzel and can't admit it. You're embarrassing yourself.


What conclusion have I made that's not in that tweet?

Please elaborate.



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 07:55 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

I explained it already and you know that. The tweet says Rosenstein is investigating him. The Deputy AG doesn't do investigations. So if you take him at his word, he says something is happening that can't be happening. If you take him at his word, he's not under investigation he's just wrong because Rosenstein doesn't do investigations. If you think he meant another investigation, you're drawing a conclusion that's not in the tweet. Either way you have to make some assumptions. You can't have it both ways, you either believe what he said (which can't be true) or you acknowledge that he didn't mean precisely what he tweeted and then that opens up a can of worms you don't wanna open because you're relying on just his tweet to show he's under investigation. You already said you don't believe WaPo's sources.



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 08:08 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785



I explained it already and you know that.


That is a conclusion you have made, not I.



You can't have it both ways, you either believe what he said (which can't be true) or you acknowledge that he didn't mean precisely what he tweeted and then that opens up a can of worms you don't wanna open because you're relying on just his tweet to show he's under investigation.


You don't get to decide what way I get to have it.

Trump very well may be mistaken about whom is doing the investigation. He may have meant that Rosenstein is behind the start of a SC. I don't know and it's really irrelevant, unless you want to make some sort of convoluted argument, such as what you are pushing here. It's clear he thinks there is an investigation, regardless of who is doing it and it's a witch hunt.

I'll take him at his word on that until he clarifies or retracts.



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 08:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: face23785



I explained it already and you know that.


That is a conclusion you have made, not I.



You can't have it both ways, you either believe what he said (which can't be true) or you acknowledge that he didn't mean precisely what he tweeted and then that opens up a can of worms you don't wanna open because you're relying on just his tweet to show he's under investigation.


You don't get to decide what way I get to have it.

Trump very well may be mistaken about whom is doing the investigation. He may have meant that Rosenstein is behind the start of a SC. I don't know and it's really irrelevant, unless you want to make some sort of convoluted argument, such as what you are pushing here. It's clear he thinks there is an investigation, regardless of who is doing it and it's a witch hunt.

I'll take him at his word on that until he clarifies or retracts.


I'm not deciding it, I told you to decide it. I just told you you can't have it both ways, because that's impossible. You can't both take him at his word and not believe him. He either means Rosenstein is investigating him, which is what his tweet says, or you drew a conclusion which is not in his tweet, that he meant another investigation. Pick one.
edit on 16 6 17 by face23785 because: typo



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 08:21 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785



I'm not deciding it, I told you to decide it. I just told you you can't have it both ways, because that's impossible.


Of course it's possible because there are more than just the two ways you describe. Trump could have misspoke about Rosenstein or could be ignorant of the process, but it's clear he thinks there is an investigation and it's a witch hunt.

What you are doing is trying to condense this ignorant argument down to an A or B argument in an attempt to box me in, but you fail to see the other possibilities there are.

So ya, you are trying to decide it. I have to pick one or the other in you mind.

I will not play your game and I get to to choose door C if I damn so choose.



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 08:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: face23785



I'm not deciding it, I told you to decide it. I just told you you can't have it both ways, because that's impossible.


Of course it's possible because there are more than just the two ways you describe. Trump could have misspoke about Rosenstein or could be ignorant of the process, but it's clear he thinks there is an investigation and it's a witch hunt.

What you are doing is trying to condense this ignorant argument down to an A or B argument in an attempt to box me in, but you fail to see the other possibilities there are.

So ya, you are trying to decide it. I have to pick one or the other in you mind.

I will not play your game and I get to to choose door C if I damn so choose.


The point is either you're getting all the information from his tweet, or you're drawing conclusions. If you only believe what's in his tweet, you think Rosenstein is investigating him. If you think he means another investigation you have to be using information that's not in his tweet. Where are you getting that information?



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 08:29 PM
link   
Trump told the world this , I could stand in the middle of 5th Ave. Shoot some one and not lose any voters.

He was the one who got the attention on himself and his team, by suggested a foreign power " Russha" hacks on his behalf.
He makes stupid but quotable tweets, then cry fake news when actually quoted.
But he is successful in having his lemmings stand around nodding in agreement.

Cult members of the dear leader need intervention and deprogramming fast..



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 08:41 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785



The point is either you're getting all the information from his tweet, or you're drawing conclusions.


That doesn't make sense. I can draw a conclusion using a variety of sources of info.



If you only believe what's in his tweet, you think Rosenstein is investigating him.


I believe many things beyond just his tweet, like I stated before.



If you think he means another investigation you have to be using information that's not in his tweet. Where are you getting that information?


I do not think he is referring to another investigation. He specifically said he is under investigation and it's a witch hunt.

He obviously believes it is originating in the JD, whether he is mistaken about the process or not.

Like I said, I would change my tune if he clarifies or retracts, but I have yet to see anything other than an unnamed source.



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 08:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: face23785



The point is either you're getting all the information from his tweet, or you're drawing conclusions.


That doesn't make sense. I can draw a conclusion using a variety of sources of info.



If you only believe what's in his tweet, you think Rosenstein is investigating him.


I believe many things beyond just his tweet, like I stated before.



If you think he means another investigation you have to be using information that's not in his tweet. Where are you getting that information?


I do not think he is referring to another investigation. He specifically said he is under investigation and it's a witch hunt.

He obviously believes it is originating in the JD, whether he is mistaken about the process or not.

Like I said, I would change my tune if he clarifies or retracts, but I have yet to see anything other than an unnamed source.


Well a few posts ago I said you were drawing a conclusion beyond what's in the tweet and you asked how as if you weren't, so I explained, and you still continued to argue as if you believed you were only focusing on what's in the tweet. Now since you've acknowledged that the content of the tweet isn't enough to draw your conclusion, you're admitting you have to make some inferences, which you also claimed you weren't doing. Thanks for clearing that up.

You can infer what you think he meant based on your wish for him to be under investigation and I can infer what I thought he meant based on his speaking patterns to date. I'm sure there'll be some clarification at some point. Just remember you don't believe WaPo's source, so if he says he didn't mean he was under investigation then there's no more evidence that he is.



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 08:55 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785



Well a few posts ago I said you were drawing a conclusion beyond what's in the tweet and you asked how as if you weren't, so I explained, and you still continued to argue as if you believed you were only focusing on what's in the tweet.


I have not drawn any conclusion outside of what was said in the tweet. I said there is an investigation and he believes it's a witch hunt.

All of that is in the tweet.



Now since you've acknowledged that the content of the tweet isn't enough to draw your conclusion, you're admitting you have to make some inferences, which you also claimed you weren't doing. Thanks for clearing that up.


Just because I can use other info to inform my personal opinion on the matter does not mean I cam e to any conclusion outside of what was said in the tweet. It only solidifies the "believability" of what he said in the tweet.



You can infer what you think he meant based on your wish for him to be under investigation and I can infer what I thought he meant based on his speaking patterns to date. I'm sure there'll be some clarification at some point.


Again, I've inferred nothing. By definition, I have taken him for his explicit word and given the caveat that he may be mistaken as to how the process works.



Just remember you don't believe WaPo's source, so if he says he didn't mean he was under investigation then there's no more evidence that he is.


Well, I welcome a clarification and will concede if he can offer a logical one, but let's not forget that he is still under investigation by congress.



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 09:00 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

You've talked yourself into a pretzel. Let's take this one step at a time so you can understand it. Do you think Rosenstein is investigating Trump? Yes or no.


originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: face23785



Well a few posts ago I said you were drawing a conclusion beyond what's in the tweet and you asked how as if you weren't, so I explained, and you still continued to argue as if you believed you were only focusing on what's in the tweet.


let's not forget that he is still under investigation by congress.


Yes that's true, my bad. Just nothing by the DOJ or special counsel.
edit on 16 6 17 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 09:05 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785



You've talked yourself into a pretzel.


I've done pretty well defending myself against your illogical assertions and baseless accusations.



Let's take this one step at a time so you can understand it.


I've addressed everything you have thrown at me. Perhaps it is not I that is having a hard time understanding.



Do you think Rosenstein is investigating Trump? Yes or no.


Irrelevant, unless you want to discuss Trump's understanding of the process. Otherwise, you're just trying to bait me in to another one of your boxes in which it can only be A or B.

Think outside of your box.



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 09:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: face23785



You've talked yourself into a pretzel.


I've done pretty well defending myself against your illogical assertions and baseless accusations.



Let's take this one step at a time so you can understand it.


I've addressed everything you have thrown at me. Perhaps it is not I that is having a hard time understanding.



Do you think Rosenstein is investigating Trump? Yes or no.


Irrelevant, unless you want to discuss Trump's understanding of the process. Otherwise, you're just trying to bait me in to another one of your boxes in which it can only be A or B.

Think outside of your box.


Lol what delusions. You haven't been defending yourself you've been talking in circles to avoid the central issue, the meaning of Trump's tweet. You've baited yourself with all your failed logic. You said you believe he's under investigation, because you take him at his word, except he said he's under investigation by Rosenstein, which you know is not right, so you don't actually take him at his word but you can't admit that because it collapses your house of cards you've built to dance around the fact that Trump's tweet doesn't mean what you think it means. Oh you poor thing. Well since you no longer want to discuss it (yeah I know you'll claim you still do even though you don't because you backed yourself into a corner), get your last word in so you can sleep tonight then we'll wait for Trump to affirm he didn't mean he's under investigation. Then you can go back to saying you don't believe him and pretend none of this ever happened. Just remember you don't believe WaPo's source that said Mueller is investigating Trump though. That was the best part, I don't want you to forget it.
edit on 16 6 17 by face23785 because: (no reason given)

edit on 16 6 17 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 09:29 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785



Lol what delusions. You haven't been defending yourself you've been talking in circles to avoid the central issue, the meaning of Trump's tweet.


I specifically addressed the meaning of his tweet.



You've baited yourself with all your failed logic. You said you believe he's under investigation, because you take him at his word, except he said he's under investigation by Rosenstein, which you know is not right


Even without his words, we know he is under investigation. What he said implies he's now under investigation by a SC or Rosenstein. I cannot assume what he meant in that aspect, as it's very possible he does not understand the process.

What he does understand is investigation and witch hunt.



so you don't actually take him at his word but you can't admit that because it collapses your house of cards you've built to dance around the fact that Trump's tweet doesn't mean what you think it means.


I think the tweet stands on it's own. He thinks he's under investigation, it's a witch hunt and he may be confused about how the process works.



Oh you poor thing. Well since you no longer want to discuss it (yeah I know you'll claim you still do even though you don't because you backed yourself into a corner), get your last word in so you can sleep tonight then we'll wait for Trump to affirm he didn't mean he's under investigation.


I welcome his clarification, if it comes.

But let's just note that I never said I didn't want to discuss it. I only said I would not be baited in to your boxed-in, black and white, illogical argument.



Then you can go back to saying you don't believe him and pretend none of this ever happened.


I cannot pretend it didn't happen. It did.

What matters now is how Trump clarifies, if he does at all, and how this all pans-out.



posted on Jun, 17 2017 @ 04:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth



I never take Trump at his word on his Twitter account, but you do. You said so. It appears now, though, that you are back tracking and want to pick and choose based on what propaganda you want to push ... now there is a surprise


I rarely do either, but in this case there is no reason to suggest we should not take his word for it. Unlike the Obama example you provided, there is much evidence that gives credence to his words, like the existence of another investigation taking place on the very same issue.

So not only is it a bad example, it's illogical.



Are you now switching from 'fact' to 'easy to believe'? I seem to recall that when Trump said Obama was spying on him, not only did you not take him at his word, you actually dismissed the WH statement that provided context. It seems you are a bit inconsistent all round when you have a story to push


Yes, I remember that issue. If I remember correctly the WH statement had to clarify because Trump's statement in and of itself was not correct.

There has been no such official clarification on this issue yet, as far as I know, so therefore there is no reason to suggest he meant anything other than what he said.



... And we still come back to the same point... You take Trump at his word when it suits your propaganda, and don't take him at his word it doesn't suit your propaganda.

Pretty plain to see...

As for being boxed in, you did that to yourself. There isn't a way out of it either, other than back tracking on your so called 'fact'.



edit on 17/6/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2017 @ 07:58 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Well he has confirmed it so....awkward.

If Reagan can get away with it by throwing Oliver North under the bus, why can't Trump do the same with Comey? Republicans love a scapegoat.



posted on Jun, 17 2017 @ 09:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

I was trying to get that guy to stop the revolution talk and call to arms before he got banned for it. He didn't listen now he's gone.



posted on Jun, 17 2017 @ 09:11 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

He told us.



posted on Jun, 17 2017 @ 09:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

Listen to him speak. He never fails to call out the dems as obstructionist. He always says something nasty about us. I guess you just don't hear it when it's not your party he's ragging on constantly but I do.
He just doesn't care. He doesn't even realize that when he rags democrats in congress he's ragging all the democrat Americans. We didn't vote for him and he hates us for that. It's so obvious.
We're not saying not my president he is saying not my constituents not my problem.
Screw him.
He's going down.




top topics



 
23
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join