3 ms·
Got it, so your argument is basically an abstract appeal to cynicism. Not sure why you'd think it's "a reasonable bit of speculation" to baselessly posit that
by leroy_masochist 5y ago
Got it, so your argument is basically an abstract appeal to cynicism.
Not sure why you'd think it's "a reasonable bit of speculation" to baselessly posit that Mattis decided to obstruct justice by reaching out to a regional prosecutor in order to influence the government's decision to prosecute a criminal case.
- ineedasername 5y agoGot it, so you're argument is basically that any speculation on an issue is unreasonable. I'm sure you never speculate on anything. It's also not obstruction of justice to ask the DOJ to look into an issue. If a threat was involved in that request then sure-- that's obstruction.
- leroy_masochist 5y ago> you're argument is basically that any speculation on an issue is unreasonable. I'm sure you never speculate on anything I try not to make nonsensical conjectures in public forums, if that is the question you're asking.
- ineedasername 5y agoI don't think it's nonsense the think it's possible, and not too implausible, that influential people placed on a Board due to their influence may actually have used that influence, or that their influence played a passive part in this. (see my other response on that.) Let's part ways on this topic though: You seem to be verging close to personal attacks, and so we've passed the point of useful discussion.