General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumsrurallib
(62,423 posts)slumcamper
(1,606 posts)I've always subscribed to the relativistic (perhaps) notion that the free and open mind can never believe the final word on anything is ever in. To categorically adhere to proclamations from ANY source is tantamount to surrendering one's freedom to be an objective and rational thinker. This tendency to submit one's intellect and fall into ideological line was a big problem in Nazi Germany.
Of course, Malcolm is no Hitler! He is a force of good. However, my "brand" of liberal mind (however increasingly finite it may be) must remain free and open and unshackled by opinions, assertions, proclamations, and exhortations.
I won't automatically believe anything someone says just because I happen to agree with them 99.9% of the time. FWIW, skepticism inherently invites inner struggle, but that reminds me that I am alive!
Hekate
(90,714 posts)RandomAccess
(5,210 posts)I concur. What a ridiculous mindset.
slumcamper
(1,606 posts)absurd, ridiculous, and other such accusations.
While I am grateful that you and others have resolved the answer to the question of "What constitutes certainty?" or, "Can there be certainty?" or "Is the word of anyone inviolable or beyond question," or other such "Greatest Hits" in the annals of civilizational history and philosophy, I am admittedly nowhere near your equal.
I submit to you that I remain flummoxed--or perhaps inspired?--by the statement of an aging professor of educational philosophy (who also happened to be an ordained Methodist minister, although he steered from that course due to obvious misgivings):
"THE FINAL WORD ON ANYTHING IS NEVER IN."
I've ruminated on that wisdom for a quarter-century. I understand that some might think I'm being ridiculous in not categorically accepting Malcom's statement at face value, however I was taught to think and do differently. Think of me what you may; this is not an apologetic.
Question, question, question.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)It's bemusing that you ascribe and imply absolutism to what is merely an informal and conversational sentiment held by others simply to allow you the opportunity to engage in simple self-validation.
But I get it... inferring a colloquialism as an unconditional often allows us a pretense to take high roads not usually afforded to us.
RandomAccess
(5,210 posts)As for me, I have enough trouble trying to grapple with acquiring the info I want/need on subjects for which the answers are and have been pretty well decided. What works for you is YOUR business. My comment was not meant as advice to you, nor was it even addressed to you.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,174 posts)Yes, how foolish those doubters and concern trolls were for ever doubting those other sensational DU headlines from the past like:
"Bush is finally going down!"
"Cheney is toast!"
"KKKarl Rove soon to be led away in handcuffs!"
or
"Hillary has it in the bag!"
Squinch
(50,955 posts)pbmus
(12,422 posts)I have some compassion and empathy for your position....especially today...
slumcamper
(1,606 posts)FYI--I agree with this particular statement by Malcolm.
I disagree with the premise that one believe anything Malcolm says.
such intellectual obedience to anyone--or anything--is tantamount to surrendering one's mind and is dangerous.
True Blue American
(17,986 posts)And a big Welcome!
But we all are influenced by many things. It is wise to think for yourself but we also need to listen to experts on a subject.
I do not pretend to know everything. This is the reason I enjoy DU so much. I learn things I did not know every time I come here.
In return I try to share with others on the subjects I do know.
kag
(4,079 posts)a "figure of speech" in this context. I'm pretty sure that if Malcolm Nance said "It's raining cats and dogs" rurallib wouldn't run outside to grab himself a new kitty out of the sky.
Welcome to DU.
czarjak
(11,278 posts)grantcart
(53,061 posts)Just as there is a valley between observation and silly mutterings.
Nance has not only been correct in advance of the herd he has actually written the text book on it.
Your response has little to do with Nance, or the written statement that has been widely circulated and embraced by both Trump and anti Trump partisans, and only confirms what is obvious, Trump is a subject of investigation.
You didn't enter the thread to raise a credible doubt to Nance's statement (The only relevant point being discussed is it to Trumps' advantage or disadvantage) but rather to parade your self reviewed premise that your self branded scepticism exists on a higher level than others.
But being doubtful of a very credible source with a deep history of careful and prudent observation is not scepticism but cynical desperation. Not finding a reason to doubt you seek to cynically embrace doubt whether the context supports it in any way.
While it is true that we shouldn't embrace someone SOLELY because we agree with them your responsev incorporates 2 fallacies
A) Straw man. When you posit we shouldn't believe some one because we generally agree with them you must be aware that no one suggested that we should do so.
B) Fallacy of the inverse. Just as we shouldn't be prompted to accept Nance SOLELY because we agree with him it is equally false to disbelieve him because we agree with him.
But really you just wanted to discuss yourself in a way that projects yourself of having higher standards than folks who are actually having an informed discussion based on facts and historical context.
Raster
(20,998 posts)marble falls
(57,106 posts)Eyeball_Kid
(7,432 posts)If you read Mueller's words carefully, he was very measured in his rhetoric. He's setting a trap for Trumpy. He COULD have said that Trumpy is a target, but if he did, Trumpy would bolt and eventually contest the legitimacy of a subpeona. That would be wasted time. But Trumpy, by being named a "subject", reportedly expressed "relief", which may mean that he's still in the game. His response was likely predicted by Mueller, who wants to draw Trumpy into an interview with the least resistance possible. Trumpy likes being a "subject" of anything. It sounds like Trumpy is the center of attention in a curious way. Trumpy will take the bait.
Mueller's got Trumpy where he wants him.
Bernardo de La Paz
(49,007 posts)True Blue American
(17,986 posts)My first thought when I heard it on the news.
Reminds me of the USSC decision on the ACA. Reporters read part of the first page,rushed out to say they voted against it.
Pete Williams on NBC took the time to read the whole decision. The only one to get it right.i have trusted Pete Williams from that point on.
kag
(4,079 posts)I thought this when I was watching Rachel talk about it. And it made me glad that Dowd has left the "team" of attorneys because he was the one who was so strongly opposed to Trump testifying. Both Cobb and Sekulow want him to talk to Mueller. Dowd may have been the only attorney on the team with half a brain...glad he's gone.
BigmanPigman
(51,610 posts)Last edited Tue Apr 3, 2018, 11:54 PM - Edit history (1)
Midnight Writer
(21,768 posts)kag
(4,079 posts)Love it.
MontanaMama
(23,322 posts)I was disheartened at the news Dotard wasnt a target. So, were good here? It sounded as though WH attorneys were relieved as was the Dotard. I trust Malcolm so Im hoping this is good news after all.
malaise
(269,054 posts)The Con will have to meet with Mueller
pbmus
(12,422 posts)Glimmer of Hope
(5,823 posts)Yessssssss!
pbmus
(12,422 posts)lapfog_1
(29,205 posts)I was totally in lust with Deborah Harry.
Saw her in concert once waaay back when... you know who opened for Blondie... an unknown group with the odd name of "Duran Duran".
LOL
This song is very apropos for Mueller.
tblue37
(65,406 posts)"Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III informed President Trumps attorneys last month that he is continuing to investigate the president but does not consider him a criminal target at this point. . . ."
More:
"In private negotiations in early March about a possible presidential interview, Mueller described Trump as a subject of his investigation into Russias interference in the 2016 election. Prosecutors view someone as a subject when that person has engaged in conduct that is under investigation but there is not sufficient evidence to bring charges."
He is collecting that evidence. He knows that when you go at the "king," you have to make sure to strike true, because you don't get a second chance.
LenaBaby61
(6,974 posts)He is collecting that evidence. He knows that when you go at the "king," you have to make sure to strike true, because you don't get a second chance.
Totally agree.
triron
(22,007 posts)madaboutharry
(40,212 posts)Remember this: Robert Mueller is a brilliant man and he can spot a fool 10,000 miles away. He knows exactly the kind of person Trump is and Mueller is using Trump's own failings against him. Soften him up to get him into a voluntary interview and have him come in over-confident. Mueller has the goods on him, I have no doubt.
Bernardo de La Paz
(49,007 posts)Hestia
(3,818 posts)to be legal terms, in that when you testify in front of a grand jury you are the subject, the grand jury can then make you a target.
In the Mueller documents released last night, other agencies are investigating also, so that if Mueller is kicked off the investigation, others are already there to step in and keep it going. DOJ doesn't have the last word.
Rothenstein (?) just placed a person in charge of the whole shebang - has a funny title - who seems to be highly thought of but he did get on tv and sing drumpf's praises about something. So we'll see.
bdamomma
(63,875 posts)Thank you Malcolm Nance. Hmm.....Mueller has some questions for trump??? so if tRump lies which he probably will is perjury correct...is Mueller setting him up???
Glimmer of Hope
(5,823 posts)see an interview going well for orange thin skin one.
Wellstone ruled
(34,661 posts)with this. Interesting which GJ is doing the Investigation. That will determine the Charging District.
Augiedog
(2,548 posts)defensive coordinator your next play. Youre only under investigation until you are not. Then its either on to the beach and drinks with umbrellas or you get to share a small steal and concrete room with your new, horny, BFF.
SammyWinstonJack
(44,130 posts)pbmus
(12,422 posts)bdamomma
(63,875 posts)his inner dark self, looks like he growing horns.
UTUSN
(70,711 posts)R B Garr
(16,954 posts)Its official. Thanks to Malcolm Nance for this Tweet.
triron
(22,007 posts)Corgigal
(9,291 posts)on The Stephanie Miller radio show.
Congrats, very close. This guy knows people, who knows people.
Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)Docreed2003
(16,863 posts)slumcamper
(1,606 posts)flamingdem
(39,313 posts)grantcart
(53,061 posts)pbmus
(12,422 posts)Next is time for "Ode to Joy."
Grammy23
(5,810 posts)This never ending saga goes on and on when we ALL want to cut to the chase. We want to see tRump hung out to dry. Left without a friend or penny to his name. But we have to let Mueller do his job. This has to play out on Muellers schedule. But still......if I woke up tomorrow and heard that tRump was arrested overnight and in lock up, I have to admit it would be a Beautiful Day.
But patience, Grasshopper.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)I was afraid of this. He kept himself at arm's length from the collusion? Trumpers will say this clears him.
Eyeball_Kid
(7,432 posts)Getting Trumpy to voluntarily come to an interview is Mueller's objective. He's keeping Trumpy engaged. Smart.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)That could change. But as of now, there is no evidence to make Trump a criminal target. And that's the cold, hard truth. Already seeing Trumpers hail this as "proof" of no crime. It doesn't mean that, of course.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)tweet from donnie claiming himself exonerated. His lawyers have explained to him being the "SUBJECT" of an investigation is exactly what nixon was back in the day. So relax, this nothing but lawyer speak for "we're not ready to charge you yet". But you ARE under investigation.
disndat
(1,887 posts)Roger Stone's email saying he's met with Assange's leak?
Toorich
(391 posts)cooperation statement hasn't been released yet. Probably reads like a spy novel. I'm guessing Muller has been going from witness to witness to corroborate the whole sordid traitorous story. Tick Tock...tick tock.....tick.
I'm just wondering if a deal will be cut to let the orange one Resign and agree to not prosecute the children.
That may be the best we can hope for since the Dems think that Impeachment is off the table.
triron
(22,007 posts)according to the Post? I can't read the article. Sorry.