Malcolm Nance...Its Official...

[pbmus]

Link to tweet

[rurallib]

1. I believe whatever Malcolm Nance says

[bdamomma]

5. me too.

[slumcamper]

19. Not me.

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]

25. Oh ffs. Nance is a reliable and knowledgable source.

[RandomAccess]

32. Thank you

I concur. What a ridiculous mindset.

[slumcamper]

33. Indeed; agreed, it may seem rather stultifying...

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]

57. It's bemusing that you ascribe and imply absolutism to what is merely an informal and conversational

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]

61. Good for you!

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]

65. Yes ridiculous not to assume its all done

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]

28. Kay. Have fun with that.

[pbmus]

30. Snopes must be on speed dial for you....

I have some compassion and empathy for your position....especially today...

[slumcamper]

35. Yes, a robust skepticism is a useful asset in our current context!

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]

50. I see you are new to the board

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]

53. I think that "I believe everything [insert name here] says" is akin to...

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]

43. You mean theres a chance?

[grantcart]

44. There is a huge gulf between scepticism and cynical nihilism

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]

56. that's gonna leave a mark

[marble falls]

58. It must be tiring always having to check your watch as does anybody REALLY know what time it is....

[Eyeball_Kid]

45. I don't, but he's right this time.

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]

48. Your analysis is interesting and insightful. Fair chance you are exactly right. . . . nt

[True Blue American]

51. Thank you!

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]

55. I, too, believe you are correct.

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]

2. Will his lawyers (what lawyers are left?) tell the Moron this news?

Last edited Tue Apr 3, 2018, 11:54 PM - Edit history (1)

[Midnight Writer]

47. His advisers intend to bring it up on Fox & Friends in the morning.

[kag]

54. "His advisors"

Love it.

[MontanaMama]

3. Wait.

I was disheartened at the news Dotard wasn’t a target. So, we’re good here? It sounded as though WH attorneys were relieved as was the Dotard. I trust Malcolm so I’m hoping this is good news after all.

[malaise]

6. Very good

The Con will have to meet with Mueller

[pbmus]

7. Exactly...one way or the other...

[Glimmer of Hope]

15. I need this on my playlist.

Yessssssss!

[pbmus]

17. Lol

[lapfog_1]

31. I loved Blondie...

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]

8. Emphasis added:

"Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III informed President Trump’s 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 Russia’s 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]

27. "Malcolm Nance...Its Official..."

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]

16. This from Seth Abramson

Link to tweet

[pbmus]

24. This....

[madaboutharry]

38. Mueller is playing him.

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. Yes. Wait. See post #45. There is more unfolding to happen yet.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210447617#post45

[Hestia]

63. Last on Rachel, she explained the difference between subject and target, which really do seem

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]

4. Love it

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]

21. He is in over his head and not lawyered up with Mueller level talent. I just can't

see an interview going well for orange thin skin one.

[Wellstone ruled]

9. The Grand Jury will be in no hurry

with this. Interesting which GJ is doing the Investigation. That will determine the Charging District.

[Augiedog]

10. Telling tRump he is a target of the investigation would be like telling the the opposing teams

defensive coordinator your next play. You’re only under investigation until you are not. Then it’s 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.

[pbmus]

11. Agreed...

Link to tweet

[SammyWinstonJack]

18. Grinch.

[pbmus]

20. Sort of...but

[bdamomma]

23. He is channelling

his inner dark self, looks like he growing horns.

[UTUSN]

12. A Rec is no good without a Kick!1

[R B Garr]

13. Love it! Love the way he describes things.

“It’s official”. Thanks to Malcolm Nance for this Tweet.

[triron]

14. Rachel talked about this.

[Corgigal]

22. Nance always said March timeframe

on The Stephanie Miller radio show.

Congrats, very close. This guy knows people, who knows people.

[Dawson Leery]

29. Nixon was too a subject at first.

[Docreed2003]

26. K&R

[Hekate]

34. KnR

[slumcamper]

36. Justice. n/t

[flamingdem]

37. May it be so

[grantcart]

39. Where is the guy with the cannon when you need him??

[pbmus]

42. Here....always

[disndat]

60. Terrific!

Next is time for "Ode to Joy."

[Grammy23]

40. Patience. We gotta have patience.

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 Mueller’s 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]

41. So...no criminal charges coming?

I was afraid of this. He kept himself at arm's length from the collusion? Trumpers will say this clears him.

[Eyeball_Kid]

46. By declaring Trumpy a target right now, Mueller would be showing his hand too soon.

Getting Trumpy to voluntarily come to an interview is Mueller's objective. He's keeping Trumpy engaged. Smart.

[Honeycombe8]

59. Mueller is truthful. If Trump were a criminal target, he'd say so. Trump is not a criminal target.

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]

52. You'll notice there is no

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]

62. Is Mueller's discovery of the smoking gun

Roger Stone's email saying he's met with Assange's leak?

[Toorich]

64. Gen. Flynn's.....

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]

66. Maybe not super important but who is the source of this information

according to the Post? I can't read the article. Sorry.