U.S. Judges Call Emergency Meeting Over Fears About William Barr And Trump

No it doesn't. Participation in the judicial system is not interference.

You should stop avoiding the bigger picture and be accurate. Your view is - Trump trying to stop a prosecution against his friend, which as president he is ultimate head of, is not interference.

Which is only your opinion, and related to what the concepts entail - to you (and possibly to others)

We drastically disagree, based on differing concepts. You can disagree all you like - that won't change such.

-----------------------------

And further to the transient nature of facts based on concepts:
- in some countries it is 'fact' that it is against the law to criticise Islam
- in other countries it is 'fact' that is lawful to criticise Islam
Both are true, but both are opposite / opposed to each other...and both arose out of differing concepts in each country that became commonly accepted

I am not avoiding anything.

My posts are completely accurate.



That is incorrect. That is a fact. Prosecutors do have the authority to decide whether or not to charge someone with a crime.



When you reject reality, reality remains real.



In the US, prosecutors have the authority to make sentencing recommendations and the authority to decide whether or not to charge people.

In the US, at the federal level, the President is the entire executive branch. Everyone else in the executive branch is just there to do what the President tells them to do. This includes all prosecutors and all law enforcement.

It doesn't matter if the system is different in other countries. That's what the system is in the US. It's been that way for the past 231 years.

I wonder how these authoritarian wanna-bees will feel when a criminal thug like Trump is out of office. They are cheering for the unamerican actions they feared Hillary would implement. You can always tell a cheater by the way they accuse others. Much like an unfaithful spouse, they refuse to believe their spouse values their vows because the cheaters wipe their butts with their marriage certificate....they have low character and spend their entire lives trying to prove everyone else does as well.

Unamerican?

Are you channeling Senator McCarthy?

I'm not sure about this. The US police state and private prisons are sure trying to.

I'm not aware of any freedoms being lost.

The only possible threat to our freedom that I can see is the threat that progressives represent to the Second Amendment, but that threat is being managed pretty well by the NRA.

It appears to me that many just want a black and white world - they don't function well with greys - have a look at Oralloys comments on 'reality', or his avoidance of the nature of his 'facts'. Trump offers them black & white.

Further (perhaps not realated to Oralloy - this is a general comment), Trump appeals to the bully factor (power over others factor), and the 'I can do what I like' factor that many people, who have little control in their own lives, desperately want in their lives.

---------------------

In terms of a less black & white world - It could be argued there are two types of facts (I'm making their titles up):

Irrevocable facts: Facts that are true, no matter the time nor place (again, mathematics are one of the few types of such facts)

Transient facts: Facts that hold true in a time and place, but not in all times or places. These are largely facts based on common acceptance of concepts, or stating the existence of non permanent things (eg 'There is a line on this road'), etc

-----------------------------

All of oralloys 'facts' then, fall under the banner of transient facts. But as he can't comprehend this (the nature of such 'facts'), he can't comprehend why people keep disagreeing while he chants 'I'm stating facts'

Accepting reality has nothing to do with wanting it to be true.

We reality-based people function just fine with grays, where grays actually exist.

I do not avoid the nature of my facts. Neither do I fail to comprehend the nature of facts. The nature of my facts is that they are true.

I definitely comprehend why some people disagree with reality. It is because those people are delusional.

Stating that you understand something while showing no understanding of that thing doesn't mean you understand that thing - it just means you say you do.

You will just have to take my word for it. I can easily understand any concept that you can post.

But I'm not terribly interested in jumping through hoops just to convince you of my mental greatness.

If you can challenge my facts, do so.

If you cannot challenge my facts, I suggest accepting the reality that what I post is factually correct.

That's free advice. Take it or leave it. People are generally better off when they take my advice however, since I actually give really good advice.

Possibly Earl Warren.

And contrary to your claim, here you display, yet again, an utter lack of understanding of the conversation.

No lack of understanding on my part. I told the truth about Mr. Trump not doing anything wrong and only exercising his normal prosecutorial authority.

You wish that what I say was not true, so you are spinning a bunch of malarkey about how reality isn't always real.

The concepts I'm talking about are simple, and you are quite intelligent, but you have an intense drive to view the world in black and white...so your mind glosses over the so very obvious concepts, in order to keep things black and white for you.

I've met very few people who so desperately need the world to be as black and white as yourself.

The fact that I acknowledge and accept reality does not mean that I have a need to view things as black and white.

You say that, yet everything you believe is very, very black and white.

And you avoid anything that greys your beliefs.

The truth is the truth. That's just the nature of reality.

If someone proves that I am wrong about something, I will accept that my beliefs are in error.

If no one can prove that I am wrong about anything, chances are that I am not wrong.

This yet again shows a lack of understanding of the conversation.

It also illustrates, once again, the desire for black and white / implies the ignoring of greys.

The conversation is over whether Mr. Trump did anything amiss.

There are no grays here to ignore.

Mr. Trump exercised his normal prosecutorial authority.

Mr. Trump is not interfering with judicial independence in any way.

Those are hard facts. It has nothing to do with desire.