i appreciate all political differences. i like reading what slowguy and JSA have to say because they are usually pretty well informed, coherent, write in good faith, and appreciate the value of knowledge, they're fact and science driven, and even occasionally persuadable. even tho i probably don't hold with at least half of what they believe or advocate politically.

i don't even mind ideologues. as long as they're fact driven. what i do mind are ideologues who actively avoid facts that may invade their vacuous belief silos. my habit is simply to boycott them. i suspect that if they felt that fact-avoidance resulted in the cold shoulder, and if they were simply ignored unless they were forced to acknowledge the primacy of fact, that this might cause them to, grudgingly, adopt a new discourse paradigm.

this thread has been enlightening to me. it's become clear that certain people here are so fearful of fact that they won't read: 1) the mueller report; 2) a synopsis of the mueller report; 3) a transcript of mueller's 10min synopsis of his own report. they will only read - maybe - a partisan recasting of the mueller report, and then (inexplicably) maintain they know what the report says without actually having read it.

so, what i'm calling for is a simple boycott on replying to those who refuse to allow facts, science, reason, and best practices into their conversations. which argues against my financial interests. nevertheless, i will not respond to people who waste my time with an argument that is based solely on what they choose to believe, rather than on what is known and knowable.

let's say i want to call you a dogfucker. i have evidence you're a dogfucker. you deserve to be called a dogfucker. but there's something legally constraining me from calling you that. i don't tap dance around why i can't call you a dogfucker. i lay out what keeps me, legally, from calling you a dogfucker. and i also say it offends the notion of fairness, because you can't rebut my claim, and since your dog can't speak human, he cannot come to your defense. therefore, because of my august position, and the platform i command, it would be both extraconstitutional and grossly unfair to call you that. no tap dance here. clearly explained. now, you may feel that my reading of the constitution is wrong. that i can label you a dogfucker. but there is no mealy-mouthedness. i laid out the evidence against you. i did everything i'm able. but i'm precluded from making that judgment. not by reticence, but by statute, and by regulation. i really do recommend you acquaint yourself, one way or the other, with mueller's own words, not via someone else, but via a direct reading, so you can see why mueller could not call trump a dogfucker.

The other thing... and this is solely my opinion... If Mueller, can't charge, can't make a recommendation for a charge, can't recommend impeachment, can't exonerate and feels it's unfair to Trump to do so, then why release anything about obstruction at all?

To give the people who should be doing their jobs the opportunity to do their job.

There was obstruction. Impeachment proceedings should probably start.