Here is the statement. (PDF) It’s unclear to me what additional detail you feel it lacks. It’s true, for example, we don’t learn the color of Clinton’s tie or whether the humidity was above average that day, but in terms or providing relevant information, it does a fine job. And Sestak has confirmed the substance of this report – the same Sestak without whom we wouldn’t know anything happened to begin with. It’s incredibly inconsistent to say that you believe him as to the initial statement but don’t believe him when he confirms the details. You’re simply picking and choosing what facts you like, with no principled distinction guiding your choices.
Didn’t Sestak confirm only one short phone call from Clinton while the statement refers to efforts during two months?
Didn’t Sestak make it sound like a more important “job” months ago … Pennsylvania voters might like to know if he was embeleshing his importance a bit.
And generally, considering the Blago trial and the Colorado guy… don’t you think a few more details might be interesting?
Don’t even bother Dio … we know your answer.
The answer to all your questions is no.
What details do you think you didn’t get? It’s funny how you guys keep demanding more details, but can’t actually articulate anything that wasn’t answered.
And, by the way, Blago? What the hell does Blago have to do with anything? His case had no connection to Obama whatsoever, nor is it remotely analogous to anything in the Sestak story.
Who is “the Colorado guy?” I
I’m not sure, but I’m also not sure how this might be relevant. I’m pretty certain Sestak didn’t definitively say, “The contact from the White House was exactly one phone call, lasting less than three minutes.”
Maybe. But Sestak, so far as I’m aware, didn’t promise Pennsylvania voters any particular brand of transparency. Perhaps he did phrase it in a way that made the job seem more important than it actually was. Don’t know. Don’t really care.
Yes, because seeing a single dishonest Democrat is like seeing a single cockroach. You just KNOW there are hundreds more just out of sight.
Is that about it?
I spent eight weary years trying to rebut similar nonsensical leaps of logic aimed at the Bush administration. And no matter how often I relearn it, it still faintly surprises me that “my side” is willing to do the same kind of thing.
Show me some actual evidence that supports your theory, and then we’ll talk. Look, I’m obviously not a fan of the Dems. I’m predisposed to believe evil reports about them, perhaps.
But there’s just nothing here. Nothing.
I haven’t “picked and chosen” anything. There is no detail to pick and chose FROM. The letter has all the transparency of Clinton’s statement about what the definition of “is” is. I don’t accept it on face value because it was pro-offered under the close scrutiny of a room full of lawyers and not by the President when asked a simple question. It has all the validity of a child who starts an explanation of why the cat is painted red by saying: “you see, it was like this”…
I’ll say it again, unless they left phone logs or a paper-trail the chances of establishing what was offered to Sestak are slim.
I cannot get the information I need, that’s why I’m so sure I’m right. If I were wrong, of course, such information does not exist, but I’m right, therefore it does, and I could prove it, if I could get the information.
About like that?
When the information is served with a side of WH lawyer it lacks that down-home touch of sincerity.
Take it from me, son. That “down-home” stuff? Way over rated.
“No, no just that one phone call [in reference to how many times the offer was discussed]…” from The Atlantic.
But this is classic argumentum ad ignoratiam: “We don’t (can’t!) know what happened, therefore we should assume I’m right!”
In fact, it’s for the proponent of an assertion to prove his claim. The only evidence we had for the offer in the first place was Sestak, who confirms the version the White House gave. Your “evidence” that it didn’t happen that way is that you simply don’t believe his evidence. That amounts to inchoate speculation.
Usually I wince at these elucidat-ions, but … yes. This describes the perils of argument from ignorance perfectly.