Oh. They're playing to militia-types. "It's a Soviet takeover! Just like in 1955!"

Do you think this will work for or against Trump? — frank

Not just militia-types. Note Trump's inclusion of religion, as if impeaching him is somehow a threat to religious freedom. There is obviously no logical connection but Evangelicals and some others believe that their religious freedoms are threatened and Trump is their protector. So, a threat to Trump is viewed as a threat to their religious freedom.

Or he's just losing his mind. He's not an evil genius. — frank

Except it is not just Trump. Peter Navarro, Mr. Trump’s trade adviser, on Fox Business Network, compared the Democrats to Soviet-era secret police and their effort to an “attempted coup d’état.”

Yesterday Trump tweeted the following:

As I learn more and more each day, I am coming to the conclusion that what is taking place is not an impeachment, it is a COUP, intended to take away the Power of the....

....People, their VOTE, their Freedoms, their Second Amendment, Religion, Military, Border Wall, and their God-given rights as a Citizen of The United States of America!

This is demagoguery. Another example of Trump's willingness to tear apart the country to save himself.

This is the formation of his strategy - it is not an obstruction of justice to refuse to comply with Congress when the House is acting illegally. But many people do not understand the constitutionality of impeachment and so he employs his most effective weapon, fear. Fear that this threatens their guns and their god and their security.

What evidence is there of this? Like, show me the right-leaning think tank peice that says 'maybe we should put our trust back in the elites'. Trump is still the 'their man' of the anti-elites, and the effort to downplay this would be a massive political miscalculation. — StreetlightX

You mean the right-leaning think tanks run by highly-educated, politically connected elites?

Political reality is not so lofty. Efforts to remove Trump like this are far more likely to fan the flames of 'anti-elite' sentiment than quell them - a bunch of law-wonks removing a president like Trump right at the moment when people have less trust in institutions than ever? — StreetlightX

The anti-elite rhetoric has played itself out. If the elite want to discredit the elite then they discredit themselves. Trump, Barr, Pompeo cannot distinguish themselves from the elite, with the money and power to be considered the elite under the current narrow -minded definition of elitism.

A preview of how things will unfold:

Pompeo:

Let me be clear: I will not tolerate such tactics, and I will use all means at my disposal to prevent and expose any attempts to intimidate the dedicated professionals whom I am proud to lead and serve alongside at the Department of State.

What are these intimidation tactics? The attempt to dispose potential witnesses. Both Trump and Barr have called some of those potential witnesses spies and Trump has called the whistle-blower a traitor who should be treated as traitors were in the good old days (the latest in his efforts to make America great again).

Trump, contrary to the law, is attempting to find out the identify of the whistle-blower and has declared him or her a "fraud". He received push-back by Republican Senator Chuck Grassley, who emphasized the importance of evaluating the credibility of the whistle-blowers claims.

Attempts to thwart and discredit the investigation are likely to back-fire. Two important Republicans, McConnell and Grassley, are clear sighted enough to see that an investigation is necessary. The Republican defense tactic of at the same time faulting Democrats for prejudging the case while prejudging the case exposes their hypocrisy.

Yeah but... to be blunter than blunt - does anybody at all give a flying hoot what Trump did in Ukraine? — StreetlightX

Indeed we do! What is at issue is a self-serving president who puts his own interests ahead of those of the country and its allies, of a president who hides the extent of his corruption under the guise of rooting out corruption, of a president oversteps the bounds of executive power.

Like, that's what yall are pinning your hopes on? I mean - good luck, but holy crap are those cards so totally shit. — StreetlightX

This is not an isolated event. It merely opens the floodgates that will allow an investigation into the extent of his corruption.

So we've had the Attorney General involved in a campaign to enlist foreign intelligence to investigate the US intelligence agencies! — Wayfarer

This is a serious and important point. It is fueled by Trump's paranoia that everyone is as untrustworthy and self-serving as he is and so out to get him. It is self-serving in that it engenders confusion and mistrust in the mind of voters who have been told by Trump that individuals, news outlets, and government agencies that are not "loyal" to him are the enemy.

While it is clear that the Attorney General is supposed to represent the United States and not the president, grave questions have arisen regarding both AG Sessions and Barr. When the AG acts as Trump's personal lawyer the result is de facto obstruction of justice, for nothing the president or his administration does can receive impartial review. It does not matter whether Trump asked Barr to solicit foreign aid to endeavor to undermine the credibility of the Mueller report or Barr asked Trump, it amounts to the same thing - a concerted effort to put Trump's political interests ahead of those of the United States. Trump wants and expects to have his "Roy Cohn", that is, someone who acts in his own interests rather than the interests of the country.

So, is this a re-read ? — Amity

The first time was many years ago when I was a student. Can't say I remember much about the book or the class except that we also read some of Lincoln's speeches.

How do you keep track of main points and ideas and any interconnected views ? — Amity

I don't have a method or at least not one that I have formalized. There are things that catch my attention and many that escape my attention. Writing about or teaching a text forces me to be much more attentive and rigorous then just reading, but the practice of the former helps with the latter.

And how would ensure best comprehension ensued ? — Amity

Multiple readings of both the whole and the parts. If I don't understand something I attempt to reconstruct the argument. If after reading a section several times it is still not clear I move ahead hoping that what comes later will shed light. Best comprehension is always relative and falls short of what is there to be understood.

What do you think of the idea that a discussion thread might prove of benefit — Amity

That might be of some benefit but I think it is more a matter of practice and discovering what is possible by looking at what others have done. I find that writing is a way of thinking. If I am working on something it is often the case that I do not know what I am going to say until I say it and revise it and see how well agrees with the text.

Do you think a Reading Discussion Group would best be served by a leader who has carefully dissected the text first ? — Amity

On a forum like this there will be a lot of obstacles. I think it works much better in a more structured environment.

Or who has undertaken a literature review, including secondary resources ? — Amity

I think a careful dissection of the text works best together with the guidance of secondary sources. A survey of the literature may be helpful but for me at least it is a matter of taste and temperament as to which secondary sources I trust.

Or does it depend on the nature or purpose of the reader ... — Amity

That is an important and often overlooked or rejected aspect. To treat philosophy as if it were an objective, universal science is in my opinion a mistake. I am guided by the admonition know thyself. It is the from which and to which philosophical inquiry moves.

I think it demonstrates that it is not a case of either/or. You can read quick, quick, slow. — Amity

One problem with this is that if one reads quickly without sufficient care and attention what one then returns to might not be what would be returned to otherwise.

... rarely returning to books in their entirety. — Amity

Depending on the author this may be the problem. In the Phaedrus Socrates likens the well crafted speech to a living animal in which every part has a function as part of a whole. Based on this model every part of a well crafted book serves a function. The whole must be understood in light of the parts and the parts in light of the whole. Of course not every book is written this way.

Partisan lines are not immutable. It is importance once again to point to the distinction between impeachment and an impeachment inquiry. The purpose of the inquiry is to determine whether there is evidence of impeachable offenses. Once the evidence is presented by House committees articles of impeachment will be submitted if there is sufficient evidence to send articles of impeachment to the full house. "Innocent until proven guilty" is in this case a red herring intended to forestall or discredit the process. An inquiry is based on the presumption of innocence.

I think it very likely that articles of impeachment will be submitted and that the House will vote to impeach. I also think it likely that there will not be a majority in the Senate to vote to dismiss and that there will be a trial. I have not ruled out the possibility that the Senate will find him guilty, but even if they do not the evidence will be sufficient to persuade enough voters who supported him to not vote for him in the election.

Senate Republicans will be constantly monitoring public opinion polls and public sentiment. If it looks as though dismissal of articles of impeachment will threaten their chances of re-election they will vote for a trial. Public opinion will also play a role in the decision to convict but the weight of the evidence will have to be much greater.

The outcome, however, will be less important than what happens in the next election. If the evidence is strong enough and Trump is not convicted this will turn many Republican voters against incumbents who continue to support him and they will loose along with Trump. The party of Trump will end and the the Republican party will be transformed once again, returning to the principles they so quickly abandoned under Trump.

All in all I think it may be very good for the country.

Added: Mitch McConnell said a Senate trial would be unavoidable if the House impeached Trump.

Anyway, excuse my interjection and please carry on. — Baden

A welcome diversion from NOS' incessant need to defend Trump.

With my reference to a special Being, neither singularity nor plurality is important, because the attempt is to point out existence - modes of existence are of secondary importance. — Daniel C

'Being' is an abstraction, or as Aristotle might say a subtraction from some particular "this" - the sun or sea or animal or human, for example. It is not a matter of modes of existence but the power of this thing appeased or appealed.

I'm not sure that I understand what you mean with "an assumption based on a notion of agency". — Daniel C

The ability of the god to affect change - to help or hurt.

What we do find among the ancients is an obsession with death and the search for immortality. — Daniel C

This, of course, is true. But we find a great deal of evidence in the Hebrew Bible of the belief that death is the end. The breathe of life (Hebrew: ruach) is no longer present and the body returns to dust. In other words, there is no necessary connection between gods and some kind of human immortality or life after death. That there is something that does not die is a common belief, but I do not know if it is universal.

Interesting debate. So, maybe the duck-shaped thing walking and quacking like a duck was really just a pineapple. — Baden

We would be better off with a pineapple.

"It is clear" you're just reiterating Schiff's piffle. — NOS4A2

I will ask again:

Was it a fabrication that Trump withheld military aid? Or that he expected reciprocity? Or that he asked for a favor regarding his political opponent?

With the exception of the first question, which has been independently verified, each question is based on the transcript of the phone call.

According to the transcript, the favor Trump asked for had nothing to do with Biden, but the 2016 election and Ukrainian meddling. — NOS4A2

From the transcript:

I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine ... There are a lot of things that went on, the·whole situation ... A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved ... The other thing. There's a lot of talk about Biden's son,. that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great.

The favor involved "a lot of things", the whole situation". The issue of the prosecutor is directly connected to Biden.

The Justice Dept, of which Barr is the Attorney General, is currently investigating Ukraine's meddling in the election. — NOS4A2

According to the AP:

Attorney General Bill Barr was "surprised and angry" to find that President Trump had grouped him together with his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani during a controversial July 25 phone call with the president of Ukraine, a source "familiar with Barr's thinking".

More to the point of the impeachment inquiry, Barr's handling of the whistle-blower complaint is in question, as was his handling of the Mueller investigation. I assume you ignored or more likely do not understand what is at issue regarding the theory of a unitary president. It is essential to everything Barr is doing regarding the investigations into Trump.

I'm not sure if you're aware, but Schiff blatantly mischaracterized the phone call in his opening statement to congress.

He said, when describing the phone call, "What is the president's response? Well it reads like a classic organized crime shakedown", — NOS4A2

I think that pretty much sums it up. Trump does not believe his own national security agencies or their having gotten to the bottom of "this whole situation". The call did not mention it, but Schiff reports that Giuliani had been to the Ukraine looking for dirt. And we know that he ordered to have funds that were approved to go to help the Ukraine defend itself were withheld. He talks about reciprocity. He asks for a favor. He makes it clear that he wants information on his political opponent Biden and his son. He asks several times for Zelenskyy to talk to Giuliani and Barr. Giuliani is Trump's personal lawyer and has no business discussing matters of national security. Barr reportedly was unaware of the arrangement Trump proposed and was perturbed to have been dragged into it. Given the situation it is as if someone were holding a gun to your head and the police withheld help but instead asked for a favor. There is nothing inconsistent with what Trump said or did. It is clear when he said that it reads like a classic organized crime shakedown that it was not intended to be a verbatim account, but you use this to claim the whole thing was a fabrication.

Was it a fabrication that Trump withheld military aid? Or that he expected reciprocity? Or that he asked for a favor regarding his political opponent?

Note how Fool neither mentions nor addresses Schiff's lies, the subject of Trump's complaints — NOS4A2

There is a very good reason I have not mentioned or addressed Schiff's "lies": as most here can see, Schiff's account of the phone call are consistent with the reconstructed transcript released by Trump. We cannot, in fact, say that the reconstructed transcript is consistent with what was actually said since Trump has hidden the actual transcript away.

As far as I can tell, what Trump is objecting to is not the content of the conversation as described by Schiff but what he said about the appropriateness and legality of the conversation. These are two different things that Trump wants to conflate to confuse voters. Trump disagrees with Schiff because on the one hand he thinks that the presidency authorizes him to do or say whatever he wants and so he cannot have done anything wrong, and on the other, because of this, whoever questions the appropriateness and legality of what he said and did acts not only against him but the country, as if they were one and the same. Trump may claim that this is treasonous but it is an empty claim that he will be prevented from pursuing because it is without merit.

His own former homeland security adviser repeatedly told him the conspiracy claims against the Biden's had been debunked and repeatedly Trump seemed to accept this but then turn around and make the accusations all over again. Trump has long known and made use of the fact that the truth does not matter if one's claims can cast doubt on one's opponents. Now in case you are confused or simply wish to defend Trump, he is the difference: Trump and his henchman Giuliani make accusations and occasionally threaten an investigation, but Schiff and the intelligence committees are actively investigating and are determined to get to the truth of the matter. And this, with good reason, troubles Trump.

One of Trump’s persecutor’s ... — NOS4A2

It is funny that NOS entered this discussion complaining about the hyperbole of those who oppose Trump but does the very thing he accuses others of. Right out of Trump's playbook.

Making Trump a martyr may work, but it serves to further tear apart the country by making those who question Trump's actions "persecutors". More evidence of his willingness to destroy the country to save himself. Republicans love to identify themselves with the party of Lincoln but Lincoln said a house dividend cannot stand. The Republicans have cast their lot with Trump. It remains to be seen whether they will continue to do so. They have clearly demonstrated their willingness to abandon what until recently were the principles of the party. Now they have to decide whether their own political futures lie with remaining loyal to Trump of distancing themselves from him.

A Trump tweet this morning (9/30):

Rep. Adam Schiff illegally made up a FAKE & terrible statement, pretended it to be mine as the most important part of my call to the Ukrainian President, and read it aloud to Congress and the American people. It bore NO relationship to what I said on the call. Arrest for Treason?

Is this a question or a threat? It is a perfect example of the way Trump operates. He leaves himself enough room to deny it is a threat but it attempts to shift attention and blame from Trump and paints him as the victim who not only for his own sake but for the sake of the country must be protected from being investigated.

Whether or not we are able to see through this there will be some portion of the people who see this as more evidence that the Democrats are the enemy and must be removed from power and even executed for treason. The question is just how many people will be persuaded or at least confused and how this will play out in the investigation and election.

Do you have a reasonable expectation that he will repay the "loans"? It may be his sincere intent but how will he be able to do so? If his business is failing then what will be the future source of income that will enable him to repay them?

If, however, you give him the money because you believe it will help him and would do so even if he can never repay you then you need to evaluate whether and to what extent this will actually help him. Will it make him solvent or enable him to live without further loans from you? You said you have already given him several loans. Do you expect that for some reason this will be the last one? Were all the others for this failed business? What will he do once the business closes?

The only expanation for this phenomenon which makes sense to me is a psychological one. There must have been this overwhelmimg need in man, right from the "beginning" to find a Superior / Transcendental / Cosmic Being to enable him/her to bear the pain / suffering of being alive and to give meaning to their lives and also a sense of morality. — Daniel C

First, the concept of a singular cosmic being is a rather late development. Much earlier are the gods, often personified, with particular powers and domains. Second, I do not think it is the result of a need but rather an assumption based on a notion of agency. The need or desire to appeal to or appease such agents is a natural outgrowth.

Impeachment and an impeachment inquiry are two very different things. As Pelosi knows, a rush to impeach is a mistake. The intent of the inquiry is to establish whether there are sufficient grounds to impeach. Although some may be convinced that he should be impeached there are many others who are not so sure. A favorite talking point of the party of Trump is innocent until proven guilty. The principle is, of course, correct, but they are trying to use it to forestall any inquiry to establish guilt or innocence, as if, since quilt has not already been proven we should not even consider the fact that he might be guilty. I trust that all but the most devoted Trumpsters will see the untenability of this and will favor an inquiry and mistrustful of attempts to block it. In addition, Trump's accusations of treason may play well with the Trumpsters but I think that most will be able to see that such tactics are not only false but dangerous.

A few words on the problem of misologic. It occurs in the Phaedo. Socrates is about to die and the subject of discussion is the fate of the soul. He tells some stories that he says are intended to ease the childish fears of death, stories about the immortality of the soul. For some this is satisfactory but the objection is raised that the philosopher does not want stories but the truth. But the truth is that Socrates does not know the truth about such things. It is those who have the highest expectation for philosophy to provide the answers about such things who come to hate what they previously loved when the discover that philosophy cannot do what they desire it to.

Barr’s letter wasn’t a summary. — NOS4A2

From the letter:

I am writing today to advise you of the principal conclusions reached by Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III ...

That is by definition a summary. What he presents are not the principle conclusions reached by Mueller. The differences between what Mueller reported and Barr's summary are due either to ineptitude or a deliberate attempt to mislead to protect Trump. I think it is clear that Barr is not inept, so why would he deliberately mislead if he was not partisan?

For one thing, he was a dialectical materialist, so this is a world view about as far away from Platonic concepts as you can get, since (historical) contexts and meanings are in continual transition and transformation. — uncanni

I think that this is based on a common but fundamentally misguided reading of Plato. Very briefly: the dialogues typically end in aporia, but the danger is what he calls misologic or nihilism. Plato presents a salutary public teaching - Forms, recollection, transcendence, but dialectic always falls short of knowledge of Forms. The public teaching is philosophical poetry. Plato, like Socrates, was a zetetic skeptic. The philosopher is a lover of wisdom is always in pursuit of it and never in possession of it. The image of knowledge is static and timeless but the dialogues are in motion and in continual transition and transformation. They are not based on knowledge the philosopher does not posses but on an examination of opinion.

How did you cope and engage with the St.John's approach ? As a student or teacher? — Amity

The instructor for my intro to philosophy class was a graduate of St. John's, but neither the philosophy major nor the undergraduate degree was based on this approach, except to the extent that most of the texts in the philosophy program were primary texts and, at least in classes with this professor, we did a close reading and discussion of the text rather than passively listen to him lecture. When I taught I used primary texts but, as has become much more common, most of the students either did not read the material or did not work to understand it.

Was it really a case of 'sink or swim' ? — Amity

No. In both cases, as a teacher and as a student, only a few dedicated students learned to swim but most did not sink, at least if sinking meant failing the class.

At that age, I would probably sit in silence and listen. — Amity

Grades were based in large part on term papers.

Floating in a sea or sigh of incomprehension... — Amity

When you asked sink or swim my immediate thought was float.

And I shall remind myself to think twice and twice again if I imagine to suppose you're mistaken about anything on these matters again! — tim wood

Well the third time then you might be right.

P. C. Smith — tim wood

I thought the name sounded familiar. He translated Gadamer's Hegel's Dialectic, Dialogue and Dialectic, and The Idea of the Good in Platonic-Aristotelian Philosophy, but since I usually skip translator's introductions unless I know the translator I don't know if I ever read him. I will have to take another look.

The Hermeneutics of Original Argument — tim wood

What is original argument? I just looked it up. It refers to rhetoric, a subject that is misunderstood and receives too little attention these days. Sounds interesting. I started reading Aristotle's Rhetoric again a few months ago but got distracted by other things and other books. Unlike some here who, based on the "Currently Reading" topic can quickly read through books, I am a slow reader. I will die before I read everything on my bookshelf, but continue to buy more.

I think we are going to be hearing a lot more about the unitary executive theory and the extent and limits of presidential power. Trump seems to think that he can say and do whatever he wants and although Barr's position is more nuanced it is not so different. The first battle on this front will be their response to subpoenas and the request for information. So far they have ignored them.

One of the issues that will be addressed is with regard to obstruction of justice. Barr claims that the primary statute does not apply to the president. Whatever the merits of his claim I think we will see legislation proposed on the question of presidential powers and limits. Whether or not such legislation will be passed depends on whether Republicans remain in the majority in the next election and whether the next president will be a Democrat or Republican. A Republican majority will be far more likely to pass such legislation with the prospect of a Democratic president.

I trust you're far enough along to both have realized and to some extent experienced just how problematic - to be kind - the "sink or swim you're on your own" approach can be. — tim wood

Yes. There may be rare cases of autodidacts who can do it alone, but far more common are those who fancy themselves autodidacts who cannot. We are in need of and greatly benefit from having good teachers. Some of those teachers may be people we have had the pleasure of studying with, but given the constraints of time and geography it is "books on books" that serve as our teachers. They do not simply provide information and explanation, they guide us in our own reading of the philosopher in question.

Many years ago when I was in graduate school I met privately one on one with Gadamer who taught periodically at Boston College. I was considering doing work on the interpretation of texts, the meaning and significance of interpretation and its relation to originality. Being the kind and gentle man he was he simply suggested I first spend the next twenty-five years doing interpretation. I think it was good advice.

Rather than compare the summaries you take Barr's word for it. You are either incapable of or unwilling to see how their accounts differ. Either way there is no point in continuing.

Challenging you to compare the Mueller report to Barr's summary is not an accusation. To make it easier compare Mueller's own summary to Barr's and get back to us.

I have. So what’s partisan about it again? — NOS4A2

Are they in agreement? Does Barr accurately represent what Mueller said?

Here is one of many comparisons that can be found online:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/19/us/politics/mueller-report-william-barr-excerpts.html

Compare the Mueller report to Barr's summary.

If you don’t know why or are not willing to share why Barr is partisan, why make the claim?
— NOS4A2

It is no secret and not hard to see, but if you are going to learn you need to do the work yourself. — Fooloso4

It is no secret and not hard to see, but if you are going to learn you need to do the work yourself.

More breathless accusations. This is the going rate with anti-Trumpism. — NOS4A2

Challenging you to compare the Mueller report to Barr's summary is not an accusation. To make it easier compare Mueller's own summary to Barr's and get back to us.

Where can I follow any 'how to' descriptions or prescriptions on close reading ?
Or did they not spell it out ? — Amity

It is mostly by way of example. One guiding principle is to assume the superiority of the author to the reader, that whatever problems or contradictions the reader finds are things the author is aware of. Apparent contractions are to be treated as signs of something deeper, to look closer to, to see if and how they are reconciled by the author. But it may be that some things cannot be reconciled, that philosophy is ultimately aporetic.

understanding before interpretation - is sometimes not-so-easy — tim wood

I do not think that we first understand and then interpret. Interpretation is the way in which we come to understand.

So perhaps the question to you might be how you handle a book you want to understand but that at first seems opaque? — tim wood

It depends on the book and author. My own training was based on reading primary texts and asking questions about them - "What does Plato mean when he says this?" "Why would he say this?" "Is it true?" We were not given any introduction and knew nothing of secondary literature. It was up to us to try and make sense of it. It was up to us to form our own opinions about the issues raised. While there are certainly limits to this approach, the benefit was to learn to engage with the text rather than have it explained.

In my opinion a reliance on secondary literature can prevent us from learning to carefully attend to the text. On the other hand, without some guidance we may not make much progress with some texts. Here commentaries can be our teachers. Since they continually point back to the text they can enhance our engagement with the text.

Other secondary literature is of value though in orienting us with regard to such things as how terms are being used and who and what problems the author may be responding to. I see the works of philosophers as a dialogue across the ages. If we drop in in the middle of a conversation it can be difficult to know what is going on.

But the secondary literature can give us very different answers and so if we want to understand a primary work we cannot be too reliant on secondary literature. The truth is though, that even some professional philosophers do not read primary works. Heidegger had much to do with the current revival of interest in the ancients. Both Strauss and Klein, who I mentioned above, were at one time students of his. Although they became deeply suspicious of him, what they learned from him was to return to the source.

The St. John's Great Books program is (I'm pretty sure) in part based on Adler's own ideas about great book ... — tim wood

That is not the case. See the Wiki articles on Great Books and Saint John's.

He can't see that he's committed a crime here. — Wayfarer

I think that part of the problem is that he runs the government in the same way he ran his business, where such "favors" are common practice. What is to his advantage is to the advantage of his business and so what is his advantage must be to the advantage of the country. As long as he could get money from somewhere, default on debts, declare multiple bankruptcies, and go to foreign countries when no one in the U.S. would lend him money everything was beautiful.

Compare the Mueller report to Barr's summary.

If you don’t know why or are not willing to share why Barr is partisan, why make the claim? — NOS4A2

It is no secret and not hard to see, but if you are going to learn you need to do the work yourself.

Follow the masters of interpretation. I am partial to Leo Strauss and Jacob Klein, especially their readings of the ancients, but the skills are transferable to reading others as well. Strauss became a controversial figure, but largely because his critics did not learn from him how to read and thus the misread and misunderstand him

Since the topic is Adler I will leave it here.

How did Barr show himself to be partisan? Just more breathless accusations. — NOS4A2

Compare the Mueller report to Barr's summary.

You referred to Mueller’s report to maintain that his reasoning was sound. I’m referring to the Attorney General and American law that shows that it’s quite the opposite. No, you cannot indict a sitting president, but the special prosecutor can conclude whether the president committed a crime. — NOS4A2

Barr's loyalty to Trump rather than the country and his deceit may bring his down along with Trump. But he is in a unique position and he may still be able to protect the president and himself. It may be that Barr's motivation is his vision of the unitary executive rather than allegiance to Trump the man but since Trump is the president it amounts to the same thing. Perhaps the allegiance only extends to a Republican or conservative president though. In any case, he has shown himself to be partisan rather than the impartial advocate for the United States that the position requires.

What I said was that Mueller was guided by precedent not law and that I understand the reasoning behind it, but by ignoring established custom and indicted Trump he would have been free to state allegations. Apparently such complexity is too much for the limits of your "Trump good those who oppose Trump bad" understanding.

I made the same point yesterday. Either NOS is unable to understand it or chooses to ignore it because it undermines his argument. If it is the former than arguing with him will be as pointless as arguing with a child about things she is not able to comprehend. If the latter then the question is who NOS is trying to convince, him or herself or someone else.