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.

Either I’m in over my head or not. What was I wrong about? — NOS4A2

Start by researching the legal concepts of the presumption of innocence and probable cause.

First you would need to take your head out of your ass.

I’ll wait. — NOS4A2

Honestly, the sooner the better, but that is up to you. You seem to like the view.

How is it not? Show me how far I am in over my head. I don’t mind being corrected. — NOS4A2

First you would need to take your head out of your ass.

What did he say of the President of the United States?

“If we had had confidence that the president had clearly not committed a crime we would have said so.”

That’s a perversion of of the presumption of innocence. Mueller’s — NOS4A2

It is not. You are in over your head. You are throwing around legal terms now without any understanding of what they mean.

Breaking news I just learned that the White House locked down the transcripts from this Ukraine discussion on a special file server.... — 3017amen

Yes, this was discussed in the hearings today. Just another attempt by Trump to obstruct justice under the rubric of executive privilege.

Whatever the results of the investigations and the election, I think we will see explicit limits but on executive power. The Republicans may not go along if Trump is re-elected but certainly will if a Democrat is. They may go along sooner or later anyway because sooner or later a Democrat will be elected president and they certainly do not want a Democrat to be able to do what Trump is doing.

It’s not evidence of their guilt either. Investigations such as Mueller’s are not designed to prove innocence or exonerate anyone; they are to prove guilt. This is simple due process. — NOS4A2

Mueller was quite clear that he was not going to prove guilt for the very reason that without an indictment there could be no due process, and he had no intention of indicting. He left all that to Congress.

I do not believe in unjust and arbitrary investigations without probable cause ... — NOS4A2

It is evident that you do not understand what probable cause means. You are spinning in circles and digging yourself deeper and deeper into the hole you are trying to extricate yourself from. You may think the investigations unjust and arbitrary but saying so does not make it so.

mind is brain — lepriçok

In that case, mind is not in some separate realm but within the realm of matter.

So, we have micro-realms and cosmic realms that are connected this way: cosmic realm (conscious matter) - mind micro-realm (personal substance) - cosmic realm (unconscious matter). — lepriçok

There is a logical and evidential gap here. You have posited cosmic consciousness but claiming that there is such a thing does not mean that there is such a thing. You have posited conscious and unconscious matter but have not shown that there are two kinds of matter. If, for example, you claim that the brain is conscious matter it does not follow that there are two kinds of matter. It may be, that the difference is the organization of matter, that when matter is organized in one way we get unconscious things like rocks and when organized in another way we get brains.

X is dependent on Y, but it is not dependent simply notionally, it is dependent ontologically, without Y there would be no X. When he defines substance as "that which is in itself" he does not mean that it is contained in itself, but, as you say, it is not dependent on anything else. It follows that everything that is dependent on it is not what it is in itself but in light of or as a consequence of or dependent on something else.

Looking for examples must fail because there are no examples of Y. Anything that serves as an example must be an example of some X, that is, some dependent thing.

Americans were arrested for the “any other matters that arise from the investigation”, unrelated to Russian interference, collusion, spying, influencing the elections. — NOS4A2

They are not unrelated. The problem is that, as the report states and I said above, the relationship could not be legally established by the investigation because of obstruction of justice and the limits of the investigation.

This is why so many have pushed for an impeachment investigation. The constraints under which the Mueller investigation operated no longer apply.

I repeat, not a single American was charged or indicted on the core conspiracy theory of whether there was any conspiracy or coordination with Russia over the election — NOS4A2

And I repeat, this is not evidence of their innocence. Trump has done everything he can to prevent any investigation into his activities. He can call it fishing expedition but it seems highly unlikely that he would try to prevent the investigations if he was not worried about who might get caught.

You might think it is all a hoax, but whether or not it is cannot be determined without an investigation, and, tellingly, you and Trump would like nothing more than to prevent the investigations from proceeding.

One more point: the idea that a sitting president should not be indicted is based on the concern that this would take up too much of his time and energy and prevent him from doing his job. But Trump has and will continue to spend a great deal of time and energy suppressing any and all investigations.

Cognition is both a function and an action. The function emerges from the mind, but acts on and of reality, by doing something to it, perceiving how it changes, observing the laws, relating to it, connecting onto it an so on. There is much more in cognition than a function, concealed in a mind-box. Mind is connection, intention, relation and so on. There is an object, the subject and some process bridging them. Now, I hope, I have expressed the thought more clearly. Everything else follows from this. Misunderstanding occurred only because our boundaries of perception and concepts are different. However, sense and absurdity is not polarized by mere difference in individual perception. — lepriçok

You have missed the point. It is not a question of whether cognition is a function or an action or both. You claimed that reality has three main realms, mind, external matter and the process of their cognition. The process of cognition is a mental process, not something separate and distinct from mind.

Your night in shining armor, Mueller, waged a massive fishing expedition, and arrested exactly zero Americans for the crimes of Russian collusion to influence the election, any crimes related to helping Russia, which you conspiracy theorists went on about for years. — NOS4A2

Mueller is hardly my knight in shining armor. He was guided by precedent not law. He assiduously refused to state conclusions. This was certainly to Trump's benefit even if not for his benefit. I am of two minds about this. On the one hand I understand the reasoning behind it, but on the other, by ignoring established custom and indicted Trump he would have been free to state allegations.

Calling it a fishing expedition distorts the facts. If it were a fishing expedition it would be catch and release, but Mueller refused to even make accusations because he thought it unfair to Trump to do so since Trump could not provide a legal defense unless he was indicted.

You cling to the non-legal term "collusion" as if it were a life-savor. Manafort, Gates, Cohen, and other close associates of Trump were found guilty of or admitted to crimes related to Trump's election, including obstruction of justice.

The Mueller report stated that it did not find sufficient evidence that the Trump campaign "coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities", but this must be viewed in light of 1) the administrations efforts to suppress information and 2) Mueller's refusal to make accusations that Trump could not defend against since a sitting president could not be indicted. The fact that they did not find sufficient evidence does not mean that they did not find any evidence.

I think the Mueller report was an anti-Trump witch hunt. I’m not ok with it because no one was convicted of the non-crime of Russian collusion for which they were being investigated. It was an unjust fishing expedition. — NOS4A2

This is feckless. The title of of the report is: "Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election". There was ample evidence of Russian interference. There were convictions based on the investigation, including close associates of Trump. The introduction to V olume II makes clear why Trump was not indicted. Contrary to what Trump claimed, he was not exonerated. To the contrary, the report states:

The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

If it were a witch-hunt they would not have been prevented from reaching the conclusion that he was guilty. Mueller played by the book, providing information and leaving it to others to reach conclusions. That is not how a witch-hunt works. But Trump without any evidence declares it a witch-hunt and you as a true believer repeat his words as if they are an incantation to ward off evil. Never mind what the report actually says, Trump declares it a "witch-hunt", "fake news", "a hoax", "a fishing expedition", and the faithful repeat his words and believe that to be the end of the matter. In the words of your lord and savior: sad.

I approve of the approach taken by Saint John's College - a critical reading and discussion of the "great books". One learns to read to read a book by way of example and interpretative practice under the guidance of more advanced students or tutors, based on the assumption that the books themselves are the teachers.

One thing Adler does not mention is learning how to ask questions of a text and listen for the answers. In line with this is noting apparent contradictions and figuring out how the author reconciles them or how these contradictions point to a higher level of understanding beyond the contradictions. The assumption here is that if we can see the contradictions they have not gone unnoticed by the greatest minds.

Our reality has three main realms: mind, external matter and the process of their cognition. — lepriçok

This makes no sense. There can be no cognition without mind and there are strong arguments suggesting that without matter there can be no mind. That mind is a realm of reality is a questionable assertion. The positing of mind as if it were a fundamental aspect of reality independent of rather than a feature of some animals is a metaphysical assumption. That is to say, a creation of the human mind.

When cognition connects mind and matter ... — lepriçok

Cognition does not connect mind and matter. Cognition is a function of the mind.

... reality is converted into information, having a form of scientific notation. — lepriçok

In general, modern science is mathematized, but information is not a conversion of reality into something else. For example, if a meteorologist tells me it is raining, that information is not a conversion of the fact that it is raining but rather a report of that fact. Dark cloudy skies may provide me with the information that it is going to rain, but that is not a conversion into a form of scientific notation. Long before the advent of modern science people knew how to read that information.

The product of cognition process is knowledge which has a quantitative characteristic. — lepriçok

Some knowledge is quantitative but other knowledge is not.

If the entire reality is 100% ... — lepriçok

This is a nonsensical statement. Is some reality not "100%"? 100% what, real?

On the other hand, I do not think this is possible, and before reaching the goal, humanity would self-destroy. — lepriçok

Ancient mythologies recognized that knowledge is a double edged. It brings with it both benefit and harm.

The reasons are the degradation of moral values — lepriçok

Are you claiming that knowledge degrades moral values or that moral values can limit the destructive power of knowledge?

What is the highest possible level of scientific achivement, before things going south to us? Is it possible to avoid this fate? — lepriçok

It may be that scientific achievement will be what keeps things from going further south. The most obvious example is global warming. Science has certainly contributed to the problem, but I see no way of solving the problem without advances in technology. Further, it is only because of science that we are even aware of the problem and the extent of the problem.

27:

Knowing, as it is at first, or, as immediate spirit, is devoid of spirit, is sensuous consciousness. In order to become genuine knowing, or, in order to beget the element of science which is its pure concept, immediate spirit must laboriously travel down a long path.

Immediate spirit is devoid of spirit because it is consciousness of something other, that is, it is not self-consciousness. The path from consciousness of what is other to self-consciousness is the development of genuine knowing.

28:

However, the task of leading the individual from his culturally immature standpoint up to and into science had to be taken in its universal sense, and the universal individual, the world spirit, had to be examined in the development of its cultural education.

The universal individual, the world spirit, is not any particular individual:

... the particular individual is an incomplete spirit, a concrete shape whose entire existence falls into one determinateness and in which the other features are only present as intermingled traits.

The universal individual is one formed by the development of Western culture. Although genuine knowing involves both subject and object and is in that sense subjective, it is not a matter of whatever any particular individual declares or thinks or believes. It is universal subjectivity. But it is not simply a matter of consensus, that is, what is true is not so because most or all at any given time take it to be true.

In any spirit that stands higher than another, the lower concrete existence has descended to the status of an insignificant moment; what was formerly at stake is now only a trace; its shape has been
covered over and has become a simple shading of itself. The individual whose substance is spirit standing at the higher level runs through these past forms in the way that a person who takes up a higher science goes through those preparatory studies which he has long ago internalized in order to make their content current before him; he calls them to mind without having his interest linger upon them.

Each stage of development is secondary to the completion of the movement of spirit. By way of analogy, one's first steps are of momentous importance but cease to be important as one learns to walk and run. Hegel is not minimizing the importance of what those before him have accomplished. Their accomplishments, however, have become internalized, part of one's cultural education. However great the accomplishments of Plato or Kant or Newton or anyone else, they are only moments in the development of knowledge and the world spirit. Although we may never accomplish what they did we are able to see further than they by standing on their shoulders.

In that way, each individual spirit also runs through the culturally formative stages of the universal
spirit, but it runs through them as shapes which spirit has already laid aside, as stages on a path that has been worked out and leveled out in the same way that we see fragments of knowing, which in earlier ages occupied men of mature minds, now sink to the level of exercises, and even to that of games for children. In this pedagogical progression, we recognize the history of the cultural formation of the world sketched in silhouette. This past existence has already become an acquired possession of the universal spirit; it constitutes the substance of the individual, or, his inorganic nature. – In this respect, the cultural formation of the individual regarded from his own point of view consists in his acquiring all of this which is available, in his living off that inorganic nature and in his taking possession of it for himself.

Our inorganic nature is our spiritual nature. We are as we are not because of some timeless and invariant human nature or individual particularity. It is as it is because our spiritual nature is cultural and historical. The " cultural formation of the individual regarded from his own point of view" appears to be a matter of what he or she acquires on his own, but:

... this is nothing but the universal spirit itself, or, substance giving itself its self-consciousness, or, its coming-to-be and its reflective turn into itself.

It is not the individual person but the instantiation or indwelling of spirit manifest in the individual.

Standard disclaimer: Everything here is tentative and subject to correction.

... properly represent my arguments — NOS4A2

“Mueller mueller mueller”, “impeach impeach impeach”.

Dem playbook. — NOS4A2

Is this a proper representation of your arguments?

It has been amusing seeing you flounder around but I have wasted enough time responding to your inept attempts to defend Trump.

What does Mueller have to do with it? — NOS4A2

I think you know, and your continued attempts at obfuscation only make you look more and more ridiculous.

I already said that if the transcript was true, the allegations are refuted. — NOS4A2

What allegations are refuted if the transcript is true? The transcript, even if unedited, is not the whole of the story. The phone call is only the latest in a long list of questionable behavior. Don't bother asking again what list. Much of it was detailed in the Mueller report, but you seem to be confused as to what the report has to do with any of this. Or perhaps you have just taken another page from the Trump playbook and "deny, deny, deny".

You have merely repeated the claims of Democrats. — NOS4A2

So, you ask what he did wrong to warrant an investigation but disregard the allegations of the very people who are investigating him. But even if you are incapable of seeing the lapse in logic, Mueller is not a Democrat. A fact that Trump and his lap dogs have done everything they can to obscure.

You cover your eyes and ears and claim there is nothing to see or hear.

Your arguments have become more and more tenuous. I would say that you need to step up your game, but it appears that you have already overplayed your hand. In this case I cannot agree with Leiber and Stoller or Peggy Lee - if that's all there is then stop dancing.

BTW, why, I forgot to ask you, why didn't Trump give a personal interview/testimony during the Muller report? — 3017amen

From what I read, Trump was willing. No doubt he thinks he can talk his way out of anything. If it is was only his personal lawyers who prevented him from doing so that would be one thing, but if they were not then this raises grave questions of where their loyalty lies - with Trump or with the country. They know that Trump cannot keep his mouth shut, that he is a compulsive liar, and that he would both perjure and betray himself if given the opportunity.

There has to be something Trump may have done in order for him to be guilty or not guilty of it. What is it? — NOS4A2

You are dancing around while trying to ignore the mounting evidence that an investigation is warranted, and more and more it appears to a Saint Vitus dance. Several of us have pointed to reasons why he should be investigated. Since it is evident that you have nothing substantive to add I am not going to continue indulging you.

It seems likely that whatever happens you will attempt to spin it to protect Trump. When he said he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue no doubt he had those like you in mind.

I suspect you don’t know at all. Once again, there has to first be a crime until someone can be guilty or not guilty of it. — NOS4A2

An impeachable offense need not be a crime. Whatever it is you think you know, you should know this if you wish to carry on an informed discussion.

When we accuse someone of high crimes and misdemeanors there must be high crimes and misdemeanors with which to accuse him. — NOS4A2

I suspect you know better. One does not first have to be found guilty before an investigation is opened into whether or not he is guilty.

You cannot just impeach a political figure for no reason!!! — NOS4A2

Trump has not been impeached and it seems likely that he will not be, but that has little to do with whether or not he is guilty. As has been pointed out, there is plenty of evidence leading to the need for an investigation, but you close your eyes and ears and pretend that an innocent man is going to be impeached "for no reason!!!".

What are the high crimes and misdemeanors? — NOS4A2

Once again, that is something that cannot be established before the investigation into what they may be has been completed. We do not yet have the full story and if Trump has his way we never will. And that in itself is a crime, to wit: obstruction of justice.

The parts about “pressure” (Ukrainian President just said there was no pressure), — NOS4A2

Are you that naive or simple-minded or just disingenuous? He has to curry Trump's favor. Of course he is not going to contradict him!

withholding funding funding (a routine job of the president) — NOS4A2

Again I must ask if you that naive or simple-minded or just disingenuous? It is anything but routine for a president to without military funds allocated by Congress for personal political purposes. If we look at Trump's reasons for doing so we don't get a straight answer from him.

I just read the Washington Post. Looks like the whistleblower did not base their concern on that call. There were other calls.....Trump's in trouble now. — 3017amen

I think we will just have to wait to see how things develop before concluding that Trump is in trouble now. Even if there is ample and damning evidence, unless the Senate decides to take action the consequences remain unclear. It will be up to the voters. If there are enough from the key states who believe he has made America great again, they will ignore or minimize the importance of whatever is uncovered.

So no crime and no probable cause that he committed a crime. Just an arbitrary impeachment inquiry. — NOS4A2

How do you know that there has been no crime and no probable cause for an investigation? If he did nothing wrong and there is nothing to hide then why stonewall? Mueller was quite clear that he would not indict a sitting president, but that there were serious improprieties that should be investigated by Congress. In addition, several people working for Trump were indicted, tried, found guilty, and sent to jail. Mueller''s testimony was sufficient to lead some who were opposed to impeachment to change their minds. Others remained opposed, but not because they found no evidence of wrongdoing but because of political considerations and the consequences of the Senate refusing to impeach. Many more changed their minds in the last few days when it came to light that Trump, without proper authorization from Congress, withheld military funding to Ukraine to pressure them to investigate his Democratic opponent. The whistleblower's information appears to extend beyond the phone call. Trump tried to prevent him from testifying but the Senate was unanimous in passing a resolution that he must be allowed to testify before Senate and House Intelligence Committees.

Then what crimes or misdemeanours is he being accused of? — NOS4A2

Once again, that is what the investigation intends to uncover. Following the Trump playbook you want to declare that such an investigation is unnecessary, as if he cannot be found guilty because if he was he would already have been found guilty, now hurry up and declare the case closed lest something be found.

Investigations of Trump and impeachment rumblings have been occurring since before Trump was even in office. How long are you allowed to kick the can down that road before I’m allowed to suspect you really have nothing. — NOS4A2

You are "allowed" to suspect whatever you want, but when you say:

... the non-crimes Trump allegedly committed — NOS4A2

you are making a factual, if ambiguous, claim. He is not being accused of non-crimes. An impeachment investigation is into high crimes and misdemeanors. We really do not know the extent of what he has done. That is the purpose of the investigation. What we do know is that he is doing everything he can to keep the truth from coming to light. This alone is enough to raise suspicion that he is trying to hide something.

Of course corruption should be looked into. Why are you guys dismissing the possible corruption of Biden in favor of the non-crimes Trump allegedly committed? It’s so odd. — NOS4A2

First, I have not dismissed "the possible corruption of Biden". The ambiguity regarding which Biden the accusations are aimed at should not be overlooked. What I said was:

Even if Hunter Biden and those who hired him are guilty of some unnamed impropriety, this does not exonerate Trump.

The investigation into Trump is underway but already you have determined that Trump did not commit any crimes. Once again:

This is nothing more than a childish and inept diversion tactic.

To be clear, I am referring here not just to Trump but to you.