|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
He likely passed the buck to congress, but is required by law to give the report directly to the AG first. Barr, the AG, decided to do his own little spin job on the findings before anyone could read it. With weird little things like “because there is no underlying crime” which is not a prong of obstruction. There doesn’t need to be a crime for someone to obstruct an investigation.
The report does not clear Trump. It specifically says so on the topic of obstruction. Which means there is likely probably cause that Trump tried to obstruct the investigation. Which means there is real evidence. And that is why the special counsel was appointed in the first place.
Edit: I do like that the right is now throwing around the word traitor now that the report is out and Barr gave them some red meat. No one else has read the thing and we folks are going “All of Obama’s people were evil traitors and need prison.” Very Nixon.
|
On March 26 2019 16:49 Velr wrote:
Uhm, it totally has smeared him. That his supporters have absolutely no morals and are probably the biggest hypocrits to ever walk the earth is the issue.
You can think of Bill Maher what you want, but his "What if Obama did it" segment was 100% spot on.
No way a black guy is getting away with that thing about shooting a guy on 5th avenue.
It is oddly effective watching Trump's words in someone else's mouth.
|
On March 26 2019 15:48 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2019 13:35 Plansix wrote:
I love it whe nettles visits the thread and we get to see how much US news makes it through the nonsense filter that is his internet browsing habits. As opposed to the many people in the media and in online forums who hung their hat on this insane Russian collusion crap.
You do understand that the reason there was an investigation in the first place was because members of Trumps campaign met with Russians. This included Don Jr.
You also realize that they admitted to this, after making it seem like it didn’t happen, and claimed they met just to get an understanding of what the Russians knew. You also understand that Clinton’s Wikileaks dump during the election was orchestrated by Russians.
None of that proves collusion. But it is far from insane that people suspected the Trump campaign of at least acting inappropriately.
|
On March 26 2019 19:26 Plansix wrote:
He likely passed the buck to congress, but is required by law to give the report directly to the AG first. Barr, the AG, decided to do his own little spin job on the findings before anyone could read it. With weird little things like “because there is no underlying crime” which is not a prong of obstruction. There doesn’t need to be a crime for someone to obstruct an investigation.
The report does not clear Trump. It specifically says so on the topic of obstruction. Which means there is likely probably cause that Trump tried to obstruct the investigation. Which means there is real evidence. And that is why the special counsel was appointed in the first place.
First of all, obstruction of justice was not part of Mueller’s initial charge when Rosenstein first appointed him. Rosenstein likely added it (likely at Mueller’s request) as part of the expanded scope several months later. The initial reason for hiring Mueller was solely to investigate Russian interference in the election.
Second, Barr never says that an underlying crime is required for an obstruction charge. But he does correctly point out that the presence or absence of the underlying crime is relevant as to whether to bring the charge. The absence of the underlying crime obviously weighs very heavily against obstruction.
Edit: I do like that the right is now throwing around the word traitor now that the report is out and Barr gave them some red meat. No one else has read the thing and we folks are going “All of Obama’s people were evil traitors and need prison.” Very Nixon.
Let’s just cut the shit. You and everyone on your side have been wrong about just about everything important relating to this Russia conspiracy nonsense from day 1. People on my side of the argument, however, have been largely vindicated. Your continued casual dismissiveness of our points is laughably misplaced. There is ample reason to state that there are people who may have committed treason by launching the Russian conspiracy hoax and using it as a basis to weaponize the DOJ and FBI against Trump. The FISA misuse is real. Someone also abused the NSA database during this same time frame. All signs are pointing to people ultimately being prosecuted for this stuff. If I’m ultimately proven wrong on this, fine, but I promise you that these charges are far more real than what Trump was investigated for. And it’s only a matter of time before it rolls back onto Obama and Hillary.
|
The special counsel was appointed because Trump fired the FBI director and there was concern he was trying to obstruct the investigation. That is fact.
And also you don’t understand treason, as a crime if you are claiming those people committed it.
|
|
|
xDaunt no longer concerned about the constitutional definition of treason i see...i wonder why...
|
On March 26 2019 18:29 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2019 14:53 xDaunt wrote:On March 26 2019 14:42 Doodsmack wrote:On March 26 2019 14:05 xDaunt wrote:On March 26 2019 13:50 KwarK wrote:On March 26 2019 13:40 xDaunt wrote:
Now that the Mueller report has announced that there was no evidence of American collusion with Russians to interfere in the election That hasn’t happened. Neither the announcement nor your claim of the contents of the announcement. Sure it did. Go re-read Barr’s letter: “...the Special Counsel did not find that any US person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with [the Russians].” This begs the question of why the CIA was harassing poor Papadopoulos among others. Edit: Well, to be super precise, that sentence above refers to the IRA disinformation campaign. The following paragraph refers to the emails and states, “the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with [the Russians].” In theory, those passages could be stating that Mueller did not obtain proof beyond a reasonable doubt of collusion/conspiracy, in which case there could be some amount of evidence on the issue that fell short of beyond a reasonable doubt. There was also a counterintelligence component to the investigation, which is going to take longer to be disclosed (probably heavily redacted). I'm guessing it's unlikely there will be any bombshells though. There are two problems with this interpretation. The first is that it is inconsistent with how Mueller treated the obstruction investigation. If there was anything there, he’d have passed the buck to Barr. Second, it is inconsistent with the testimony of Page, Strzok, and others saying that they still didn’t have any evidence of Trump/Russian collusion by the time that Comey was fired in May 2017. We don't know if he passed the buck to Barr. We know Barr took the choice for himself. There are sources saying the idea was to let congress judge. We don't know how Mueller treated the obstruction investigation. We don't know the amounts of evidence found. We don't know much of anything. We have 4 sentences quoted from the report, and Barrs summary of the summary.
Even though barr has provided his summary letter, I think the buck is still going to be passed to Congress in the sense that theyll see the obstruction evidence in order to decide whether to impeach (which of course is unlikely). Barrs letter stated whether or not trump could be criminally charged, but that's a different question from whether or not Congress could impeach.
|
On March 26 2019 21:54 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2019 18:29 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On March 26 2019 14:53 xDaunt wrote:On March 26 2019 14:42 Doodsmack wrote:On March 26 2019 14:05 xDaunt wrote:On March 26 2019 13:50 KwarK wrote:On March 26 2019 13:40 xDaunt wrote:
Now that the Mueller report has announced that there was no evidence of American collusion with Russians to interfere in the election That hasn’t happened. Neither the announcement nor your claim of the contents of the announcement. Sure it did. Go re-read Barr’s letter: “...the Special Counsel did not find that any US person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with [the Russians].” This begs the question of why the CIA was harassing poor Papadopoulos among others. Edit: Well, to be super precise, that sentence above refers to the IRA disinformation campaign. The following paragraph refers to the emails and states, “the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with [the Russians].” In theory, those passages could be stating that Mueller did not obtain proof beyond a reasonable doubt of collusion/conspiracy, in which case there could be some amount of evidence on the issue that fell short of beyond a reasonable doubt. There was also a counterintelligence component to the investigation, which is going to take longer to be disclosed (probably heavily redacted). I'm guessing it's unlikely there will be any bombshells though. There are two problems with this interpretation. The first is that it is inconsistent with how Mueller treated the obstruction investigation. If there was anything there, he’d have passed the buck to Barr. Second, it is inconsistent with the testimony of Page, Strzok, and others saying that they still didn’t have any evidence of Trump/Russian collusion by the time that Comey was fired in May 2017. We don't know if he passed the buck to Barr. We know Barr took the choice for himself. There are sources saying the idea was to let congress judge. We don't know how Mueller treated the obstruction investigation. We don't know the amounts of evidence found. We don't know much of anything. We have 4 sentences quoted from the report, and Barrs summary of the summary. Even though barr has provided his summary letter, I think the buck is still going to be passed to Congress in the sense that theyll see the obstruction evidence in order to decide whether to impeach (which of course is unlikely). Barrs letter stated whether or not trump could be criminally charged, but that's a different question from whether or not Congress could impeach.
Or any number of other responses to finding enough evidence of obstruction to charge, but perhaps not enough to convict.
|
Political news and discussion is gonna be really bad until we get an actual report. I think it will be basically the only topic until the day it is released. Gonna just take a break from politics until then. And until it is released, it feels like we aren't really saying much, on either side.
|
Early reports are that all charges against Jussie Smollet, the former Empire actor accused of faking a hate crime report, have been dropped. No word on precisely why is out yet, but he and his attorneys are expected to talk with the press.
|
On March 27 2019 00:40 farvacola wrote:
Early reports are that all charges against Jussie Smollet, the former Empire actor accused of faking a hate crime report, have been dropped. No word on precisely why is out yet, but he and his attorneys are expected to talk with the press.
Everything is going to be sealed, so we really never will know
|
On March 27 2019 00:40 farvacola wrote:
Early reports are that all charges against Jussie Smollet, the former Empire actor accused of faking a hate crime report, have been dropped. No word on precisely why is out yet, but he and his attorneys are expected to talk with the press.
It is confirmed and the Judge ordered the case sealed(aka, record clear). My bet is that the Chicago Police continue to be complete garbage.
|
On March 27 2019 00:46 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2019 00:40 farvacola wrote:
Early reports are that all charges against Jussie Smollet, the former Empire actor accused of faking a hate crime report, have been dropped. No word on precisely why is out yet, but he and his attorneys are expected to talk with the press. It is confirmed and the Judge ordered the case sealed(aka, record clear). My bet is that the Chicago Police continue to be complete garbage.
My bet: Smollet is indeed a giant piece of garbage who faked the whole thing. But Chicago police did something that Smollet could make a big deal out of. Decided to just pretend nothing happened and move on?
Either way, I'm pissed. Smollet did enormous damage to people facing legitimate hate crimes and racism. You could argue Smollet did more damage than a single hate crime when you look at how much the impact of this bullshit will spread.
|
On March 27 2019 00:57 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2019 00:46 Plansix wrote:On March 27 2019 00:40 farvacola wrote:
Early reports are that all charges against Jussie Smollet, the former Empire actor accused of faking a hate crime report, have been dropped. No word on precisely why is out yet, but he and his attorneys are expected to talk with the press. It is confirmed and the Judge ordered the case sealed(aka, record clear). My bet is that the Chicago Police continue to be complete garbage. My bet: Smollet is indeed a giant piece of garbage who faked the whole thing. But Chicago police did something that Smollet could make a big deal out of. Decided to just pretend nothing happened and move on? Either way, I'm pissed. Smollet did enormous damage to people facing legitimate hate crimes and racism. You could argue Smollet did more damage than a single hate crime when you look at how much the impact of this bullshit will spread.
No word yet of the damage he might’ve done to his intended targets (of the smear) had he not screwed up the staging. It’s not just the real victims of hate crimes, it’s also the people wronged by smear jobs. He didn’t frame your group.
|
On March 27 2019 01:11 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2019 00:57 Mohdoo wrote:On March 27 2019 00:46 Plansix wrote:On March 27 2019 00:40 farvacola wrote:
Early reports are that all charges against Jussie Smollet, the former Empire actor accused of faking a hate crime report, have been dropped. No word on precisely why is out yet, but he and his attorneys are expected to talk with the press. It is confirmed and the Judge ordered the case sealed(aka, record clear). My bet is that the Chicago Police continue to be complete garbage. My bet: Smollet is indeed a giant piece of garbage who faked the whole thing. But Chicago police did something that Smollet could make a big deal out of. Decided to just pretend nothing happened and move on? Either way, I'm pissed. Smollet did enormous damage to people facing legitimate hate crimes and racism. You could argue Smollet did more damage than a single hate crime when you look at how much the impact of this bullshit will spread. No word yet of the damage he might’ve done to his intended targets (of the smear) had he not screwed up the staging. It’s not just the real victims of hate crimes, it’s also the people wronged by smear jobs. He didn’t frame your group.
True, but I am taking the perspective that so long as people are vindicated quickly, the damage is minimal. And I wouldn't call it "your" group either. It isn't fair for people to pretend 50% of the country are all one big blob and I don't think many people do. I didn't feel like "my group" had done anything wrong when that one dude shot up a republican baseball game. It was just some shit head being a shit head and that's the end of it. It would be different if Pelosi had recently talked about needing to shoot up baseball games. I'd feel shitty then. But it would be the same for a couple of dudes beating up a black guy. It would reflect poorly on Trump, because I really do think he has a certain amount of responsibility as the actual leader of the country and the person talkin' smack recently. But I think a lot of Trump voters don't identify with his violent language. They don't think its worth voting against, but they don't like it either. If they don't support it, it isn't their moral failing.
|
United States42004 Posts
On March 27 2019 01:11 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2019 00:57 Mohdoo wrote:On March 27 2019 00:46 Plansix wrote:On March 27 2019 00:40 farvacola wrote:
Early reports are that all charges against Jussie Smollet, the former Empire actor accused of faking a hate crime report, have been dropped. No word on precisely why is out yet, but he and his attorneys are expected to talk with the press. It is confirmed and the Judge ordered the case sealed(aka, record clear). My bet is that the Chicago Police continue to be complete garbage. My bet: Smollet is indeed a giant piece of garbage who faked the whole thing. But Chicago police did something that Smollet could make a big deal out of. Decided to just pretend nothing happened and move on? Either way, I'm pissed. Smollet did enormous damage to people facing legitimate hate crimes and racism. You could argue Smollet did more damage than a single hate crime when you look at how much the impact of this bullshit will spread. No word yet of the damage he might’ve done to his intended targets (of the smear) had he not screwed up the staging. It’s not just the real victims of hate crimes, it’s also the people wronged by smear jobs. He didn’t frame your group.
Not really. Right wing hate crimes do happen. His claim to be personally victimized reeks of narcissism but there’s no case to be made that this has painted right wing racists in a bad light. The bad light is there either way. Nobody’s good opinion on racists has been hurt here.
|
|
|
The part of the story that seemed wild to me was that he paid the two men by check. It a bit far fetched that he would pay for criminal activity by check and that the people willing to commit a crime would accept the check as payment. It seemed dumb on a level that even Hollywood actors wouldn't fall prey to.
Edit: That is totally cool. Nice that Hitler is back in the spotlight again. Also, special reminder that the US recently voted against a resolution in the UN condemn Nazis.
|
On March 27 2019 01:20 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2019 01:11 Danglars wrote:On March 27 2019 00:57 Mohdoo wrote:On March 27 2019 00:46 Plansix wrote:On March 27 2019 00:40 farvacola wrote:
Early reports are that all charges against Jussie Smollet, the former Empire actor accused of faking a hate crime report, have been dropped. No word on precisely why is out yet, but he and his attorneys are expected to talk with the press. It is confirmed and the Judge ordered the case sealed(aka, record clear). My bet is that the Chicago Police continue to be complete garbage. My bet: Smollet is indeed a giant piece of garbage who faked the whole thing. But Chicago police did something that Smollet could make a big deal out of. Decided to just pretend nothing happened and move on? Either way, I'm pissed. Smollet did enormous damage to people facing legitimate hate crimes and racism. You could argue Smollet did more damage than a single hate crime when you look at how much the impact of this bullshit will spread. No word yet of the damage he might’ve done to his intended targets (of the smear) had he not screwed up the staging. It’s not just the real victims of hate crimes, it’s also the people wronged by smear jobs. He didn’t frame your group. True, but I am taking the perspective that so long as people are vindicated quickly, the damage is minimal. And I wouldn't call it "your" group either. It isn't fair for people to pretend 50% of the country are all one big blob and I don't think many people do. I didn't feel like "my group" had done anything wrong when that one dude shot up a republican baseball game. It was just some shit head being a shit head and that's the end of it. It would be different if Pelosi had recently talked about needing to shoot up baseball games. I'd feel shitty then. But it would be the same for a couple of dudes beating up a black guy. It would reflect poorly on Trump, because I really do think he has a certain amount of responsibility as the actual leader of the country and the person talkin' smack recently. But I think a lot of Trump voters don't identify with his violent language. They don't think its worth voting against, but they don't like it either. If they don't support it, it isn't their moral failing.
You’re hedging quite a bit with the most identifiable symbol of that 50%. But I’m not here to argue you into my thinking on the racist/homophobic Trump supporter meme. I’m simply glad you acknowledge both impacts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
