|
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 |
On April 11 2019 01:25 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 01:22 xDaunt wrote:On April 11 2019 01:08 NewSunshine wrote:On April 11 2019 01:02 xDaunt wrote:On April 11 2019 01:00 Plansix wrote:On April 11 2019 00:54 xDaunt wrote:On April 11 2019 00:49 Plansix wrote:
My favorite part was watching Barr slowly die inside when asked about the DOJ’s stance on the ACA was now unconstitutional and why he, the head of the DOJ, was pushing forward with a legal opinion that he did not feel was viable. And Barr being forced to say that he was doing it at the direction of the executive, which isn’t really how the DOJ and AG are supposed work when they are defending federal laws. It was lovely when he had to say “I wouldn’t be concerned about it” as to admit he expected to lose.
And being forced to say that the administration wanted protections for pre-existing conditions while the DOJ is arguing to end those protections through the court. Gave us a real clear window into exactly how independent he really is. You need to listen more closely to what he said. He did not say that it was not viable. He said that he thought that the ACA would not be stricken in its entirety. Specifically, he said that the individual mandate will be stricken as unconstitutional. The question in his mind is whether it will be found that the entirety of the ACA is dependent upon the individual mandate. He noted that most justices on the Supreme Court already have said it was, which is why the Administration's decision not to defend the ACA was a legally defensible position. This is the same analysis that I gave in the other thread when the district court struck the ACA down. You are entitled to your opinion of that hearing and your interpretation of what Barr said. Just as I’m entitled to not find your analysis very persuasive in this matter. This isn't my interpretation was Barr said. That's what Barr said. Period. I get that it's inconsistent with your post, but that's on you for not relaying it accurately. That's your problem. All of a sudden, now you think everyone needs to take what a government official is saying at face value. The same guy who claims perpetual impropriety on behalf of the folks who investigated Hillary a dozen times, and the folks who ought to be throwing Obama in jail. No, now, the AG's word is law. As usual, you're imagining things. None of this can be fairly gleaned from my post. People are asking for the information to be public. Because that was the real point of the Mueller investigation. People are declaring that before they accept Barr's conclusions, they want to be able to read the same thing he did. That's basic scientific method. Barr said he is going to make it all public. I said that Barr said that he was going to make it all public. Yet still posters around here (like lymoon) push this stupid talking point that Barr is hiding all sorts of Trump malfeasance that Mueller found. Nevermind that Mueller himself declined to find obstruction or otherwise recommend that Trump be charged or impeached. So many of you are completely off the rails on this stuff. But no, you know better than everybody else, and it's just that everyone but you is an idiot. Again. It's a funny pattern. If you're so ashamed of your posting that you think this, then post better. I certainly would appreciate it. I think the whole thread would appreciate you being less of a prick, but you do you.
If Muller left the call of obstruction to congress, blanking out information from congress would be a problem wouldn't it?Unless Muller left it 100% up to the AG... which doesn't seem like it's the AG job. Did Muller leave the call on obstruction 100% up to the AG?
This isn't something that Barr said would be redacted. So if it's there (it's not), you'll see it. Don't worry. You're going to find out exactly what Mueller did within a week.
But I'll go ahead and spoil the surprise for you. What I'm pretty sure Mueller did was he concluded that he did not have enough factual or legal basis to recommend that Trump be charged for obstruction, so he purposefully left the question open to create the very debate that we're having right now rather than simply announcing that he was not recommending that Trump be charged. I'm also pretty sure that Trump and his team foresaw this possibility, which is why they kept Rosenstein around for the express purpose of concurring with Barr.
|
Mueller likely found probable cause of obstruction, but was unable to obtain evidence that he felt would be proof beyond a reasonable doubt at trial. So, he left it up to congress to determine if probable cause is sufficient evidence to impeach the president.
But let us be clear about that if it turns out to be true: probable cause means the special counsel believes it is more likely than not that the President committed a crime.
|
On April 11 2019 01:40 Plansix wrote:
Mueller likely found probable cause of obstruction, but was unable to obtain evidence that he felt would be proof beyond a reasonable doubt at trial. So, he left it up to congress to determine if probable cause is sufficient evidence to impeach the president.
But let us be clear about that if it turns out to be true: probable cause means the special counsel believes it is more likely than not that the President committed a crime.
If he found probable cause, he wouldn't have left the question open. He would have recommended some kind of action or given an explanation as to why some kind of action was not appropriate.
|
United States42262 Posts
On April 11 2019 00:59 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 00:55 xDaunt wrote:On April 11 2019 00:54 Excludos wrote:On April 11 2019 00:50 xDaunt wrote:On April 11 2019 00:46 IyMoon wrote:On April 11 2019 00:43 xDaunt wrote:On April 11 2019 00:41 IyMoon wrote:On April 11 2019 00:39 xDaunt wrote:
I'm enjoying watching senate democrats flail wildly against Barr with regards to his summary of the Mueller report. Van Holland's questioning was particularly sad. Barr has been very clear that he will give full explanations regarding what happened and why after the report is released in the next several days, yet Democrats keep demanding that he explain himself. A couple interesting points:
1) Barr said that the redacted report will disclose the underlying facts and conclusions of law regarding the obstruction of justice charge.
2) Barr said that he does believe that Trump's campaign was "spied" upon by the FBI and/or Obama administration. The question in his mind is whether there was a valid predicate for that spying and that he wants to satisfy himself that there was no abuse of law enforcement or intelligence powers. Pretty sure the point is democrats don't believe him. That's a pretty deranged (not to mention highly premature) position to take. Really? Because if I say something like 'obstruction charges are fatally misconceived' and then find later that oh man, there was no obstruction. But I wont let you see everything on how I came to that conclusion... You might question if I am telling the truth. https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/24/politics/barr-memo-mueller/index.html Has it occurred to you that Barr was right then just as he is right now? I definitely get that you're having a very difficult time reconciling the false narrative that you have zealously adhered to over the past 2-3 years with actual facts, but you really need to start making a better effort at it. Has it occurred to you that people don't want to form opinions based on the lack of evidence? I've tried to talk to you about this before: We don't know because we have no information to tell us what we should know. People want to be informed, and what Barr gave us was not information that can be trusted based on what he himself had stated earlier. You have already made up your mind about what the truth is, while the rest of us are still trying to find it. There's a ton of evidence on these points. I have cited to it as have others. Most of you simply ignore it. Which is fine. You can run, but you can't hide from the truth forever. There's also "Tons of evidence" pointing to the fact that Trump did, in fact, obstruct. But the evidence we are currently clamouring for is the one made by the Mueller team which, for some ungodly reason, no one is allowed to read, except for the man who was put into that exact position because he stated he wouldn't indict. Again: We have seen nothing, but you have already made your mind up. It's absolutely infuriating watching you spew out one bullshit after another based on information no one on this forum has access too. You can have your opinions and that's fine, but you're talking as if you are already sitting with the report in your hands..in which case please hand them over to us.
As I recall at one point Trump asked Comey to pledge loyalty and then demanded that Comey cease the investigation, firing him when he refused. Barr’s conclusions regarding obstruction don’t erase that.
|
On April 11 2019 01:44 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 01:40 Plansix wrote:
Mueller likely found probable cause of obstruction, but was unable to obtain evidence that he felt would be proof beyond a reasonable doubt at trial. So, he left it up to congress to determine if probable cause is sufficient evidence to impeach the president.
But let us be clear about that if it turns out to be true: probable cause means the special counsel believes it is more likely than not that the President committed a crime. If he found probable cause, he wouldn't have left the question open. He would have recommended some kind of action.
Ok, so I have listened to more than a few former AGs and DAs talk about this very issue and most did not share this interpenetration. If a DA or AG finds probable cause but serious doubts they would prevail at trial given the evidence, they will almost always side with with potential defendant and not bring charges. With the simple legal analysis that the little guy gets the benefit of the doubt and the state moves on.
In Mueller's case, the matter is far more complex because the the potential defendant in the President. And even if he would prevail at trial, that does not mean that does not mean that the president should continue to hold office or not face some sort of censure by Congress. That is why the report said that it does not exonerate the President.
|
On April 11 2019 00:43 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 00:41 IyMoon wrote:On April 11 2019 00:39 xDaunt wrote:
I'm enjoying watching senate democrats flail wildly against Barr with regards to his summary of the Mueller report. Van Holland's questioning was particularly sad. Barr has been very clear that he will give full explanations regarding what happened and why after the report is released in the next several days, yet Democrats keep demanding that he explain himself. A couple interesting points:
1) Barr said that the redacted report will disclose the underlying facts and conclusions of law regarding the obstruction of justice charge.
2) Barr said that he does believe that Trump's campaign was "spied" upon by the FBI and/or Obama administration. The question in his mind is whether there was a valid predicate for that spying and that he wants to satisfy himself that there was no abuse of law enforcement or intelligence powers. Pretty sure the point is democrats don't believe him. That's a pretty deranged (not to mention highly premature) position to take.
If it's deranged not to take the word of an official appointed by the person being investigated, we're all deranged. You've never held yourself to this newfound standard.
|
On April 11 2019 01:52 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 00:43 xDaunt wrote:On April 11 2019 00:41 IyMoon wrote:On April 11 2019 00:39 xDaunt wrote:
I'm enjoying watching senate democrats flail wildly against Barr with regards to his summary of the Mueller report. Van Holland's questioning was particularly sad. Barr has been very clear that he will give full explanations regarding what happened and why after the report is released in the next several days, yet Democrats keep demanding that he explain himself. A couple interesting points:
1) Barr said that the redacted report will disclose the underlying facts and conclusions of law regarding the obstruction of justice charge.
2) Barr said that he does believe that Trump's campaign was "spied" upon by the FBI and/or Obama administration. The question in his mind is whether there was a valid predicate for that spying and that he wants to satisfy himself that there was no abuse of law enforcement or intelligence powers. Pretty sure the point is democrats don't believe him. That's a pretty deranged (not to mention highly premature) position to take. If it's deranged not to take the word of an official appointed by the person being investigated, we're all deranged. You've never held yourself to this newfound standard.
Barr has promised full transparency, and by all appearance, he is delivering it. To claim that he's not on the sole basis that Trump appointed him is laughable. In contrast, when I have previously expressed mistrust of FBI and DOJ officials, I have highlighted specific irregularities that called the conduct and veracity of those officials into question. You know, small things, like why known spies were contacting a political campaign before the FBI and DOJ officials involved testified that they had opened up the investigation into the campaign and when they are prohibited from directing spies to spy on Americans until an investigation is opened. And that's just one of the numerous irregularities that I have discussed.
The problem with most of you is that your analysis is skin deep and you fail to dig into the details. It's not hypocritical of me to trust Barr and not trust certain other FBI/DOJ officials when there are facts distinguishing each case. Too many of you ignore the details.
|
On April 11 2019 02:03 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 01:52 Dan HH wrote:On April 11 2019 00:43 xDaunt wrote:On April 11 2019 00:41 IyMoon wrote:On April 11 2019 00:39 xDaunt wrote:
I'm enjoying watching senate democrats flail wildly against Barr with regards to his summary of the Mueller report. Van Holland's questioning was particularly sad. Barr has been very clear that he will give full explanations regarding what happened and why after the report is released in the next several days, yet Democrats keep demanding that he explain himself. A couple interesting points:
1) Barr said that the redacted report will disclose the underlying facts and conclusions of law regarding the obstruction of justice charge.
2) Barr said that he does believe that Trump's campaign was "spied" upon by the FBI and/or Obama administration. The question in his mind is whether there was a valid predicate for that spying and that he wants to satisfy himself that there was no abuse of law enforcement or intelligence powers. Pretty sure the point is democrats don't believe him. That's a pretty deranged (not to mention highly premature) position to take. If it's deranged not to take the word of an official appointed by the person being investigated, we're all deranged. You've never held yourself to this newfound standard. Barr has promised full transparency, and by all appearance, he is delivering it. To claim that he's not on the sole basis that Trump appointed him is laughable. In contrast, when I have previously expressed mistrust of FBI and DOJ officials, I have highlighted specific irregularities that called the conduct and veracity of those officials into question. You know, small things, like why known spies were contacting a political campaign before the FBI and DOJ officials involved testified that they had opened up the investigation into the campaign and when they are prohibited from directing spies to spy on Americans until an investigation is opened. And that's just one of the numerous irregularities that I have discussed. The problem with most of you is that your analysis is skin deep and you fail to dig into the details. It's not hypocritical of me to trust Barr and not trust certain other FBI/DOJ officials when there are facts distinguishing each case. Too many of you ignore the details.
Mate, literally on this page you suggested that Mueller's unspecified ulterior motives affected how he did his job and made him want to create this debate which keeps Trump under the public's suspicion unfairly. With no basis, not with a sole basis.
And then you use words like deranged or laughable to describe the thought that Barr may not be the most impartial interpreter of the source material on this topic. Even the most saintly person imaginable in Trump's position would have made how this investigation is handled by the AG a priority when appointing someone.
|
You can find more than a few skilled lawyers who question if Barr is impartial not based on party, but by for writing memos about obstruction of justice for no real reason as a private citizen. They call into question not only his unfounded assertions into what was happening in the investigation, but also his simplistic interpenetration of obstruction of justice and the foundation of the investigation. On top of that, a wild concern that this would somehow endanger prosecutorial discretion that seems to have no firm foundation in reality.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/bill-barrs-very-strange-memo-obstruction-justice
Barr assumes for the purpose of his memo that Mueller is only interested in presidential conduct sanctioned by Article II, specifically that his investigation revolves around Trump’s actions toward Comey. “As I understand the theory,” he writes, Mueller’s team has built their case on a novel and, in his view, unsupported interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2), the “residual clause” of § 1512, which prohibits witness tampering. § 1512(c)(2) holds that, “Whoever corruptly … otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so [is guilty of the crime of obstruction”—and Barr is concerned that Mueller is interpreting it to sanction an overly broad range of behavior.
Moreover, Barr takes the view that a facially lawful action taken by the president under his Article II authority cannot constitute obstruction as a matter of constitutional law. He expresses concern that allowing this interpretation to proceed could have “disastrous implications” for the executive branch and the presidency, potentially opening the door to criminal investigations of “all exercises of prosecutorial discretion.” He also writes, “if a [Justice Department] investigation is going to take down a democratically-elected president it is imperative… that any claim of wrongdoing is solidly based on a real crime—not a debatable one.” (All emphases in original).
It’s not clear why Barr adopts such a simplistic understanding of Mueller’s operating theory, but the sequence of events leading up to his submitting the memo in early June may offer some insight. At some point, probably in March or April of this year, the president’s legal team received a list of subjects that the special counsel’s office wanted to discuss with Trump in an interview. In late April 2018, the New York Times published a condensed list of those questions.
|
On April 11 2019 02:03 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 01:52 Dan HH wrote:On April 11 2019 00:43 xDaunt wrote:On April 11 2019 00:41 IyMoon wrote:On April 11 2019 00:39 xDaunt wrote:
I'm enjoying watching senate democrats flail wildly against Barr with regards to his summary of the Mueller report. Van Holland's questioning was particularly sad. Barr has been very clear that he will give full explanations regarding what happened and why after the report is released in the next several days, yet Democrats keep demanding that he explain himself. A couple interesting points:
1) Barr said that the redacted report will disclose the underlying facts and conclusions of law regarding the obstruction of justice charge.
2) Barr said that he does believe that Trump's campaign was "spied" upon by the FBI and/or Obama administration. The question in his mind is whether there was a valid predicate for that spying and that he wants to satisfy himself that there was no abuse of law enforcement or intelligence powers. Pretty sure the point is democrats don't believe him. That's a pretty deranged (not to mention highly premature) position to take. If it's deranged not to take the word of an official appointed by the person being investigated, we're all deranged. You've never held yourself to this newfound standard. Barr has promised full transparency, and by all appearance, he is delivering it.
That's a pretty deranged (not to mention highly premature) position to take.
|
On April 11 2019 01:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 00:59 Excludos wrote:On April 11 2019 00:55 xDaunt wrote:On April 11 2019 00:54 Excludos wrote:On April 11 2019 00:50 xDaunt wrote:On April 11 2019 00:46 IyMoon wrote:On April 11 2019 00:43 xDaunt wrote:On April 11 2019 00:41 IyMoon wrote:On April 11 2019 00:39 xDaunt wrote:
I'm enjoying watching senate democrats flail wildly against Barr with regards to his summary of the Mueller report. Van Holland's questioning was particularly sad. Barr has been very clear that he will give full explanations regarding what happened and why after the report is released in the next several days, yet Democrats keep demanding that he explain himself. A couple interesting points:
1) Barr said that the redacted report will disclose the underlying facts and conclusions of law regarding the obstruction of justice charge.
2) Barr said that he does believe that Trump's campaign was "spied" upon by the FBI and/or Obama administration. The question in his mind is whether there was a valid predicate for that spying and that he wants to satisfy himself that there was no abuse of law enforcement or intelligence powers. Pretty sure the point is democrats don't believe him. That's a pretty deranged (not to mention highly premature) position to take. Really? Because if I say something like 'obstruction charges are fatally misconceived' and then find later that oh man, there was no obstruction. But I wont let you see everything on how I came to that conclusion... You might question if I am telling the truth. https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/24/politics/barr-memo-mueller/index.html Has it occurred to you that Barr was right then just as he is right now? I definitely get that you're having a very difficult time reconciling the false narrative that you have zealously adhered to over the past 2-3 years with actual facts, but you really need to start making a better effort at it. Has it occurred to you that people don't want to form opinions based on the lack of evidence? I've tried to talk to you about this before: We don't know because we have no information to tell us what we should know. People want to be informed, and what Barr gave us was not information that can be trusted based on what he himself had stated earlier. You have already made up your mind about what the truth is, while the rest of us are still trying to find it. There's a ton of evidence on these points. I have cited to it as have others. Most of you simply ignore it. Which is fine. You can run, but you can't hide from the truth forever. There's also "Tons of evidence" pointing to the fact that Trump did, in fact, obstruct. But the evidence we are currently clamouring for is the one made by the Mueller team which, for some ungodly reason, no one is allowed to read, except for the man who was put into that exact position because he stated he wouldn't indict. Again: We have seen nothing, but you have already made your mind up. It's absolutely infuriating watching you spew out one bullshit after another based on information no one on this forum has access too. You can have your opinions and that's fine, but you're talking as if you are already sitting with the report in your hands..in which case please hand them over to us. While I understand everyone's frustration here, Mueller made his decision and it wasn't an indictment or a recommendation to prosecute. All that's in the report is to what degree some of the last couple years reporting has been confirmed or came up empty. It's politically relevant from a partisan perspective but as I've suggested before it's not going to have much if any "news" in it. The more people lean into this pressing on the report the more it looks partisan and not about the securing of democracy it's allegedly supposed to be about.
I am entirely aware of that. There most likely isn't enough in the report for a court case. However there's a wide difference between that and "complete exoneration" as a certain someone keeps saying. There's every chance that the report contains information that does not look favourable on Trump...or it doesn't. That's the entire point I'm trying to make: We do not know, and I'm not going to make up my mind about what the truth is until we've actually seen it. That would be stupid. That's no different from screaming about flat earth, aliens, or the Loch Ness monster. Just because you don't have insight into something doesn't mean you simultaneously know the truth about it.
|
On April 11 2019 01:44 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 01:40 Plansix wrote:
Mueller likely found probable cause of obstruction, but was unable to obtain evidence that he felt would be proof beyond a reasonable doubt at trial. So, he left it up to congress to determine if probable cause is sufficient evidence to impeach the president.
But let us be clear about that if it turns out to be true: probable cause means the special counsel believes it is more likely than not that the President committed a crime. If he found probable cause, he wouldn't have left the question open. He would have recommended some kind of action or given an explanation as to why some kind of action was not appropriate.
We don't know if he gave an explanation. We don't know why he left the question open. How can you state things like this with full certainty when we don't know anything?
|
On April 11 2019 02:34 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 02:03 xDaunt wrote:On April 11 2019 01:52 Dan HH wrote:On April 11 2019 00:43 xDaunt wrote:On April 11 2019 00:41 IyMoon wrote:On April 11 2019 00:39 xDaunt wrote:
I'm enjoying watching senate democrats flail wildly against Barr with regards to his summary of the Mueller report. Van Holland's questioning was particularly sad. Barr has been very clear that he will give full explanations regarding what happened and why after the report is released in the next several days, yet Democrats keep demanding that he explain himself. A couple interesting points:
1) Barr said that the redacted report will disclose the underlying facts and conclusions of law regarding the obstruction of justice charge.
2) Barr said that he does believe that Trump's campaign was "spied" upon by the FBI and/or Obama administration. The question in his mind is whether there was a valid predicate for that spying and that he wants to satisfy himself that there was no abuse of law enforcement or intelligence powers. Pretty sure the point is democrats don't believe him. That's a pretty deranged (not to mention highly premature) position to take. If it's deranged not to take the word of an official appointed by the person being investigated, we're all deranged. You've never held yourself to this newfound standard. Barr has promised full transparency, and by all appearance, he is delivering it. To claim that he's not on the sole basis that Trump appointed him is laughable. In contrast, when I have previously expressed mistrust of FBI and DOJ officials, I have highlighted specific irregularities that called the conduct and veracity of those officials into question. You know, small things, like why known spies were contacting a political campaign before the FBI and DOJ officials involved testified that they had opened up the investigation into the campaign and when they are prohibited from directing spies to spy on Americans until an investigation is opened. And that's just one of the numerous irregularities that I have discussed. The problem with most of you is that your analysis is skin deep and you fail to dig into the details. It's not hypocritical of me to trust Barr and not trust certain other FBI/DOJ officials when there are facts distinguishing each case. Too many of you ignore the details. Mate, literally on this page you suggested that Mueller's unspecified ulterior motives affected how he did his job and made him want to create this debate which keeps Trump under the public's suspicion unfairly. With no basis, not with a sole basis. And then you use words like deranged or laughable to describe the thought that Barr may not be the most impartial interpreter of the source material on this topic. Even the most saintly person imaginable in Trump's position would have made how this investigation is handled by the AG a priority when appointing someone.
I have posted quite a bit on why I think Mueller is somewhat dirty and doing things for political purposes rather than in the interest of justice. So no, it is not something that I am throwing out there in a vacuum.
|
On April 11 2019 02:46 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 01:44 xDaunt wrote:On April 11 2019 01:40 Plansix wrote:
Mueller likely found probable cause of obstruction, but was unable to obtain evidence that he felt would be proof beyond a reasonable doubt at trial. So, he left it up to congress to determine if probable cause is sufficient evidence to impeach the president.
But let us be clear about that if it turns out to be true: probable cause means the special counsel believes it is more likely than not that the President committed a crime. If he found probable cause, he wouldn't have left the question open. He would have recommended some kind of action or given an explanation as to why some kind of action was not appropriate. We don't know if he gave an explanation. We don't know why he left the question open. How can you state things like this with full certainty when we don't know anything?
No. And Barr’s interpretation of obstruction might very wildly from the investigative team, given the content of the memo he drafted.
|
On April 11 2019 02:42 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 01:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 11 2019 00:59 Excludos wrote:On April 11 2019 00:55 xDaunt wrote:On April 11 2019 00:54 Excludos wrote:On April 11 2019 00:50 xDaunt wrote:On April 11 2019 00:46 IyMoon wrote:On April 11 2019 00:43 xDaunt wrote:On April 11 2019 00:41 IyMoon wrote:On April 11 2019 00:39 xDaunt wrote:
I'm enjoying watching senate democrats flail wildly against Barr with regards to his summary of the Mueller report. Van Holland's questioning was particularly sad. Barr has been very clear that he will give full explanations regarding what happened and why after the report is released in the next several days, yet Democrats keep demanding that he explain himself. A couple interesting points:
1) Barr said that the redacted report will disclose the underlying facts and conclusions of law regarding the obstruction of justice charge.
2) Barr said that he does believe that Trump's campaign was "spied" upon by the FBI and/or Obama administration. The question in his mind is whether there was a valid predicate for that spying and that he wants to satisfy himself that there was no abuse of law enforcement or intelligence powers. Pretty sure the point is democrats don't believe him. That's a pretty deranged (not to mention highly premature) position to take. Really? Because if I say something like 'obstruction charges are fatally misconceived' and then find later that oh man, there was no obstruction. But I wont let you see everything on how I came to that conclusion... You might question if I am telling the truth. https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/24/politics/barr-memo-mueller/index.html Has it occurred to you that Barr was right then just as he is right now? I definitely get that you're having a very difficult time reconciling the false narrative that you have zealously adhered to over the past 2-3 years with actual facts, but you really need to start making a better effort at it. Has it occurred to you that people don't want to form opinions based on the lack of evidence? I've tried to talk to you about this before: We don't know because we have no information to tell us what we should know. People want to be informed, and what Barr gave us was not information that can be trusted based on what he himself had stated earlier. You have already made up your mind about what the truth is, while the rest of us are still trying to find it. There's a ton of evidence on these points. I have cited to it as have others. Most of you simply ignore it. Which is fine. You can run, but you can't hide from the truth forever. There's also "Tons of evidence" pointing to the fact that Trump did, in fact, obstruct. But the evidence we are currently clamouring for is the one made by the Mueller team which, for some ungodly reason, no one is allowed to read, except for the man who was put into that exact position because he stated he wouldn't indict. Again: We have seen nothing, but you have already made your mind up. It's absolutely infuriating watching you spew out one bullshit after another based on information no one on this forum has access too. You can have your opinions and that's fine, but you're talking as if you are already sitting with the report in your hands..in which case please hand them over to us. While I understand everyone's frustration here, Mueller made his decision and it wasn't an indictment or a recommendation to prosecute. All that's in the report is to what degree some of the last couple years reporting has been confirmed or came up empty. It's politically relevant from a partisan perspective but as I've suggested before it's not going to have much if any "news" in it. The more people lean into this pressing on the report the more it looks partisan and not about the securing of democracy it's allegedly supposed to be about. I am entirely aware of that. There most likely isn't enough in the report for a court case. However there's a wide difference between that and "complete exoneration" as a certain someone keeps saying. There's every chance that the report contains information that does not look favourable on Trump...or it doesn't. That's the entire point I'm trying to make: We do not know, and I'm not going to make up my mind about what the truth is until we've actually seen it. That would be stupid.
Worst case Trump is lying about being "exonerated" by the report which is what I mean when I say there won't be any "news" and that the more focused on the report and Trump the less this maintains the appearance of being about election integrity and /or national security.
If the report has a bunch of things that make Trump look bad (probably does and we likely had the rumors about it reported and posted here) and Trump lied, very few people will be surprised and it won't be as helpful politically as many seem to think.
|
|
|
On April 11 2019 02:46 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 01:44 xDaunt wrote:On April 11 2019 01:40 Plansix wrote:
Mueller likely found probable cause of obstruction, but was unable to obtain evidence that he felt would be proof beyond a reasonable doubt at trial. So, he left it up to congress to determine if probable cause is sufficient evidence to impeach the president.
But let us be clear about that if it turns out to be true: probable cause means the special counsel believes it is more likely than not that the President committed a crime. If he found probable cause, he wouldn't have left the question open. He would have recommended some kind of action or given an explanation as to why some kind of action was not appropriate. We don't know if he gave an explanation. We don't know why he left the question open. How can you state things like this with full certainty when we don't know anything?
I can say it because the idea that Mueller had evidence amounting to probable cause of a crime is wholly inconsistent with Barr's summary letter. As Barr notes, Mueller did not reach any legal or factual conclusions pertaining to obstruction of justice. A finding of probable cause would be that type of conclusion that Barr says isn't there. Likewise, Barr makes no mention of any explanation provided by Mueller for why charges should not be pursued or referred notwithstanding a finding of probable cause. This would be a gigantic omission if something like that was in there. The closest Barr comes to this is stating that Mueller's report lays out "difficult issues of fact and law" on both sides of the issue when declining to find that Trump committed a crime.
|
The part I find the most problematic in all this focus on Mueller's report is the idea that Mueller is some paragon of virtue and by extension the FBI is a reputable organization and that anything that comes out (redacted or not) is representative of much more than how a corrupt system feels about itself.
I like that the right suddenly distrusts the FBI and other apparatuses of the state but not enough to make the sudden faith in them from left-leaning Democrats or progressives worth it imo.
|
On April 11 2019 02:46 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 02:34 Dan HH wrote:On April 11 2019 02:03 xDaunt wrote:On April 11 2019 01:52 Dan HH wrote:On April 11 2019 00:43 xDaunt wrote:On April 11 2019 00:41 IyMoon wrote:On April 11 2019 00:39 xDaunt wrote:
I'm enjoying watching senate democrats flail wildly against Barr with regards to his summary of the Mueller report. Van Holland's questioning was particularly sad. Barr has been very clear that he will give full explanations regarding what happened and why after the report is released in the next several days, yet Democrats keep demanding that he explain himself. A couple interesting points:
1) Barr said that the redacted report will disclose the underlying facts and conclusions of law regarding the obstruction of justice charge.
2) Barr said that he does believe that Trump's campaign was "spied" upon by the FBI and/or Obama administration. The question in his mind is whether there was a valid predicate for that spying and that he wants to satisfy himself that there was no abuse of law enforcement or intelligence powers. Pretty sure the point is democrats don't believe him. That's a pretty deranged (not to mention highly premature) position to take. If it's deranged not to take the word of an official appointed by the person being investigated, we're all deranged. You've never held yourself to this newfound standard. Barr has promised full transparency, and by all appearance, he is delivering it. To claim that he's not on the sole basis that Trump appointed him is laughable. In contrast, when I have previously expressed mistrust of FBI and DOJ officials, I have highlighted specific irregularities that called the conduct and veracity of those officials into question. You know, small things, like why known spies were contacting a political campaign before the FBI and DOJ officials involved testified that they had opened up the investigation into the campaign and when they are prohibited from directing spies to spy on Americans until an investigation is opened. And that's just one of the numerous irregularities that I have discussed. The problem with most of you is that your analysis is skin deep and you fail to dig into the details. It's not hypocritical of me to trust Barr and not trust certain other FBI/DOJ officials when there are facts distinguishing each case. Too many of you ignore the details. Mate, literally on this page you suggested that Mueller's unspecified ulterior motives affected how he did his job and made him want to create this debate which keeps Trump under the public's suspicion unfairly. With no basis, not with a sole basis. And then you use words like deranged or laughable to describe the thought that Barr may not be the most impartial interpreter of the source material on this topic. Even the most saintly person imaginable in Trump's position would have made how this investigation is handled by the AG a priority when appointing someone. I have posted quite a bit on why I think Mueller is somewhat dirty and doing things for political purposes rather than in the interest of justice. So no, it is not something that I am throwing out there in a vacuum. No, you haven't. You posted lots, none of which is particularly coherent in regards to the Mueller investigation. It's really tiring to read "I've already posted that" when in fact you never had. If you genuinely think he has unspecified political purposes, it should be pretty easy to just chuck a single sentence as to what reason as to why you think so. For this circumstance, there is no why, only think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
