|
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 |
Seems pretty clear that Mueller expected Congress to make the call on obstruction, and that he believes they have the power to impeach Trump if they found that he obstructed justice. Shame Barr is trying to undermine that for his benefactor.
|
On April 19 2019 03:38 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 03:25 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On April 19 2019 03:01 xDaunt wrote:On April 19 2019 02:16 On_Slaught wrote:On April 19 2019 02:05 IgnE wrote:On April 19 2019 01:49 On_Slaught wrote:On April 19 2019 01:45 IgnE wrote:On April 19 2019 01:36 Plansix wrote:On April 19 2019 01:33 IgnE wrote:
Didn’t we already know all this? What’s new here? Presumably xdaunt doesn’t disagree with any of the factual claims in the report. I’m not sure that in the dozens of pages of discussion on this issue that two people, one from each side, have directly disputed a coherent factual narrative. There just seems to be a lot of arguing about which events are actually important I didn't know that the president said he was fucked and the investigation was the end of his presidency in the oval office upon receiving news the special counsel was appointed. Or the number of times he asked McGahn to fire Mueller. Or that Corey Lewandowski delivered a message to Sessions to curtail the investigation. But the report is public, you can just read it like the rest of us. honestly none of that surprises me. maybe I didnt “know it” in all of the particulars, but again, simply grafting some details onto an irrelevant tree doesn’t make it relevant without argument. didnt everyone already suspect that trump wiuld act like that? even xdaunt and danglars probably thought so By "act like that" do you mean a multi year operation, which he tried to cover up, to try and kill an investigation into himself? That some people might argue that doesnt rise to an indictable offense doesnt change what is clear for everyone to see. And thankfully, for the first time it really is clear for all to see. frankly, yes, i do mean that. it’s strange how you guys take a couple of trump’s tweets so seriously when you know that he’s a liar. nobody here was on the fence. we already know that more “data” is not persuasive to people ideologically divided. the only relevant question for me is how to convince people to contextualize the data differently. this is largely a matter for rhetoric, that ancient discipline recently much-maligned. the report may help with constructing the argument but it doesn’t suffice on its own and petty back and forths miss the target. what i want is a cogent, targeted response. the only person i’ve seen do that consistently on this topic is kwark, tonwhom danglars and xdaunt do not respond, perhaps because they do not significantly disagree with the underlying propositions I'm not so sure both sides agreed on the facts to the point where a debate about whether the facts meet the elements of the crime was appropriate. There were too many unknowns. That's why this report being public is so important; it lets everyone see what happened in chronological order and with great detail. Now if we could get xDaunt and co. to come out and state that what Mueller lays out in the report is the final and complete fact set, then, and only then, can we move on to contextualizing with regards to the elements of the law. I already said last night that the Mueller report will have to read in conjunction with what Giuliani's team puts out. Between those two reports, we should have a fairly comprehensive set of facts regarding the propriety of Trump's actions, though these documents likely will not reach issues regarding the propriety of the underlying investigation(s). We'll have to wait longer for that. You sais that Barr's summary of the report was entirely accurate. So I'm not entirely sure why anyone should take your advice faithfully on what should or should not be read. And what is inaccurate about it?
Barr’s assertion that because the Special counsel did not reach a conclusion if the president should be charged with obstruction left it to the AG to make the determination as to criminal charges. That isn’t overtly stated in the report. Although that would be accurate in the case of a normal investigation, the matter at hand has to do with the president of the United States. As the Department of Justice has a standing guidance that they will not bring charges against the president, Barr’s assertion that it is role to determine if charges should be brought before the report is submitted to congress is questionable. The press conference today where he conducted PR for the president as well where he could be said to have characterized the facts stated within the report. That is not the job of the AG.
Barr should have received the report, redacted it in compliance with the law and released it to congress at the same time he released his own determination.
|
Can someone more verse in law explain to me how 'he didn't commit obstruction because his aides refused to follow his demands' isn't actually just obstruction?
If I tell a bunch of people to do illegal shit, I'm trying to do illegal shit, how successful I am matters in sentencing but not in criminality, right? If I attempt to rob a bank but then walk away, I'm still in deep shit. If I hire a hitman and he doesn't fulfill his obligation, I'm still in deep shit. If I order my employees to do a bunch of illegal stuff and they don't follow through, I'm still in deep shit.
I don't get it.
|
On April 19 2019 03:38 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 03:25 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On April 19 2019 03:01 xDaunt wrote:On April 19 2019 02:16 On_Slaught wrote:On April 19 2019 02:05 IgnE wrote:On April 19 2019 01:49 On_Slaught wrote:On April 19 2019 01:45 IgnE wrote:On April 19 2019 01:36 Plansix wrote:On April 19 2019 01:33 IgnE wrote:
Didn’t we already know all this? What’s new here? Presumably xdaunt doesn’t disagree with any of the factual claims in the report. I’m not sure that in the dozens of pages of discussion on this issue that two people, one from each side, have directly disputed a coherent factual narrative. There just seems to be a lot of arguing about which events are actually important I didn't know that the president said he was fucked and the investigation was the end of his presidency in the oval office upon receiving news the special counsel was appointed. Or the number of times he asked McGahn to fire Mueller. Or that Corey Lewandowski delivered a message to Sessions to curtail the investigation. But the report is public, you can just read it like the rest of us. honestly none of that surprises me. maybe I didnt “know it” in all of the particulars, but again, simply grafting some details onto an irrelevant tree doesn’t make it relevant without argument. didnt everyone already suspect that trump wiuld act like that? even xdaunt and danglars probably thought so By "act like that" do you mean a multi year operation, which he tried to cover up, to try and kill an investigation into himself? That some people might argue that doesnt rise to an indictable offense doesnt change what is clear for everyone to see. And thankfully, for the first time it really is clear for all to see. frankly, yes, i do mean that. it’s strange how you guys take a couple of trump’s tweets so seriously when you know that he’s a liar. nobody here was on the fence. we already know that more “data” is not persuasive to people ideologically divided. the only relevant question for me is how to convince people to contextualize the data differently. this is largely a matter for rhetoric, that ancient discipline recently much-maligned. the report may help with constructing the argument but it doesn’t suffice on its own and petty back and forths miss the target. what i want is a cogent, targeted response. the only person i’ve seen do that consistently on this topic is kwark, tonwhom danglars and xdaunt do not respond, perhaps because they do not significantly disagree with the underlying propositions I'm not so sure both sides agreed on the facts to the point where a debate about whether the facts meet the elements of the crime was appropriate. There were too many unknowns. That's why this report being public is so important; it lets everyone see what happened in chronological order and with great detail. Now if we could get xDaunt and co. to come out and state that what Mueller lays out in the report is the final and complete fact set, then, and only then, can we move on to contextualizing with regards to the elements of the law. I already said last night that the Mueller report will have to read in conjunction with what Giuliani's team puts out. Between those two reports, we should have a fairly comprehensive set of facts regarding the propriety of Trump's actions, though these documents likely will not reach issues regarding the propriety of the underlying investigation(s). We'll have to wait longer for that. You sais that Barr's summary of the report was entirely accurate. So I'm not entirely sure why anyone should take your advice faithfully on what should or should not be read. And what is inaccurate about it?
Extreme selective quoting with intend to mislead. Providing zero substance on the russia stuff of which there are many pages with some very serious actions and lots of proof Trump lied about stuff.
Mueller worked under the framework of no indictments for sitting presidents under guidance of OLC, and that's why no charges were brought, Barr denied this and claimed exoneration on obstruction while the report has boatloads of examples of obstruction.
See below ' we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgement that the president committed crimes.' Barr was talking out of his ass.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
You do not need to be success in obstructing an investigation to be guilty of obstruction of justice. But it sure does make the case a lot easier if were you were successful.
|
On April 19 2019 03:51 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 03:38 xDaunt wrote:On April 19 2019 03:25 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On April 19 2019 03:01 xDaunt wrote:On April 19 2019 02:16 On_Slaught wrote:On April 19 2019 02:05 IgnE wrote:On April 19 2019 01:49 On_Slaught wrote:On April 19 2019 01:45 IgnE wrote:On April 19 2019 01:36 Plansix wrote:On April 19 2019 01:33 IgnE wrote:
Didn’t we already know all this? What’s new here? Presumably xdaunt doesn’t disagree with any of the factual claims in the report. I’m not sure that in the dozens of pages of discussion on this issue that two people, one from each side, have directly disputed a coherent factual narrative. There just seems to be a lot of arguing about which events are actually important I didn't know that the president said he was fucked and the investigation was the end of his presidency in the oval office upon receiving news the special counsel was appointed. Or the number of times he asked McGahn to fire Mueller. Or that Corey Lewandowski delivered a message to Sessions to curtail the investigation. But the report is public, you can just read it like the rest of us. honestly none of that surprises me. maybe I didnt “know it” in all of the particulars, but again, simply grafting some details onto an irrelevant tree doesn’t make it relevant without argument. didnt everyone already suspect that trump wiuld act like that? even xdaunt and danglars probably thought so By "act like that" do you mean a multi year operation, which he tried to cover up, to try and kill an investigation into himself? That some people might argue that doesnt rise to an indictable offense doesnt change what is clear for everyone to see. And thankfully, for the first time it really is clear for all to see. frankly, yes, i do mean that. it’s strange how you guys take a couple of trump’s tweets so seriously when you know that he’s a liar. nobody here was on the fence. we already know that more “data” is not persuasive to people ideologically divided. the only relevant question for me is how to convince people to contextualize the data differently. this is largely a matter for rhetoric, that ancient discipline recently much-maligned. the report may help with constructing the argument but it doesn’t suffice on its own and petty back and forths miss the target. what i want is a cogent, targeted response. the only person i’ve seen do that consistently on this topic is kwark, tonwhom danglars and xdaunt do not respond, perhaps because they do not significantly disagree with the underlying propositions I'm not so sure both sides agreed on the facts to the point where a debate about whether the facts meet the elements of the crime was appropriate. There were too many unknowns. That's why this report being public is so important; it lets everyone see what happened in chronological order and with great detail. Now if we could get xDaunt and co. to come out and state that what Mueller lays out in the report is the final and complete fact set, then, and only then, can we move on to contextualizing with regards to the elements of the law. I already said last night that the Mueller report will have to read in conjunction with what Giuliani's team puts out. Between those two reports, we should have a fairly comprehensive set of facts regarding the propriety of Trump's actions, though these documents likely will not reach issues regarding the propriety of the underlying investigation(s). We'll have to wait longer for that. You sais that Barr's summary of the report was entirely accurate. So I'm not entirely sure why anyone should take your advice faithfully on what should or should not be read. And what is inaccurate about it? Barr’s assertion that because the Special counsel did not reach a conclusion if the president should be charged with obstruction left it to the AG to make the determination as to criminal charges. That isn’t overtly stated in the report. Although that would be accurate in the case of a normal investigation, the matter at hand has to do with the president of the United States. As the Department of Justice has a standing guidance that they will not bring charges against the president, Barr’s assertion that it is role to determine if charges should be brought before the report is submitted to congress is questionable. The press conference today where he conducted PR for the president as well where he could be said to have characterized the facts stated within the report. That is not the job of the AG. Barr should have received the report, redacted it in compliance with the law and released it to congress at the same time he released his own determination.
There's nothing inaccurate about what Barr said in his letter. Barr did not say that Mueller left it to him. Barr said that Mueller did not provide a prosecutorial judgment. Based upon this omission, Barr then concludes that it is his job to make that determination, which he did.
Like I said before, Barr's decision is ultimately irrelevant because Mueller's decision not to exercise his prosecutorial judgment and conclude that there's a valid charge is no different than concluding that there is no valid charge. Mueller knows this. He simply refrained from giving that conclusion because he wanted to inflict more political damage on Trump.
|
Amazing to see the narrative shift so fast from "He is a Russian agent" to "It's obstruction of justice".
grasping
at
straws
|
On April 19 2019 04:00 Plansix wrote:
You do not need to be success in obstructing an investigation to be guilty of obstruction of justice. But it sure does make the case a lot easier if were you were successful.
McGahn saved Trump's presidency multiple times. Republicans should be on their knees thanking him.
Also, as mentioned earlier by someone else, its astonishing how many times Trump was afraid to fire someone personally and/or wanted someon else to do it. The guy is literally famous for saying " you're fired."
|
On April 19 2019 04:05 youngjiddle wrote:
Amazing to see the narrative shift so fast from "He is a Russian agent" to "It's obstruction of justice".
grasping
at
straws
You must be new to following the news because there has been multiple narratives for years. Trumps malfeasance cannot be limited to one or two things yo. That's just not the way he rolls.
|
On April 19 2019 04:00 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 03:38 xDaunt wrote:On April 19 2019 03:25 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On April 19 2019 03:01 xDaunt wrote:On April 19 2019 02:16 On_Slaught wrote:On April 19 2019 02:05 IgnE wrote:On April 19 2019 01:49 On_Slaught wrote:On April 19 2019 01:45 IgnE wrote:On April 19 2019 01:36 Plansix wrote:On April 19 2019 01:33 IgnE wrote:
Didn’t we already know all this? What’s new here? Presumably xdaunt doesn’t disagree with any of the factual claims in the report. I’m not sure that in the dozens of pages of discussion on this issue that two people, one from each side, have directly disputed a coherent factual narrative. There just seems to be a lot of arguing about which events are actually important I didn't know that the president said he was fucked and the investigation was the end of his presidency in the oval office upon receiving news the special counsel was appointed. Or the number of times he asked McGahn to fire Mueller. Or that Corey Lewandowski delivered a message to Sessions to curtail the investigation. But the report is public, you can just read it like the rest of us. honestly none of that surprises me. maybe I didnt “know it” in all of the particulars, but again, simply grafting some details onto an irrelevant tree doesn’t make it relevant without argument. didnt everyone already suspect that trump wiuld act like that? even xdaunt and danglars probably thought so By "act like that" do you mean a multi year operation, which he tried to cover up, to try and kill an investigation into himself? That some people might argue that doesnt rise to an indictable offense doesnt change what is clear for everyone to see. And thankfully, for the first time it really is clear for all to see. frankly, yes, i do mean that. it’s strange how you guys take a couple of trump’s tweets so seriously when you know that he’s a liar. nobody here was on the fence. we already know that more “data” is not persuasive to people ideologically divided. the only relevant question for me is how to convince people to contextualize the data differently. this is largely a matter for rhetoric, that ancient discipline recently much-maligned. the report may help with constructing the argument but it doesn’t suffice on its own and petty back and forths miss the target. what i want is a cogent, targeted response. the only person i’ve seen do that consistently on this topic is kwark, tonwhom danglars and xdaunt do not respond, perhaps because they do not significantly disagree with the underlying propositions I'm not so sure both sides agreed on the facts to the point where a debate about whether the facts meet the elements of the crime was appropriate. There were too many unknowns. That's why this report being public is so important; it lets everyone see what happened in chronological order and with great detail. Now if we could get xDaunt and co. to come out and state that what Mueller lays out in the report is the final and complete fact set, then, and only then, can we move on to contextualizing with regards to the elements of the law. I already said last night that the Mueller report will have to read in conjunction with what Giuliani's team puts out. Between those two reports, we should have a fairly comprehensive set of facts regarding the propriety of Trump's actions, though these documents likely will not reach issues regarding the propriety of the underlying investigation(s). We'll have to wait longer for that. You sais that Barr's summary of the report was entirely accurate. So I'm not entirely sure why anyone should take your advice faithfully on what should or should not be read. And what is inaccurate about it? Extreme selective quoting with intend to mislead. Providing zero substance on the russia stuff of which there are many pages with some very serious actions and lots of proof Trump lied about stuff. Mueller worked under the framework of no indictments for sitting presidents under guidance of OLC, and that's why no charges were brought, Barr denied this and claimed exoneration on obstruction while the report has boatloads of examples of obstruction. See below ' we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgement that the president committed crimes.' Barr was talking out of his ass. + Show Spoiler +
I haven't had a chance to read the report in detail, but I highly doubt that any of this is accurate or on point for the purpose of demonstrating that Barr lied. What Mueller has obviously done with his report is lay out a bunch of facts that "look like" criminal activity for the purpose of creating the appearance of criminal activity, but actually don't constitute criminal activity. All of the stuff about the Trump Tower meeting that we have been hearing about all of this time is case in point.
|
On April 19 2019 04:12 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 04:00 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On April 19 2019 03:38 xDaunt wrote:On April 19 2019 03:25 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On April 19 2019 03:01 xDaunt wrote:On April 19 2019 02:16 On_Slaught wrote:On April 19 2019 02:05 IgnE wrote:On April 19 2019 01:49 On_Slaught wrote:On April 19 2019 01:45 IgnE wrote:On April 19 2019 01:36 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
I didn't know that the president said he was fucked and the investigation was the end of his presidency in the oval office upon receiving news the special counsel was appointed. Or the number of times he asked McGahn to fire Mueller. Or that Corey Lewandowski delivered a message to Sessions to curtail the investigation.
But the report is public, you can just read it like the rest of us. honestly none of that surprises me. maybe I didnt “know it” in all of the particulars, but again, simply grafting some details onto an irrelevant tree doesn’t make it relevant without argument. didnt everyone already suspect that trump wiuld act like that? even xdaunt and danglars probably thought so By "act like that" do you mean a multi year operation, which he tried to cover up, to try and kill an investigation into himself? That some people might argue that doesnt rise to an indictable offense doesnt change what is clear for everyone to see. And thankfully, for the first time it really is clear for all to see. frankly, yes, i do mean that. it’s strange how you guys take a couple of trump’s tweets so seriously when you know that he’s a liar. nobody here was on the fence. we already know that more “data” is not persuasive to people ideologically divided. the only relevant question for me is how to convince people to contextualize the data differently. this is largely a matter for rhetoric, that ancient discipline recently much-maligned. the report may help with constructing the argument but it doesn’t suffice on its own and petty back and forths miss the target. what i want is a cogent, targeted response. the only person i’ve seen do that consistently on this topic is kwark, tonwhom danglars and xdaunt do not respond, perhaps because they do not significantly disagree with the underlying propositions I'm not so sure both sides agreed on the facts to the point where a debate about whether the facts meet the elements of the crime was appropriate. There were too many unknowns. That's why this report being public is so important; it lets everyone see what happened in chronological order and with great detail. Now if we could get xDaunt and co. to come out and state that what Mueller lays out in the report is the final and complete fact set, then, and only then, can we move on to contextualizing with regards to the elements of the law. I already said last night that the Mueller report will have to read in conjunction with what Giuliani's team puts out. Between those two reports, we should have a fairly comprehensive set of facts regarding the propriety of Trump's actions, though these documents likely will not reach issues regarding the propriety of the underlying investigation(s). We'll have to wait longer for that. You sais that Barr's summary of the report was entirely accurate. So I'm not entirely sure why anyone should take your advice faithfully on what should or should not be read. And what is inaccurate about it? Extreme selective quoting with intend to mislead. Providing zero substance on the russia stuff of which there are many pages with some very serious actions and lots of proof Trump lied about stuff. Mueller worked under the framework of no indictments for sitting presidents under guidance of OLC, and that's why no charges were brought, Barr denied this and claimed exoneration on obstruction while the report has boatloads of examples of obstruction. See below ' we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgement that the president committed crimes.' Barr was talking out of his ass. + Show Spoiler + I haven't had a chance to read the report in detail, but I highly doubt that any of this is accurate or on point for the purpose of demonstrating that Barr lied. What Mueller has obviously done with his report is lay out a bunch of facts that "look like" criminal activity for the purpose of creating the appearance of criminal activity, but actually don't constitute criminal activity. All of the stuff about the Trump Tower meeting that we have been hearing about all of this time is case in point.
Why dont they constitute criminal activity? Because Barr and Rosenstein said so? It sure as hell isnt because Mueller said so.
Note that I'm only talking about the obstruction half here, which is what FueledUp was referring to with the OLC part.
|
On April 19 2019 04:12 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 04:00 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On April 19 2019 03:38 xDaunt wrote:On April 19 2019 03:25 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On April 19 2019 03:01 xDaunt wrote:On April 19 2019 02:16 On_Slaught wrote:On April 19 2019 02:05 IgnE wrote:On April 19 2019 01:49 On_Slaught wrote:On April 19 2019 01:45 IgnE wrote:On April 19 2019 01:36 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
I didn't know that the president said he was fucked and the investigation was the end of his presidency in the oval office upon receiving news the special counsel was appointed. Or the number of times he asked McGahn to fire Mueller. Or that Corey Lewandowski delivered a message to Sessions to curtail the investigation.
But the report is public, you can just read it like the rest of us. honestly none of that surprises me. maybe I didnt “know it” in all of the particulars, but again, simply grafting some details onto an irrelevant tree doesn’t make it relevant without argument. didnt everyone already suspect that trump wiuld act like that? even xdaunt and danglars probably thought so By "act like that" do you mean a multi year operation, which he tried to cover up, to try and kill an investigation into himself? That some people might argue that doesnt rise to an indictable offense doesnt change what is clear for everyone to see. And thankfully, for the first time it really is clear for all to see. frankly, yes, i do mean that. it’s strange how you guys take a couple of trump’s tweets so seriously when you know that he’s a liar. nobody here was on the fence. we already know that more “data” is not persuasive to people ideologically divided. the only relevant question for me is how to convince people to contextualize the data differently. this is largely a matter for rhetoric, that ancient discipline recently much-maligned. the report may help with constructing the argument but it doesn’t suffice on its own and petty back and forths miss the target. what i want is a cogent, targeted response. the only person i’ve seen do that consistently on this topic is kwark, tonwhom danglars and xdaunt do not respond, perhaps because they do not significantly disagree with the underlying propositions I'm not so sure both sides agreed on the facts to the point where a debate about whether the facts meet the elements of the crime was appropriate. There were too many unknowns. That's why this report being public is so important; it lets everyone see what happened in chronological order and with great detail. Now if we could get xDaunt and co. to come out and state that what Mueller lays out in the report is the final and complete fact set, then, and only then, can we move on to contextualizing with regards to the elements of the law. I already said last night that the Mueller report will have to read in conjunction with what Giuliani's team puts out. Between those two reports, we should have a fairly comprehensive set of facts regarding the propriety of Trump's actions, though these documents likely will not reach issues regarding the propriety of the underlying investigation(s). We'll have to wait longer for that. You sais that Barr's summary of the report was entirely accurate. So I'm not entirely sure why anyone should take your advice faithfully on what should or should not be read. And what is inaccurate about it? Extreme selective quoting with intend to mislead. Providing zero substance on the russia stuff of which there are many pages with some very serious actions and lots of proof Trump lied about stuff. Mueller worked under the framework of no indictments for sitting presidents under guidance of OLC, and that's why no charges were brought, Barr denied this and claimed exoneration on obstruction while the report has boatloads of examples of obstruction. See below ' we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgement that the president committed crimes.' Barr was talking out of his ass. + Show Spoiler + I haven't had a chance to read the report in detail, but I highly doubt that any of this is accurate or on point for the purpose of demonstrating that Barr lied. What Mueller has obviously done with his report is lay out a bunch of facts that "look like" criminal activity for the purpose of creating the appearance of criminal activity, but actually don't constitute criminal activity. All of the stuff about the Trump Tower meeting that we have been hearing about all of this time is case in point.
Just to be clear, are you claiming that the Special Counsel is out to get the President by creating the appearance of criminality?
|
On April 19 2019 03:50 On_Slaught wrote:
Seems pretty clear that Mueller expected Congress to make the call on obstruction, and that he believes they have the power to impeach Trump if they found that he obstructed justice. Shame Barr is trying to undermine that for his benefactor.
Does Congress need to be the one to make that call? Can anyone else legally make that call? I assume Barr theoretically can, except Barr doesn't believe that presidents can obstruct justice (hence Trump appointing him in the first place). Who else besides Congress could hold Trump accountable, since we know Congress won't?
On April 19 2019 04:05 youngjiddle wrote:
Amazing to see the narrative shift so fast from "He is a Russian agent" to "It's obstruction of justice".
grasping
at
straws
The only people who think Trump is smart enough to be a secret agent are the Trump supporters who think his daily ignorance is a facade and that he's secretly playing twenty-dimensional chess. The dude can't even close an umbrella.
|
Oh and I'm sure Barr found a way not to lie, he's a smart one. But his letter was highly inaccurate as a summary. One can make a selective summary that distorts the original material greatly without lying.
|
On April 19 2019 02:32 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +ii. Conduct of the Meeting
Trump Jr., Manafort, and Kushner participated on the Trump side, while Kaveladze, Samochomov, Akhmetshin, and Goldstone attended with Veselnitskaya.
722
The Office spoke to every participant except Veselnitska a and Trum Jr., the latter of whom declined to be voluntaril interviewed b the Office Page 117. So Trump Jr declined to be interviewed by the OSC. I still cannot wrap my head on why he wasn't subpoenaed to testify or indicted for accepting a meeting where it was clearly stated that a foreign government wanted to help his father get elected by providing incriminating information about his opponent (even if it was a nothingburger and they ended up dissapointed). Maybe they thought he was just too much of an idiot, acting without nefarious intent, just stupidity, and that didn't warrant to look into it more ?
Well, it seems I'm not the only one thinking that :-D
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/trump-jr-dodged-charges-because-he-was-too-dumb-to-prosecute/
I don't agree with the fact that not knowing it's illegal makes it any less of an issue. In France, "nul n'est censé ignorer la loi". There's probably the same in the USA (meaning you're not supposed to not know the law, thus it's not an excuse)
|
On April 19 2019 04:25 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
Oh and I'm sure Barr found a way not to lie, he's a smart one. But his letter was highly inaccurate as a summary. One can make a selective summary that distorts the original material greatly without lying.
Why, even after it's been released, you say he is distorting it.
It's pretty black and white.
These investigations aren't even meant to be public but it's being released.
This is unprecedented.
|
On April 19 2019 04:28 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 02:32 Nouar wrote:ii. Conduct of the Meeting
Trump Jr., Manafort, and Kushner participated on the Trump side, while Kaveladze, Samochomov, Akhmetshin, and Goldstone attended with Veselnitskaya.
722
The Office spoke to every participant except Veselnitska a and Trum Jr., the latter of whom declined to be voluntaril interviewed b the Office Page 117. So Trump Jr declined to be interviewed by the OSC. I still cannot wrap my head on why he wasn't subpoenaed to testify or indicted for accepting a meeting where it was clearly stated that a foreign government wanted to help his father get elected by providing incriminating information about his opponent (even if it was a nothingburger and they ended up dissapointed). Maybe they thought he was just too much of an idiot, acting without nefarious intent, just stupidity, and that didn't warrant to look into it more ? Well, it seems I'm not the only one thinking that :-D https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/trump-jr-dodged-charges-because-he-was-too-dumb-to-prosecute/I don't agree with the fact that not knowing it's illegal makes it any less of an issue. In France, "nul n'est censé ignorer la loi". There's probably the same in the USA (meaning you're not supposed to not know the law, thus it's not an excuse)
"Ignorance of the law is no excuse" is indeed a common phrase in these parts.
|
United States43136 Posts
Report concluded that Manafort and Gates, in their official capacities as Campaign Chair and Deputy Campaign Chair, met with Russian intelligence officer Kilimnik to talk strategy and share polling data.
Fun stuff.
The Office could not reliably determine Manafort's purpose in sharing internal polling data with Kilimnik during the campaign period.
Basically they were working with Russian intelligence but we can’t prove tit-for-tat.
|
On April 19 2019 03:53 crms wrote:
If I tell a bunch of people to do illegal shit, I'm trying to do illegal shit, how successful I am matters in sentencing but not in criminality, right? If I attempt to rob a bank but then walk away, I'm still in deep shit. If I hire a hitman and he doesn't fulfill his obligation, I'm still in deep shit. If I order my employees to do a bunch of illegal stuff and they don't follow through, I'm still in deep shit.
I'd hope you find yourself surrounded by friends that will restrain your worst impulses. Especially if you're being hounded by enemies for crimes you didn't commit, who are committing criminal offenses to get you.
From Barr:
In assessing the President’s actions discussed in the report, it is important to bear in mind the context. President Trump faced an unprecedented situation. As he entered into office, and sought to perform his responsibilities as President, federal agents and prosecutors were scrutinizing his conduct before and after taking office, and the conduct of some of his associates. At the same time, there was relentless speculation in the news media about the President’s personal culpability. Yet, as he said from the beginning, there was in fact no collusion. And as the Special Counsel’s report acknowledges, there is substantial evidence to show that the President was frustrated and angered by a sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents, and fueled by illegal leaks. Nonetheless, the White House fully cooperated with the Special Counsel’s investigation, providing unfettered access to campaign and White House documents, directing senior aides to testify freely, and asserting no privilege claims. And at the same time, the President took no act that in fact deprived the Special Counsel of the documents and witnesses necessary to complete his investigation. Apart from whether the acts were obstructive, this evidence of non-corrupt motives weighs heavily against any allegation that the President had a corrupt intent to obstruct the investigation.
The criminal standard is corrupt intent. The fact that the President assisted the investigation with access to whatever documents and senior staff Mueller wanted works against any claim that Trump possessed the mens rea. In point of fact, he aided the investigation.
Compare it with other criminal statutes that do not need intent, such as reckless endangerment.
|
On April 19 2019 04:30 youngjiddle wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 04:25 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
Oh and I'm sure Barr found a way not to lie, he's a smart one. But his letter was highly inaccurate as a summary. One can make a selective summary that distorts the original material greatly without lying. Why, even after it's been released, you say he is distorting it. It's pretty black and white. These investigations aren't even meant to be public but it's being released. This is unprecedented.
This is inaccurate. From early on the DOJ and FBI made it clear their investigation into Russian interference in the elections would be released to the public. This did not change when the special counsel was appointed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/5IEEXXd.jpg)
