|
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 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?
Not exactly the summary, but the press conference earlier, one example : the Trump presidency supposedly cooperated in full with the OSC.
Whereas in fact, Mueller tried for one year to interview Trump but had to settle for written answers, specifically excluding the obstruction part. And at least Trump Jr refused to be interviewed (He's not part of the government, but it's still a little bit misleading since he was part of the campaign, which was investigated).
Or in his summary, that HE decided not to take into account the "no indicting a sitting president" policy, or his view that a president can't commit to obstruction of justice, but just found the proofs were not sufficient.
However the report says on obstruction :
Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice Manual standard governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. [. . .]
which means in no event would Mueller have determined that obstruction would have happened, and that is why he didn't conclude on obstruction. Not for lack of proof.
Again, this is misleading at best to make us think Mueller found the obstruction items insufficient. He is smart enough to not flat out lie.
|
The better answer is: Barr’s initial letter could have been far more accurate now that we have access to the full report.
|
Northern Ireland27014 Posts
On April 19 2019 04:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +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? Show nested quote +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.
Which wasn’t even a quick shift in narrative at all.
Also a shift that’s hard to actually make without being given the ammo to do so.
I felt at the time and still do that the Russia stuff was overblown and people are leaping on Russia to excuse their own obvious failings and fuckups.
How he’s responded on the other hand subsequently has fully validated or reinforced almost every issue I have with the man.
The great liberal conspiracy to get the guy doesn’t force him to do the things that he actually does do.
|
On April 19 2019 04:35 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +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: Show nested quote +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.
This argument is bunk because someone can publically do one thing while acting differently behind closed doors. The only thing this proves is how much of an embarrassment Barr is to his office. That he would say this after having read the report and knowing that Trump had actively tried to kill the investigation multiple times is the height of disengenuousness and misdirection.
|
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
Pretty much what I saw as well. It's curious to me that people get so passionate about this of all things, but to each their own.
|
On April 19 2019 04:36 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 04:30 youngjiddle wrote: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.
How about holder selectively choosing not to prosecute the IRS for unlawfully targeting conservative nonprofits, Holder being held in contempt for not handing over documents regarding fast & furious (Obama then gave him executive privilege), Clinton getting off for the email scandal because Comey willfully chose not to prosecute.
Why isn't any of that public, hmm?
|
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.
It’s up to the AG’s office and Congress whether it is released. It’s written into law. Prior precedent is the Congressional decision to release the Starr Report, from Independent Counsel Kenneth Star.
|
On April 19 2019 04:46 youngjiddle wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 04:36 Plansix wrote:On April 19 2019 04:30 youngjiddle wrote: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. How about holder selectively choosing not to prosecute the IRS for unlawfully targeting conservative nonprofits, Holder being held in contempt for not handing over documents regarding fast & furious (Obama then gave him executive privilege), Clinton getting off for the email scandal because Comey willfully chose not to prosecute. Why isn't any of that public, hmm?
Those are different reports than the one you are discussing today. And there are plenty of reports that the FBI releases to the public on other matters.
|
On April 19 2019 04:36 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 04:30 youngjiddle wrote: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.
I believe that the SC regulations do not require his report to be made public.
Also that quote from Trump about his presidency being over lacks the follow up, which pretty much clears that away. It's funny that all this talk of cherry picking ends with that.
Everyone tells me if you get one of these independent counsels it ruins your presidency. It takes years and years and I won’t be able to do anything. This is the worst thing that ever happened to me
i'll read more later, but yeah, so far looks to be about what I expected. My favorite wa that just 24 hours people are saying this was an obvious coverup, but it looks like they released a great deal of info. some coverup.
|
On April 19 2019 04:46 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 04:35 Danglars wrote: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. This argument is bunk because someone can publically do one thing while acting differently behind closed doors. The only thing this proves is how much of an embarrassment Barr is to his office. That he would say this after having read the report and knowing that Trump had actively tried to kill the investigation multiple times is the height of disengenuousness and misdirection.
You’ve made no connection to criminality, intent, or what happened as a matter of fact. You’re going to have to do much better than mention public vs private behavior in passing. Studied ignorance of the counter argument does not prove disingenuousness or misdirection. Your behavior is inseparable from if Mueller recommended obstruction of justice.
|
The report says they assumed a legal framework in which they couldn't recommend a prosecution of the president because a sitting president cant be indicted. Therefore they set out all the evidence each way, for the purpose of Congress being able to consider it. That is the point of the obstruction part of the report. Though it looks like democratic leadership has decided not to pursue impeachment in the house.
|
On April 19 2019 04:56 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 04:46 On_Slaught wrote:On April 19 2019 04:35 Danglars wrote: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. This argument is bunk because someone can publically do one thing while acting differently behind closed doors. The only thing this proves is how much of an embarrassment Barr is to his office. That he would say this after having read the report and knowing that Trump had actively tried to kill the investigation multiple times is the height of disengenuousness and misdirection. You’ve made no connection to criminality, intent, or what happened as a matter of fact. You’re going to have to do much better than mention public vs private behavior in passing. Studied ignorance of the counter argument does not prove disingenuousness or misdirection. Your behavior is inseparable from if Mueller recommended obstruction of justice.
Mueller does this for me. Literally. For over 200 pages.
Yours and Barrs defense that the WH did the bare minimum to cooperate does not make hundreds of pages of evidence that Trump tried to kill the investigation disappear.
Oh, and Trump has made his hope to kill the investigation public literally hundreds, if not thousands, of times. His intent is clear.
|
On April 19 2019 05:08 Doodsmack wrote:
The report says they assumed a legal framework in which they couldn't recommend a prosecution of the president because a sitting president cant be indicted. Therefore they set out all the evidence each way, for the purpose of Congress being able to consider it. That is the point of the obstruction part of the report. Though it looks like democratic leadership has decided not to pursue impeachment in the house.
You can thank Barr for that. While its possible they wouldn't have anyways, if seeing this report today was literally the first anyone had heard about the findings then it's possible they would have gone with impeachment on obstruction given how bad it all looks (tho likely still not considering the political capital it would use). By taking the initiative to declare no obstruction early, Barr created a narrative Dems cant realistically fight.
Honestly Trump deserves credit for picking the perfect shill for the job of exonerating himself.
|
On April 19 2019 05:15 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 05:08 Doodsmack wrote:
The report says they assumed a legal framework in which they couldn't recommend a prosecution of the president because a sitting president cant be indicted. Therefore they set out all the evidence each way, for the purpose of Congress being able to consider it. That is the point of the obstruction part of the report. Though it looks like democratic leadership has decided not to pursue impeachment in the house. You can thank Barr for that. While its possible they wouldn't have anyways, if seeing this report today was literally the first anyone had heard about the findings then it's possible they would have gone with impeachment on obstruction given how bad it all looks (tho likely still not considering the political capital it would use). By taking the initiative to declare no obstruction early, Barr created a narrative Dems cant realistically fight. Honestly Trump deserves credit for picking the perfect man for the job of exonerating himself.
You can thank the impeachment of Bill Clinton for that. That backfired so badly on the Republicans in the 1990s that the Democrats today are still worried about making the same mistake. And to be honest, if they don’t feel it’s a sure thing, they shouldn’t do it.
|
Time to impeach at the polls.
|
|
|
|
|
On April 19 2019 05:22 farvacola wrote:
Time to impeach at the polls.
The 2020 election is gonna to be lit. The law and order party now has to defendant a president does not think the laws and rules should apply to him.
|
I know it's an unpopular position but I support NK maintaining nuclear weapons development so long as any other country, namely the US, has it.
It's an important part of why they are able to maintain what autonomy they have regardless of how people feel about what they do with it.
I don't know if anyone has seen Seoul lately but it's probably not what many people have in their minds.
+ Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/pqS4MuX.jpg) That tall one in the back is taller than the new WTC btw
Western media about NK reminds me of what I've read about how the US portrayed communism lifting Russia out of the "third world" momentarily.
|
On April 19 2019 05:12 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 04:56 Danglars wrote:On April 19 2019 04:46 On_Slaught wrote:On April 19 2019 04:35 Danglars wrote: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. This argument is bunk because someone can publically do one thing while acting differently behind closed doors. The only thing this proves is how much of an embarrassment Barr is to his office. That he would say this after having read the report and knowing that Trump had actively tried to kill the investigation multiple times is the height of disengenuousness and misdirection. You’ve made no connection to criminality, intent, or what happened as a matter of fact. You’re going to have to do much better than mention public vs private behavior in passing. Studied ignorance of the counter argument does not prove disingenuousness or misdirection. Your behavior is inseparable from if Mueller recommended obstruction of justice. Mueller does this for me. Literally. For over 200 pages. Yours and Barrs defense that the WH did the bare minimum to cooperate does not make hundreds of pages of evidence that Trump tried to kill the investigation disappear. Oh, and Trump has made his hope to kill the investigation public literally hundreds, if not thousands, of times. His intent is clear.
The defense was offered against all those pages, so pointing back at them will not help you out Also, calling “unfettered access” to documents, personnel, etc free from executive privilege is not “the bare minimum to cooperate.” You really need to let go of your hatred of Trump and Barr.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
