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.
On April 19 2019 06:47 FueledUpAndReadyToGo 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.
How can you state something like this with a straight face? He aided the investigation? After flaming it every day for two years? Attacking the people doing said investigation relentlessly? After calling people cooperating rats?
Soon after he fired Corney, however, the President became aware that investigators were conducting an obstruction-of-justice inquiry into his own conduct. That awareness marked a significant change in the President s conduct and the start of a second phase of action. The President launched public attacks on the investigation and individuals involved in it who could possess evidence adverse to the President, while in private, the President engaged in a series of targeted efforts to control the investigation. For instance, the President attempted to remove the Special Counsel; he sought to have Attorney General Sessions unrecuse himself and limit the investigation; he sought to prevent public disclosure of information about the June 9, 2016 meeting between Russians and campaign officials; and he used public forums to attack potential witnesses who might offer adverse information and to praise witnesses who declined to cooperate with the government.
From page 370. Does that sound like aiding?
Oh yes, I'm sure the veteran investigators were hampered by verbal attacks from the man who knew he was innocent of the crime investigated. Intense obstruction. I'm sure we'll never get to see the report given the preventative measures.
On April 19 2019 08:17 Seeker wrote:
Spooky.
Holy shit, did some new stuff drop that I missed that proved Trumps innocence? Hit me up! /s
Did you ever stop to ask yourself why someone would try so hard to undermine an investigation which would prove his innocence? All he had to do was wait, but like usual, the coverup gets ya.
Also, is that Seekers way of reminding everyone he is watching? Spooky indeed.
The constant insinuations from the likes of you, and criminal leaks, all encouraged by the opposition party and media, for that long are a little draining to the presidency. Trump's entirely in character firing back, and he winds up embarrassed by sworn testimony. Boo hoo, he didn't get as clean of a bill of health had the entire report been Volume 1: You all got worked up over nothing. Instead we also get a second volume of stupid things the President also did along the road not arising to criminal conduct.
I suppose in your defense nobody could argue that Trump is a rational actor. Given options he will consistently choose the worse one, including undermining an investigation which would prove his innocence.
Can we get back to the fact that Trump is possibly only President today because members of his administration, namely McGahn, grew a conscious? If he had initiated the Saturday Night Massacre as Trump wanted it very well could have ended his whole presidency there. Shame his cronies arent all as unethical as him; we could have woken up from this nightmare sooner.
He has a lot to be thankful for in the actions of his staff at critical moments.
On April 19 2019 09:13 iamthedave wrote: Why? Even you admit Trump is full of shit and like to say that people should ignore his tweets.
Or by 'counterpunch' are you referring to a more substantive and/or legal retaliation?
His team is going to release its rebuttal report. Beyond that, he's going to start exposing the fraudulent bases of the investigation by declassifying stuff. Barr already laid out the framework for what's coming during his press conference today when discussing the obstruction issue. Specifically, Barr painted a picture of a president under siege who felt like he was being unfairly harassed by law enforcement, which explains the conduct that Mueller and others have tried to construe as a basis for an obstruction charge. Stated another way, Barr said that the only reason why there is any obstruction evidence is because the president was wronged. This framing was deliberate, as was his use of the term "spying" when testifying last week. As other have pointed out, Barr is clearly micromanaging the PR surrounding the reveal and release of the Mueller report. I'm simply pointing out that Barr's spin on all of this is not purely defensive in nature. There's a very clear offensive purpose to it, and I suspect that it's going to become very obvious very soon.
Granted I dont know much of anything about obstruction but I'm confused about why the presidents frustration and emotions bear on whether he committed the crime. Does it actually mitigate the "corruptness" of his intent?
On April 19 2019 09:13 iamthedave wrote: Why? Even you admit Trump is full of shit and like to say that people should ignore his tweets.
Or by 'counterpunch' are you referring to a more substantive and/or legal retaliation?
His team is going to release its rebuttal report. Beyond that, he's going to start exposing the fraudulent bases of the investigation by declassifying stuff. Barr already laid out the framework for what's coming during his press conference today when discussing the obstruction issue. Specifically, Barr painted a picture of a president under siege who felt like he was being unfairly harassed by law enforcement, which explains the conduct that Mueller and others have tried to construe as a basis for an obstruction charge. Stated another way, Barr said that the only reason why there is any obstruction evidence is because the president was wronged. This framing was deliberate, as was his use of the term "spying" when testifying last week. As other have pointed out, Barr is clearly micromanaging the PR surrounding the reveal and release of the Mueller report. I'm simply pointing out that Barr's spin on all of this is not purely defensive in nature. There's a very clear offensive purpose to it, and I suspect that it's going to become very obvious very soon.
Every President under investigation feels harassed. Also, your jabbering about the "basis" of the investigation every day reeks of tinfoil hat conspiracy FISA spying microwave Seth Rich garbage.
On April 19 2019 09:36 Doodsmack wrote: Granted I dont know much of anything about obstruction but I'm confused about why the presidents frustration and emotions bear on whether he committed the crime. Does it actually mitigate the "corruptness" of his intent?
Interestingly the Mueller report confirms that Alexander Downer's cable to the US (relating George p's statement that the Russians had dirt on Clinton) is the official predicate for the opening of the trump Russia investigation. This places a lot of importance on Joseph mifsud. Mifsud is the one who told GP that the Russians had dirt. He has allegedly either died or changed identities since his role went public. If he was working for western Intelligence at the time when he told GP, it raises a lot of questions about the predicate for the investigation. He's very mysterious and difficult to figure out based on the publicly reported information.
And he felt attacked for well over a year and did things that his advisers told him was obstruction. Those feelings lasted a long ass time and apparently make him immune from obstruction charges. Pretty much forever because he feels wronged. Who knew?
On April 19 2019 09:42 Doodsmack wrote: Interestingly the Mueller report confirms that Alexander Downer's cable to the US relating George p's statement that the Russians had dirt on Clinton is the official predicate for the opening of the trump Russia investigation. This places a lot of importance on Joseph mifsud. Mifsud is the one who told GP that the Russians had dirt. He has allegedly either died or changed identities since his role went public. If he was working for western Intelligence at the time when he told GP, it raises a lot of questions about the predicate for the investigation. He's very mysterious and difficult to figure out based on the publicly reported information.
Papadopoulos tweeted today that Mifsud has been located living in Rome near the US embassy. So it appears he's not dead.
On April 19 2019 09:13 iamthedave wrote: Why? Even you admit Trump is full of shit and like to say that people should ignore his tweets.
Or by 'counterpunch' are you referring to a more substantive and/or legal retaliation?
His team is going to release its rebuttal report. Beyond that, he's going to start exposing the fraudulent bases of the investigation by declassifying stuff. Barr already laid out the framework for what's coming during his press conference today when discussing the obstruction issue. Specifically, Barr painted a picture of a president under siege who felt like he was being unfairly harassed by law enforcement, which explains the conduct that Mueller and others have tried to construe as a basis for an obstruction charge. Stated another way, Barr said that the only reason why there is any obstruction evidence is because the president was wronged. This framing was deliberate, as was his use of the term "spying" when testifying last week. As other have pointed out, Barr is clearly micromanaging the PR surrounding the reveal and release of the Mueller report. I'm simply pointing out that Barr's spin on all of this is not purely defensive in nature. There's a very clear offensive purpose to it, and I suspect that it's going to become very obvious very soon.
Barr will be testifying before Congress with all kinds of things being insinuated and many Democrats grandstanding. That will mark sort of a Part B to Part A's summary & press conference.
Part A, particularly useful because it lays out the major objections on the obstruction charge that you're going to be hearing through the weekend. I recommend patiently hearing him out for the <20 minutes. It answers quite a few "but what about X" sort of comments I heard in the last couple of pages. Even if you're not convinced, at least know enough to have a specific answer to his conclusions on obstruction and collusion. You won't hear a more tame portrayal from the rest of the Trump team, or the people attacking Barr and Rosenstein right now.
On April 19 2019 09:43 Plansix wrote: And he felt attacked for well over a year and did things that his advisers told him was obstruction. Those feelings lasted a long ass time and apparently make him immune from obstruction charges. Pretty much forever because he feels wronged. Who knew?
I guess its like how WRT to killing someone you get downgraded from first to second degree murder, or even manslaughter, if you did it just because you were mad and didn't plan it out ahead of time like a criminal mastermind?
On April 19 2019 09:36 Doodsmack wrote: Granted I dont know much of anything about obstruction but I'm confused about why the presidents frustration and emotions bear on whether he committed the crime. Does it actually mitigate the "corruptness" of his intent?
Depends on the underlying actions, thought crimes become real crimes though surrounding actions. The difference between attempted crime and actual crime is just that, the attempt. The weight of the attempt is paired with the weight of the attempted crime. To properly understand the attempt, motive should probably be established which brings into the idea of intent.
Every crime has what’s called a mens rea element. A given action is not criminal in and of itself. The state has to prove that the defendant committed the action with the requisite state of mind.
Yes, and apparently Trump felt so attacked that he couldn’t obstruct Justice ten times. Repeatedly. Because he felt the investigation was a political ploy, all actions were justified. It also helps that no one followed through with his plans because they knew it would be obstruction, but let’s not dwell on that part.
On April 19 2019 08:38 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: No it isn't.
I'm gonna hit up NPR over the weekend and try to get through the report as quickly and understanding...ly, as possible. But from the excerpts I've read posted here...2020 is indeed, gonna be lit. To quote P6
This is a little premature. You should wait for Trump's counter punch.
You mean like the one he gave before everyone got to see the report, on account of him and his team having access to it before everyone else? That's a sucker punch, in my book.
He hasn't responded at all yet.
With regards to Trump's people seeing the report before anyone else, did you listen at all to Barr's explanation for why that happened? The idea that there was some impropriety there is utterly absurd.
Do you believe what in the report to be true. Specifically in regards to the requests he made that were not followed through on? Also on how he wanted to fire people but was unwilling to do it himself?
Also, what parts of the report do you believe to be untrue?
I don't know. I haven't read the report yet. I plan to tomorrow while traveling. I doubt that there will be any particular reported fact that is untrue. For example, if the report says "Mr. X said Y," I probably won't have any reason to doubt that. Like I said before, my larger concern with the Mueller report is the extent to which certain facts have been omitted and downplayed, thereby creating a situation where readers will digest harmful information out of context that really isn't harmful. We already see this happening with selecting quoting of certain elements of the report. This is why the underlying conclusions of the report -- that there was no collusion and that the Mueller team did not exercise their prosecutorial judgment to find that there's probable cause that Trump obstructed justice -- are so important. Every fact should be scrutinized through those lenses.
The problem with you not having read it is that these are not at all the conclusions in the report. In fact the report immediately notes that it didnt look at collusion since its not a legal term. It looked at tacit or explicit agreement between Trump campaign and the russian government and for this it didnt establish evidence beyond readonable doubt. Theres plenty of things that regular folk would call collusion in there. Barr spouting the no collusion keyword while the report says it didnt look at collusion is just another example of him toting propaganda lines.
And in obstruction Mueller didnt indict because he followed guidelines that presidents cant be. There is plenty of cause. The idea that Trump did all this because of his emotions and it is therefore not acting with intent is absurd.
On April 19 2019 10:10 xDaunt wrote: Every crime has what’s called a mens rea element. A given action is not criminal in and of itself. The state has to prove that the defendant committed the action with the requisite state of mind.
So you're saying if he's not guilty then he isn't of a clear enough mind to be President of the United States of America?
On April 19 2019 08:38 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: No it isn't.
I'm gonna hit up NPR over the weekend and try to get through the report as quickly and understanding...ly, as possible. But from the excerpts I've read posted here...2020 is indeed, gonna be lit. To quote P6
This is a little premature. You should wait for Trump's counter punch.
You mean like the one he gave before everyone got to see the report, on account of him and his team having access to it before everyone else? That's a sucker punch, in my book.
He hasn't responded at all yet.
With regards to Trump's people seeing the report before anyone else, did you listen at all to Barr's explanation for why that happened? The idea that there was some impropriety there is utterly absurd.
Do you believe what in the report to be true. Specifically in regards to the requests he made that were not followed through on? Also on how he wanted to fire people but was unwilling to do it himself?
Also, what parts of the report do you believe to be untrue?
I don't know. I haven't read the report yet. I plan to tomorrow while traveling. I doubt that there will be any particular reported fact that is untrue. For example, if the report says "Mr. X said Y," I probably won't have any reason to doubt that. Like I said before, my larger concern with the Mueller report is the extent to which certain facts have been omitted and downplayed, thereby creating a situation where readers will digest harmful information out of context that really isn't harmful. We already see this happening with selecting quoting of certain elements of the report. This is why the underlying conclusions of the report -- that there was no collusion and that the Mueller team did not exercise their prosecutorial judgment to find that there's probable cause that Trump obstructed justice -- are so important. Every fact should be scrutinized through those lenses.
The problem with you not having read it is that these are not at all the conclusions in the report. In fact the report immediately notes that it didnt look at collusion since its not a legal term. It looked at tacit or explicit agreement between Trump campaign and the russian government and for this it didnt establish evidence beyond readonable doubt. Theres plenty of things that regular folk would call collusion in there. Barr spouting the no collusion keyword while the report says it didnt look at collusion is just another example of him toting propaganda lines.
And in obstruction Mueller didnt indict because he followed guidelines that presidents cant be. There is plenty of cause. The idea that Trump did all this because of his emotions and it is therefore not acting with intent is absurd.
Yes, Mueller discusses the technical conspiracy charge and notes that “collusion” isn’t really a thing. But everyone understands that collusion refers to criminal conspiracy. And like I said, the bottom line is that Mueller did not charge Trump with a crime or recommend that he be so charged. Everything else is just noise.
You haven't read it, but you're drawing definitive conclusions. Even if you just go from soundbytes or excerpts, isn't it in your best interests to withhold commenting on it until you have read it?
On April 19 2019 10:29 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
On April 19 2019 09:25 xDaunt wrote:
On April 19 2019 09:01 JimmiC wrote:
On April 19 2019 08:59 xDaunt wrote:
On April 19 2019 08:53 NewSunshine wrote:
On April 19 2019 08:45 xDaunt wrote:
On April 19 2019 08:38 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: No it isn't.
I'm gonna hit up NPR over the weekend and try to get through the report as quickly and understanding...ly, as possible. But from the excerpts I've read posted here...2020 is indeed, gonna be lit. To quote P6
This is a little premature. You should wait for Trump's counter punch.
You mean like the one he gave before everyone got to see the report, on account of him and his team having access to it before everyone else? That's a sucker punch, in my book.
He hasn't responded at all yet.
With regards to Trump's people seeing the report before anyone else, did you listen at all to Barr's explanation for why that happened? The idea that there was some impropriety there is utterly absurd.
Do you believe what in the report to be true. Specifically in regards to the requests he made that were not followed through on? Also on how he wanted to fire people but was unwilling to do it himself?
Also, what parts of the report do you believe to be untrue?
I don't know. I haven't read the report yet. I plan to tomorrow while traveling. I doubt that there will be any particular reported fact that is untrue. For example, if the report says "Mr. X said Y," I probably won't have any reason to doubt that. Like I said before, my larger concern with the Mueller report is the extent to which certain facts have been omitted and downplayed, thereby creating a situation where readers will digest harmful information out of context that really isn't harmful. We already see this happening with selecting quoting of certain elements of the report. This is why the underlying conclusions of the report -- that there was no collusion and that the Mueller team did not exercise their prosecutorial judgment to find that there's probable cause that Trump obstructed justice -- are so important. Every fact should be scrutinized through those lenses.
The problem with you not having read it is that these are not at all the conclusions in the report. In fact the report immediately notes that it didnt look at collusion since its not a legal term. It looked at tacit or explicit agreement between Trump campaign and the russian government and for this it didnt establish evidence beyond readonable doubt. Theres plenty of things that regular folk would call collusion in there. Barr spouting the no collusion keyword while the report says it didnt look at collusion is just another example of him toting propaganda lines.
And in obstruction Mueller didnt indict because he followed guidelines that presidents cant be. There is plenty of cause. The idea that Trump did all this because of his emotions and it is therefore not acting with intent is absurd.
Yes, Mueller discusses the technical conspiracy charge and notes that “collusion” isn’t really a thing. But everyone understands that collusion refers to criminal conspiracy. And like I said, the bottom line is that Mueller did not charge Trump with a crime or recommend that he be so charged. Everything else is just noise.
Quite the different song to what you sang a week ago, innit? Weren't we supposed to be blown away by how squeaky clean Trump is? Remember, "fully exonerated", all that jazz?
Now we're down to "well he didn't charge him, the fact that he tried and is crooked as shit is just noise"?
It feels a bit like the slope republicans went down when it came to emails about HRC. No, never met them, well, did meet them but didn't get anything, and Trump didn't know anything, well he did know something, well yeah they met and trump knew but it's not illegal.
You haven't read it, but you're drawing definitive conclusions. Even if you just go from soundbytes or excerpts, isn't it in your best interests to withhold commenting on it until you have read it?
He had those definitive conclusions long before it was released already. We were supposed to be astonished by the report, and how dare we doubt the "Trump is fully exonerated" claim by Barr, no reason to lie or conceal facts.
EPT
