|
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 10:58 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
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?
It’s not my conclusion. It’s Mueller’s. Everyone has known it since Barr released his summary letter.
|
On April 19 2019 10:59 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 10:46 xDaunt wrote: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. Show nested quote +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. Nothing changed.
No criminal charge = fully exonerated. There is no middle ground here, despite Mueller’s best attempts to create the appearance of impropriety out of whole cloth.
|
On April 19 2019 11:00 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 10:58 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
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? It’s not my conclusion. It’s Mueller’s. Everyone has known it since Barr released his summary letter.
But since the report came out, hasn't it been established that what Barr summarized was pretty bastard from what was reported? You're moving the goalposts and changing the argument to suit your argument and that is not in good faith. Really never has been in regards to your political leanings, all truth be told.
Read the report. Then come back with your comments on it. It'll save us the trouble of you changing the narrative to fit your argument. You won't admit that you were wrong or grossly overestimating Barr/trump.
[spoiler]On April 19 2019 11:01 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 10:59 m4ini wrote:On April 19 2019 10:46 xDaunt wrote: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. Nothing changed. No criminal charge = fully exonerated. There is no middle ground here, despite Mueller’s best attempts to create the appearance of impropriety out of whole cloth.
If Mueller deferred to Congress to decide to indict or not, that doesn't mean he was exonerated. It just means that Mueller punted to Congress, which he should do.
Edit: I suck at formatting BBCode lol.
|
On April 19 2019 10:46 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +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.
The bottom line is mueller never worked towards a crime charge BECAUSE HE ISNT ALLOWED due to the guidelines. He provides a body of evidence either for impeachment or charges after Trump is a citizen again.
|
Mueller didn’t defer to anyone. He simply declined to conclude anything relating to obstruction, which is no different than concluding that no charge should be made. He most certainly did not defer to congress, which, as Barr noted, would be highly improper.
And no, Barr’s summary is not inaccurate.
|
On April 19 2019 11:01 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 10:59 m4ini wrote:On April 19 2019 10:46 xDaunt wrote: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. Nothing changed. No criminal charge = fully exonerated. There is no middle ground here, despite Mueller’s best attempts to create the appearance of impropriety out of whole cloth.
Your bad faith is absolutely staggering. I don’t even know why you come here to discuss anymore; at that point you sound like a special Teamliquid version of Sarah Sanders.
User was warned for this post.
|
I didn't say it was inaccurate, I said it was a bastard version of what was reported. Hence the outcry from the people who worked on it for him to release the redacted version as soon as possible. Bastardizing a report to fit the trump narrative is completely different from being inaccurate.
|
On April 19 2019 11:09 xDaunt wrote:
Mueller didn’t defer to anyone. He simply declined to conclude anything relating to obstruction, which is no different than concluding that no charge should be made. He most certainly did not defer to congress, which, as Barr noted, would be highly improper.
And no, Barr’s summary is not inaccurate.
I think he did defer to Congress because of the fact that DOJ policy is to not indict a sitting president. He viewed that as a restriction on his ability to recommend a criminal charge. So he simply set out all the evidence.
|
On April 19 2019 11:00 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 10:58 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
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? It’s not my conclusion. It’s Mueller’s. Everyone has known it since Barr released his summary letter.
Vol. 2, Page 2
Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him
Vol. 2, Page 8
The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President's corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.
CONCLUSION
Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President's conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.
|
On April 19 2019 11:09 xDaunt wrote:
Mueller didn’t defer to anyone. He simply declined to conclude anything relating to obstruction, which is no different than concluding that no charge should be made. He most certainly did not defer to congress, which, as Barr noted, would be highly improper.
And no, Barr’s summary is not inaccurate.
Except he did.
While the Mueller report declines to recommend a prosecution by the justice department, Mueller notes that Congress might do so.
“The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President’s corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law,” the report reads.
Does that sound fully exonerated to you? I mean he literally called it "corrupt exercise", now i don't know in what circles you tend to walk around in, but nah, to me, that's not "fully exonerated". In fact he literally wrote a response to you.
“If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state,” the report continues.
But yeah. 100% exonerated.
|
On April 19 2019 11:01 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 10:59 m4ini wrote:On April 19 2019 10:46 xDaunt wrote: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. Nothing changed. No criminal charge = fully exonerated. There is no middle ground here, despite Mueller’s best attempts to create the appearance of impropriety out of whole cloth.
Are you using exonerated in a legal sense or in a colloquial sense? Because I think the pushback you're getting is related to the differences.
There's not really an argument (that maintains a coherent worldview imo) that the investigation verified criminality on behalf of Trump (himself), but there's a perfectly reasonable interpretation that concludes it demonstrated an abundance of wrongdoing (read: dishonest behavior).
|
On April 19 2019 11:16 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 11:09 xDaunt wrote:
Mueller didn’t defer to anyone. He simply declined to conclude anything relating to obstruction, which is no different than concluding that no charge should be made. He most certainly did not defer to congress, which, as Barr noted, would be highly improper.
And no, Barr’s summary is not inaccurate. I think he did defer to Congress because of the fact that DOJ policy is to not indict a sitting president. He viewed that as a restriction on his ability to recommend a criminal charge. So he simply set out all the evidence.
I think his problem is that people are actually reading the document, whereas he decided what it said before he had the chance.
|
On April 19 2019 11:11 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 11:01 xDaunt wrote:On April 19 2019 10:59 m4ini wrote:On April 19 2019 10:46 xDaunt wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Nothing changed. No criminal charge = fully exonerated. There is no middle ground here, despite Mueller’s best attempts to create the appearance of impropriety out of whole cloth. Your bad faith is absolutely staggering. I don’t even know why you come here to discuss anymore; at that point you sound like a special Teamliquid version of Sarah Sanders.
My bad faith? I’m not the one who is hopelessly addicted to Trump impeachment fantasy porn. Mueller came up empty on the underlying Russia collusion narrative, and the best that he could do with obstruction was gin up the appearance of impropriety based upon Trump lashing out at a baseless investigation in the first place. Let’s be 100% clear: Mueller did not determine that there was probable cause that Trump committed a crime. Period. End of story. Anyone who disputes this is arguing in bad faith. Spin it all you want. The reality is the reality.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On April 19 2019 11:09 xDaunt wrote:
Mueller didn’t defer to anyone. He simply declined to conclude anything relating to obstruction, which is no different than concluding that no charge should be made. He most certainly did not defer to congress, which, as Barr noted, would be highly improper.
And no, Barr’s summary is not inaccurate.
You are taking Barrs words on the report as more accurate than the words in the actual report. I dont know how you came that far down the rabbithole of spin but I feel sorry for you.
|
On April 19 2019 11:16 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 11:09 xDaunt wrote:
Mueller didn’t defer to anyone. He simply declined to conclude anything relating to obstruction, which is no different than concluding that no charge should be made. He most certainly did not defer to congress, which, as Barr noted, would be highly improper.
And no, Barr’s summary is not inaccurate. I think he did defer to Congress because of the fact that DOJ policy is to not indict a sitting president. He viewed that as a restriction on his ability to recommend a criminal charge. So he simply set out all the evidence.
That’s just speculation on your part. It is unsupported by the laws governing special counsel (ie he does not have authority to do it), and it most certainly is not stated in his report. Regardless, it’s a moot issue because Congress isn’t going to do dick.
|
In other words, he's exonerated because cronyism?
Well i can live with that.
|
On April 19 2019 11:16 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 11:00 xDaunt wrote:On April 19 2019 10:58 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
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? It’s not my conclusion. It’s Mueller’s. Everyone has known it since Barr released his summary letter. Vol. 2, Page 2 Show nested quote +Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him Vol. 2, Page 8 Show nested quote +The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President's corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.
CONCLUSION
Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President's conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.
Do you care to respond to this Daunt? I'll wait for you to read the report, if that is preferable to you.
|
On April 19 2019 11:24 m4ini wrote:
In other words, he's exonerated because cronyism?
Well i can live with that.
I've taken it as a bastardization of procédure d'approbation tacite or silence is acquiescence.
Either way i don't see congress doing anything but trying to get a fully unredacted report and bringing in people to testify and clarify. There isn't strongly damning evidence; from what i've seen in this redacted version. At Least not a bloody knife that they can use, well use effectively against those who zealously support the president. At least with the given time frame, a year and a half isn't too long for them to wait on it. I see that being the modus operandi of the democrats. Gather information as much as they can't and use it when applicable and remove from office with the voters the president. Instead of trying to force the issue though a senate that likely will not flip on it's stance to burn all bridges to push agenda.
|
On April 19 2019 11:35 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 11:16 semantics wrote:On April 19 2019 11:00 xDaunt wrote:On April 19 2019 10:58 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
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? It’s not my conclusion. It’s Mueller’s. Everyone has known it since Barr released his summary letter. Vol. 2, Page 2 Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him Vol. 2, Page 8 The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President's corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.
CONCLUSION
Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President's conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him. Do you care to respond to this Daunt? I'll wait for you to read the report, if that is preferable to you.
I do want to respond to it, but I need to read the entirety of the obstruction section first. I won’t be able to do that until tomorrow.
|
I agree semantics (or lack thereof :p) that congress won't act. They have what they need to start the wheels turning. The turnout in 2020 will be huge if they play this right. Giving the Dem frontrunner/candidate all the tools to repeatedly beat at this and to remind voters what has occurred over the years. I have no faith they will, but maybe they'll surprise me.
Either way, the narrative going forward will continue to prick at trump.
On April 19 2019 11:39 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 11:35 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 19 2019 11:16 semantics wrote:On April 19 2019 11:00 xDaunt wrote:On April 19 2019 10:58 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
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? It’s not my conclusion. It’s Mueller’s. Everyone has known it since Barr released his summary letter. Vol. 2, Page 2 Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him Vol. 2, Page 8 The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President's corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.
CONCLUSION
Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President's conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him. Do you care to respond to this Daunt? I'll wait for you to read the report, if that is preferable to you. I do want to respond to it, but I need to read the entirety of the obstruction section first. I won’t be able to do that until tomorrow.
That suits me. I won't be able to read it until this weekend myself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
