US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1365

On April 20 2019 05:49 Wombat_NI wrote:

Is anyone who has to say they’re a patriot not either an idiot, or using it as a shield for shitty things they want to do?

I mean obviously there are, plenty, still mere use of the word is usually enough to set off my bullshit detector

On April 19 2019 22:41 JimmiC wrote:


Even by your definition you are wrong Inge. Z2C used it reference to Mueller, who just laid out all the evidence and did not make judgement one way or the other, he left that to congress. Had Z2C said Barr you might have had a point since he (inappropriately) did pass judgement. OJ had a trial and jury pass judgement, so your example is very different from what actually happened.

I suggest you actually read the report or at least some summaries especially if you are going to bust out the Latin to try to make yourself look smart. Because it is pretty embarrassing when a guy does that and than doesn't even have the basic facts down to make his whole "lesson" make sense.

On April 20 2019 16:37 Zambrah wrote:


Isn't this the issue? Isn't Congress where this happens for the President of the United States?

Anyone watch the žižek-peterson debate?

On April 20 2019 17:38 Falling wrote:

I will, but I'm not hopeful based on the format. 30 minutes a piece for opening, only 10 minutes of rebuttal and no cross-examination sounds more like an opportunity for speechifying. Far too easy to talk past each other and not actually engage with the other side's arguments.

On April 20 2019 05:30 Nouar wrote:

Exactly, or abroad... for example by not recognizing international war tribunals jurisdiction as soon as they target someone from the US... International organisations are good as long as they serve the US's interests...

On April 20 2019 17:42 GreenHorizons wrote:


From the bit I've watched so far (the format does suck) Peterson was woefully unprepared. I've payed virtually 0 attention to him but found it fascinating/hilarious he had been giving impressionable people his screed on communism without even having read the Manifesto let alone accompanying works or the work since.

So when he says "Marx doesn't say" or whatever, at best, it's based on a control+f of a PDF.

On April 20 2019 16:42 GreenHorizons wrote:
Anyone watch the žižek-peterson debate?



This would be a far stronger argument if Mueller at least recommended charges, as it is, I'd say no. FWIW this is what I said he would deliver when he was named. Pretty much exactly what he gave Goodell and the NFL.

On April 20 2019 15:38 IgnE wrote:


Mueller had the authority to bring charges, and did bring charges against several people, but declined to bring any charges against Trump. The power to accuse, to chase, to prosecute, is in the name: special prosecutor. “Not making a judgment” in this case is the same thing as exoneration, in the sense of freeing from accusation by the special prosecutor under the Department of Justice. The investigation is over. Trump stands formally unaccused. “Leaving it to Congress” sets in motion a different system, a political one, kind of like how OJ was exonerated of criminal charges but then lost a civil suit.

As to the ensuing conversation that followed this post I’d point out, for the record, that I don’t usually willfully ignore people when they ask me questions. People actually don’t ask questions as often as they comment or accuse.

On April 20 2019 18:41 Gorsameth wrote:
Have you read the report?
Mueller explains this very carefully. Standing DoJ guidelines means Mueller cannot indict the President and fairness rules say that he cannot call someone guilty when that person cannot defend themselves against such allegations in court.
You can't can't say "but he did it in this other case" because I highly doubt there is a standing guideline in the DoJ against indicting the NFL.

As for why he pushes the decision to Congress, again this is talked about at length in the report. The President is legally allowed to fire Comey and have someone fire Mueller under his article 2 powers. Taking action against the abuse of such powers is the job of Congress. So if the President tried to Obstruct Justice through his constitutional power its up to Congress to decide what to do about it.

Same to you, read the report. What your saying directly conflicts with what Mueller explains in it.

Mueller is a pro at letting people off the hook. {he did} He cleared the NFL on the Ray Rice thing (while not really clearing them) and he helped stop the renewal of a wildly unconstitutional wiretapping program (while not really stopping the wiretapping).

... I'm about 85% sure he's there to suck up the attention on the whole Russia thing so Republicans and Democrats can pass a repatriation bill sooner than later. {they did} Trump can't get out of his own way bringing up the pettiest stuff at the least opportune times of course {he did}, so who knows if they can keep him from screwing it up.

When Mueller is done he'll say Trump's team did some questionable/bad stuff, none of it will be "throw him in jail/must impeach" bad (although I don't doubt it's there) {it was}.

On April 20 2019 18:59 GreenHorizons wrote:


Recommending charges was fully within his purview as I understand it and was suggested here iirc. The point about the NFL was what I said at the time.

First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to
initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial
judgment. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that "the indictment
or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the
executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions " in violation of "the
constitutional separation of powers." 1 Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the
Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations, see 28 U.S.C. § 515;
28 C.F.R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC ' s legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising
prosecutorialjurisdiction.

Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice
Manual standards 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. The
threshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person's conduct
"constitutes a federal offense." U.S . Dep't of Justice, Justice Manual§ 9-27.220 (2018) (Justice
Manual) . Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges
can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a
speedy and public trial , with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An
individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In
contrast, a prosecutor's judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought ,
affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name -clearing before an impartial adjudicator.5

On April 20 2019 15:38 IgnE wrote:


Mueller had the authority to bring charges, and did bring charges against several people, but declined to bring any charges against Trump. The power to accuse, to chase, to prosecute, is in the name: special prosecutor. “Not making a judgment” in this case is the same thing as exoneration, in the sense of freeing from accusation by the special prosecutor under the Department of Justice. The investigation is over. Trump stands formally unaccused. “Leaving it to Congress” sets in motion a different system, a political one, kind of like how OJ was exonerated of criminal charges but then lost a civil suit.

As to the ensuing conversation that followed this post I’d point out, for the record, that I don’t usually willfully ignore people when they ask me questions. People actually don’t ask questions as often as they comment or accuse.

On April 20 2019 19:05 Gorsameth wrote:
So that would be a No then.
That's fine. i'll just quote the report for you. This is from the introduction to volume 2.

So, he can't indict the President.

And no recommendation.

If you want to disagree with those conclusions that's fine, but your going to have to come up with evidence.

On April 20 2019 18:23 Falling wrote:

I don't know what the time frame was to prepare, but it is certainly a mistake to have not read any of your opponents books. (A fellow I watch that does a lot debates, usually attempts to read (or else listen to the audiobooks while biking) all his opponents books in preparation, so maybe I've been spoiled with actual debaters.) I understand Zizek is prolific, so all may not be possible given a busy schedule. But one would be better than none.

However, I don't know that Zizek is much better thus far. We're getting lost in the weeds with Dostoevsky and Lacan, and white liberals denigrating their own culture.

edit.
Zizek is definitely worse. In isolation, it would be another interesting Zizek ramble, I guess. As a debate, the man only tangentially touches the point of Marxism vs Capitalism (until the very end). Peterson's prep and presentation may have been basic, but it was at least focused to some extent.

On April 20 2019 19:13 GreenHorizons wrote:


Just so I understand correctly, the argument is all the posters, lawyers, and commentators saying Mueller could recommend charges or indict for the last 22 months were talking out of their arse?

On April 20 2019 19:19 Gorsameth wrote:
Pretty sure the guideline was discussed in this thread, there was a chance Mueller would ignore it but Trump himself was always unlikely to be directly indicted.
Because your dealing with a sitting President it was going to have to come down to Congress doing something with the conclusion.
So to answer your question, yes?
But I don't think we have a lot of career attorneys of the calibre of Mueller here.

On April 20 2019 19:17 Wombat_NI wrote:

Zizek being Zizek then basically?

Given how long it took to get off the ground, and Zizek not being the most focused of talkers, I dunno what went on behind the scenes in getting it off the ground, the cynic in me thinks Peterson was the stumbling block.

Why this couldn’t have been done under Skype and maybe made longer, or less broad a topic, I dunno seems like it would have lead to better dialogue.