|
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 20 2019 19:25 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2019 19:19 Gorsameth wrote:On April 20 2019 19:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 20 2019 19:05 Gorsameth wrote:On April 20 2019 18:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 20 2019 18:41 Gorsameth wrote:On April 20 2019 16:42 GreenHorizons wrote:Anyone watch the žižek-peterson debate? On April 20 2019 16:37 Zambrah wrote:On April 20 2019 15:38 IgnE wrote:On April 19 2019 22:41 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
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. Mueller had the authority to bring charges, and did bring charges against several people, but declined to bring any charges against The President. 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. Isn't this the issue? Isn't Congress where this happens for the President of the United States? 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. 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. On April 20 2019 15:38 IgnE wrote:On April 19 2019 22:41 JimmiC wrote:On April 19 2019 14:54 IgnE wrote:On April 19 2019 11:03 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
[quote]
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. "Exonerate" comes from the Latin: exonerō, exonerāre — to discharge, to unload; hence to our modern usage meaning "to free from accusation" or "to acquit." Are we really going to say that he wasn't exonerated? OJ Simpson was exonerated. Until he wasn't. 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. 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. Same to you, read the report. What your saying directly conflicts with what Mueller explains in it. 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. 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}. 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. 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. So, he can't indict the President. 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 And no recommendation. If you want to disagree with those conclusions that's fine, but your going to have to come up with evidence. 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? 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. That's why I didn't limit it to the posters who have done a 180 on it. But also the media heads feeding this new narrative to the public, which included plenty of career attorneys. Like I said though, he chose to agree with an opinion he could have argued against. That's where people are deriving the exonerated concept. Trump's certainly not innocent but the criminal investigation was concluded without charges or a recommendation for them. It's now a political matter. It was the ultimate cop-out by Mueller. I would put an asterix next to concluded based on the following.
Second, while the OLC opinion concludes that a sitting President may not be prosecuted ,
it recognizes that a criminal investigation during the President's term is permissible. 3 The OLC
opinion also recognizes that a President does not have immunity after he leaves office. 4 And if
individuals other than the President committed an obstruction offense, they may be prosecuted at
this time. Given those considerations, the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system , we conducted a thorough factual
investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary
materials were available . Its possible that Trump will be prosecuted for this after his Presidency ends. Tho I personally doubt it will happen to avoid the bad look from starting criminal proceedings against your predecessor. Even if it would be entirely justified.
|
On April 20 2019 19:28 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Can people please just read this. First: OLC prevents criminal prosecutions of a sitting president Second: Investigations are allowed, and presidents are not immune after leaving office Third: Because no criminal prosecution is allowed we also cannot say the president did crimes because he can't defend himself in a trial since we can't prosecute Fourth: Based on the facts, the president did not not commit obstruction, we cannot exonerate him + Show Spoiler +
It's been read. One issue that I'm trying to establish is that if it was a matter of fact/law and not something up to Mueller's discretion we wouldn't have had 22 months of speculation about whether he would bring/recommend charges.
Its possible that Trump will be prosecuted for this after his Presidency ends. Tho I personally doubt it will happen to avoid the bad look from starting criminal proceedings against your predecessor. Even if it would be entirely justified.
I think you know there's no way they prosecute a former president for obstruction when Obama and dems didn't prosecute the bankers and tossed out a "looking forward, not back".
|
There is advantages and disadvantages with not prosecuting once out of office. If you do prosecute for anything, even minor stuff happening under your term you end up with the Roman Senate. People clinging to office, breaking rules to stay in an immune position as long as they can because the option of not doing so is worse.
The downside is when people commit really bad crimes and those can't be prosecuted either since the next office holder will stomp it out.
I personally think we forgive too much white collar crimes. Though if all a justice system should do is protect against physical harm and enforce the current system then it is correct to mostly ignore it for other stuff.
|
Northern Ireland26745 Posts
On April 20 2019 21:00 Yurie wrote:
There is advantages and disadvantages with not prosecuting once out of office. If you do prosecute for anything, even minor stuff happening under your term you end up with the Roman Senate. People clinging to office, breaking rules to stay in an immune position as long as they can because the option of not doing so is worse.
The downside is when people commit really bad crimes and those can't be prosecuted either since the next office holder will stomp it out.
I personally think we forgive too much white collar crimes. Though if all a justice system should do is protect against physical harm and enforce the current system then it is correct to mostly ignore it for other stuff.
Yeah, way, way too much.
|
On April 20 2019 21:00 Yurie wrote:
There is advantages and disadvantages with not prosecuting once out of office. If you do prosecute for anything, even minor stuff happening under your term you end up with the Roman Senate. People clinging to office, breaking rules to stay in an immune position as long as they can because the option of not doing so is worse.
The downside is when people commit really bad crimes and those can't be prosecuted either since the next office holder will stomp it out.
I personally think we forgive too much white collar crimes. Though if all a justice system should do is protect against physical harm and enforce the current system then it is correct to mostly ignore it for other stuff.
I just wanted to note the criminal bankers that got off don't really have this informally established type of protection. Theirs was more of a "we'll collapse the global economy if you hold us accountable" which is actually even more troubling than a president/congressperson that doesn't leave office in many ways.
|
Northern Ireland26745 Posts
On April 20 2019 21:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2019 21:00 Yurie wrote:
There is advantages and disadvantages with not prosecuting once out of office. If you do prosecute for anything, even minor stuff happening under your term you end up with the Roman Senate. People clinging to office, breaking rules to stay in an immune position as long as they can because the option of not doing so is worse.
The downside is when people commit really bad crimes and those can't be prosecuted either since the next office holder will stomp it out.
I personally think we forgive too much white collar crimes. Though if all a justice system should do is protect against physical harm and enforce the current system then it is correct to mostly ignore it for other stuff. I just wanted to note the criminal bankers that got off don't really have this informally established type of protection. Theirs was more of a "we'll collapse the global economy if you hold us accountable" which is actually even more troubling than a president/congressperson that doesn't leave office in many ways.
It’s remarkable how quickly anger about that dissipated
|
On April 20 2019 21:26 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2019 21:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 20 2019 21:00 Yurie wrote:
There is advantages and disadvantages with not prosecuting once out of office. If you do prosecute for anything, even minor stuff happening under your term you end up with the Roman Senate. People clinging to office, breaking rules to stay in an immune position as long as they can because the option of not doing so is worse.
The downside is when people commit really bad crimes and those can't be prosecuted either since the next office holder will stomp it out.
I personally think we forgive too much white collar crimes. Though if all a justice system should do is protect against physical harm and enforce the current system then it is correct to mostly ignore it for other stuff. I just wanted to note the criminal bankers that got off don't really have this informally established type of protection. Theirs was more of a "we'll collapse the global economy if you hold us accountable" which is actually even more troubling than a president/congressperson that doesn't leave office in many ways. It’s remarkable how quickly anger about that dissipated
There was a rather forceful police action, bipartisan political pressure to be "pragmatic", and social shaming of those protesting the ridiculousness of it all in order to make that go away. It didn't just evaporate on it's own (I think you know this  ).
For those less familiar, here's an excerpt summing up the systematic attack of the resistance to letting the bankers off.
How the FBI coordinated the crackdown on Occupy
It was more sophisticated than we had imagined: new documents show that the violent crackdown on Occupy last fall – so mystifying at the time – was not just coordinated at the level of the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and local police. The crackdown, which involved, as you may recall, violent arrests, group disruption, canister missiles to the skulls of protesters, people held in handcuffs so tight they were injured, people held in bondage till they were forced to wet or soil themselves –was coordinated with the big banks themselves.
The Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, in a groundbreaking scoop that should once more shame major US media outlets (why are nonprofits now some of the only entities in America left breaking major civil liberties news?), filed this request. The document – reproduced here in an easily searchable format – shows a terrifying network of coordinated DHS, FBI, police, regional fusion center, and private-sector activity so completely merged into one another that the monstrous whole is, in fact, one entity: in some cases, bearing a single name, the Domestic Security Alliance Council. And it reveals this merged entity to have one centrally planned, locally executed mission. The documents, in short, show the cops and DHS working for and with banks to target, arrest, and politically disable peaceful American citizens.
www.theguardian.com
|
Trump made more 'important people' enemies than bankers. I think he'll get prosecuted after. Though I agree the accountability history is not very inspiring to say the least.
Still he'll treat his re-election as an out-of-jail free card. He'll do some desperate things if the outlook is that he won't win it.
So far Warren and Buttigieg are calling for impeachment. Maybe it'll rise over the weekend, or the Pelosi never-impeach side will win. Let's see.
|
|
|
On April 20 2019 22:26 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
Trump made more 'important people' enemies than bankers. I think he'll get prosecuted after. Though I agree the accountability history is not very inspiring to say the least.
Still he'll treat his re-election as an out-of-jail free card. He'll do some desperate things if the outlook is that he won't win it.
So far Warren and Buttigieg are calling for impeachment. Maybe it'll rise over the weekend, or the Pelosi never-impeach side will win. Let's see.
Trump would love for the 2020 election to be as focused on Russia as it could be and him winning pretty much seals any chance of holding him accountable, even for the illegal stuff he'll surely do after leaving office.
As for his enemies, I think it's more important that profits like these likely have more powerful people on his side.
New York (CNN Business)JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon said corporate tax cuts boosted the bank's profits to the tune of $3.7 billion last year.
In his annual letter to shareholders, Dimon noted that the Trump administration's tax reform was a key factor in the bank's record $32.5 billion haul.
www.cnn.com
On April 20 2019 22:45 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2019 15:38 IgnE wrote:On April 19 2019 22:41 JimmiC wrote:On April 19 2019 14:54 IgnE wrote:On April 19 2019 11:03 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: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. "Exonerate" comes from the Latin: exonerō, exonerāre — to discharge, to unload; hence to our modern usage meaning "to free from accusation" or "to acquit." Are we really going to say that he wasn't exonerated? OJ Simpson was exonerated. Until he wasn't. 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. 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. Others have went into more detail but incade you miss their posts. This woukd be true if he was not president and it is explained in the report. In no way, under no definition did Mueller exhonerate Trump. Z2C was correct, and your correction was innacurate. Sorry mate.
pretty sure I sorted that out at the top of this page.
It is not always about you.
you do you then.
|
|
|
Northern Ireland26745 Posts
On April 20 2019 21:51 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2019 21:26 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 20 2019 21:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 20 2019 21:00 Yurie wrote:
There is advantages and disadvantages with not prosecuting once out of office. If you do prosecute for anything, even minor stuff happening under your term you end up with the Roman Senate. People clinging to office, breaking rules to stay in an immune position as long as they can because the option of not doing so is worse.
The downside is when people commit really bad crimes and those can't be prosecuted either since the next office holder will stomp it out.
I personally think we forgive too much white collar crimes. Though if all a justice system should do is protect against physical harm and enforce the current system then it is correct to mostly ignore it for other stuff. I just wanted to note the criminal bankers that got off don't really have this informally established type of protection. Theirs was more of a "we'll collapse the global economy if you hold us accountable" which is actually even more troubling than a president/congressperson that doesn't leave office in many ways. It’s remarkable how quickly anger about that dissipated There was a rather forceful police action, bipartisan political pressure to be "pragmatic", and social shaming of those protesting the ridiculousness of it all in order to make that go away. It didn't just evaporate on it's own (I think you know this ). For those less familiar, here's an excerpt summing up the systematic attack of the resistance to letting the bankers off. Show nested quote +How the FBI coordinated the crackdown on Occupy
It was more sophisticated than we had imagined: new documents show that the violent crackdown on Occupy last fall – so mystifying at the time – was not just coordinated at the level of the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and local police. The crackdown, which involved, as you may recall, violent arrests, group disruption, canister missiles to the skulls of protesters, people held in handcuffs so tight they were injured, people held in bondage till they were forced to wet or soil themselves –was coordinated with the big banks themselves.
The Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, in a groundbreaking scoop that should once more shame major US media outlets (why are nonprofits now some of the only entities in America left breaking major civil liberties news?), filed this request. The document – reproduced here in an easily searchable format – shows a terrifying network of coordinated DHS, FBI, police, regional fusion center, and private-sector activity so completely merged into one another that the monstrous whole is, in fact, one entity: in some cases, bearing a single name, the Domestic Security Alliance Council. And it reveals this merged entity to have one centrally planned, locally executed mission. The documents, in short, show the cops and DHS working for and with banks to target, arrest, and politically disable peaceful American citizens. www.theguardian.com
Hey you’re not getting any arguments from me on that stuff.
Perhaps they’re insulated from longer term ire by their own bullshit, and being a sector to some degree people defer to in a way they don’t with politicians or the media?
I recall many a ‘they don’t actually do x, you just don’t understand it it’s complex’ lines of discussion, which I don’t often have with other areas.
|
Mueller may have punted to Congress, but when he explicitly states that his report does not exonerate trump, then that is what it is. You can't change that. Call it whatever, but as it stands, Mueller and his team did not imply in the slightest, that he was exonerated. Let's move on?
|
On April 20 2019 23:59 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Mueller may have punted to Congress, but when he explicitly states that his report does not exonerate trump, then that is what it is. You can't change that. Call it whatever, but as it stands, Mueller and his team did not imply in the slightest, that he was exonerated. Let's move on?
He tried to have his cake and eat it too. He functionally exonerated Trump and recommended charges while writing he wasn't exonerated and not recommending charges.
The whole argument was pretty pointless imo since the reality is he's functionally exonerated in the legal sense and obviously guilty in the colloquial sense.
On April 21 2019 00:14 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2019 15:38 IgnE wrote:On April 19 2019 22:41 JimmiC wrote:On April 19 2019 14:54 IgnE wrote:On April 19 2019 11:03 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: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. "Exonerate" comes from the Latin: exonerō, exonerāre — to discharge, to unload; hence to our modern usage meaning "to free from accusation" or "to acquit." Are we really going to say that he wasn't exonerated? OJ Simpson was exonerated. Until he wasn't. 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. 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. This take is specifically addressed and contradicted within the report where he explains his interpretation of his own constitutional role, and that of Congress.
This is the legal choice he made to agree with an existing opinion rather than argue his own in pursuit of charges. That he eliminated that possibility from the beginning doesn't negate that he made that choice or that it functionally exonerates Trump.
|
United States43964 Posts
On April 20 2019 15:38 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 22:41 JimmiC wrote:On April 19 2019 14:54 IgnE wrote:On April 19 2019 11:03 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: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. "Exonerate" comes from the Latin: exonerō, exonerāre — to discharge, to unload; hence to our modern usage meaning "to free from accusation" or "to acquit." Are we really going to say that he wasn't exonerated? OJ Simpson was exonerated. Until he wasn't. 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. 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.
This take is specifically addressed and contradicted within the report where he explains his interpretation of his own constitutional role, and that of Congress.
|
On April 21 2019 00:13 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2019 23:59 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Mueller may have punted to Congress, but when he explicitly states that his report does not exonerate trump, then that is what it is. You can't change that. Call it whatever, but as it stands, Mueller and his team did not imply in the slightest, that he was exonerated. Let's move on? He tried to have his cake and eat it too. He functionally exonerated Trump and recommended charges while writing he wasn't exonerated and not recommending charges. The whole argument was pretty pointless imo since the reality is he's functionally exonerated in the legal sense and obviously guilty in the colloquial sense. How can he be legally exonerated when the report specifically mentions he can be charged after his term ends?
Are you using your own definition of words again?
|
On April 21 2019 00:15 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2019 00:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 20 2019 23:59 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Mueller may have punted to Congress, but when he explicitly states that his report does not exonerate trump, then that is what it is. You can't change that. Call it whatever, but as it stands, Mueller and his team did not imply in the slightest, that he was exonerated. Let's move on? He tried to have his cake and eat it too. He functionally exonerated Trump and recommended charges while writing he wasn't exonerated and not recommending charges. The whole argument was pretty pointless imo since the reality is he's functionally exonerated in the legal sense and obviously guilty in the colloquial sense. How can he be legally exonerated when the report specifically mentions he can be charged after his term ends? Are you using your own definition of words again?
Granting the suspension of disbelief it takes to accept a reality where that happens, they could charge him if the report said the opposite or ignore it altogether. The point is now it's a political matter (let's be real it always has been) whether any further legal options are even pursued.
EDIT: You'll note I said "functionally" btw, not "legally".
|
On April 20 2019 15:38 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 22:41 JimmiC wrote:On April 19 2019 14:54 IgnE wrote:On April 19 2019 11:03 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: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. "Exonerate" comes from the Latin: exonerō, exonerāre — to discharge, to unload; hence to our modern usage meaning "to free from accusation" or "to acquit." Are we really going to say that he wasn't exonerated? OJ Simpson was exonerated. Until he wasn't. 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. 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.
The report states that, due to DOJ policy against indicting a sitting president, they assumed they couldnt charge the president even if they had enough evidence. The report does not say there was insufficient evidence to charge a crime. It just sets out the evidence (for everyone to see  ).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/kom7oam.jpg)
