EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 1368
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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 | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
8960 Posts
| ||
micronesia
United States24631 Posts
On April 21 2019 02:41 Introvert wrote: Did we not have people saying this was written for Congress, and didn't Mueller make noise in that direction? Granted I haven't done any report reading as I'm a little busy this weekend, but the report being used for impeachment by Congress vs. being used for future prosecutorial decisions later require two different ways of writing it. That is, if one even buys the "we'll get him later" excuse. There's a powerful argument to made that if they think they couldn't indict him, that should have been the end of their analysis. And none of this is a comment on the rest of Mueller's theory, for the record. What do you mean by "did we not have people saying this was written for Congress"? What people? If you want to assert that Mueller did something different than his job, as I described above, then you can, but you probably shouldn't start with "I haven't done any report reading" in that case. | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
| ||
|
Introvert
United States4682 Posts
On April 21 2019 02:44 micronesia wrote: What do you mean by "did we not have people saying this was written for Congress"? What people? If you want to assert that Mueller did something different than his job, as I described above, then you can, but you probably shouldn't start with "I haven't done any report reading" in that case. People in this thread mainly. For instance here On April 19 2019 18:34 Gorsameth wrote: Mueller specifically says Trump was not exonerated. The report lays it out very well. Mueller could not charge the President because of DoJ guidelines, additionally because a declaration of guilt without a trail would remove the ability of the defended to defend himself the report cannot reach a guilty verdict. The only conclusion Mueller could reach was exonerated, which is specifically says it did not reach. Additionally Mueller has a whole section about how it is Congress job to protect investigations from Obstruction of Justice through the use of the Presidents official powers. So yes, Mueller does pass the buck to going after Trump over Obstruction of Justice to Congress and he does so rather explicitly. This is what you get when you make up your mind on the report and say dumb things without actually reading the report. I look forward to xDaunt's rebuttal when he has read the report and has been unbanned. And the topic came up again after as well. It seemed like the the thread's operating theory. In fact, xDaunt explicitly denies Mueller deferring to congress, and everyone jumps on him (though they focus on "exonerate", lol). edit: also the way the news articles are written. Many have some variation of "Mueller gave a roadmap for impeachment to Congress" or some such language. It's pretty clearly the implication. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24399 Posts
| ||
|
micronesia
United States24631 Posts
On April 21 2019 02:48 Introvert wrote: People in this thread mainly. For instance here And the topic came up again after as well. It seemed like the the thread's operating theory. In fact, xDaunt explicitly denies Mueller deferring to congress, and everyone jumps on him (though they focus on "exonerate", lol). edit: also the way the news articles are written. Many have some variation of "Mueller gave a roadmap for impeachment to Congress" or some such language. It's pretty clearly the implication. My point about what Mueller did, or didn't do, or what he should have done, or shouldn't have done, should not be affected by what another user in this thread argued... it's ok for me and someone else to disagree even if we often agree on other topics. I am not a representative of the entirety of 'this thread' which you are at odds with. I made my own points. I also didn't address anything xDaunt said... I was just responding to what I saw today. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On April 21 2019 02:48 semantics wrote: You can obstruct without underlying crime(Martha Stewart, Scooter Libby) obstruction is about intent. Attempted obstruction also isn't a thing, an attempt at obstruction is still just plain old obstruction. Now there is nuance here especially with a sitting president. Martha Stewart sold thousands of shares after receiving private information. She wasn't prosecuted for that crime, but don't even try to say there wasn't underlying crime. Libby's your man on no underlying crime. He made false statements to a grand jury with corrupt intent and was indicted and convicted of obstruction of justice on those grounds. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
8960 Posts
An yes Wombat, this is still going on. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4682 Posts
On April 21 2019 03:05 micronesia wrote: My point about what Mueller did, or didn't do, or what he should have done, or shouldn't have done, should not be affected by what another user in this thread argued... it's ok for me and someone else to disagree even if we often agree on other topics. I am not a representative of the entirety of 'this thread' which you are at odds with. I made my own points. I also didn't address anything xDaunt said... I was just responding to what I saw today. Well recall I was initially responding to someone else, who has espoused that theory.. I know you are not him, but given all the posting in the thread (and news articles) I thought this was the common set of facts under which we were operating both thread wide and within that one conversation. My apologies. If Mueller was not, in fact writing Congress, then perhaps Mueller's team should have been redacted much more of the report, to avoid "harming uncharged persons." | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22988 Posts
On April 21 2019 02:57 Wombat_NI wrote: Is this still actually going on? I asked what I thought was a more interesting question to advance the conversation which was: If Mueller didn't exonerate Trump (see farv's explanation) who can exonerate Trump, or can he be exonerated if charges are never sought/brought? | ||
|
Introvert
United States4682 Posts
On April 21 2019 03:09 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: The report wasn't written for congress to take action. It was written as a summary of an investigation. Mueller states that in the future, if congress wants to use the report to take action, that is their purview. He handed it to the AG. I'm not sure I follow your train of thought. An yes Wombat, this is still going on. but this obviously assumes Congress will see it. So the prevailing, if not universal, thought is that Mueller knew it would be released publicly and wrote it with that in mind. Which brings us back to McCarthy's complaint. On April 21 2019 03:15 GreenHorizons wrote: I asked what I thought was a more interesting question to advance the conversation which was: If Mueller didn't exonerate Trump (see farv's explanation) who can exonerate Trump, or can he be exonerated if charges are never sought/brought? This is exactly McCarthy's problem. It's one-sided. edit: ok maybe you meant a slightly different question, but they are related. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
8960 Posts
On April 21 2019 03:16 Introvert wrote: but this obviously assumes Congress will see it. So the prevailing, if not universal, thought is that Mueller knew it would be released publicly and wrote it with that in mind. Which brings us back to McCarthy's complaint. This is exactly McCarthy's problem. It's one-sided. edit: ok maybe you meant a slightly different question, but they are related. I guess I'm just confused. Of course congress would see it. That's a given. Is the issue why he didn't recommend action be taken immediately, knowing the report would be made public? E: I mean, he lays it all out and quotes the law he's referencing when making these decisions. I think he wrote it the way he did, giving us all sections of the law that he used to base his investigation around, so that we would be clear as possible as to why there is no recommendation from him. He explicitly states towards the end that it is only Congress that can act, not him given the laws and the way he interpreted. He presented his findings and basically said, "Here's what you all asked for. Do whatever." | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22988 Posts
On April 21 2019 03:16 Introvert wrote: but this obviously assumes Congress will see it. So the prevailing, if not universal, thought is that Mueller knew it would be released publicly and wrote it with that in mind. Which brings us back to McCarthy's complaint. This is exactly McCarthy's problem. It's one-sided. edit: ok maybe you meant a slightly different question, but they are related. Yeah it's certainly part of what I presume professionals are arriving at. That you can't read the Mueller report as not exonerating him unless you can provide him a path to exoneration despite Mueller's actions, or that there's nothing to exonerate him from. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24399 Posts
On April 21 2019 03:15 GreenHorizons wrote: I asked what I thought was a more interesting question to advance the conversation which was: If Mueller didn't exonerate Trump (see farv's explanation) who can exonerate Trump, or can he be exonerated if charges are never sought/brought? Presumably a Mueller who didn’t find what he found? If Congress decide not to undergo the impeachment process (wisely IMO), and Mueller ‘left it to them’ then is that exoneration? Current US politics is a great example of good on paper structures basically all working in the worst way possible. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4682 Posts
On April 21 2019 03:20 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: I guess I'm just confused. Of course congress would see it. That's a given. Is the issue why he didn't recommend action be taken immediately, knowing the report would be made public? The issue is, prosecutors do not release damaging information about people they decline to actually go after. The government's place to speak is in the court room (or pre-courtroom steps, you know what I mean). it's slimy to say "hey, we think that person did bad things but we can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt!" This gives a one-sided view that is hard to rebut (the average American doesn't have a full office working for them, for one). So the SC writing all this in the report, then refusing to redact it, goes against standard practice. Instead he punts. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22988 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21513 Posts
On April 21 2019 03:20 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: Because it creates a sort of impossible situation?I guess I'm just confused. Of course congress would see it. That's a given. Is the issue why he didn't recommend action be taken immediately, knowing the report would be made public? E: I mean, he lays it all out and quotes the law he's referencing when making these decisions. I think he wrote it the way he did, giving us all sections of the law that he used to base his investigation around, so that we would be clear as possible as to why there is no recommendation from him. He explicitly states towards the end that it is only Congress that can act, not him given the laws and the way he interpreted. He presented his findings and basically said, "Here's what you all asked for. Do whatever." He was tasked with investigating these things and delivering a report on it. Guidelines state he can't indict. fairness guidelines state he can't reach a verdict without indicting. Any other result then 'he didn't do it' runs into a problem somewhere. Its a good question to ask Mueller to get him to expand on it when he inevitably appears before Congress. I think his solution is probably the best he could do while still having a report to deliver but I can understand others might not feel that way. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
8960 Posts
On April 21 2019 03:24 Introvert wrote: The issue is, prosecutors do not release damaging information about people they decline to actually go after. The government's place to speak is in the court room (or pre-courtroom steps, you know what I mean). it's slimy to say "hey, we think that person did bad things but we can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt!" This gives a one-sided view that is hard to rebut (the average American doesn't have a full office working for them, for one). So the SC writing all this in the report, then refusing to redact it, goes against standard practice. Instead he punts. I mentioned that a few pages back. I agree he punted. I think it was his intent to be as transparent as possible. I don't think he had malicious intent on releasing it as it is. E: Gorsameth. Agreed. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21513 Posts
On April 21 2019 03:24 Introvert wrote: One big thing here. Mueller didn't redact anything. Barr did.The issue is, prosecutors do not release damaging information about people they decline to actually go after. The government's place to speak is in the court room (or pre-courtroom steps, you know what I mean). it's slimy to say "hey, we think that person did bad things but we can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt!" This gives a one-sided view that is hard to rebut (the average American doesn't have a full office working for them, for one). So the SC writing all this in the report, then refusing to redact it, goes against standard practice. Instead he punts. And I think I can safely say Congress would not accept a completely blacked out file, which is what you get if you redact the evidence that didn't find Trump exonerated. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4682 Posts
On April 21 2019 03:30 Gorsameth wrote: One big thing here. Mueller didn't redact anything. Barr did. And I think I can safely say Congress would not accept a completely blacked out file, which is what you get if you redact the evidence that didn't find Trump exonerated. Well Barr said that it was the teams of both that did the redactions. Barr didn't say anything about his personal involvement, as I recall, though he implied he had very little to do with it. And I commend them for erring on one side, I guess? As a political matter it's a hard spot for Barr. Mueller I think less so. but yes, I agree, let's hope he's asked. Now, before I take questions, I want to address a few aspects of the process for producing the public report that I am releasing today. As I said several times, the report contains limited redactions relating to four categories of information. To ensure as much transparency as possible, these redactions have been clearly labelled and color-coded so that readers can tell which redactions correspond to which categories. These redactions were applied by Department of Justice attorneys working closely together with attorneys from the Special Counsel’s Office, as well as with the intelligence community, and prosecutors who are handling ongoing cases. The redactions are their work product. | ||
| ||
