|
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 27 2019 06:29 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2019 06:04 Plansix wrote:On April 27 2019 05:42 xDaunt wrote:On April 27 2019 05:33 Plansix wrote:
“No smoking gun was found”
Report says that it is up to congress to decide if the President committed obstruction due to standing DOJ guidelines that the president cannot be charged; or in the alternative, charges should be brought after he leaves office. But not a smoking gun, for reasons.
Really, it sounds like you are upset that the Democrats took back the House and this issue won’t be going away any time soon.
Edit: One really shouldn’t enter debates about things they have not read unless they want to called uninformed and ignorant. No, the report does not say this. The report mentions the existence of those guidelines, but intentionally does not say whether the decision not to charge for obstruction was due to those guidelines. So like Barr said, he asked Mueller three times whether those guidelines were the reason for not charging Trump, and Mueller said no. Long story short, this is nothing more than a baseless and disingenuous liberal talking point. Like I said when the report was released, it is indisputable that the report failed to find probable cause of a crime. From the report directly: 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.” 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 prosecutorial jurisdiction. And apart from OLC’s constitutional view, we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President’s capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct. 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. The report itself states they did not make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, consisting of a binary choice of to charge or not to charge. It goes to great lengths to explain why they cannot do so and when charges could be brought. There is no argument that the guidelines impacted the judgment, because the special counsel says they did. What you are citing is entirely consistent with what I said, not what you said. For it to be consistent with what you said, the report would have had to have said “we found probable cause that Trump committed a crime, but we are not charging Trump due to the OLC guidelines.” Sigh, its explained. Fairness guidelines mean that Mueller can't say that because Trump cannot be indicted and therefor would not get the opportunity to defend himself in court.
I thought you said you read it?
+ Show Spoiler +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 27 2019 06:32 Plansix wrote:
The Democrats are not as aligned as Republicans because their voters from a large number of disparate groups that do not see eye to eye everything. The Republicans have to please a less diverse set of demographics and turn them out to the polls.
Republicans have two (more depending on how you segment the second coming stuff) groups, one of which is in large part coalesced around the literal extinction (like genocide) of the other, I don't think this matches the reality from my perspective.
On April 27 2019 06:34 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2019 06:29 xDaunt wrote:On April 27 2019 06:04 Plansix wrote:On April 27 2019 05:42 xDaunt wrote:On April 27 2019 05:33 Plansix wrote:
“No smoking gun was found”
Report says that it is up to congress to decide if the President committed obstruction due to standing DOJ guidelines that the president cannot be charged; or in the alternative, charges should be brought after he leaves office. But not a smoking gun, for reasons.
Really, it sounds like you are upset that the Democrats took back the House and this issue won’t be going away any time soon.
Edit: One really shouldn’t enter debates about things they have not read unless they want to called uninformed and ignorant. No, the report does not say this. The report mentions the existence of those guidelines, but intentionally does not say whether the decision not to charge for obstruction was due to those guidelines. So like Barr said, he asked Mueller three times whether those guidelines were the reason for not charging Trump, and Mueller said no. Long story short, this is nothing more than a baseless and disingenuous liberal talking point. Like I said when the report was released, it is indisputable that the report failed to find probable cause of a crime. From the report directly: 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.” 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 prosecutorial jurisdiction. And apart from OLC’s constitutional view, we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President’s capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct. 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. The report itself states they did not make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, consisting of a binary choice of to charge or not to charge. It goes to great lengths to explain why they cannot do so and when charges could be brought. There is no argument that the guidelines impacted the judgment, because the special counsel says they did. What you are citing is entirely consistent with what I said, not what you said. For it to be consistent with what you said, the report would have had to have said “we found probable cause that Trump committed a crime, but we are not charging Trump due to the OLC guidelines.” Sigh, its explained. Fairness guidelines mean that Mueller can't say that because Trump cannot be indicted and therefor would not get the opportunity to defend himself in court. I thought you said you read it? + Show Spoiler +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
This is an argument Mueller makes consistent with the OLC, one he CHOSE to make. He could have also argued that he in fact could indict a sitting president, or at minimum recommend charges based on his investigation.
|
On April 27 2019 06:32 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2019 06:26 Gorsameth wrote:On April 27 2019 06:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2019 06:19 Gorsameth wrote:On April 27 2019 06:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2019 06:06 JimmiC wrote:On April 27 2019 06:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2019 05:56 Gorsameth wrote:On April 27 2019 05:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
Granted there's a lot of perspectives about the whole investigation and Mueller report but we're all in agreement this wouldn't have gotten to this point if Trump lost the election. I mean literally in that Mueller never would have been appointed and generally in that media would not have cared for the last 2 years.
That essentially the only reason we have a Mueller report about the campaign (and random other crimes by people associated with it) is because he won the election?
They weren't going after these underlings ("the witches") for crimes they thought unacceptable, they were going after them to get them to turn on the next guy up. Ehm, if Trump doesn't get elected the FBI gets to complete their investigation (no firing of Comey) and the people that ended up lying to Mueller would have lied to the FBI and gone to jail for it all the same. Well okay? The tone sounds like you're disagreeing but the text demonstrates my point is correct. Are you suggesting we get the same non-stop coverage and relentless effort to nail Trump (by going after underlings) if he lost? Of course there wouldn't be the same coverage. A guy getting investigated that is just a citizen albeit a famous one is not as news worthy as the President of the united states getting investigated. What is your point? I don't know if you read it and don't understand it or didn't read it? On April 27 2019 05:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
Granted there's a lot of perspectives about the whole investigation and Mueller report but we're all in agreement this wouldn't have gotten to this point if Trump lost the election. I mean literally in that Mueller never would have been appointed and generally in that media would not have cared for the last 2 years.
That essentially the only reason we have a Mueller report about the campaign (and random other crimes by people associated with it) is because he won the election?
They weren't going after these underlings ("the witches") for crimes they thought unacceptable, they were going after them to get them to turn on the next guy up. I agree it wouldn't have constantly been in the news. But I don't agree with your 2nd and 3e point at all. We would have had a report, tho an FBI report rather then Mueller. And they were doing an investigation into what happened, over the course of which they discovered other crimes. Offering deals for information on someone else is how investigations into (potential) criminal organisations are done. who is "we" in this case? Sorry I should have said "there would have been a report" since I don't think its standard practice for FBI reports to be made public. And I don't get people that call the Mueller investigation a failure. It investigated Russia's interference in the 2016 elections and found a load of stuff about that. And it investigated Trump's possible Obstruction of Justice and found a load of stuff about that. Sounds like a successful investigation to me. I don't think anyone here (besides the conservatives of course) maintains both the position that their hope for the investigation was that Trump would face re-election as the consequence and that Trump's behavior is being held accountable. In order for the investigation to have been successful it's goal must have been political or remarkably inconsequential when one considers the grand total of time to be served, provided Trump doesn't pardon Manafort after the 2020 election. So because the US can't throw a bunch of Russian's who are out of their reach in jail the investigation is a failure to you?
Sorry but i'm having a hard time following what your trying to say in this post.
|
On April 27 2019 06:34 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2019 06:29 xDaunt wrote:On April 27 2019 06:04 Plansix wrote:On April 27 2019 05:42 xDaunt wrote:On April 27 2019 05:33 Plansix wrote:
“No smoking gun was found”
Report says that it is up to congress to decide if the President committed obstruction due to standing DOJ guidelines that the president cannot be charged; or in the alternative, charges should be brought after he leaves office. But not a smoking gun, for reasons.
Really, it sounds like you are upset that the Democrats took back the House and this issue won’t be going away any time soon.
Edit: One really shouldn’t enter debates about things they have not read unless they want to called uninformed and ignorant. No, the report does not say this. The report mentions the existence of those guidelines, but intentionally does not say whether the decision not to charge for obstruction was due to those guidelines. So like Barr said, he asked Mueller three times whether those guidelines were the reason for not charging Trump, and Mueller said no. Long story short, this is nothing more than a baseless and disingenuous liberal talking point. Like I said when the report was released, it is indisputable that the report failed to find probable cause of a crime. From the report directly: 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.” 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 prosecutorial jurisdiction. And apart from OLC’s constitutional view, we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President’s capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct. 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. The report itself states they did not make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, consisting of a binary choice of to charge or not to charge. It goes to great lengths to explain why they cannot do so and when charges could be brought. There is no argument that the guidelines impacted the judgment, because the special counsel says they did. What you are citing is entirely consistent with what I said, not what you said. For it to be consistent with what you said, the report would have had to have said “we found probable cause that Trump committed a crime, but we are not charging Trump due to the OLC guidelines.” Sigh, its explained. Fairness guidelines mean that Mueller can't say that because Trump cannot be indicted and therefor would not get the opportunity to defend himself in court. I thought you said you read it? + Show Spoiler +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
I did read it, and I fully understand what it means. Plansix is reading stuff into the Mueller report that simply isn't there. And again, Barr has already said that Mueller confirmed to him that OLC guidelines were not the reason why Mueller declined to charge Trump. This is a black and white issue. What I am saying is 100% correct.
|
|
|
On April 27 2019 06:37 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2019 06:34 Gorsameth wrote:On April 27 2019 06:29 xDaunt wrote:On April 27 2019 06:04 Plansix wrote:On April 27 2019 05:42 xDaunt wrote:On April 27 2019 05:33 Plansix wrote:
“No smoking gun was found”
Report says that it is up to congress to decide if the President committed obstruction due to standing DOJ guidelines that the president cannot be charged; or in the alternative, charges should be brought after he leaves office. But not a smoking gun, for reasons.
Really, it sounds like you are upset that the Democrats took back the House and this issue won’t be going away any time soon.
Edit: One really shouldn’t enter debates about things they have not read unless they want to called uninformed and ignorant. No, the report does not say this. The report mentions the existence of those guidelines, but intentionally does not say whether the decision not to charge for obstruction was due to those guidelines. So like Barr said, he asked Mueller three times whether those guidelines were the reason for not charging Trump, and Mueller said no. Long story short, this is nothing more than a baseless and disingenuous liberal talking point. Like I said when the report was released, it is indisputable that the report failed to find probable cause of a crime. From the report directly: 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.” 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 prosecutorial jurisdiction. And apart from OLC’s constitutional view, we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President’s capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct. 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. The report itself states they did not make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, consisting of a binary choice of to charge or not to charge. It goes to great lengths to explain why they cannot do so and when charges could be brought. There is no argument that the guidelines impacted the judgment, because the special counsel says they did. What you are citing is entirely consistent with what I said, not what you said. For it to be consistent with what you said, the report would have had to have said “we found probable cause that Trump committed a crime, but we are not charging Trump due to the OLC guidelines.” Sigh, its explained. Fairness guidelines mean that Mueller can't say that because Trump cannot be indicted and therefor would not get the opportunity to defend himself in court. I thought you said you read it? + Show Spoiler +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 I did read it, and I fully understand what it means. Plansix is reading stuff into the Mueller report that simply isn't there. And again, Barr has already said that Mueller confirmed to him that OLC guidelines were not the reason why Mueller declined to charge Trump. This is a black and white issue. What I am saying is 100% correct.
So your idea is that Mueller told Barr this but somehow wrote the complete opposite in the report? There is nothing correct about that rationale
|
On April 27 2019 06:36 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2019 06:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2019 06:26 Gorsameth wrote:On April 27 2019 06:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2019 06:19 Gorsameth wrote:On April 27 2019 06:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2019 06:06 JimmiC wrote:On April 27 2019 06:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2019 05:56 Gorsameth wrote:On April 27 2019 05:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
Granted there's a lot of perspectives about the whole investigation and Mueller report but we're all in agreement this wouldn't have gotten to this point if Trump lost the election. I mean literally in that Mueller never would have been appointed and generally in that media would not have cared for the last 2 years.
That essentially the only reason we have a Mueller report about the campaign (and random other crimes by people associated with it) is because he won the election?
They weren't going after these underlings ("the witches") for crimes they thought unacceptable, they were going after them to get them to turn on the next guy up. Ehm, if Trump doesn't get elected the FBI gets to complete their investigation (no firing of Comey) and the people that ended up lying to Mueller would have lied to the FBI and gone to jail for it all the same. Well okay? The tone sounds like you're disagreeing but the text demonstrates my point is correct. Are you suggesting we get the same non-stop coverage and relentless effort to nail Trump (by going after underlings) if he lost? Of course there wouldn't be the same coverage. A guy getting investigated that is just a citizen albeit a famous one is not as news worthy as the President of the united states getting investigated. What is your point? I don't know if you read it and don't understand it or didn't read it? On April 27 2019 05:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
Granted there's a lot of perspectives about the whole investigation and Mueller report but we're all in agreement this wouldn't have gotten to this point if Trump lost the election. I mean literally in that Mueller never would have been appointed and generally in that media would not have cared for the last 2 years.
That essentially the only reason we have a Mueller report about the campaign (and random other crimes by people associated with it) is because he won the election?
They weren't going after these underlings ("the witches") for crimes they thought unacceptable, they were going after them to get them to turn on the next guy up. I agree it wouldn't have constantly been in the news. But I don't agree with your 2nd and 3e point at all. We would have had a report, tho an FBI report rather then Mueller. And they were doing an investigation into what happened, over the course of which they discovered other crimes. Offering deals for information on someone else is how investigations into (potential) criminal organisations are done. who is "we" in this case? Sorry I should have said "there would have been a report" since I don't think its standard practice for FBI reports to be made public. And I don't get people that call the Mueller investigation a failure. It investigated Russia's interference in the 2016 elections and found a load of stuff about that. And it investigated Trump's possible Obstruction of Justice and found a load of stuff about that. Sounds like a successful investigation to me. I don't think anyone here (besides the conservatives of course) maintains both the position that their hope for the investigation was that Trump would face re-election as the consequence and that Trump's behavior is being held accountable. In order for the investigation to have been successful it's goal must have been political or remarkably inconsequential when one considers the grand total of time to be served, provided Trump doesn't pardon Manafort after the 2020 election. So because the US can't throw a bunch of Russian's who are out of their reach in jail the investigation is a failure to you? Sorry but i'm having a hard time following what your trying to say in this post.
I think if you put in more effort it will be easier to follow.My argument has little to nothing to do with the consequences of trying to prosecute foreign actors (beyond it's hopelessness from the onset).
The investigation is a failure imo because it's not actually going to result in real accountability and it didn't even do the most it could to try (arguing he could indict the president or that he should be indicted instead of sitting on the fence).
|
On April 27 2019 06:29 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2019 06:04 Plansix wrote:On April 27 2019 05:42 xDaunt wrote:On April 27 2019 05:33 Plansix wrote:
“No smoking gun was found”
Report says that it is up to congress to decide if the President committed obstruction due to standing DOJ guidelines that the president cannot be charged; or in the alternative, charges should be brought after he leaves office. But not a smoking gun, for reasons.
Really, it sounds like you are upset that the Democrats took back the House and this issue won’t be going away any time soon.
Edit: One really shouldn’t enter debates about things they have not read unless they want to called uninformed and ignorant. No, the report does not say this. The report mentions the existence of those guidelines, but intentionally does not say whether the decision not to charge for obstruction was due to those guidelines. So like Barr said, he asked Mueller three times whether those guidelines were the reason for not charging Trump, and Mueller said no. Long story short, this is nothing more than a baseless and disingenuous liberal talking point. Like I said when the report was released, it is indisputable that the report failed to find probable cause of a crime. From the report directly: 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.” 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 prosecutorial jurisdiction. And apart from OLC’s constitutional view, we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President’s capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct. 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. The report itself states they did not make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, consisting of a binary choice of to charge or not to charge. It goes to great lengths to explain why they cannot do so and when charges could be brought. There is no argument that the guidelines impacted the judgment, because the special counsel says they did. What you are citing is entirely consistent with what I said, not what you said. For it to be consistent with what you said, the report would have had to have said “we found probable cause that Trump committed a crime, but we are not charging Trump due to the OLC guidelines.”
If they didn’t find sufficient evidence for probable cause, why didn’t they say that in clear language? Why didn’t the special counsel say “the evidence we discovered did not meet the burden of probable cause for obstruction,” in their conclusion? Why did the report go to great lengths to say even a sealed incitement could not have been used?
The answer is pretty clear, the special counsel knew that stating they would charge the President but for the guidelines would have the same effect as charging the President. They respected the separation of powers and went to great lengths to explain all the reasons why they couldn’t charge. And then stated they could not make determination, but also could not exonerate the president. Clearly leaving the decision to the only body that can take action against a sitting president: Congress.
|
On April 27 2019 06:37 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2019 06:34 Gorsameth wrote:On April 27 2019 06:29 xDaunt wrote:On April 27 2019 06:04 Plansix wrote:On April 27 2019 05:42 xDaunt wrote:On April 27 2019 05:33 Plansix wrote:
“No smoking gun was found”
Report says that it is up to congress to decide if the President committed obstruction due to standing DOJ guidelines that the president cannot be charged; or in the alternative, charges should be brought after he leaves office. But not a smoking gun, for reasons.
Really, it sounds like you are upset that the Democrats took back the House and this issue won’t be going away any time soon.
Edit: One really shouldn’t enter debates about things they have not read unless they want to called uninformed and ignorant. No, the report does not say this. The report mentions the existence of those guidelines, but intentionally does not say whether the decision not to charge for obstruction was due to those guidelines. So like Barr said, he asked Mueller three times whether those guidelines were the reason for not charging Trump, and Mueller said no. Long story short, this is nothing more than a baseless and disingenuous liberal talking point. Like I said when the report was released, it is indisputable that the report failed to find probable cause of a crime. From the report directly: 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.” 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 prosecutorial jurisdiction. And apart from OLC’s constitutional view, we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President’s capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct. 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. The report itself states they did not make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, consisting of a binary choice of to charge or not to charge. It goes to great lengths to explain why they cannot do so and when charges could be brought. There is no argument that the guidelines impacted the judgment, because the special counsel says they did. What you are citing is entirely consistent with what I said, not what you said. For it to be consistent with what you said, the report would have had to have said “we found probable cause that Trump committed a crime, but we are not charging Trump due to the OLC guidelines.” Sigh, its explained. Fairness guidelines mean that Mueller can't say that because Trump cannot be indicted and therefor would not get the opportunity to defend himself in court. I thought you said you read it? + Show Spoiler +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 I did read it, and I fully understand what it means. Plansix is reading stuff into the Mueller report that simply isn't there. And again, Barr has already said that Mueller confirmed to him that OLC guidelines were not the reason why Mueller declined to charge Trump. This is a black and white issue. What I am saying is 100% correct. Barr says Mueller declined to charge despite OLC guidelines.
The report says Mueller never even considered charging because of OLC guidelines.
One is a public text document.
The other is a man who has twisted Mueller's words and taken them out of context before.
I wonder which source I will believe...
But as said when this was brought up before, I hope Congress will ask Mueller this question when he inevitably appears before them and we can hear it from the man himself.
|
On April 27 2019 06:40 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2019 06:37 xDaunt wrote:On April 27 2019 06:34 Gorsameth wrote:On April 27 2019 06:29 xDaunt wrote:On April 27 2019 06:04 Plansix wrote:On April 27 2019 05:42 xDaunt wrote:On April 27 2019 05:33 Plansix wrote:
“No smoking gun was found”
Report says that it is up to congress to decide if the President committed obstruction due to standing DOJ guidelines that the president cannot be charged; or in the alternative, charges should be brought after he leaves office. But not a smoking gun, for reasons.
Really, it sounds like you are upset that the Democrats took back the House and this issue won’t be going away any time soon.
Edit: One really shouldn’t enter debates about things they have not read unless they want to called uninformed and ignorant. No, the report does not say this. The report mentions the existence of those guidelines, but intentionally does not say whether the decision not to charge for obstruction was due to those guidelines. So like Barr said, he asked Mueller three times whether those guidelines were the reason for not charging Trump, and Mueller said no. Long story short, this is nothing more than a baseless and disingenuous liberal talking point. Like I said when the report was released, it is indisputable that the report failed to find probable cause of a crime. From the report directly: 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.” 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 prosecutorial jurisdiction. And apart from OLC’s constitutional view, we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President’s capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct. 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. The report itself states they did not make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, consisting of a binary choice of to charge or not to charge. It goes to great lengths to explain why they cannot do so and when charges could be brought. There is no argument that the guidelines impacted the judgment, because the special counsel says they did. What you are citing is entirely consistent with what I said, not what you said. For it to be consistent with what you said, the report would have had to have said “we found probable cause that Trump committed a crime, but we are not charging Trump due to the OLC guidelines.” Sigh, its explained. Fairness guidelines mean that Mueller can't say that because Trump cannot be indicted and therefor would not get the opportunity to defend himself in court. I thought you said you read it? + Show Spoiler +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 I did read it, and I fully understand what it means. Plansix is reading stuff into the Mueller report that simply isn't there. And again, Barr has already said that Mueller confirmed to him that OLC guidelines were not the reason why Mueller declined to charge Trump. This is a black and white issue. What I am saying is 100% correct. So your idea is that Mueller told Barr this b ut somehow wrote the complete opposite in the report? There is nothing correct about that rationale
Let me say this again: THE REPORT DOES NOT SAY THE OPPOSITE. For it to say the opposite, there would have to be a sentence in there that says "we found probable cause of a crime, but decline to prosecute because of the OLC guidelines." Nothing approximating this sentence appears in the report. Y'all are getting fooled by a sleight of hand. The report discusses the OLC standards and intentionally refuses to spell out the precise impact of those OLC standards upon the failure to make any determinations pertaining to obstruction of justice. The purpose of this is to create the appearance that the OLC standards were the reason for failing to find probable cause for charging Trump without explicitly stating so, because explicitly stating so would be bogus.
|
On April 27 2019 06:41 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2019 06:36 Gorsameth wrote:On April 27 2019 06:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2019 06:26 Gorsameth wrote:On April 27 2019 06:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2019 06:19 Gorsameth wrote:On April 27 2019 06:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2019 06:06 JimmiC wrote:On April 27 2019 06:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2019 05:56 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]Ehm, if Trump doesn't get elected the FBI gets to complete their investigation (no firing of Comey) and the people that ended up lying to Mueller would have lied to the FBI and gone to jail for it all the same.
Well okay? The tone sounds like you're disagreeing but the text demonstrates my point is correct. Are you suggesting we get the same non-stop coverage and relentless effort to nail Trump (by going after underlings) if he lost? Of course there wouldn't be the same coverage. A guy getting investigated that is just a citizen albeit a famous one is not as news worthy as the President of the united states getting investigated. What is your point? I don't know if you read it and don't understand it or didn't read it? On April 27 2019 05:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
Granted there's a lot of perspectives about the whole investigation and Mueller report but we're all in agreement this wouldn't have gotten to this point if Trump lost the election. I mean literally in that Mueller never would have been appointed and generally in that media would not have cared for the last 2 years.
That essentially the only reason we have a Mueller report about the campaign (and random other crimes by people associated with it) is because he won the election?
They weren't going after these underlings ("the witches") for crimes they thought unacceptable, they were going after them to get them to turn on the next guy up. I agree it wouldn't have constantly been in the news. But I don't agree with your 2nd and 3e point at all. We would have had a report, tho an FBI report rather then Mueller. And they were doing an investigation into what happened, over the course of which they discovered other crimes. Offering deals for information on someone else is how investigations into (potential) criminal organisations are done. who is "we" in this case? Sorry I should have said "there would have been a report" since I don't think its standard practice for FBI reports to be made public. And I don't get people that call the Mueller investigation a failure. It investigated Russia's interference in the 2016 elections and found a load of stuff about that. And it investigated Trump's possible Obstruction of Justice and found a load of stuff about that. Sounds like a successful investigation to me. I don't think anyone here (besides the conservatives of course) maintains both the position that their hope for the investigation was that Trump would face re-election as the consequence and that Trump's behavior is being held accountable. In order for the investigation to have been successful it's goal must have been political or remarkably inconsequential when one considers the grand total of time to be served, provided Trump doesn't pardon Manafort after the 2020 election. So because the US can't throw a bunch of Russian's who are out of their reach in jail the investigation is a failure to you? Sorry but i'm having a hard time following what your trying to say in this post. I think if you put in more effort it will be easier to follow.My argument has little to nothing to do with the consequences of trying to prosecute foreign actors (beyond it's hopelessness from the onset). The investigation is a failure imo because it's not actually going to result in real accountability and it didn't even do the most it could to try (arguing he could indict the president or that he should be indicted instead of sitting on the fence). In a different world the findings of the report would be used to help secure future elections from interference by foreign actions, but since Trump is the one who has to do that nothing will come of it.
Still makes it worth investigating.
The second is up to Congress since its their job to tackle the abuse of Presidential powers and well... Republicans.
Tho I do think Democrats should attempt to impeach Trump even if it has no hope of going anywhere, purely because its the right thing to do.
And I have expressed my hope that Trump will face consequences for this once he loses his presidential immunity.
|
|
|
On April 27 2019 06:44 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2019 06:40 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On April 27 2019 06:37 xDaunt wrote:On April 27 2019 06:34 Gorsameth wrote:On April 27 2019 06:29 xDaunt wrote:On April 27 2019 06:04 Plansix wrote:On April 27 2019 05:42 xDaunt wrote:On April 27 2019 05:33 Plansix wrote:
“No smoking gun was found”
Report says that it is up to congress to decide if the President committed obstruction due to standing DOJ guidelines that the president cannot be charged; or in the alternative, charges should be brought after he leaves office. But not a smoking gun, for reasons.
Really, it sounds like you are upset that the Democrats took back the House and this issue won’t be going away any time soon.
Edit: One really shouldn’t enter debates about things they have not read unless they want to called uninformed and ignorant. No, the report does not say this. The report mentions the existence of those guidelines, but intentionally does not say whether the decision not to charge for obstruction was due to those guidelines. So like Barr said, he asked Mueller three times whether those guidelines were the reason for not charging Trump, and Mueller said no. Long story short, this is nothing more than a baseless and disingenuous liberal talking point. Like I said when the report was released, it is indisputable that the report failed to find probable cause of a crime. From the report directly: 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.” 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 prosecutorial jurisdiction. And apart from OLC’s constitutional view, we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President’s capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct. 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. The report itself states they did not make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, consisting of a binary choice of to charge or not to charge. It goes to great lengths to explain why they cannot do so and when charges could be brought. There is no argument that the guidelines impacted the judgment, because the special counsel says they did. What you are citing is entirely consistent with what I said, not what you said. For it to be consistent with what you said, the report would have had to have said “we found probable cause that Trump committed a crime, but we are not charging Trump due to the OLC guidelines.” Sigh, its explained. Fairness guidelines mean that Mueller can't say that because Trump cannot be indicted and therefor would not get the opportunity to defend himself in court. I thought you said you read it? + Show Spoiler +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 I did read it, and I fully understand what it means. Plansix is reading stuff into the Mueller report that simply isn't there. And again, Barr has already said that Mueller confirmed to him that OLC guidelines were not the reason why Mueller declined to charge Trump. This is a black and white issue. What I am saying is 100% correct. So your idea is that Mueller told Barr this b ut somehow wrote the complete opposite in the report? There is nothing correct about that rationale Let me say this again: THE REPORT DOES NOT SAY THE OPPOSITE. For it to say the opposite, there would have to be a sentence in there that says "we found probable cause of a crime, but decline to prosecute because of the OLC guidelines." Nothing approximating this sentence appears in the report. Y'all are getting fooled by a sleight of hand. The report discusses the OLC standards and intentionally refuses to spell out the impact the precise impact of those OLC standards upon the failure to make any determinations pertaining to obstruction of justice. The purpose of this is to create the appearance that the OLC standards were the reason for failing to find probable cause for charging Trump without explicitly stating so, because explicitly stating so would be bogus.
I think Trump is a habitually criminal person and I understand this, the sooner the rest of the thread can come to this conclusion the sooner discussion can be fruitful again imo.
Still makes it worth investigating.
k?
The second is up to Congress since its their job to tackle the abuse of Presidential powers and well...
I appreciate this position, but the fact of the matter is that Mueller chose to leave it to them and that's an important part of my argument to its failure unaddressed by your argument.
|
On April 27 2019 06:44 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2019 06:40 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On April 27 2019 06:37 xDaunt wrote:On April 27 2019 06:34 Gorsameth wrote:On April 27 2019 06:29 xDaunt wrote:On April 27 2019 06:04 Plansix wrote:On April 27 2019 05:42 xDaunt wrote:On April 27 2019 05:33 Plansix wrote:
“No smoking gun was found”
Report says that it is up to congress to decide if the President committed obstruction due to standing DOJ guidelines that the president cannot be charged; or in the alternative, charges should be brought after he leaves office. But not a smoking gun, for reasons.
Really, it sounds like you are upset that the Democrats took back the House and this issue won’t be going away any time soon.
Edit: One really shouldn’t enter debates about things they have not read unless they want to called uninformed and ignorant. No, the report does not say this. The report mentions the existence of those guidelines, but intentionally does not say whether the decision not to charge for obstruction was due to those guidelines. So like Barr said, he asked Mueller three times whether those guidelines were the reason for not charging Trump, and Mueller said no. Long story short, this is nothing more than a baseless and disingenuous liberal talking point. Like I said when the report was released, it is indisputable that the report failed to find probable cause of a crime. From the report directly: 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.” 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 prosecutorial jurisdiction. And apart from OLC’s constitutional view, we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President’s capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct. 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. The report itself states they did not make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, consisting of a binary choice of to charge or not to charge. It goes to great lengths to explain why they cannot do so and when charges could be brought. There is no argument that the guidelines impacted the judgment, because the special counsel says they did. What you are citing is entirely consistent with what I said, not what you said. For it to be consistent with what you said, the report would have had to have said “we found probable cause that Trump committed a crime, but we are not charging Trump due to the OLC guidelines.” Sigh, its explained. Fairness guidelines mean that Mueller can't say that because Trump cannot be indicted and therefor would not get the opportunity to defend himself in court. I thought you said you read it? + Show Spoiler +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 I did read it, and I fully understand what it means. Plansix is reading stuff into the Mueller report that simply isn't there. And again, Barr has already said that Mueller confirmed to him that OLC guidelines were not the reason why Mueller declined to charge Trump. This is a black and white issue. What I am saying is 100% correct. So your idea is that Mueller told Barr this b ut somehow wrote the complete opposite in the report? There is nothing correct about that rationale Let me say this again: THE REPORT DOES NOT SAY THE OPPOSITE. For it to say the opposite, there would have to be a sentence in there that says "we found probable cause of a crime, but decline to prosecute because of the OLC guidelines." Nothing approximating this sentence appears in the report. Y'all are getting fooled by a sleight of hand. The report discusses the OLC standards and intentionally refuses to spell out the impact the precise impact of those OLC standards upon the failure to make any determinations pertaining to obstruction of justice. The purpose of this is to create the appearance that the OLC standards were the reason for failing to find probable cause for charging Trump without explicitly stating so, because explicitly stating so would be bogus. And we have come full circle...
Just assume I copy past my earlier post here about how Mueller can't say Trump should be charged.
|
I'm still pretty unclear why the special counsel didn't say "I didn't find probable cause of obstruction" if that is what he found. That would be pretty clear.
|
On April 27 2019 06:31 Wombat_NI wrote:
An investigation doesn’t have to find any wrongdoing to be a worthwhile endeavour, It can find an individual is squeaky clean and the suspicions were baseless, if anything I’d like to see more scrutiny across the board, granted not necessarily such investigations.
What is the origin/warrant for the investigation is corrupt?
|
On April 27 2019 06:49 Plansix wrote:
I'm still pretty unclear why the special counsel didn't say "I didn't find probable cause of obstruction" if that is what he found. That would be pretty clear.
It's abundantly clear to me and others that he wanted to sit the fence.
|
On April 27 2019 06:49 Plansix wrote:
I'm still pretty unclear why the special counsel didn't say "I didn't find probable cause of obstruction" if that is what he found. That would be pretty clear. 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.
Because he found enough to say that Trump isn't innocent.
|
On April 27 2019 06:49 Plansix wrote:
I'm still pretty unclear why the special counsel didn't say "I didn't find probable cause of obstruction" if that is what he found. That would be pretty clear.
Because he and his team were a bunch of political hacks that were only interested in covering up prior malfeasance while inflicting as much political damage as possible on Trump. The entire report was written with these goals in mind, which is why we see ridiculous sentences such as "while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him." Anyone with even a cursory understanding of criminal law knows that this an absurd standard for a prosecutor to be using.
|
On April 27 2019 06:51 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2019 06:31 Wombat_NI wrote:
An investigation doesn’t have to find any wrongdoing to be a worthwhile endeavour, It can find an individual is squeaky clean and the suspicions were baseless, if anything I’d like to see more scrutiny across the board, granted not necessarily such investigations. What is the origin/warrant for the investigation is corrupt? Then that should be investigated.
I didn't see anyone where call Barr's investigation into it a 'witch hunt'.
People just expect it won't find anything significant.
I'm perfectly fine with someone looking and if any significant mistakes (not like a miss filed piece of paper) were made then those responsible should face consequences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
