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.
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.
Alright, lets simplify this situation.
You have investigated someone and need to report on it. You can't charge him because of a guideline You can't say he might be guilty because of a different guideline You can only say if he is innocent. But you can't say that because you found enough evidence to know he 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.
Glad we got to you having your cake and eating it too at the end of all of this. The report clearly shows Trump didn't do anything, but also was created by political hacks out to get Trump. You have created frame work where you get to lean on your law degree to invalidate people's views of the report right up until you get back into a corner, and then you can call the investigators political hacks.
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.
Glad we got to you having your cake and eating it too at the end of all of this. The report clearly shows Trump didn't do anything, but also was created by political hacks out to get Trump. You have created frame work where you get to lean on your law degree to invalidate people's views of the report right up until you get back into a corner, and then you can call the investigators political hacks.
Do you know who Mueller is?
He's the same puppet who straight up lied about WMDs in Iraq when he was the head of the FBI
And now he is the head of a completely unwarranted investigation, giving a report that is so disgustingly charged and agenda ridden that it's ludicrous
To me, Mueller has shown himself to be nothing other than an agent for whatever outfit pulls the strings
I can confirm I was both alive and voting during both of Bush's terms and have a pretty clear opinon that the Iraq War was complete BS. I know who Mueller is and what he testified to. If we are going to go after people for the Iraq War, we gotta go after the big boys first, Bush, Chaney and Rumsfeld. The 25 second clip you provided does nothing to change my opinion of this investigation.
But I am glad there is someone out there getting that b-roll from c-span and cutting it into little clips so people can win arguments on the internet. A real win for the market place of ideas.
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.
Glad we got to you having your cake and eating it too at the end of all of this. The report clearly shows Trump didn't do anything, but also was created by political hacks out to get Trump. You have created frame work where you get to lean on your law degree to invalidate people's views of the report right up until you get back into a corner, and then you can call the investigators political hacks.
Do you know who Mueller is?
He's the same puppet who straight up lied about WMDs in Iraq when he was the head of the FBI
And now he is the head of a completely unwarranted investigation, giving a report that is so disgustingly charged and agenda ridden that it's ludicrous
To me, Mueller has shown himself to be nothing other than an agent for whatever outfit pulls the strings
The one thing worth noting here is that the Mueller report was probably written predominantly by Andrew Weissman. The tortured reasoning in it bears all of the hallmarks of his work.
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.
Glad we got to you having your cake and eating it too at the end of all of this. The report clearly shows Trump didn't do anything, but also was created by political hacks out to get Trump. You have created frame work where you get to lean on your law degree to invalidate people's views of the report right up until you get back into a corner, and then you can call the investigators political hacks.
Do you know who Mueller is?
He's the same puppet who straight up lied about WMDs in Iraq when he was the head of the FBI
And now he is the head of a completely unwarranted investigation, giving a report that is so disgustingly charged and agenda ridden that it's ludicrous
To me, Mueller has shown himself to be nothing other than an agent for whatever outfit pulls the strings
The one thing worth noting here is that the Mueller report was probably written predominantly by Andrew Weissman. The tortured reasoning in it bears all of the hallmarks of his work.
wouldn't expect anything different from a member of the Clinton cartel. he's a nyc classic
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?
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
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.
It's obvious the sleight of hand worked for the most vulnerable to believing bad news for Trump. The OLC standards are included right where you would expect a conclusion based on those standards. But no conclusion follows. The discussion of novel legal theories of obstruction try to justify the publication of all the embarrassing not-obstruction that occurred. Yet, it's never been special counsel policy to refuse to come to a conclusion on theory of clearing his name. Special counsel make recommendations/conclusions.
Their absence is precisely why Barr accurately described in the summary that "The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion - one way or the other – as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction." and "The Special Counsel's decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime."
I also described previously that people coming out hard against Barr either too quickly skimmed both sides of the argument, didn't read them at all, or won't dive deep into arguments that may come out making Trump look better.
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.
The composition of the team led many to suspect the investigation would be more about wreaking political damage. The report shows that this is indeed the case for some of Part 1 and the entirety of Part 2. The battle over the precise meaning of "exoneration" really betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the justice system. They have no ability to differentiate between a totally innocent person, and a guilty person who just didn't leave enough evidence of the crime.
I really hope Barr stays on. He did well on the summary, the press briefing, many leaked conversations, and Congressional testimony. He appears sincerely motivated towards restoring faith in the FBI and DoJ. Both departments are very damaged by staff resigning in disgrace, criminal leaks, and a partisan attitude towards excusing bad behavior directed against someone considered guilty. They need full transparency on the origin of the investigation, FISA abuse, recruited foreign spies/attempted infiltration, and any other instances on government surveillance not already known. This should not be a country where rich and connected people can hire foreign spies to turn opposition research into domestic spying and intrusive probes.
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?
I don’t particularly care, depends what argument or rhetoric people are using.
I’m absolutely fine with any ‘and’ arguments, not a big fan of dancing around the Trump malfeasance elephant in the room. The investigation had partisan/corrupt intent AND Trump showed his true colours subsequently. Or Trump did x AND the Dems get up to this kind of stuff. Hell those are some of my own feelings on it.
The legal system is corrupt to the core anyway, so I don’t particularly hold much faith in doing things the ‘correct’ way, but that’s another argument entirely.
You guys are just denying reality because your worldview of Trump being framed doesn't agree with it. The report doesn't leave the question why no charges were brought unanswered. It's really not that hard to read. There's no slight of hand. Barr's letter was terrible, but if you can't even agree to that than all is lost. To deep down the maga hole.
I don’t understand the whole wider conspiracy here anyway.
I mean I think the ‘deep state’ is a rather important political actor if one broadly lumps them together. As to why they’d consider Trump some kind of threat, whose draining of the swamp has been so ineffective that Shrek has asked to move in, I am confused as to how this all ties together.
I could absolutely buy this kind of conspiracy as a defensive measure against some kind of threat to wider status who orthodoxy, how the fuck is that Trump?
On April 27 2019 07:56 Wombat_NI wrote: I don’t understand the whole wider conspiracy here anyway.
I mean I think the ‘deep state’ is a rather important political actor if one broadly lumps them together. As to why they’d consider Trump some kind of threat, whose draining of the swamp has been so ineffective that Shrek has asked to move in, I am confused as to how this all ties together.
I could absolutely buy this kind of conspiracy as a defensive measure against some kind of threat to wider status who orthodoxy, how the fuck is that Trump?
Just read around these parts and ask yourself how many people think Trump is doing/would do serious damage to the country domestically and in foreign affairs. Well, they had a second chance to hurt the Trump's administration capacity to make those changes. Embroil his top staff handling the investigation giving interviews. It hurts his ability to get legislation through by making it look like he was close to being impeached (insert the thousands of articles on how the "walls are closing in on the Trump administration" and "latest leaks show collusion". The air of suspicion for the ongoing investigation hurt his party's chances in the 2018 midterms.
You also have to take that with a second fact.The federal bureaucracy's personnel is very tilted towards the left end of the spectrum. They can take these actions to lock down an opposing administration with very little chance that the same tools will be used against their interests in the future. Will Trump send a foreign spy to China or Iran to wrap up a future Kamala Harris or Bernie Sanders administration with allegations of collusion for two years? Get some FISA warrants and run some spies/infiltrate spies against their campaigns? Very unlikely.
On April 27 2019 07:56 Wombat_NI wrote: I don’t understand the whole wider conspiracy here anyway.
I mean I think the ‘deep state’ is a rather important political actor if one broadly lumps them together. As to why they’d consider Trump some kind of threat, whose draining of the swamp has been so ineffective that Shrek has asked to move in, I am confused as to how this all ties together.
I could absolutely buy this kind of conspiracy as a defensive measure against some kind of threat to wider status who orthodoxy, how the fuck is that Trump?
Just read around these parts and ask yourself how many people think Trump is doing/would do serious damage to the country domestically and in foreign affairs. Well, they had a second chance to hurt the Trump's administration capacity to make those changes. Embroil his top staff handling the investigation giving interviews. It hurts his ability to get legislation through by making it look like he was close to being impeached (insert the thousands of articles on how the "walls are closing in on the Trump administration" and "latest leaks show collusion". The air of suspicion for the ongoing investigation hurt his party's chances in the 2018 midterms.
You also have to take that with a second fact.The federal bureaucracy's personnel is very tilted towards the left end of the spectrum. They can take these actions to lock down an opposing administration with very little chance that the same tools will be used against their interests in the future. Will Trump send a foreign spy to China or Iran to wrap up a future Kamala Harris or Bernie Sanders administration with allegations of collusion for two years? Get some FISA warrants and run some spies/infiltrate spies against their campaigns? Very unlikely.
But I mean, is it? They have a rather odd way of showing it.
On April 27 2019 07:56 Wombat_NI wrote: I don’t understand the whole wider conspiracy here anyway.
I mean I think the ‘deep state’ is a rather important political actor if one broadly lumps them together. As to why they’d consider Trump some kind of threat, whose draining of the swamp has been so ineffective that Shrek has asked to move in, I am confused as to how this all ties together.
I could absolutely buy this kind of conspiracy as a defensive measure against some kind of threat to wider status who orthodoxy, how the fuck is that Trump?
Just read around these parts and ask yourself how many people think Trump is doing/would do serious damage to the country domestically and in foreign affairs. Well, they had a second chance to hurt the Trump's administration capacity to make those changes. Embroil his top staff handling the investigation giving interviews. It hurts his ability to get legislation through by making it look like he was close to being impeached (insert the thousands of articles on how the "walls are closing in on the Trump administration" and "latest leaks show collusion". The air of suspicion for the ongoing investigation hurt his party's chances in the 2018 midterms.
You also have to take that with a second fact.The federal bureaucracy's personnel is very tilted towards the left end of the spectrum. They can take these actions to lock down an opposing administration with very little chance that the same tools will be used against their interests in the future. Will Trump send a foreign spy to China or Iran to wrap up a future Kamala Harris or Bernie Sanders administration with allegations of collusion for two years? Get some FISA warrants and run some spies/infiltrate spies against their campaigns? Very unlikely.
But I mean, is it? They have a rather odd way of showing it.
They are mostly Republicans from all reports and have a long history of doing stuff that is very not left leaning, but don’t let history folk you. The FBI is a secret cabal of communist.
On April 27 2019 07:56 Wombat_NI wrote: I don’t understand the whole wider conspiracy here anyway.
I mean I think the ‘deep state’ is a rather important political actor if one broadly lumps them together. As to why they’d consider Trump some kind of threat, whose draining of the swamp has been so ineffective that Shrek has asked to move in, I am confused as to how this all ties together.
I could absolutely buy this kind of conspiracy as a defensive measure against some kind of threat to wider status who orthodoxy, how the fuck is that Trump?
Just read around these parts and ask yourself how many people think Trump is doing/would do serious damage to the country domestically and in foreign affairs. Well, they had a second chance to hurt the Trump's administration capacity to make those changes. Embroil his top staff handling the investigation giving interviews. It hurts his ability to get legislation through by making it look like he was close to being impeached (insert the thousands of articles on how the "walls are closing in on the Trump administration" and "latest leaks show collusion". The air of suspicion for the ongoing investigation hurt his party's chances in the 2018 midterms.
You also have to take that with a second fact.The federal bureaucracy's personnel is very tilted towards the left end of the spectrum. They can take these actions to lock down an opposing administration with very little chance that the same tools will be used against their interests in the future. Will Trump send a foreign spy to China or Iran to wrap up a future Kamala Harris or Bernie Sanders administration with allegations of collusion for two years? Get some FISA warrants and run some spies/infiltrate spies against their campaigns? Very unlikely.
But I mean, is it? They have a rather odd way of showing it.
They are mostly Republicans from all reports and have a long history of doing stuff that is very not left leaning, but don’t let history folk you. The FBI is a secret cabal of communist.
On April 27 2019 08:21 Mohdoo wrote: First 24 hours number of donors:
Biden: 96,926 Beto: 128,000 Sanders: 220,000
Am I allowed to become a paid up member of the Bernie Bros or is it limited to US folks?
Just US citizens can donate but there are other legal ways to support the campaign. It get's a little grey though. Like was Hillary's massive Baghdad following on Facebook (more than any US state) legal? Hard to say, but the FEC doesn't give a damn so as long as it isn't cash donations you're pretty much in the clear for any candidate.
EPT
