EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 1416
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Taelshin
Canada417 Posts
| ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
On May 02 2019 09:17 xDaunt wrote: There's no basis for this disagreement. You can read the report and you can read the summary and you can compare the both of them. Barr's summary accurately captures of the bottom line findings of Mueller's report. Hell, this should be obvious from the fact that Barr liberally quotes Mueller's report in his letter. There is no basis to dispute this, which is why there is no doubt that what Mueller really cares about is how Barr manipulated the optics surrounding the release of the report and undid Mueller's intended effect. How is he 'liberally quoting' when he doesn't even put a full sentence in there? quotes that leave out huge parts of context? Compare the both of them? [T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities. or The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities Stuff like this made you guys say stuff like ' he had literally nothing about Russian connections or he would have stated so'. Well he did state so but Barr left it out. His quotes and context were so bad that Mueller wrote him a letter, which did not as your earlier stated complain about the media coverage, but about the misrepresentation of their work and conclusions. On May 02 2019 19:02 Taelshin wrote: Ehh didn't Barr give Mueller the chance to look over his statement before he released it? it was just a summary. Also why the hell does it matter what Barr's summary said?, we've got the full report. Its like you people are angry he gave us a glimpse of things to come, and then gave us the whole picture, and now your mad that he gave us a glimpse. No Mueller did not review Barrs letter. Mueller already provided executive summaries for release cleared of potential redaction material. But Barr went his own way. We are mad Barr's glimpse was clearly a way to dampen the conduct in the report so that the conclusion could be that the report 'totally clears the president' and this conclusion is the one that stuck with the trumpists. You can even see it in this thread with them referring back to Barr's letter in a circular way to disprove what the actual report says, because "Barr said so" | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4329 Posts
The democrats are the ones to be investigated, thankfully not by plants like Strzok either. Good of Graham to re-read those texts between Page and Strzok.How could we forget those pearls? Yeah lads i think we’re in for some fireworks soon enough. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22988 Posts
We are mad Barr's glimpse was clearly a way to dampen the conduct in the report so that the conclusion could be that the report 'totally clears the president' and this conclusion is the one that stuck with the trumpists. You can even see it in this thread with them referring back to Barr's letter in a circular way to disprove what the actual report says, because "Barr said so" I understand the frustration, but, so? He could have written the letter after and had the same effect. Congress would rather the general perception be one of a functional system and President walking the line than an obviously criminal President and a system incapable of holding said criminal President accountable (the latter being what we have imo). | ||
|
Taelshin
Canada417 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/barr-testimony-mueller-report/h_7d25c66c073ad91b295442b672cd5457?utm_source=twCNN&utm_content=2019-05-01T15%3A00%3A05&utm_medium=social&utm_term=image Don't worry i'm not interested in using his summary in a circular argument, the report speaks for it self, No collusion, no conspiracy, no obstruction. Interestingly enough the majority of yesterday's hearings were regarding Barr's summary, that was a summary, a 4 page summary, not the entire report. I am unsure why anyone would have to use Barr's summary to disprove what the actual report says though, since it was just a summary, and we have the full report. I dare say I am talking circles now. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21508 Posts
On May 02 2019 19:42 Taelshin wrote: Because Barr didn't write the report or do the investigation so why ask him about the report?But Barr did give Mueller the chance to review his summary before he release right? and Mueller declined. + Show Spoiler + https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/barr-testimony-mueller-report/h_7d25c66c073ad91b295442b672cd5457?utm_source=twCNN&utm_content=2019-05-01T15%3A00%3A05&utm_medium=social&utm_term=image Don't worry i'm not interested in using his summary in a circular argument, the report speaks for it self, No collusion, no conspiracy, no obstruction. Interestingly enough the majority of yesterday's hearings were regarding Barr's summary, that was a summary, a 4 page summary, not the entire report. I am unsure why anyone would have to use Barr's summary to disprove what the actual report says though, since it was just a summary, and we have the full report. I dare say I am talking circles now. Every answer would be 'ask Mueller'. So the questions are on his summery, which he wrote, and his conclusion of the report. Also, no conspiracy no obstruction isn't what the report says, if you actually read it. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18820 Posts
| ||
|
Taelshin
Canada417 Posts
Because Barr didn't write the report or do the investigation so why ask him about the report? ? I agree seems like a waste of time. And did I miss the part where they charged Trump with Obstruction? | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21508 Posts
On May 02 2019 19:51 Taelshin wrote: Because the hearing was about Barr's letter to congress and his decision to not prosecute?So why bring Barr in front of congress at all if ? I agree seems like a waste of time. And did I miss the part where they charged Trump with Obstruction? You missed the part where Mueller says there wasn't no obstruction. 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 Seriously, read the introduction to volume 2. Its only 2 pages and explains how this works. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22988 Posts
On May 02 2019 19:56 Gorsameth wrote: Because the hearing was about Barr's letter to congress and his decision to not prosecute? You missed the part where Mueller says there wasn't no obstruction. Seriously, read the introduction to volume 2. Its only 2 pages and explains how this works. Please stop telling people to read this? They have and have explained it was a choice Mueller made, not something ordained by a deity. When Mueller decided not to argue he could indict or recommend an indictment it effectively ended the chance Trump would face any consequences beyond maybe losing reelection | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21508 Posts
On May 02 2019 20:06 GreenHorizons wrote: I'm not arguing that Trump will face consequences.Please stop telling people to read this? They have and have explained it was a choice Mueller made, not something ordained by a deity. When Mueller decided not to argue he could indict or recommend an indictment it effectively ended the chance Trump would face any consequences beyond maybe losing reelection I'm disputing that Mueller said there was no obstruction because he made no such statement. He made the exact opposite of that statement. | ||
|
Taelshin
Canada417 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22988 Posts
On May 02 2019 20:09 Gorsameth wrote: I'm not arguing that Trump will face consequences. I'm disputing that Mueller said there was no obstruction because he made no such statement. He made the exact opposite of that statement. The exact opposite would be that "there was obstruction and there's nothing you can do nana boo boo", not "it's kinda sorta criminal but also not my problem as the person investigating whether there was or not" at least that's how I interpret it. But the other question lingers, why bother? | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21508 Posts
On May 02 2019 20:15 Taelshin wrote: which is why I said there wasn't no obstruction.You realize Mueller didn't recommend prosecution either right? I mean its obvious the only conclusion you were willing to accept was GUILITY!!. And that's fine, but I disagree with you, and so does the report, ill be interested when everyone including the staunchest trump hater's come to this conclusion, the same conclusion that Mueller and Barr have already come to. And I believe I had said previously that I was fine with Muellers decision not to prosecute and leave it up to Congress. On May 02 2019 20:16 GreenHorizons wrote: Sorry if I missed that, why bother with what?The exact opposite would be that "there was obstruction and there's nothing you can do nana boo boo", not "it's kinda sorta criminal but also not my problem as the person investigating whether there was or not" at least that's how I interpret it. But the other question lingers, why bother? | ||
|
Taelshin
Canada417 Posts
why bother? We both know the answer, the lunacy people have spent the last 2+ years selling their soul's over cant be wrong. I know you think trump's a scumbag and i'm sure hes no saint, but that's why bother. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22988 Posts
On May 02 2019 20:19 Gorsameth wrote: which is why I said there wasn't no obstruction. And I believe I had said previously that I was fine with Muellers decision not to prosecute and leave it up to Congress. Sorry if I missed that, why bother with what? I'm saying what material difference does it make whether Mueller "said it" or not? The expression that comes to mind is "actions speak louder than words". He chose to preemptively make his only options complete exoneration or punting to congress. Many people are taking that he chose punting over complete exoneration as damning and just seem salty about Barr. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21508 Posts
On May 02 2019 20:35 GreenHorizons wrote: Because if Trump did nothing wrong then there is no argument for trying to impeach him. (ignoring for the moment the fact that there is no need for a reason to impeach)I'm saying what material difference does it make whether Mueller "said it" or not? The expression that comes to mind is "actions speak louder than words". He chose to preemptively make his only options complete exoneration or punting to congress. Many people are taking that he chose punting over complete exoneration as damning and just seem salty about Barr. I would obviously have preferred Mueller to charge Trump. I would have preferred Mueller to ignore the DoJ guidelines but I also accept that Mueller chose to follow those guidelines and therefor chose to punt. His reasoning is sound, even if I don't like the result. I consider the evidence for Obstruction, much of which we didn't know about, to be damning. Not that Mueller chose to punt over exonerate. Ordering McGahn to fire Mueller? Ordering him to forget that he ordered him to fire Mueller? Ordering Sessions to change the scope of the investigation? That to me seems like clear evidence that he tried to stop the investigation from doing its job and knew that what he was doing was wrong. I also think it wasn't up to Barr to decide what to do considering he was specifically hired because of his pre-existing opinion that the President is above the law. His opinion isn't worth the paper it was written on. Since Mueller punted, Barr's opinion is irrelevant (imo) and Congress is paralysed it falls back to the voters, and I think its important that people actually read the report to see what Mueller uncovered and decide for themselves if they think the events are worthy or not of a President. And for that it is important that people know what the report actually says and I will therefor point it out if people miss represent what the report said. | ||
KwarK
United States42251 Posts
On May 02 2019 19:02 Taelshin wrote: Ehh didn't Barr give Mueller the chance to look over his statement before he released it? it was just a summary. Also why the hell does it matter what Barr's summary said?, we've got the full report. Its like you people are angry he gave us a glimpse of things to come, and then gave us the whole picture, and now your mad that he gave us a glimpse. Because the summary told people Trump was exonerated when he wasn’t. Because of the coverup of the coverup. Because of the corruption in yet another public office. “Why do you even care about X?” is the final defence after denying it and blaming the other side has been exhausted. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42251 Posts
| ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
On May 02 2019 21:50 KwarK wrote: It’s kind of weird that we have a special room in which it’s super bad if the President or his officials lie and so they simply stay out of that room and everyone goes “sure, he said there was no Moscow deal but he didn’t perjure himself because he wasn’t in the no lying room when he said that”. Like that’s an objectively weird system to have. Shouldn’t everywhere be the no lying room? The idea that misleading the American people on a daily basis by making false statements about your own conduct is only bad if you promised not to lie ahead of time is one of the stranger things to come out of this. I mean, if the republicans would do their jobs it would be as if the no lie room is everywhere. Outright lying, especially multiple times, usually costs people their jobs in most democracies because the representatives cannot longer put their trust in that person. They don't need a criminal perjury conviction for that. CNN made some nice info-graphics of the lies proven by the Mueller report https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/30/politics/mueller-report-trump-team-lies-falsehoods/index.html ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/nd5KWaW.jpg) | ||
| ||
