US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1422

On May 03 2019 23:53 xDaunt wrote:


Of course my statements mesh. You have to separate the issues. The first issue is whether Mueller could conclude that Trump committed a crime under the OLC guidelines, regardless of the merits of the charge. What I have said on that point is that he could. The second issue is the quality of the merits of any charge that Mueller might bring. This is a separate and unrelated inquiry. Mueller clearly concludes in his report that there was no charge to bring with regards to the Russia conspiracy stuff in Volume 1. As to the Volume 2 stuff pertaining to obstruction, Mueller reached no conclusion. I think that the reason why he decided to reach no conclusion and take the tact that he did was because Mueller knew that the obstruction charges would not hold up on the merits. So rather than exonerate Trump by conclusively stating no charges would be brought for obstruction, Mueller cooked up this nonsense excuse about how the OLC guidelines prevented him from reaching a conclusion. This excuse then allowed Mueller to create a huge cloud over Trump that less-discerning people would interpret as Trump actually did obstruct justice. Stated another way, Mueller was playing politics with the intention of inflicting as much damage upon Trump as possible on the way out.

On May 04 2019 00:07 On_Slaught wrote:


If it's a hit job as you say, then Mueller wouldn't give a shit if the charges actually held up; just the indictment recommendation alone would be catastrophic for Trump. It's not like he would need to actually put up or shut up by putting Trump on trial himself. He would just leave it to Congress.

Also, the idea that Mueller was just using the un-indictable argument to avoid clearing Trump holds no water in light of the report literally saying "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."

On May 04 2019 00:13 xDaunt wrote:


Of course Mueller would care if the charges didn't hold up. Prosecutors (and litigators in general) hate to lose. Beyond that, Mueller would actually have to stand behind the charges if he brought them. Once he signs that kind of document, his name, license, and reputation are at issue. By doing what he did, he avoids all of that while still inflicting damage upon Trump.



This is completely wrong and betrays a fundamental misunderstanding regarding the role of a prosecutor. Prosecutors do not exonerate people. That's not their job. Nor is it their job to determine innocence. That Mueller threw in this statement is indisputable proof of how much of a political hack that he is.

On May 04 2019 00:28 On_Slaught wrote:


So he would care about his reputation in that case but not when it comes to putting out this biased hack-job report (as you describe it)? You literally just said he is a political hack, and that is without him recommending an indictment.

The point Zero was making is that if he was really out to get Trump, like you say he was, then he could have gone more extreme than he did. Things like "but his reputation" isnt a defense if you claim he already has trashed it by putting out the report the way he did.

Also, I dont agree with your interpretation of Mueller's obstruction statement. He isnt commenting on innocence. In the context of the whole "we cant indict" thing, which it must be considered with, he is just saying "if we would not recommend indictment, like we did with collusion, then we would say so." Basically they have no problem NOT recommending indictment, since there is no rule against that, but they actively chose not to do that in light of the evidence.

On May 04 2019 01:18 Plansix wrote:
I don't know if Mueller would be able to get those subpoena's enforced. The White House would challenge them and it is very difficult to get the executive branch to produce documents or people without the full backing of Congress.

On May 04 2019 01:20 xDaunt wrote:


Mueller deliberately dodged the subpoena fight because he didn't want to have to fight it out in court. Even if you accept that Mueller had the authority to issue a subpoena notwithstanding any underlying Article 2 issues, he still would have had to establish probable cause of a crime. As we now know from the report, he probably wouldn't have been able to do this. It would have been a catastrophe for his investigation.

On May 04 2019 01:20 xDaunt wrote:


Mueller deliberately dodged the subpoena fight because he didn't want to have to fight it out in court. Even if you accept that Mueller had the authority to issue a subpoena notwithstanding any underlying Article 2 issues, he still would have had to establish probable cause of a crime. As we now know from the report, he probably wouldn't have been able to do this. It would have been a catastrophe for his investigation.

On May 04 2019 01:36 Plansix wrote:

I disagree. He didn't subpoena the executive branch because he didn't want to get into an Article 2 fight over if he had the power to do so because he knew the Republican congress at the time wouldn't' have his back to apply pressure to force the white house comply. This is unlike the the Ken Starr investigation in the 1990, where the Republicans controlled both chambers of congress and were very happy to pressure the White House to fork over information. There is also the problem that the White House could just ignore the subpoena.

On May 04 2019 01:37 GreenHorizons wrote:


This highlights a weakness in the system no? That the law (with regard to the president) is dependent on the political will of people's who's livelihood/career is tied to the success of the person they are to hold accountable?

On May 04 2019 01:36 Plansix wrote:

I disagree. He didn't subpoena the executive branch because he didn't want to get into an Article 2 fight over if he had the power to do so because he knew the Republican congress at the time wouldn't' have his back to apply pressure to force the white house comply. This is unlike the the Ken Starr investigation in the 1990, where the Republicans controlled both chambers of congress and were very happy to pressure the White House to fork over information. There is also the problem that the White House could just ignore the subpoena, getting us into the very weird Andrew Jackson problem of the court having to enforce its order against the branch of goverment in charge of enforcing orders.

The only thing uglier than an angry Washington is a fearful Washington. And fear is what’s driving this week’s blitzkrieg of Attorney General William Barr.

Mr. Barr tolerantly sat through hours of Democratic insults at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Wednesday. His reward for his patience was to be labeled, in the space of a news cycle, a lawbreaking, dishonest, obstructing hack. Speaker Nancy Pelosi publicly accused Mr. Barr of lying to Congress, which, she added, is “considered a crime.” House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler said he will move to hold Mr. Barr in contempt unless the attorney general acquiesces to the unprecedented demand that he submit to cross-examination by committee staff attorneys. James Comey, former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, lamented that Donald Trump had “eaten” Mr. Barr’s “soul.” Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren demands the attorney general resign. California Rep. Eric Swalwell wants him impeached.

These attacks aren’t about special counsel Robert Mueller, his report or even the surreal debate over Mr. Barr’s first letter describing the report. The attorney general delivered the transparency Democrats demanded: He quickly released a lightly redacted report, which portrayed the president in a negative light. What do Democrats have to object to?

Some of this is frustration. Democrats foolishly invested two years of political capital in the idea that Mr. Mueller would prove President Trump had colluded with Russia, and Mr. Mueller left them empty-handed. Some of it is personal. Democrats resent that Mr. Barr won’t cower or apologize for doing his job. Some is bitterness that Mr. Barr is performing like a real attorney general, making the call against obstruction-of-justice charges rather than sitting back and letting Democrats have their fun with Mr. Mueller’s obstruction innuendo.

But most of it is likely fear. Mr. Barr made real news in that Senate hearing, and while the press didn’t notice, Democrats did. The attorney general said he’d already assigned people at the Justice Department to assist his investigation of the origins of the Trump-Russia probe. He said his review would be far-reaching—that he was obtaining details from congressional investigations, from the ongoing probe by the department’s inspector general, Michael Horowitz, and even from Mr. Mueller’s work. Mr. Barr said the investigation wouldn’t focus only on the fall 2016 justifications for secret surveillance warrants against Trump team members but would go back months earlier.

He also said he’d focus on the infamous “dossier” concocted by opposition-research firm Fusion GPS and British former spy Christopher Steele, on which the FBI relied so heavily in its probe. Mr. Barr acknowledged his concern that the dossier itself could be Russian disinformation, a possibility he described as not “entirely speculative.” He also revealed that the department has “multiple criminal leak investigations under way” into the disclosure of classified details about the Trump-Russia investigation.

Do not underestimate how many powerful people in Washington have something to lose from Mr. Barr’s probe. Among them: Former and current leaders of the law-enforcement and intelligence communities. The Democratic Party pooh-bahs who paid a foreign national (Mr. Steele) to collect information from Russians and deliver it to the FBI. The government officials who misused their positions to target a presidential campaign. The leakers. The media. More than reputations are at risk. Revelations could lead to lawsuits, formal disciplinary actions, lost jobs, even criminal prosecution.

The attacks on Mr. Barr are first and foremost an effort to force him out, to prevent this information from coming to light until Democrats can retake the White House in 2020. As a fallback, the coordinated campaign works as a pre-emptive smear, diminishing the credibility of his ultimate findings by priming the public to view him as a partisan.

That’s why Mr. Barr isn’t alone in getting slimed. Natasha Bertrand at Politico last month penned a hit piece on the respected Mr. Horowitz. It’s clear the inspector general is asking the right questions. The Politico article acknowledges he’s homing in on Mr. Steele’s “credibility” and the dossier’s “veracity”—then goes on to provide a defense of Mr. Steele and his dossier, while quoting unnamed sources who deride the “quality” of the Horowitz probe, and (hilariously) claim the long-tenured inspector general is not “well-versed” in core Justice Department functions.

“We have to stop using the criminal-justice process as a political weapon,” Mr. Barr said Wednesday. The line didn’t get much notice, but that worthy goal increasingly looks to be a reason Mr. Barr accepted this unpleasant job. Stopping this abuse requires understanding how it started. The liberal establishment, including journalists friendly with it, doesn’t want that to happen, and so has made it a mission to destroy Mr. Barr. The attorney general seems to know what he’s up against, and remains undeterred. That’s the sort of steely will necessary to right the ship at the Justice Department and the FBI.

On May 04 2019 01:42 On_Slaught wrote:


Yes it's a major problem. Same problem we are seeing with the federal courts where the only way to get noticed, and thus nominated, is to become a political actor since political actors are the ones picking and voting for them.

On May 04 2019 01:48 GreenHorizons wrote:


I feel like we've already concluded (collectively as a thread) it's hopeless to think the people controlling the system are going to allow it to change in such a way they would be eliminated from it as well, no?