|
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 May 05 2019 04:58 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2019 04:04 semantics wrote:On May 05 2019 02:05 xDaunt wrote:On May 05 2019 01:52 Danglars wrote:On May 05 2019 00:30 xDaunt wrote:On May 04 2019 19:39 Nouar wrote:On May 04 2019 07:09 xDaunt wrote:On May 04 2019 06:55 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On May 04 2019 06:45 xDaunt wrote:On May 04 2019 05:52 Danglars wrote:
I don't think a lot of these arguments are worth pursuing if sworn testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee functions similar to user opinions and are brushed off easily. It's sworn testimony under threat of perjury. It's specific to important questions raised by elected Democratic leaders. If it can't be cited as something concrete not to be lightly dismissed, then I'm feeding obvious trolls and shame on me for not recognizing their motives. What interests me about these conversations regarding the Mueller report is the persistent grasping at straws to keep the Russia conspiracy/obstruction narrative alive. The disconnect from reality for people still promoting this stuff is astounding. That people are struggling so much with with the idea that Mueller might be a political actor or that there is no dispute that he didn't conclude in his report that there was probable cause of a crime fascinates me, as does the inability of these same people to recognize how persistently wrong that they have been on all of this stuff for two+ years. The question that I have is what do these folks need to see to finally wake up? The Mueller report clearly isn't enough. Will the upcoming OIG report matter? Will declassification of the underlying investigation documents (FISA, etc) matter? Do we have to wait for criminal prosecutions and convictions of those involved? How much is really enough? I'll take a month ban if anyone ever gets convicted for the FISA nonsense. It's going to go the same road as the Seth Rich story or the busses full of immigrants doing election fraud story -> to the trashcan. I still don't understand why you are not concerned about any of the conduct reported in the Mueller report. It really shouldn't matter if criminal charges happen or not. Or how you brush aside all the charges that were brought to the people Trump worked closely with. Those aren't fake. Manafort is in prison. The conduct cited in the Mueller report isn't great and certainly not what I really want to see from my president. However, it can't be fairly viewed in a vacuum. Think about it from Trump's perspective. He has a rogue FBI director who is not only lying to him about the scope of the FBI's investigation into his campaign, but also refuses to publicly state that Trump isn't the subject of the investigation. He has hostile elements within his administration and the DOJ who are actively leaking false and incendiary shit to the press to insinuate that he's in bed with the Russians. Then, he has to deal with a dipshit AG who needlessly recuses himself, which ultimately results in the appointment of a special counsel who makes it quite obvious that the point of the investigation isn't looking into the veracity of the Russia/Trump collusion crap so much as it is creating the basis for an obstruction of justice charge. It can't be overstated how much Trump was under siege. Frankly, I'm amazed that he acted as well as he did. Now take the opposite view, and ask yourself from the viewpoint of DOJ/FBI what should you do when a candidate to the presidency and several members of his campaign are obviously publicly lying every step of the way, and trying to hide a boatload of interactions with a foreign power considered as an enemy. They HAD to investigate, and to avoid the appearance of interfering with a political campaign, to do it in a very low-key way. The steps that Trump has taken afterwards, raising an awful lot of doubt over obstruction, are self-inflicted since he thinks he's the ultimate boss and has no grasp on how to stay safe legally when in full public view (which I find somewhat strange since he has strived for public exposure his whole life, but as a private citizen that could litigate the hell out of everything he strong-armed through. So he also has a lot of experience of legal struggles). He incited doubt every step of the way due to his overall conduct, and nearly every action he has taken for the last 3 years kept raising doubts, due to his inability to be transparent. From meetings with Putin, to public statements, to lies, to drafting false reports, to trying to remove the SC (!?), to hiring crooks, compromised people and surrounding himself with idiots (only the best he said ! Remember he appointed Sessions)... I could go on several pages. It's so apparent he doesn't even know what the fuck he is doing (except selling his brand and craving exposure by doing crazy statements). No, I don't think he acted "as well as he did", as he did pretty damning things, as he created the conditions to his siege by his own behaviour and deserved all he got. That's what happens when you fire your whole transition team prior to the transition, and so have no one to vet for positions. People of experience who could explain what you should do and how to have a good presidency. But he didn't care about the country. We don't need to try to imagine things from the FBI's perspective. It's all out there in the open in the Mueller report, and it's highly lacking in that it utterly fails to identify a valid predicate for the investigations that took place. This is the United States. Not a banana republic. I have yet to see a valid justification for any of the spying that government agencies did upon Trump and his people. Hell, Comey and other former government officials didn't even have the decency to admit that they did engage in spying operations on Trump's people. And when Barr finally suggested that it did happen, they all had a hissy fit until the NYT ran a news story confirming that spying did happen. So let's cut the shit. Who fraudulently submitted unverified information to a FISA court to get a FISA warrant? Who has been dishonest about the true origins of Crossfire Hurricane from day 1? Who has refused to discuss who Mifsud really is? Who's really the liar here? It ain't Trump. I'm a little troubled by the European view of government espoused by our French poster here. a candidate to the presidency and several members of his campaign are obviously publicly lying every step of the way, and trying to hide a boatload of interactions with a foreign power considered as an enemy.They HAD to investigate, and to avoid the appearance of interfering with a political campaign, They HAD to investigate, because people like him disagree with foreign policy and hate public lying? Seriously? Where was he with the Obama administration and pallets of cash to the Iranian regime? I didn't like his Russian reset, and response to the invasion of Ukraine's Crimean peninsula. I should have been calling for a special counsel because of these "boatload of interactions with a foreign power considered as an enemy?" This is a farcical excuse for police state government. Your delusions do not justify domestic spying. That's banana republic junk, and I'm disturbed that there's people rationalizing the stupidest abuses of power just because of their dislike of a president. The proper response to a president if you feel the behavior towards Russia and the lying is just so bad is to vote the man out. It's just so absurd of an argument on it's face. Lying and coverup at every step of the investigation into Trump, and there's still some people out there that go full banana republic justice because they don't approve of what Trump does. The part that is so hilarious is that everyone who supports what the FBI/DOJ did doesn't understand the basic principle that only criminal acts warrant criminal investigation. They point to all of this stuff that Trump did (and even is alleged to have done, but didn't do), but they never are able to articulate what the crime is or may be. This is Civics 101 shit that they can't account for. Yet somehow we're the ones who are off our rockers. Potentially criminal acts warrant investigation, not all investigations pan out. Also criminal conspiracy is the act in question, it's in the report. Let's not ignore the dubious things the people trump surrounded himself with did. Unless you believe they all innocent. After all the initial investigation was because of those people, that's who they tapped and followed. Point taken, which I have discussed before. So again, which act that is potentially criminal was the predicate for the criminal investigation?
Do you really want the entire laundry list? Because it has been gone over before and you simply chose to ignore it as you do every time you are proven wrong.
|
On May 05 2019 04:57 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2019 04:33 Gorsameth wrote:On May 05 2019 03:25 xDaunt wrote:On May 05 2019 03:01 Ben... wrote:On May 05 2019 02:10 KwarK wrote:
Danglars, Obama didn’t send cash to Iran, they unfroze Iranian assets that had been illegally seized by the US. That’s not the same thing. I know Fox News and Trump told you that he sent them cash because he’s a secret Muslim but that’s not actually what happened. If you wish to have a productive discussion then you can’t keep repeating fake news to people who are better informed than you. These talking points of yours only work within the cult of Trump where everyone has already collectively agreed to believe the lies. In a public debate you need to stick to truth. This is becoming an increasingly noticeable issue in this thread. You can't have a conversation about an issue if some people are making the claim that facts are not facts. This exchange comes to mind for me: On May 03 2019 00:26 Gorsameth wrote:On May 03 2019 00:25 xDaunt wrote:On May 03 2019 00:07 Gorsameth wrote:
Here is something that popped into my head.
Barr stated yesterday that he was surprised Mueller didn't make a decision on Obstruction of justice.
Therefor either Barr doesn't know there is a standing guideline not to indict the President, or he doesn't care about it.
Surely an AG should know such a guideline exists when there is an ongoing investigation into the President. so the logical conclusion is he does't care about it.
Is it within his power to remove this guideline?
If so could Congress tell him to do so and then get Mueller to make an actual decision?
(ofcourse none of that is going to happen because Barr likely did know about the guideline and did know that Mueller wasn't going to give an indictment regardless of evidence but its an interesting line to follow and to ask Barr in front of the House committee, assuming he ever shows up there). This is an incorrect reading of the OLC guidelines. The OLC guideline did not prevent Mueller from making a decision on prosecution or a finding that there was a prosecutable crime. All that OLC guideline says is that the president cannot be indicted while in office. Presuming that this is enforceable (certainly not guaranteed), a president could still be indicted for the crime after leaving office. So when Barr says that he is "surprised" that Mueller didn't make a decision on obstruction, this is the legal backdrop. There wasn't a good reason for Mueller not to make a decision. Mueller was simply playing politics. And Barr knows it. fairness guidelines. Don't make a judgement when you can't indict and that person can't defend himself in court. Its in the report. 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 May 03 2019 00:32 xDaunt wrote:
That's the cover story. It doesn't change the accuracy of anything that I said. And again, the fact that I'm right becomes very apparent once you dig into the details of what the obstruction charges might be. They're all bullshit, because there was no underlying crime, Trump didn't actually do anything that materially impeded any investigation, and he had legitimate reasons for taking the limited actions that he did take. None of the chronicled episodes of obstruction would hold up in court. Mueller knows this, as does Barr. xDaunt makes a claim that Gorsameth rebuts citing primary source information (in this case the Mueller Report itself) that clearly and obviously proves xDaunt's statement to be incorrect. xDaunt the replies by claiming the excerpt from the Mueller Report is a cover story while providing no proof to back this claim up other than what it obviously xDaunt's opinion. This has been an increasingly common trend I've noticed. I feel like this rule has been somewhat forgotten the last few weeks. 1. Show, don't tell, and listen.
This one sounds simple enough, but political discussions on TL suffer from an ignorance of this cliché and oftentimes devolve accordingly. There is a huge difference between saying “Iran is a bloodthirsty despotic state” and showing how Iran could be considered bloodthirsty given particular evidence. If you can't tell the difference, don't bother posting. Furthermore, if you are here to simply pontificate, please do so elsewhere. The entire point of a forum such as TL is to foster communication, and posters who seek only to talk at others instead of with them will be ignored. If people are going to be making claims, especially ones that counter publicly available information from primary or well-cited secondary sources, they should be backing them up more than with personal opinion. This is getting old. There is no guideline that says what Gorsameth and others have been claiming regarding a prohibition on the DOJ's ability to conclude that the president likely committed a crime. The only prohibition is on the ability to indict. What Mueller does is cite that prohibition and then create an argument out of whole cloth justifying his not coming to a conclusion regarding whether to prosecute Trump. Anyone who can't distinguish between an actual guideline and someone's spin on existing guidelines should seriously reconsider their participation in this thread. EDIT: And if anyone disagrees with this, then go cite the guideline. I obviously can't prove a negative. But you should already know what I'm saying is correct just by reading the Mueller report and by looking at Barr's -- who is subject to the exact guidelines as Mueller -- conclusion that Trump did not commit a crime. That would be United States v. Briggs, 514 F.2d 794 (5th Cir. 1975). Why? And before you answer, you should consider the fact that the lawsuit concerns claims that are not too dissimilar from what Mueller did to Trump. Stated another way, the case supports my point that Mueller is a political hack. You wanted me to cite the basis behind Muellers reasoning, There it is.
And yes I understand that ideally Trump wouldn't even be mentioned by name but that's kinda hard when he is the sole subject of that particular part of the investigation.
I said it before, there was no clear line for Mueller to go
Mueller has to deliver a report.
He can't indict Trump as per DoJ guidelines.
He shouldn't mention Trump if he can't indict as per United States v. Briggs.
So what can he deliver? a blank page and a shrug? That sure would have put this matter to rest...
|
On May 05 2019 03:48 Ben... wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2019 03:41 xDaunt wrote:On May 05 2019 03:35 JimmiC wrote:
Is there any reason other than that Barr agrees with you that you think what he did was right and what Mueller did was wrong.
Like if Barr had recommended indictment would have you thought that was appropriate? Based upon the evidence in the Mueller report? No. Why? What evidence do you have that suggests the Mueller Report is inaccurate? You've consistently claimed the report is biased and inaccurate but you've never actually provided us with evidence to prove it. All you've ever done is told us to read the report ourselves, but when we do and we find that it doesn't say what you claim it says, you either claim that it's a cover story for something unfounded, or you just don't respond. If you are going to hold everyone else to a much higher factual standard, it's only fair that you are also held to that standard. edit: I'm talking actual sourced evidence that findings in the report are inaccurate and call into question the accuracy of the report. Not your interpretation of portions of it. We already know your interpretation of the report.
Why should I take this post seriously? You obviously aren't following the thread closely. If you had, you would know that I have addressed at length why I think Mueller is biased, including his conduct during the investigation, the contents of his report, and post-report conduct. You would also know that I have not claimed that his report is "inaccurate" (indeed, I have taken pretty much all of the facts Mueller has presented in his report as true). And let's not forget that just a few posts ago you barged in here after not participating and made some garbage post falsely accusing me of not following thread guidelines and stating things that are completely inaccurate about the Mueller report and the applicable law.
So don't come in here and spout some nonsense about me holding other posters to a higher factual standard than I hold myself. Hold yourself to just half of the standard that I am adhering to and then we can talk.
|
On May 05 2019 05:05 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2019 04:57 xDaunt wrote:On May 05 2019 04:33 Gorsameth wrote:On May 05 2019 03:25 xDaunt wrote:On May 05 2019 03:01 Ben... wrote:On May 05 2019 02:10 KwarK wrote:
Danglars, Obama didn’t send cash to Iran, they unfroze Iranian assets that had been illegally seized by the US. That’s not the same thing. I know Fox News and Trump told you that he sent them cash because he’s a secret Muslim but that’s not actually what happened. If you wish to have a productive discussion then you can’t keep repeating fake news to people who are better informed than you. These talking points of yours only work within the cult of Trump where everyone has already collectively agreed to believe the lies. In a public debate you need to stick to truth. This is becoming an increasingly noticeable issue in this thread. You can't have a conversation about an issue if some people are making the claim that facts are not facts. This exchange comes to mind for me: On May 03 2019 00:26 Gorsameth wrote:On May 03 2019 00:25 xDaunt wrote:On May 03 2019 00:07 Gorsameth wrote:
Here is something that popped into my head.
Barr stated yesterday that he was surprised Mueller didn't make a decision on Obstruction of justice.
Therefor either Barr doesn't know there is a standing guideline not to indict the President, or he doesn't care about it.
Surely an AG should know such a guideline exists when there is an ongoing investigation into the President. so the logical conclusion is he does't care about it.
Is it within his power to remove this guideline?
If so could Congress tell him to do so and then get Mueller to make an actual decision?
(ofcourse none of that is going to happen because Barr likely did know about the guideline and did know that Mueller wasn't going to give an indictment regardless of evidence but its an interesting line to follow and to ask Barr in front of the House committee, assuming he ever shows up there). This is an incorrect reading of the OLC guidelines. The OLC guideline did not prevent Mueller from making a decision on prosecution or a finding that there was a prosecutable crime. All that OLC guideline says is that the president cannot be indicted while in office. Presuming that this is enforceable (certainly not guaranteed), a president could still be indicted for the crime after leaving office. So when Barr says that he is "surprised" that Mueller didn't make a decision on obstruction, this is the legal backdrop. There wasn't a good reason for Mueller not to make a decision. Mueller was simply playing politics. And Barr knows it. fairness guidelines. Don't make a judgement when you can't indict and that person can't defend himself in court. Its in the report. 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 May 03 2019 00:32 xDaunt wrote:
That's the cover story. It doesn't change the accuracy of anything that I said. And again, the fact that I'm right becomes very apparent once you dig into the details of what the obstruction charges might be. They're all bullshit, because there was no underlying crime, Trump didn't actually do anything that materially impeded any investigation, and he had legitimate reasons for taking the limited actions that he did take. None of the chronicled episodes of obstruction would hold up in court. Mueller knows this, as does Barr. xDaunt makes a claim that Gorsameth rebuts citing primary source information (in this case the Mueller Report itself) that clearly and obviously proves xDaunt's statement to be incorrect. xDaunt the replies by claiming the excerpt from the Mueller Report is a cover story while providing no proof to back this claim up other than what it obviously xDaunt's opinion. This has been an increasingly common trend I've noticed. I feel like this rule has been somewhat forgotten the last few weeks. 1. Show, don't tell, and listen.
This one sounds simple enough, but political discussions on TL suffer from an ignorance of this cliché and oftentimes devolve accordingly. There is a huge difference between saying “Iran is a bloodthirsty despotic state” and showing how Iran could be considered bloodthirsty given particular evidence. If you can't tell the difference, don't bother posting. Furthermore, if you are here to simply pontificate, please do so elsewhere. The entire point of a forum such as TL is to foster communication, and posters who seek only to talk at others instead of with them will be ignored. If people are going to be making claims, especially ones that counter publicly available information from primary or well-cited secondary sources, they should be backing them up more than with personal opinion. This is getting old. There is no guideline that says what Gorsameth and others have been claiming regarding a prohibition on the DOJ's ability to conclude that the president likely committed a crime. The only prohibition is on the ability to indict. What Mueller does is cite that prohibition and then create an argument out of whole cloth justifying his not coming to a conclusion regarding whether to prosecute Trump. Anyone who can't distinguish between an actual guideline and someone's spin on existing guidelines should seriously reconsider their participation in this thread. EDIT: And if anyone disagrees with this, then go cite the guideline. I obviously can't prove a negative. But you should already know what I'm saying is correct just by reading the Mueller report and by looking at Barr's -- who is subject to the exact guidelines as Mueller -- conclusion that Trump did not commit a crime. That would be United States v. Briggs, 514 F.2d 794 (5th Cir. 1975). Why? And before you answer, you should consider the fact that the lawsuit concerns claims that are not too dissimilar from what Mueller did to Trump. Stated another way, the case supports my point that Mueller is a political hack. You wanted me to cite the basis behind Muellers reasoning, There it is. And yes I understand that ideally Trump wouldn't even be mentioned by name but that's kinda hard when he is the sole subject of that particular part of the investigation. I said it before, there was no clear line for Mueller to go Mueller has to deliver a report. He can't indict Trump as per DoJ guidelines. He shouldn't mention Trump if he can't indict as per United States v. Briggs. So what can he deliver? a blank page and a shrug? That sure would have put this matter to rest...
What US v. Briggs suggests is that Mueller should have condensed all sections of his report concerning Trump down to a page or two stating that he did not find sufficient evidence of a prosecutable crime. What Mueller did, instead, is no different than what the grand jury did in US v. Briggs and which the court found so offensive.
|
On May 05 2019 05:11 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2019 05:05 Gorsameth wrote:On May 05 2019 04:57 xDaunt wrote:On May 05 2019 04:33 Gorsameth wrote:On May 05 2019 03:25 xDaunt wrote:On May 05 2019 03:01 Ben... wrote:On May 05 2019 02:10 KwarK wrote:
Danglars, Obama didn’t send cash to Iran, they unfroze Iranian assets that had been illegally seized by the US. That’s not the same thing. I know Fox News and Trump told you that he sent them cash because he’s a secret Muslim but that’s not actually what happened. If you wish to have a productive discussion then you can’t keep repeating fake news to people who are better informed than you. These talking points of yours only work within the cult of Trump where everyone has already collectively agreed to believe the lies. In a public debate you need to stick to truth. This is becoming an increasingly noticeable issue in this thread. You can't have a conversation about an issue if some people are making the claim that facts are not facts. This exchange comes to mind for me: On May 03 2019 00:26 Gorsameth wrote:On May 03 2019 00:25 xDaunt wrote:On May 03 2019 00:07 Gorsameth wrote:
Here is something that popped into my head.
Barr stated yesterday that he was surprised Mueller didn't make a decision on Obstruction of justice.
Therefor either Barr doesn't know there is a standing guideline not to indict the President, or he doesn't care about it.
Surely an AG should know such a guideline exists when there is an ongoing investigation into the President. so the logical conclusion is he does't care about it.
Is it within his power to remove this guideline?
If so could Congress tell him to do so and then get Mueller to make an actual decision?
(ofcourse none of that is going to happen because Barr likely did know about the guideline and did know that Mueller wasn't going to give an indictment regardless of evidence but its an interesting line to follow and to ask Barr in front of the House committee, assuming he ever shows up there). This is an incorrect reading of the OLC guidelines. The OLC guideline did not prevent Mueller from making a decision on prosecution or a finding that there was a prosecutable crime. All that OLC guideline says is that the president cannot be indicted while in office. Presuming that this is enforceable (certainly not guaranteed), a president could still be indicted for the crime after leaving office. So when Barr says that he is "surprised" that Mueller didn't make a decision on obstruction, this is the legal backdrop. There wasn't a good reason for Mueller not to make a decision. Mueller was simply playing politics. And Barr knows it. fairness guidelines. Don't make a judgement when you can't indict and that person can't defend himself in court. Its in the report. 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 May 03 2019 00:32 xDaunt wrote:
That's the cover story. It doesn't change the accuracy of anything that I said. And again, the fact that I'm right becomes very apparent once you dig into the details of what the obstruction charges might be. They're all bullshit, because there was no underlying crime, Trump didn't actually do anything that materially impeded any investigation, and he had legitimate reasons for taking the limited actions that he did take. None of the chronicled episodes of obstruction would hold up in court. Mueller knows this, as does Barr. xDaunt makes a claim that Gorsameth rebuts citing primary source information (in this case the Mueller Report itself) that clearly and obviously proves xDaunt's statement to be incorrect. xDaunt the replies by claiming the excerpt from the Mueller Report is a cover story while providing no proof to back this claim up other than what it obviously xDaunt's opinion. This has been an increasingly common trend I've noticed. I feel like this rule has been somewhat forgotten the last few weeks. 1. Show, don't tell, and listen.
This one sounds simple enough, but political discussions on TL suffer from an ignorance of this cliché and oftentimes devolve accordingly. There is a huge difference between saying “Iran is a bloodthirsty despotic state” and showing how Iran could be considered bloodthirsty given particular evidence. If you can't tell the difference, don't bother posting. Furthermore, if you are here to simply pontificate, please do so elsewhere. The entire point of a forum such as TL is to foster communication, and posters who seek only to talk at others instead of with them will be ignored. If people are going to be making claims, especially ones that counter publicly available information from primary or well-cited secondary sources, they should be backing them up more than with personal opinion. This is getting old. There is no guideline that says what Gorsameth and others have been claiming regarding a prohibition on the DOJ's ability to conclude that the president likely committed a crime. The only prohibition is on the ability to indict. What Mueller does is cite that prohibition and then create an argument out of whole cloth justifying his not coming to a conclusion regarding whether to prosecute Trump. Anyone who can't distinguish between an actual guideline and someone's spin on existing guidelines should seriously reconsider their participation in this thread. EDIT: And if anyone disagrees with this, then go cite the guideline. I obviously can't prove a negative. But you should already know what I'm saying is correct just by reading the Mueller report and by looking at Barr's -- who is subject to the exact guidelines as Mueller -- conclusion that Trump did not commit a crime. That would be United States v. Briggs, 514 F.2d 794 (5th Cir. 1975). Why? And before you answer, you should consider the fact that the lawsuit concerns claims that are not too dissimilar from what Mueller did to Trump. Stated another way, the case supports my point that Mueller is a political hack. You wanted me to cite the basis behind Muellers reasoning, There it is. And yes I understand that ideally Trump wouldn't even be mentioned by name but that's kinda hard when he is the sole subject of that particular part of the investigation. I said it before, there was no clear line for Mueller to go Mueller has to deliver a report. He can't indict Trump as per DoJ guidelines. He shouldn't mention Trump if he can't indict as per United States v. Briggs. So what can he deliver? a blank page and a shrug? That sure would have put this matter to rest... What US v. Briggs suggests is that Mueller should have condensed all sections of his report concerning Trump down to a page or two stating that he did not find sufficient evidence of a prosecutable crime. What Mueller did, instead, is no different than what the grand jury did in US v. Briggs and which the court found so offensive. which would be a lie because he did find evidence.
So what does he do then?
At the same time, if we had confidence after a
thorough investigation of the facts that the Pres ident 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.
|
On May 05 2019 05:11 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2019 05:05 Gorsameth wrote:On May 05 2019 04:57 xDaunt wrote:On May 05 2019 04:33 Gorsameth wrote:On May 05 2019 03:25 xDaunt wrote:On May 05 2019 03:01 Ben... wrote:On May 05 2019 02:10 KwarK wrote:
Danglars, Obama didn’t send cash to Iran, they unfroze Iranian assets that had been illegally seized by the US. That’s not the same thing. I know Fox News and Trump told you that he sent them cash because he’s a secret Muslim but that’s not actually what happened. If you wish to have a productive discussion then you can’t keep repeating fake news to people who are better informed than you. These talking points of yours only work within the cult of Trump where everyone has already collectively agreed to believe the lies. In a public debate you need to stick to truth. This is becoming an increasingly noticeable issue in this thread. You can't have a conversation about an issue if some people are making the claim that facts are not facts. This exchange comes to mind for me: On May 03 2019 00:26 Gorsameth wrote:On May 03 2019 00:25 xDaunt wrote:On May 03 2019 00:07 Gorsameth wrote:
Here is something that popped into my head.
Barr stated yesterday that he was surprised Mueller didn't make a decision on Obstruction of justice.
Therefor either Barr doesn't know there is a standing guideline not to indict the President, or he doesn't care about it.
Surely an AG should know such a guideline exists when there is an ongoing investigation into the President. so the logical conclusion is he does't care about it.
Is it within his power to remove this guideline?
If so could Congress tell him to do so and then get Mueller to make an actual decision?
(ofcourse none of that is going to happen because Barr likely did know about the guideline and did know that Mueller wasn't going to give an indictment regardless of evidence but its an interesting line to follow and to ask Barr in front of the House committee, assuming he ever shows up there). This is an incorrect reading of the OLC guidelines. The OLC guideline did not prevent Mueller from making a decision on prosecution or a finding that there was a prosecutable crime. All that OLC guideline says is that the president cannot be indicted while in office. Presuming that this is enforceable (certainly not guaranteed), a president could still be indicted for the crime after leaving office. So when Barr says that he is "surprised" that Mueller didn't make a decision on obstruction, this is the legal backdrop. There wasn't a good reason for Mueller not to make a decision. Mueller was simply playing politics. And Barr knows it. fairness guidelines. Don't make a judgement when you can't indict and that person can't defend himself in court. Its in the report. 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 May 03 2019 00:32 xDaunt wrote:
That's the cover story. It doesn't change the accuracy of anything that I said. And again, the fact that I'm right becomes very apparent once you dig into the details of what the obstruction charges might be. They're all bullshit, because there was no underlying crime, Trump didn't actually do anything that materially impeded any investigation, and he had legitimate reasons for taking the limited actions that he did take. None of the chronicled episodes of obstruction would hold up in court. Mueller knows this, as does Barr. xDaunt makes a claim that Gorsameth rebuts citing primary source information (in this case the Mueller Report itself) that clearly and obviously proves xDaunt's statement to be incorrect. xDaunt the replies by claiming the excerpt from the Mueller Report is a cover story while providing no proof to back this claim up other than what it obviously xDaunt's opinion. This has been an increasingly common trend I've noticed. I feel like this rule has been somewhat forgotten the last few weeks. 1. Show, don't tell, and listen.
This one sounds simple enough, but political discussions on TL suffer from an ignorance of this cliché and oftentimes devolve accordingly. There is a huge difference between saying “Iran is a bloodthirsty despotic state” and showing how Iran could be considered bloodthirsty given particular evidence. If you can't tell the difference, don't bother posting. Furthermore, if you are here to simply pontificate, please do so elsewhere. The entire point of a forum such as TL is to foster communication, and posters who seek only to talk at others instead of with them will be ignored. If people are going to be making claims, especially ones that counter publicly available information from primary or well-cited secondary sources, they should be backing them up more than with personal opinion. This is getting old. There is no guideline that says what Gorsameth and others have been claiming regarding a prohibition on the DOJ's ability to conclude that the president likely committed a crime. The only prohibition is on the ability to indict. What Mueller does is cite that prohibition and then create an argument out of whole cloth justifying his not coming to a conclusion regarding whether to prosecute Trump. Anyone who can't distinguish between an actual guideline and someone's spin on existing guidelines should seriously reconsider their participation in this thread. EDIT: And if anyone disagrees with this, then go cite the guideline. I obviously can't prove a negative. But you should already know what I'm saying is correct just by reading the Mueller report and by looking at Barr's -- who is subject to the exact guidelines as Mueller -- conclusion that Trump did not commit a crime. That would be United States v. Briggs, 514 F.2d 794 (5th Cir. 1975). Why? And before you answer, you should consider the fact that the lawsuit concerns claims that are not too dissimilar from what Mueller did to Trump. Stated another way, the case supports my point that Mueller is a political hack. You wanted me to cite the basis behind Muellers reasoning, There it is. And yes I understand that ideally Trump wouldn't even be mentioned by name but that's kinda hard when he is the sole subject of that particular part of the investigation. I said it before, there was no clear line for Mueller to go Mueller has to deliver a report. He can't indict Trump as per DoJ guidelines. He shouldn't mention Trump if he can't indict as per United States v. Briggs. So what can he deliver? a blank page and a shrug? That sure would have put this matter to rest... What US v. Briggs suggests is that Mueller should have condensed all sections of his report concerning Trump down to a page or two stating that he did not find sufficient evidence of a prosecutable crime. What Mueller did, instead, is no different than what the grand jury did in US v. Briggs and which the court found so offensive.
But that would not be accurate or truthful. He very well may have found enough evidence of prosecutable crime by trump, it's just not his place to press those charges. Doing it as you suggest would of course help your disingenuous case, but would not be truthful or accurate.
|
On May 05 2019 05:12 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2019 05:11 xDaunt wrote:On May 05 2019 05:05 Gorsameth wrote:On May 05 2019 04:57 xDaunt wrote:On May 05 2019 04:33 Gorsameth wrote:On May 05 2019 03:25 xDaunt wrote:On May 05 2019 03:01 Ben... wrote:On May 05 2019 02:10 KwarK wrote:
Danglars, Obama didn’t send cash to Iran, they unfroze Iranian assets that had been illegally seized by the US. That’s not the same thing. I know Fox News and Trump told you that he sent them cash because he’s a secret Muslim but that’s not actually what happened. If you wish to have a productive discussion then you can’t keep repeating fake news to people who are better informed than you. These talking points of yours only work within the cult of Trump where everyone has already collectively agreed to believe the lies. In a public debate you need to stick to truth. This is becoming an increasingly noticeable issue in this thread. You can't have a conversation about an issue if some people are making the claim that facts are not facts. This exchange comes to mind for me: On May 03 2019 00:26 Gorsameth wrote:On May 03 2019 00:25 xDaunt wrote:On May 03 2019 00:07 Gorsameth wrote:
Here is something that popped into my head.
Barr stated yesterday that he was surprised Mueller didn't make a decision on Obstruction of justice.
Therefor either Barr doesn't know there is a standing guideline not to indict the President, or he doesn't care about it.
Surely an AG should know such a guideline exists when there is an ongoing investigation into the President. so the logical conclusion is he does't care about it.
Is it within his power to remove this guideline?
If so could Congress tell him to do so and then get Mueller to make an actual decision?
(ofcourse none of that is going to happen because Barr likely did know about the guideline and did know that Mueller wasn't going to give an indictment regardless of evidence but its an interesting line to follow and to ask Barr in front of the House committee, assuming he ever shows up there). This is an incorrect reading of the OLC guidelines. The OLC guideline did not prevent Mueller from making a decision on prosecution or a finding that there was a prosecutable crime. All that OLC guideline says is that the president cannot be indicted while in office. Presuming that this is enforceable (certainly not guaranteed), a president could still be indicted for the crime after leaving office. So when Barr says that he is "surprised" that Mueller didn't make a decision on obstruction, this is the legal backdrop. There wasn't a good reason for Mueller not to make a decision. Mueller was simply playing politics. And Barr knows it. fairness guidelines. Don't make a judgement when you can't indict and that person can't defend himself in court. Its in the report. 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 May 03 2019 00:32 xDaunt wrote:
That's the cover story. It doesn't change the accuracy of anything that I said. And again, the fact that I'm right becomes very apparent once you dig into the details of what the obstruction charges might be. They're all bullshit, because there was no underlying crime, Trump didn't actually do anything that materially impeded any investigation, and he had legitimate reasons for taking the limited actions that he did take. None of the chronicled episodes of obstruction would hold up in court. Mueller knows this, as does Barr. xDaunt makes a claim that Gorsameth rebuts citing primary source information (in this case the Mueller Report itself) that clearly and obviously proves xDaunt's statement to be incorrect. xDaunt the replies by claiming the excerpt from the Mueller Report is a cover story while providing no proof to back this claim up other than what it obviously xDaunt's opinion. This has been an increasingly common trend I've noticed. I feel like this rule has been somewhat forgotten the last few weeks. 1. Show, don't tell, and listen.
This one sounds simple enough, but political discussions on TL suffer from an ignorance of this cliché and oftentimes devolve accordingly. There is a huge difference between saying “Iran is a bloodthirsty despotic state” and showing how Iran could be considered bloodthirsty given particular evidence. If you can't tell the difference, don't bother posting. Furthermore, if you are here to simply pontificate, please do so elsewhere. The entire point of a forum such as TL is to foster communication, and posters who seek only to talk at others instead of with them will be ignored. If people are going to be making claims, especially ones that counter publicly available information from primary or well-cited secondary sources, they should be backing them up more than with personal opinion. This is getting old. There is no guideline that says what Gorsameth and others have been claiming regarding a prohibition on the DOJ's ability to conclude that the president likely committed a crime. The only prohibition is on the ability to indict. What Mueller does is cite that prohibition and then create an argument out of whole cloth justifying his not coming to a conclusion regarding whether to prosecute Trump. Anyone who can't distinguish between an actual guideline and someone's spin on existing guidelines should seriously reconsider their participation in this thread. EDIT: And if anyone disagrees with this, then go cite the guideline. I obviously can't prove a negative. But you should already know what I'm saying is correct just by reading the Mueller report and by looking at Barr's -- who is subject to the exact guidelines as Mueller -- conclusion that Trump did not commit a crime. That would be United States v. Briggs, 514 F.2d 794 (5th Cir. 1975). Why? And before you answer, you should consider the fact that the lawsuit concerns claims that are not too dissimilar from what Mueller did to Trump. Stated another way, the case supports my point that Mueller is a political hack. You wanted me to cite the basis behind Muellers reasoning, There it is. And yes I understand that ideally Trump wouldn't even be mentioned by name but that's kinda hard when he is the sole subject of that particular part of the investigation. I said it before, there was no clear line for Mueller to go Mueller has to deliver a report. He can't indict Trump as per DoJ guidelines. He shouldn't mention Trump if he can't indict as per United States v. Briggs. So what can he deliver? a blank page and a shrug? That sure would have put this matter to rest... What US v. Briggs suggests is that Mueller should have condensed all sections of his report concerning Trump down to a page or two stating that he did not find sufficient evidence of a prosecutable crime. What Mueller did, instead, is no different than what the grand jury did in US v. Briggs and which the court found so offensive. which would be a lie because he did find evidence. So what does he do then? Show nested quote +At the same time, if we had confidence after a
thorough investigation of the facts that the Pres ident 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.
No, it's not a lie at all. He didn't find sufficient evidence of a prosecutable crime per his report and per Barr who asked him explicitly whether the OLC guidelines prevented him making such determination. And besides, if he did find such evidence, then US v. Briggs says that Mueller should have actually stated as such rather than doing what Mueller did. Regardless of how you look at it, Mueller's report does not comply with US v. Briggs.
|
On May 05 2019 03:16 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2019 03:01 Danglars wrote:On May 05 2019 02:11 Kyadytim wrote:On May 05 2019 01:52 Danglars wrote:On May 05 2019 00:30 xDaunt wrote:On May 04 2019 19:39 Nouar wrote:On May 04 2019 07:09 xDaunt wrote:On May 04 2019 06:55 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On May 04 2019 06:45 xDaunt wrote:On May 04 2019 05:52 Danglars wrote:
I don't think a lot of these arguments are worth pursuing if sworn testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee functions similar to user opinions and are brushed off easily. It's sworn testimony under threat of perjury. It's specific to important questions raised by elected Democratic leaders. If it can't be cited as something concrete not to be lightly dismissed, then I'm feeding obvious trolls and shame on me for not recognizing their motives. What interests me about these conversations regarding the Mueller report is the persistent grasping at straws to keep the Russia conspiracy/obstruction narrative alive. The disconnect from reality for people still promoting this stuff is astounding. That people are struggling so much with with the idea that Mueller might be a political actor or that there is no dispute that he didn't conclude in his report that there was probable cause of a crime fascinates me, as does the inability of these same people to recognize how persistently wrong that they have been on all of this stuff for two+ years. The question that I have is what do these folks need to see to finally wake up? The Mueller report clearly isn't enough. Will the upcoming OIG report matter? Will declassification of the underlying investigation documents (FISA, etc) matter? Do we have to wait for criminal prosecutions and convictions of those involved? How much is really enough? I'll take a month ban if anyone ever gets convicted for the FISA nonsense. It's going to go the same road as the Seth Rich story or the busses full of immigrants doing election fraud story -> to the trashcan. I still don't understand why you are not concerned about any of the conduct reported in the Mueller report. It really shouldn't matter if criminal charges happen or not. Or how you brush aside all the charges that were brought to the people Trump worked closely with. Those aren't fake. Manafort is in prison. The conduct cited in the Mueller report isn't great and certainly not what I really want to see from my president. However, it can't be fairly viewed in a vacuum. Think about it from Trump's perspective. He has a rogue FBI director who is not only lying to him about the scope of the FBI's investigation into his campaign, but also refuses to publicly state that Trump isn't the subject of the investigation. He has hostile elements within his administration and the DOJ who are actively leaking false and incendiary shit to the press to insinuate that he's in bed with the Russians. Then, he has to deal with a dipshit AG who needlessly recuses himself, which ultimately results in the appointment of a special counsel who makes it quite obvious that the point of the investigation isn't looking into the veracity of the Russia/Trump collusion crap so much as it is creating the basis for an obstruction of justice charge. It can't be overstated how much Trump was under siege. Frankly, I'm amazed that he acted as well as he did. Now take the opposite view, and ask yourself from the viewpoint of DOJ/FBI what should you do when a candidate to the presidency and several members of his campaign are obviously publicly lying every step of the way, and trying to hide a boatload of interactions with a foreign power considered as an enemy. They HAD to investigate, and to avoid the appearance of interfering with a political campaign, to do it in a very low-key way. The steps that Trump has taken afterwards, raising an awful lot of doubt over obstruction, are self-inflicted since he thinks he's the ultimate boss and has no grasp on how to stay safe legally when in full public view (which I find somewhat strange since he has strived for public exposure his whole life, but as a private citizen that could litigate the hell out of everything he strong-armed through. So he also has a lot of experience of legal struggles). He incited doubt every step of the way due to his overall conduct, and nearly every action he has taken for the last 3 years kept raising doubts, due to his inability to be transparent. From meetings with Putin, to public statements, to lies, to drafting false reports, to trying to remove the SC (!?), to hiring crooks, compromised people and surrounding himself with idiots (only the best he said ! Remember he appointed Sessions)... I could go on several pages. It's so apparent he doesn't even know what the fuck he is doing (except selling his brand and craving exposure by doing crazy statements). No, I don't think he acted "as well as he did", as he did pretty damning things, as he created the conditions to his siege by his own behaviour and deserved all he got. That's what happens when you fire your whole transition team prior to the transition, and so have no one to vet for positions. People of experience who could explain what you should do and how to have a good presidency. But he didn't care about the country. We don't need to try to imagine things from the FBI's perspective. It's all out there in the open in the Mueller report, and it's highly lacking in that it utterly fails to identify a valid predicate for the investigations that took place. This is the United States. Not a banana republic. I have yet to see a valid justification for any of the spying that government agencies did upon Trump and his people. Hell, Comey and other former government officials didn't even have the decency to admit that they did engage in spying operations on Trump's people. And when Barr finally suggested that it did happen, they all had a hissy fit until the NYT ran a news story confirming that spying did happen. So let's cut the shit. Who fraudulently submitted unverified information to a FISA court to get a FISA warrant? Who has been dishonest about the true origins of Crossfire Hurricane from day 1? Who has refused to discuss who Mifsud really is? Who's really the liar here? It ain't Trump. I'm a little troubled by the European view of government espoused by our French poster here. a candidate to the presidency and several members of his campaign are obviously publicly lying every step of the way, and trying to hide a boatload of interactions with a foreign power considered as an enemy.They HAD to investigate, and to avoid the appearance of interfering with a political campaign, They HAD to investigate, because people like him disagree with foreign policy and hate public lying? Seriously? Where was he with the Obama administration and pallets of cash to the Iranian regime? I didn't like his Russian reset, and response to the invasion of Ukraine's Crimean peninsula. I should have been calling for a special counsel because of these "boatload of interactions with a foreign power considered as an enemy?" This is a farcical excuse for police state government. Your delusions do not justify domestic spying. That's banana republic junk, and I'm disturbed that there's people rationalizing the stupidest abuses of power just because of their dislike of a president. The proper response to a president if you feel the behavior towards Russia and the lying is just so bad is to vote the man out. It's just so absurd of an argument on it's face. Lying and coverup at every step of the investigation into Trump, and there's still some people out there that go full banana republic justice because they don't approve of what Trump does. For the rest of the thread: The Obama administration paid Iran money the US owed Iran from the 1970s plus interest. That Obama did something wrong is one of Trump's frequently repeated lies. On May 05 2019 02:10 KwarK wrote:
Danglars, Obama didn’t send cash to Iran, they unfroze Iranian assets that had been illegally seized by the US. That’s not the same thing. I know Fox News and Trump told you that he sent them cash because he’s a secret Muslim but that’s not actually what happened. If you wish to have a productive discussion then you can’t keep repeating fake news to people who are better informed than you. These talking points of yours only work within the cult of Trump where everyone has already collectively agreed to believe the lies. In a public debate you need to stick to truth. I'm pretty sure they actually did this and repay an old debt at around the same time. TRUMP: “The Iran deal is a terrible deal. We paid $150 billion. We gave $1.8 billion in cash. That’s actual cash, barrels of cash. It’s insane. It’s ridiculous. It should have never been made. But we will be talking about it.” — remarks before a meeting with French President Emmanuel Macron. At a news conference Tuesday, he spoke about “giving them, Iran, $150 billion at one point.”
THE FACTS: There was no $150 billion payout from the U.S. treasury. The money he refers to represents Iranian assets held abroad that were frozen until the deal was reached and Tehran was allowed to access its funds.
The payout of about $1.8 billion is a separate matter. That dates to the 1970s, when Iran paid the U.S. $400 million for military equipment that was never delivered because the government was overthrown and diplomatic relations ruptured.
That left people, businesses and governments in each country indebted to partners in the other, and these complex claims took decades to sort out in tribunals and arbitration. For its part, Iran paid settlements of more than $2.5 billion to U.S. citizens and businesses.
The day after the nuclear deal was implemented, the U.S. and Iran announced they had settled the claim over the 1970s military equipment order, with the U.S. agreeing to pay the $400 million principal along with about $1.3 billion in interest. The $400 million was paid in cash and flown to Tehran on a cargo plane, which gave rise to Trump’s dramatic accounts of money stuffed in barrels or boxes and delivered in the dead of night. The arrangement provided for the interest to be paid later, not crammed into containers. www.apnews.com All that’s missing is the $400 million was used to free American prisoners and done in secret. The trouble with state sponsors of terror is some Americans agree with asset freezes because Iran funds terrorist organizations currently aiming to kill Israeli civilians. It’s no longer some settling of debts. But we’re getting into the second phase of these discussions, which is you have your justifications for why you don’t mind financing terror (maybe a nuclear arms deal is worth cash up front!) and so do I for Trump joking about Hillary’s emails (wow, i thought he had back channels for that. What a shitty colluder he turned out to be). If you want to go nuclear on banana republic bullshit, you better be ready for the worst elected official you can think of using the same explanations right back at you. And the “and ours are the REAL conspiracies” will be laughed straight out of town, and rightly so. PS thanks for going through the effort to paste in confirmation of millions of dollars in cash on pallets airlifted to Iran, even with the aforementioned deficiencies. It’s a good division of labor. If you're going to make assertions like that, you need to source them. EDIT: Because your claim is false. That $400 million was part of the payment of owed money I mentioned. www.snopes.comThis is some high level whataboutism. Instead of "what about this other thing that happened," it's "what about this other thing that didn't happen, but I'm asserting happened."
U.S. Transferred $1.3 Billion More in Cash to Iran After Initial Payment
First $400 million coincided with Iran’s release of American prisoners and was used as leverage, officials have acknowledged
WSJ
The Obama administration secretly arranged a plane delivery of $400 million in cash on the same day Iran released four American prisoners and formally implemented the nuclear deal, US officials confirmed Wednesday.
CNN
Chill out. I just explained why Americans would find it objectionable, the whole funding terrorist acts against our ally Israel and others. And this reporting occurred in August-September about secret transfer of pallets of cash back in January-February. It’s an apt comparison. When you call your fears (and paranoia, honestly) justification for broad surveillance and investigation, you’re just proving that you’re no friend to representative government and a free society. You’re incautious and authoritarian of a different stripe. It won’t matter until it’s your ox being gored, and then it’s unfair and unjust and all that.
It’s the simple fact that Trump’s lies and his foreign policy with regards to Russia is only justification for partisans. You need valid predicates, as xDaunt has hammered repeatedly, but has never been absorbed. It’s the Stasi and banana republics that conduct themselves this way. That’s why I’m happy that Barr’s looking into the matter. This stuff is important. Go practice supranational irresponsible governments in the EU and propel far right backlash over there.
|
Mueller states quite explicitly that he didn't not find sufficient evidence.
As for the above post, I'm sorry to say but we know that's not how it happened, so in this case CNN was wrong. As for WSJ, they've basically become just another wing of the republican extremist propaganda machine, it's been years since they've had a factual and not horribly right skewed article.
|
On May 05 2019 05:27 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2019 05:12 Gorsameth wrote:On May 05 2019 05:11 xDaunt wrote:On May 05 2019 05:05 Gorsameth wrote:On May 05 2019 04:57 xDaunt wrote:On May 05 2019 04:33 Gorsameth wrote:On May 05 2019 03:25 xDaunt wrote:On May 05 2019 03:01 Ben... wrote:On May 05 2019 02:10 KwarK wrote:
Danglars, Obama didn’t send cash to Iran, they unfroze Iranian assets that had been illegally seized by the US. That’s not the same thing. I know Fox News and Trump told you that he sent them cash because he’s a secret Muslim but that’s not actually what happened. If you wish to have a productive discussion then you can’t keep repeating fake news to people who are better informed than you. These talking points of yours only work within the cult of Trump where everyone has already collectively agreed to believe the lies. In a public debate you need to stick to truth. This is becoming an increasingly noticeable issue in this thread. You can't have a conversation about an issue if some people are making the claim that facts are not facts. This exchange comes to mind for me: On May 03 2019 00:26 Gorsameth wrote:On May 03 2019 00:25 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
This is an incorrect reading of the OLC guidelines. The OLC guideline did not prevent Mueller from making a decision on prosecution or a finding that there was a prosecutable crime. All that OLC guideline says is that the president cannot be indicted while in office. Presuming that this is enforceable (certainly not guaranteed), a president could still be indicted for the crime after leaving office. So when Barr says that he is "surprised" that Mueller didn't make a decision on obstruction, this is the legal backdrop. There wasn't a good reason for Mueller not to make a decision. Mueller was simply playing politics. And Barr knows it. fairness guidelines. Don't make a judgement when you can't indict and that person can't defend himself in court. Its in the report. 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 May 03 2019 00:32 xDaunt wrote:
That's the cover story. It doesn't change the accuracy of anything that I said. And again, the fact that I'm right becomes very apparent once you dig into the details of what the obstruction charges might be. They're all bullshit, because there was no underlying crime, Trump didn't actually do anything that materially impeded any investigation, and he had legitimate reasons for taking the limited actions that he did take. None of the chronicled episodes of obstruction would hold up in court. Mueller knows this, as does Barr. xDaunt makes a claim that Gorsameth rebuts citing primary source information (in this case the Mueller Report itself) that clearly and obviously proves xDaunt's statement to be incorrect. xDaunt the replies by claiming the excerpt from the Mueller Report is a cover story while providing no proof to back this claim up other than what it obviously xDaunt's opinion. This has been an increasingly common trend I've noticed. I feel like this rule has been somewhat forgotten the last few weeks. 1. Show, don't tell, and listen.
This one sounds simple enough, but political discussions on TL suffer from an ignorance of this cliché and oftentimes devolve accordingly. There is a huge difference between saying “Iran is a bloodthirsty despotic state” and showing how Iran could be considered bloodthirsty given particular evidence. If you can't tell the difference, don't bother posting. Furthermore, if you are here to simply pontificate, please do so elsewhere. The entire point of a forum such as TL is to foster communication, and posters who seek only to talk at others instead of with them will be ignored. If people are going to be making claims, especially ones that counter publicly available information from primary or well-cited secondary sources, they should be backing them up more than with personal opinion. This is getting old. There is no guideline that says what Gorsameth and others have been claiming regarding a prohibition on the DOJ's ability to conclude that the president likely committed a crime. The only prohibition is on the ability to indict. What Mueller does is cite that prohibition and then create an argument out of whole cloth justifying his not coming to a conclusion regarding whether to prosecute Trump. Anyone who can't distinguish between an actual guideline and someone's spin on existing guidelines should seriously reconsider their participation in this thread. EDIT: And if anyone disagrees with this, then go cite the guideline. I obviously can't prove a negative. But you should already know what I'm saying is correct just by reading the Mueller report and by looking at Barr's -- who is subject to the exact guidelines as Mueller -- conclusion that Trump did not commit a crime. That would be United States v. Briggs, 514 F.2d 794 (5th Cir. 1975). Why? And before you answer, you should consider the fact that the lawsuit concerns claims that are not too dissimilar from what Mueller did to Trump. Stated another way, the case supports my point that Mueller is a political hack. You wanted me to cite the basis behind Muellers reasoning, There it is. And yes I understand that ideally Trump wouldn't even be mentioned by name but that's kinda hard when he is the sole subject of that particular part of the investigation. I said it before, there was no clear line for Mueller to go Mueller has to deliver a report. He can't indict Trump as per DoJ guidelines. He shouldn't mention Trump if he can't indict as per United States v. Briggs. So what can he deliver? a blank page and a shrug? That sure would have put this matter to rest... What US v. Briggs suggests is that Mueller should have condensed all sections of his report concerning Trump down to a page or two stating that he did not find sufficient evidence of a prosecutable crime. What Mueller did, instead, is no different than what the grand jury did in US v. Briggs and which the court found so offensive. which would be a lie because he did find evidence. So what does he do then? At the same time, if we had confidence after a
thorough investigation of the facts that the Pres ident 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. No, it's not a lie at all. He didn't find sufficient evidence of a prosecutable crime per his report and per Barr who asked him explicitly whether the OLC guidelines prevented him making such determination. And besides, if he did find such evidence, then US v. Briggs says that Mueller should have actually stated as such rather than doing what Mueller did. Regardless of how you look at it, Mueller's report does not comply with US v. Briggs. Why does US vs Briggs state that Mueller should have said there was evidence if he can't indict? Surely that goes entirely against that case?
|
On May 05 2019 05:33 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2019 05:27 xDaunt wrote:On May 05 2019 05:12 Gorsameth wrote:On May 05 2019 05:11 xDaunt wrote:On May 05 2019 05:05 Gorsameth wrote:On May 05 2019 04:57 xDaunt wrote:On May 05 2019 04:33 Gorsameth wrote:On May 05 2019 03:25 xDaunt wrote:On May 05 2019 03:01 Ben... wrote:On May 05 2019 02:10 KwarK wrote:
Danglars, Obama didn’t send cash to Iran, they unfroze Iranian assets that had been illegally seized by the US. That’s not the same thing. I know Fox News and Trump told you that he sent them cash because he’s a secret Muslim but that’s not actually what happened. If you wish to have a productive discussion then you can’t keep repeating fake news to people who are better informed than you. These talking points of yours only work within the cult of Trump where everyone has already collectively agreed to believe the lies. In a public debate you need to stick to truth. This is becoming an increasingly noticeable issue in this thread. You can't have a conversation about an issue if some people are making the claim that facts are not facts. This exchange comes to mind for me: On May 03 2019 00:26 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]fairness guidelines. Don't make a judgement when you can't indict and that person can't defend himself in court.
Its in the report.
[quote] On May 03 2019 00:32 xDaunt wrote:
That's the cover story. It doesn't change the accuracy of anything that I said. And again, the fact that I'm right becomes very apparent once you dig into the details of what the obstruction charges might be. They're all bullshit, because there was no underlying crime, Trump didn't actually do anything that materially impeded any investigation, and he had legitimate reasons for taking the limited actions that he did take. None of the chronicled episodes of obstruction would hold up in court. Mueller knows this, as does Barr. xDaunt makes a claim that Gorsameth rebuts citing primary source information (in this case the Mueller Report itself) that clearly and obviously proves xDaunt's statement to be incorrect. xDaunt the replies by claiming the excerpt from the Mueller Report is a cover story while providing no proof to back this claim up other than what it obviously xDaunt's opinion. This has been an increasingly common trend I've noticed. I feel like this rule has been somewhat forgotten the last few weeks. 1. Show, don't tell, and listen.
This one sounds simple enough, but political discussions on TL suffer from an ignorance of this cliché and oftentimes devolve accordingly. There is a huge difference between saying “Iran is a bloodthirsty despotic state” and showing how Iran could be considered bloodthirsty given particular evidence. If you can't tell the difference, don't bother posting. Furthermore, if you are here to simply pontificate, please do so elsewhere. The entire point of a forum such as TL is to foster communication, and posters who seek only to talk at others instead of with them will be ignored. If people are going to be making claims, especially ones that counter publicly available information from primary or well-cited secondary sources, they should be backing them up more than with personal opinion. This is getting old. There is no guideline that says what Gorsameth and others have been claiming regarding a prohibition on the DOJ's ability to conclude that the president likely committed a crime. The only prohibition is on the ability to indict. What Mueller does is cite that prohibition and then create an argument out of whole cloth justifying his not coming to a conclusion regarding whether to prosecute Trump. Anyone who can't distinguish between an actual guideline and someone's spin on existing guidelines should seriously reconsider their participation in this thread. EDIT: And if anyone disagrees with this, then go cite the guideline. I obviously can't prove a negative. But you should already know what I'm saying is correct just by reading the Mueller report and by looking at Barr's -- who is subject to the exact guidelines as Mueller -- conclusion that Trump did not commit a crime. That would be United States v. Briggs, 514 F.2d 794 (5th Cir. 1975). Why? And before you answer, you should consider the fact that the lawsuit concerns claims that are not too dissimilar from what Mueller did to Trump. Stated another way, the case supports my point that Mueller is a political hack. You wanted me to cite the basis behind Muellers reasoning, There it is. And yes I understand that ideally Trump wouldn't even be mentioned by name but that's kinda hard when he is the sole subject of that particular part of the investigation. I said it before, there was no clear line for Mueller to go Mueller has to deliver a report. He can't indict Trump as per DoJ guidelines. He shouldn't mention Trump if he can't indict as per United States v. Briggs. So what can he deliver? a blank page and a shrug? That sure would have put this matter to rest... What US v. Briggs suggests is that Mueller should have condensed all sections of his report concerning Trump down to a page or two stating that he did not find sufficient evidence of a prosecutable crime. What Mueller did, instead, is no different than what the grand jury did in US v. Briggs and which the court found so offensive. which would be a lie because he did find evidence. So what does he do then? At the same time, if we had confidence after a
thorough investigation of the facts that the Pres ident 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. No, it's not a lie at all. He didn't find sufficient evidence of a prosecutable crime per his report and per Barr who asked him explicitly whether the OLC guidelines prevented him making such determination. And besides, if he did find such evidence, then US v. Briggs says that Mueller should have actually stated as such rather than doing what Mueller did. Regardless of how you look at it, Mueller's report does not comply with US v. Briggs. Why does US vs Briggs state that Mueller should have said there was evidence if he can't indict? Surely that goes entirely against that case?
US v. Briggs says that prosecutors should not tarnish suspects if there is no criminal prosecution. Regardless of his reasons for not indicting and prosecuting Trump, the fact of the matter is that Mueller clearly tarnishes Trump without indicting or prosecuting him. That's not allowed.
So the issue then becomes what should a prosecutor do when there is sufficient evidence that a crime has been committed yet some technical point of law prevents immediate -- but not eventual -- prosecution? US v. Briggs doesn't clearly address this point, but there is certainly nothing inconsistent in that case with the idea that the prosecutor should simply state that there is sufficient evidence of a prosecutable crime, thereby opening the door to prosecution at a later date. Regardless, it is clear that what Mueller did in failing to reach any definitive conclusion on the obstruction charge is improper under US v. Briggs.
Trump's attorneys have laid out Mueller's unethical conduct in quite a bit of detail in a letter to Barr. Even they acknowledge that there was nothing stopping Mueller from making a prosecutorial decision and they argue quite vociferously that he should have done just that rather than what he did.
|
On May 05 2019 05:48 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2019 05:33 Gorsameth wrote:On May 05 2019 05:27 xDaunt wrote:On May 05 2019 05:12 Gorsameth wrote:On May 05 2019 05:11 xDaunt wrote:On May 05 2019 05:05 Gorsameth wrote:On May 05 2019 04:57 xDaunt wrote:On May 05 2019 04:33 Gorsameth wrote:On May 05 2019 03:25 xDaunt wrote:On May 05 2019 03:01 Ben... wrote:
[quote]
This is becoming an increasingly noticeable issue in this thread. You can't have a conversation about an issue if some people are making the claim that facts are not facts.
This exchange comes to mind for me:
[quote][quote]
xDaunt makes a claim that Gorsameth rebuts citing primary source information (in this case the Mueller Report itself) that clearly and obviously proves xDaunt's statement to be incorrect. xDaunt the replies by claiming the excerpt from the Mueller Report is a cover story while providing no proof to back this claim up other than what it obviously xDaunt's opinion. This has been an increasingly common trend I've noticed.
I feel like this rule has been somewhat forgotten the last few weeks.
[quote]
If people are going to be making claims, especially ones that counter publicly available information from primary or well-cited secondary sources, they should be backing them up more than with personal opinion.
This is getting old. There is no guideline that says what Gorsameth and others have been claiming regarding a prohibition on the DOJ's ability to conclude that the president likely committed a crime. The only prohibition is on the ability to indict. What Mueller does is cite that prohibition and then create an argument out of whole cloth justifying his not coming to a conclusion regarding whether to prosecute Trump. Anyone who can't distinguish between an actual guideline and someone's spin on existing guidelines should seriously reconsider their participation in this thread. EDIT: And if anyone disagrees with this, then go cite the guideline. I obviously can't prove a negative. But you should already know what I'm saying is correct just by reading the Mueller report and by looking at Barr's -- who is subject to the exact guidelines as Mueller -- conclusion that Trump did not commit a crime. That would be United States v. Briggs, 514 F.2d 794 (5th Cir. 1975). Why? And before you answer, you should consider the fact that the lawsuit concerns claims that are not too dissimilar from what Mueller did to Trump. Stated another way, the case supports my point that Mueller is a political hack. You wanted me to cite the basis behind Muellers reasoning, There it is. And yes I understand that ideally Trump wouldn't even be mentioned by name but that's kinda hard when he is the sole subject of that particular part of the investigation. I said it before, there was no clear line for Mueller to go Mueller has to deliver a report. He can't indict Trump as per DoJ guidelines. He shouldn't mention Trump if he can't indict as per United States v. Briggs. So what can he deliver? a blank page and a shrug? That sure would have put this matter to rest... What US v. Briggs suggests is that Mueller should have condensed all sections of his report concerning Trump down to a page or two stating that he did not find sufficient evidence of a prosecutable crime. What Mueller did, instead, is no different than what the grand jury did in US v. Briggs and which the court found so offensive. which would be a lie because he did find evidence. So what does he do then? At the same time, if we had confidence after a
thorough investigation of the facts that the Pres ident 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. No, it's not a lie at all. He didn't find sufficient evidence of a prosecutable crime per his report and per Barr who asked him explicitly whether the OLC guidelines prevented him making such determination. And besides, if he did find such evidence, then US v. Briggs says that Mueller should have actually stated as such rather than doing what Mueller did. Regardless of how you look at it, Mueller's report does not comply with US v. Briggs. Why does US vs Briggs state that Mueller should have said there was evidence if he can't indict? Surely that goes entirely against that case? US v. Briggs says that prosecutors should not tarnish suspects if there is no criminal prosecution. Regardless of his reasons for not indicting and prosecuting Trump, the fact of the matter is that Mueller clearly tarnishes Trump without indicting or prosecuting him. That's not allowed. So the issue then becomes what should a prosecutor do when there is sufficient evidence that a crime has been committed yet some technical point of law prevents immediate -- but not eventual -- prosecution? US v. Briggs doesn't clearly address this point, but there is certainly nothing inconsistent in that case with the idea that the prosecutor should simply state that there is sufficient evidence of a prosecutable crime, thereby opening the door to prosecution at a later date. Regardless, it is clear that what Mueller did in failing to reach any definitive conclusion on the obstruction charge is improper under US v. Briggs. Trump's attorneys have laid out Mueller's unethical conduct in quite a bit of detail in a letter to Barr. Even they acknowledge that there was nothing stopping Mueller from making a prosecutorial decision and they argue quite vociferously that he should have done just that rather than what he did. Fair enough, if your going to have to make some statement be the clearest you can be, I can understand that.
As for the White House's letter, can a President retroactively claim executive privilege over subject matter that it previously waived such rights on like the WH appears to be doing now?
I (and Mueller in his report) also object to the notion that the WH has been entirely transparent based on Trump's refusal to be interviewed, his written answers and his refusal to answer followup written questions.
|
The waiver of a privilege is generally controlled by the privilege holder. Privilege holders can make limited waivers of the privilege (ie disclose something to some people but not to others). What Flood is saying is that just because the White House waived privilege for the purposes of the Mueller investigation does not mean that everyone (ie Congress) now gets to dive into Trump's affairs. Specifically, what Flood is really saying is that the White House is going to block any attempt by Congress to subpoena McGahn.
As for Trump's transparency, you can ding him if you want for not allowing himself to be interviewed by Mueller. But it doesn't change the fact that Trump gave Mueller virtually everything else that he wanted.
|
On May 05 2019 06:41 xDaunt wrote:
The waiver of a privilege is generally controlled by the privilege holder. Privilege holders can make limited waivers of the privilege (ie disclose something to some people but not to others). What Flood is saying is that just because the White House waived privilege for the purposes of the Mueller investigation does not mean that everyone (ie Congress) now gets to dive into Trump's affairs. Specifically, what Flood is really saying is that the White House is going to block any attempt by Congress to subpoena McGahn.
As for Trump's transparency, you can ding him if you want for not allowing himself to be interviewed by Mueller. But it doesn't change the fact that Trump gave Mueller virtually everything else that he wanted.
Except for the truth, and trump attempted to have Mueller removed, but failed only because his own "best people" wouldn't listen to him. And constantly attacked him on twitter. But hey, who's counting right?
|
On May 05 2019 02:05 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2019 01:52 Danglars wrote:On May 05 2019 00:30 xDaunt wrote:On May 04 2019 19:39 Nouar wrote:On May 04 2019 07:09 xDaunt wrote:On May 04 2019 06:55 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On May 04 2019 06:45 xDaunt wrote:On May 04 2019 05:52 Danglars wrote:
I don't think a lot of these arguments are worth pursuing if sworn testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee functions similar to user opinions and are brushed off easily. It's sworn testimony under threat of perjury. It's specific to important questions raised by elected Democratic leaders. If it can't be cited as something concrete not to be lightly dismissed, then I'm feeding obvious trolls and shame on me for not recognizing their motives. What interests me about these conversations regarding the Mueller report is the persistent grasping at straws to keep the Russia conspiracy/obstruction narrative alive. The disconnect from reality for people still promoting this stuff is astounding. That people are struggling so much with with the idea that Mueller might be a political actor or that there is no dispute that he didn't conclude in his report that there was probable cause of a crime fascinates me, as does the inability of these same people to recognize how persistently wrong that they have been on all of this stuff for two+ years. The question that I have is what do these folks need to see to finally wake up? The Mueller report clearly isn't enough. Will the upcoming OIG report matter? Will declassification of the underlying investigation documents (FISA, etc) matter? Do we have to wait for criminal prosecutions and convictions of those involved? How much is really enough? I'll take a month ban if anyone ever gets convicted for the FISA nonsense. It's going to go the same road as the Seth Rich story or the busses full of immigrants doing election fraud story -> to the trashcan. I still don't understand why you are not concerned about any of the conduct reported in the Mueller report. It really shouldn't matter if criminal charges happen or not. Or how you brush aside all the charges that were brought to the people Trump worked closely with. Those aren't fake. Manafort is in prison. The conduct cited in the Mueller report isn't great and certainly not what I really want to see from my president. However, it can't be fairly viewed in a vacuum. Think about it from Trump's perspective. He has a rogue FBI director who is not only lying to him about the scope of the FBI's investigation into his campaign, but also refuses to publicly state that Trump isn't the subject of the investigation. He has hostile elements within his administration and the DOJ who are actively leaking false and incendiary shit to the press to insinuate that he's in bed with the Russians. Then, he has to deal with a dipshit AG who needlessly recuses himself, which ultimately results in the appointment of a special counsel who makes it quite obvious that the point of the investigation isn't looking into the veracity of the Russia/Trump collusion crap so much as it is creating the basis for an obstruction of justice charge. It can't be overstated how much Trump was under siege. Frankly, I'm amazed that he acted as well as he did. Now take the opposite view, and ask yourself from the viewpoint of DOJ/FBI what should you do when a candidate to the presidency and several members of his campaign are obviously publicly lying every step of the way, and trying to hide a boatload of interactions with a foreign power considered as an enemy. They HAD to investigate, and to avoid the appearance of interfering with a political campaign, to do it in a very low-key way. The steps that Trump has taken afterwards, raising an awful lot of doubt over obstruction, are self-inflicted since he thinks he's the ultimate boss and has no grasp on how to stay safe legally when in full public view (which I find somewhat strange since he has strived for public exposure his whole life, but as a private citizen that could litigate the hell out of everything he strong-armed through. So he also has a lot of experience of legal struggles). He incited doubt every step of the way due to his overall conduct, and nearly every action he has taken for the last 3 years kept raising doubts, due to his inability to be transparent. From meetings with Putin, to public statements, to lies, to drafting false reports, to trying to remove the SC (!?), to hiring crooks, compromised people and surrounding himself with idiots (only the best he said ! Remember he appointed Sessions)... I could go on several pages. It's so apparent he doesn't even know what the fuck he is doing (except selling his brand and craving exposure by doing crazy statements). No, I don't think he acted "as well as he did", as he did pretty damning things, as he created the conditions to his siege by his own behaviour and deserved all he got. That's what happens when you fire your whole transition team prior to the transition, and so have no one to vet for positions. People of experience who could explain what you should do and how to have a good presidency. But he didn't care about the country. We don't need to try to imagine things from the FBI's perspective. It's all out there in the open in the Mueller report, and it's highly lacking in that it utterly fails to identify a valid predicate for the investigations that took place. This is the United States. Not a banana republic. I have yet to see a valid justification for any of the spying that government agencies did upon Trump and his people. Hell, Comey and other former government officials didn't even have the decency to admit that they did engage in spying operations on Trump's people. And when Barr finally suggested that it did happen, they all had a hissy fit until the NYT ran a news story confirming that spying did happen. So let's cut the shit. Who fraudulently submitted unverified information to a FISA court to get a FISA warrant? Who has been dishonest about the true origins of Crossfire Hurricane from day 1? Who has refused to discuss who Mifsud really is? Who's really the liar here? It ain't Trump. I'm a little troubled by the European view of government espoused by our French poster here. a candidate to the presidency and several members of his campaign are obviously publicly lying every step of the way, and trying to hide a boatload of interactions with a foreign power considered as an enemy.They HAD to investigate, and to avoid the appearance of interfering with a political campaign, They HAD to investigate, because people like him disagree with foreign policy and hate public lying? Seriously? Where was he with the Obama administration and pallets of cash to the Iranian regime? I didn't like his Russian reset, and response to the invasion of Ukraine's Crimean peninsula. I should have been calling for a special counsel because of these "boatload of interactions with a foreign power considered as an enemy?" This is a farcical excuse for police state government. Your delusions do not justify domestic spying. That's banana republic junk, and I'm disturbed that there's people rationalizing the stupidest abuses of power just because of their dislike of a president. The proper response to a president if you feel the behavior towards Russia and the lying is just so bad is to vote the man out. It's just so absurd of an argument on it's face. Lying and coverup at every step of the investigation into Trump, and there's still some people out there that go full banana republic justice because they don't approve of what Trump does. The part that is so hilarious is that everyone who supports what the FBI/DOJ did doesn't understand the basic principle that only criminal acts warrant criminal investigation. They point to all of this stuff that Trump did (and even is alleged to have done, but didn't do), but they never are able to articulate what the crime is or may be. This is Civics 101 shit that they can't account for. Yet somehow we're the ones who are off our rockers.
The interactions Trump campaign had with Russia was when he was NOT president and he hired people that were known to be working for foreign powers and didn't vet them. The behaviour that increases the doubt in his actions (and warrants investigation, by congress, you know, your constitution) was him taking steps to increase this doubt.
You and Danglars speaking of civics 101 and a banana republic about fisa and fbi, when the Republicans have been the ones to mainly initiate the world scale spying of the world communications including your own citizens without any mandate or basis for a crime, to look for keywords in communications, is awesome, and until you admit that you are defending a crook that might get busted on the basis of lawful (while shady and questionable) actions taken by investigators (that are lawful only in the us due to your previous administrations), I won't engage further.
My country does troubling shit as well, but nothing to that level. However we do follow leads from our press when a candidate, say, received gifts from someone else or hires his wife and children on public funds, and we boot them. We do not let our DOJ change rules on the emoluments clause to allow foreign powers to gift money to the president by purposefully letting them go to his hotels, and we have him go to his official holiday house and not to his own property, where he bills the secret service and others full rate on public funds to enrich himself.
Now, THAT is a banana republic to me.
On May 05 2019 03:01 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2019 02:11 Kyadytim wrote:On May 05 2019 01:52 Danglars wrote:On May 05 2019 00:30 xDaunt wrote:On May 04 2019 19:39 Nouar wrote:On May 04 2019 07:09 xDaunt wrote:On May 04 2019 06:55 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On May 04 2019 06:45 xDaunt wrote:On May 04 2019 05:52 Danglars wrote:
I don't think a lot of these arguments are worth pursuing if sworn testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee functions similar to user opinions and are brushed off easily. It's sworn testimony under threat of perjury. It's specific to important questions raised by elected Democratic leaders. If it can't be cited as something concrete not to be lightly dismissed, then I'm feeding obvious trolls and shame on me for not recognizing their motives. What interests me about these conversations regarding the Mueller report is the persistent grasping at straws to keep the Russia conspiracy/obstruction narrative alive. The disconnect from reality for people still promoting this stuff is astounding. That people are struggling so much with with the idea that Mueller might be a political actor or that there is no dispute that he didn't conclude in his report that there was probable cause of a crime fascinates me, as does the inability of these same people to recognize how persistently wrong that they have been on all of this stuff for two+ years. The question that I have is what do these folks need to see to finally wake up? The Mueller report clearly isn't enough. Will the upcoming OIG report matter? Will declassification of the underlying investigation documents (FISA, etc) matter? Do we have to wait for criminal prosecutions and convictions of those involved? How much is really enough? I'll take a month ban if anyone ever gets convicted for the FISA nonsense. It's going to go the same road as the Seth Rich story or the busses full of immigrants doing election fraud story -> to the trashcan. I still don't understand why you are not concerned about any of the conduct reported in the Mueller report. It really shouldn't matter if criminal charges happen or not. Or how you brush aside all the charges that were brought to the people Trump worked closely with. Those aren't fake. Manafort is in prison. The conduct cited in the Mueller report isn't great and certainly not what I really want to see from my president. However, it can't be fairly viewed in a vacuum. Think about it from Trump's perspective. He has a rogue FBI director who is not only lying to him about the scope of the FBI's investigation into his campaign, but also refuses to publicly state that Trump isn't the subject of the investigation. He has hostile elements within his administration and the DOJ who are actively leaking false and incendiary shit to the press to insinuate that he's in bed with the Russians. Then, he has to deal with a dipshit AG who needlessly recuses himself, which ultimately results in the appointment of a special counsel who makes it quite obvious that the point of the investigation isn't looking into the veracity of the Russia/Trump collusion crap so much as it is creating the basis for an obstruction of justice charge. It can't be overstated how much Trump was under siege. Frankly, I'm amazed that he acted as well as he did. Now take the opposite view, and ask yourself from the viewpoint of DOJ/FBI what should you do when a candidate to the presidency and several members of his campaign are obviously publicly lying every step of the way, and trying to hide a boatload of interactions with a foreign power considered as an enemy. They HAD to investigate, and to avoid the appearance of interfering with a political campaign, to do it in a very low-key way. The steps that Trump has taken afterwards, raising an awful lot of doubt over obstruction, are self-inflicted since he thinks he's the ultimate boss and has no grasp on how to stay safe legally when in full public view (which I find somewhat strange since he has strived for public exposure his whole life, but as a private citizen that could litigate the hell out of everything he strong-armed through. So he also has a lot of experience of legal struggles). He incited doubt every step of the way due to his overall conduct, and nearly every action he has taken for the last 3 years kept raising doubts, due to his inability to be transparent. From meetings with Putin, to public statements, to lies, to drafting false reports, to trying to remove the SC (!?), to hiring crooks, compromised people and surrounding himself with idiots (only the best he said ! Remember he appointed Sessions)... I could go on several pages. It's so apparent he doesn't even know what the fuck he is doing (except selling his brand and craving exposure by doing crazy statements). No, I don't think he acted "as well as he did", as he did pretty damning things, as he created the conditions to his siege by his own behaviour and deserved all he got. That's what happens when you fire your whole transition team prior to the transition, and so have no one to vet for positions. People of experience who could explain what you should do and how to have a good presidency. But he didn't care about the country. We don't need to try to imagine things from the FBI's perspective. It's all out there in the open in the Mueller report, and it's highly lacking in that it utterly fails to identify a valid predicate for the investigations that took place. This is the United States. Not a banana republic. I have yet to see a valid justification for any of the spying that government agencies did upon Trump and his people. Hell, Comey and other former government officials didn't even have the decency to admit that they did engage in spying operations on Trump's people. And when Barr finally suggested that it did happen, they all had a hissy fit until the NYT ran a news story confirming that spying did happen. So let's cut the shit. Who fraudulently submitted unverified information to a FISA court to get a FISA warrant? Who has been dishonest about the true origins of Crossfire Hurricane from day 1? Who has refused to discuss who Mifsud really is? Who's really the liar here? It ain't Trump. I'm a little troubled by the European view of government espoused by our French poster here. a candidate to the presidency and several members of his campaign are obviously publicly lying every step of the way, and trying to hide a boatload of interactions with a foreign power considered as an enemy.They HAD to investigate, and to avoid the appearance of interfering with a political campaign, They HAD to investigate, because people like him disagree with foreign policy and hate public lying? Seriously? Where was he with the Obama administration and pallets of cash to the Iranian regime? I didn't like his Russian reset, and response to the invasion of Ukraine's Crimean peninsula. I should have been calling for a special counsel because of these "boatload of interactions with a foreign power considered as an enemy?" This is a farcical excuse for police state government. Your delusions do not justify domestic spying. That's banana republic junk, and I'm disturbed that there's people rationalizing the stupidest abuses of power just because of their dislike of a president. The proper response to a president if you feel the behavior towards Russia and the lying is just so bad is to vote the man out. It's just so absurd of an argument on it's face. Lying and coverup at every step of the investigation into Trump, and there's still some people out there that go full banana republic justice because they don't approve of what Trump does. For the rest of the thread: The Obama administration paid Iran money the US owed Iran from the 1970s plus interest. That Obama did something wrong is one of Trump's frequently repeated lies. On May 05 2019 02:10 KwarK wrote:
Danglars, Obama didn’t send cash to Iran, they unfroze Iranian assets that had been illegally seized by the US. That’s not the same thing. I know Fox News and Trump told you that he sent them cash because he’s a secret Muslim but that’s not actually what happened. If you wish to have a productive discussion then you can’t keep repeating fake news to people who are better informed than you. These talking points of yours only work within the cult of Trump where everyone has already collectively agreed to believe the lies. In a public debate you need to stick to truth. I'm pretty sure they actually did this and repay an old debt at around the same time. TRUMP: “The Iran deal is a terrible deal. We paid $150 billion. We gave $1.8 billion in cash. That’s actual cash, barrels of cash. It’s insane. It’s ridiculous. It should have never been made. But we will be talking about it.” — remarks before a meeting with French President Emmanuel Macron. At a news conference Tuesday, he spoke about “giving them, Iran, $150 billion at one point.”
THE FACTS: There was no $150 billion payout from the U.S. treasury. The money he refers to represents Iranian assets held abroad that were frozen until the deal was reached and Tehran was allowed to access its funds.
The payout of about $1.8 billion is a separate matter. That dates to the 1970s, when Iran paid the U.S. $400 million for military equipment that was never delivered because the government was overthrown and diplomatic relations ruptured.
That left people, businesses and governments in each country indebted to partners in the other, and these complex claims took decades to sort out in tribunals and arbitration. For its part, Iran paid settlements of more than $2.5 billion to U.S. citizens and businesses.
The day after the nuclear deal was implemented, the U.S. and Iran announced they had settled the claim over the 1970s military equipment order, with the U.S. agreeing to pay the $400 million principal along with about $1.3 billion in interest. The $400 million was paid in cash and flown to Tehran on a cargo plane, which gave rise to Trump’s dramatic accounts of money stuffed in barrels or boxes and delivered in the dead of night. The arrangement provided for the interest to be paid later, not crammed into containers. www.apnews.com All that’s missing is the $400 million was used to free American prisoners and done in secret. The trouble with state sponsors of terror is some Americans agree with asset freezes because Iran funds terrorist organizations currently aiming to kill Israeli civilians. It’s no longer some settling of debts. But we’re getting into the second phase of these discussions, which is you have your justifications for why you don’t mind financing terror (maybe a nuclear arms deal is worth cash up front!) and so do I for Trump joking about Hillary’s emails (wow, i thought he had back channels for that. What a shitty colluder he turned out to be). If you want to go nuclear on banana republic bullshit, you better be ready for the worst elected official you can think of using the same explanations right back at you. And the “and ours are the REAL conspiracies” will be laughed straight out of town, and rightly so. PS thanks for going through the effort to paste in confirmation of millions of dollars in cash on pallets airlifted to Iran, even with the aforementioned deficiencies. It’s a good division of labor.
Secret but legal? Sounds like a president's job. He was trying to unfreeze relations with Iran, you know, they signed a nuclear treaty and such, and if that money was illegally frozen, respecting the law (banana republic you know? Rule of law, etc) Is good, even better if you get hostages back. I don't see you complaining about providing money to SA. They sponsor (and have for decades), quite a bit of terrorism :-)
|
On May 05 2019 17:09 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2019 02:05 xDaunt wrote:On May 05 2019 01:52 Danglars wrote:On May 05 2019 00:30 xDaunt wrote:On May 04 2019 19:39 Nouar wrote:On May 04 2019 07:09 xDaunt wrote:On May 04 2019 06:55 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On May 04 2019 06:45 xDaunt wrote:On May 04 2019 05:52 Danglars wrote:
I don't think a lot of these arguments are worth pursuing if sworn testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee functions similar to user opinions and are brushed off easily. It's sworn testimony under threat of perjury. It's specific to important questions raised by elected Democratic leaders. If it can't be cited as something concrete not to be lightly dismissed, then I'm feeding obvious trolls and shame on me for not recognizing their motives. What interests me about these conversations regarding the Mueller report is the persistent grasping at straws to keep the Russia conspiracy/obstruction narrative alive. The disconnect from reality for people still promoting this stuff is astounding. That people are struggling so much with with the idea that Mueller might be a political actor or that there is no dispute that he didn't conclude in his report that there was probable cause of a crime fascinates me, as does the inability of these same people to recognize how persistently wrong that they have been on all of this stuff for two+ years. The question that I have is what do these folks need to see to finally wake up? The Mueller report clearly isn't enough. Will the upcoming OIG report matter? Will declassification of the underlying investigation documents (FISA, etc) matter? Do we have to wait for criminal prosecutions and convictions of those involved? How much is really enough? I'll take a month ban if anyone ever gets convicted for the FISA nonsense. It's going to go the same road as the Seth Rich story or the busses full of immigrants doing election fraud story -> to the trashcan. I still don't understand why you are not concerned about any of the conduct reported in the Mueller report. It really shouldn't matter if criminal charges happen or not. Or how you brush aside all the charges that were brought to the people Trump worked closely with. Those aren't fake. Manafort is in prison. The conduct cited in the Mueller report isn't great and certainly not what I really want to see from my president. However, it can't be fairly viewed in a vacuum. Think about it from Trump's perspective. He has a rogue FBI director who is not only lying to him about the scope of the FBI's investigation into his campaign, but also refuses to publicly state that Trump isn't the subject of the investigation. He has hostile elements within his administration and the DOJ who are actively leaking false and incendiary shit to the press to insinuate that he's in bed with the Russians. Then, he has to deal with a dipshit AG who needlessly recuses himself, which ultimately results in the appointment of a special counsel who makes it quite obvious that the point of the investigation isn't looking into the veracity of the Russia/Trump collusion crap so much as it is creating the basis for an obstruction of justice charge. It can't be overstated how much Trump was under siege. Frankly, I'm amazed that he acted as well as he did. Now take the opposite view, and ask yourself from the viewpoint of DOJ/FBI what should you do when a candidate to the presidency and several members of his campaign are obviously publicly lying every step of the way, and trying to hide a boatload of interactions with a foreign power considered as an enemy. They HAD to investigate, and to avoid the appearance of interfering with a political campaign, to do it in a very low-key way. The steps that Trump has taken afterwards, raising an awful lot of doubt over obstruction, are self-inflicted since he thinks he's the ultimate boss and has no grasp on how to stay safe legally when in full public view (which I find somewhat strange since he has strived for public exposure his whole life, but as a private citizen that could litigate the hell out of everything he strong-armed through. So he also has a lot of experience of legal struggles). He incited doubt every step of the way due to his overall conduct, and nearly every action he has taken for the last 3 years kept raising doubts, due to his inability to be transparent. From meetings with Putin, to public statements, to lies, to drafting false reports, to trying to remove the SC (!?), to hiring crooks, compromised people and surrounding himself with idiots (only the best he said ! Remember he appointed Sessions)... I could go on several pages. It's so apparent he doesn't even know what the fuck he is doing (except selling his brand and craving exposure by doing crazy statements). No, I don't think he acted "as well as he did", as he did pretty damning things, as he created the conditions to his siege by his own behaviour and deserved all he got. That's what happens when you fire your whole transition team prior to the transition, and so have no one to vet for positions. People of experience who could explain what you should do and how to have a good presidency. But he didn't care about the country. We don't need to try to imagine things from the FBI's perspective. It's all out there in the open in the Mueller report, and it's highly lacking in that it utterly fails to identify a valid predicate for the investigations that took place. This is the United States. Not a banana republic. I have yet to see a valid justification for any of the spying that government agencies did upon Trump and his people. Hell, Comey and other former government officials didn't even have the decency to admit that they did engage in spying operations on Trump's people. And when Barr finally suggested that it did happen, they all had a hissy fit until the NYT ran a news story confirming that spying did happen. So let's cut the shit. Who fraudulently submitted unverified information to a FISA court to get a FISA warrant? Who has been dishonest about the true origins of Crossfire Hurricane from day 1? Who has refused to discuss who Mifsud really is? Who's really the liar here? It ain't Trump. I'm a little troubled by the European view of government espoused by our French poster here. a candidate to the presidency and several members of his campaign are obviously publicly lying every step of the way, and trying to hide a boatload of interactions with a foreign power considered as an enemy.They HAD to investigate, and to avoid the appearance of interfering with a political campaign, They HAD to investigate, because people like him disagree with foreign policy and hate public lying? Seriously? Where was he with the Obama administration and pallets of cash to the Iranian regime? I didn't like his Russian reset, and response to the invasion of Ukraine's Crimean peninsula. I should have been calling for a special counsel because of these "boatload of interactions with a foreign power considered as an enemy?" This is a farcical excuse for police state government. Your delusions do not justify domestic spying. That's banana republic junk, and I'm disturbed that there's people rationalizing the stupidest abuses of power just because of their dislike of a president. The proper response to a president if you feel the behavior towards Russia and the lying is just so bad is to vote the man out. It's just so absurd of an argument on it's face. Lying and coverup at every step of the investigation into Trump, and there's still some people out there that go full banana republic justice because they don't approve of what Trump does. The part that is so hilarious is that everyone who supports what the FBI/DOJ did doesn't understand the basic principle that only criminal acts warrant criminal investigation. They point to all of this stuff that Trump did (and even is alleged to have done, but didn't do), but they never are able to articulate what the crime is or may be. This is Civics 101 shit that they can't account for. Yet somehow we're the ones who are off our rockers. The interactions Trump campaign had with Russia was when he was NOT president and he hired people that were known to be working for foreign powers and didn't vet them. The behaviour that increases the doubt in his actions (and warrants investigation, by congress, you know, your constitution) was him taking steps to increase this doubt.
Again, where's the crime here? Working or dealing with foreign nationals or people with ties to foreign countries is not illegal. There is virtually no national level politician who doesn't do this to at least some extent. Give me a potentially criminal act with citation to criminal statute that justified the opening of the investigations. I'll give you a hint: you're not going to find one. The FBI and DOJ (and as also stted in the Mueller report) are on record saying it was Papadopoulos and the Steele Dossier stuff that resulted in Crossfire Hurricane. We know those reasons are bogus from the Mueller report. And they still don't explain why Papadopoulos was being spied upon to begin with.
You and Danglars speaking of civics 101 and a banana republic about fisa and fbi, when the Republicans have been the ones to mainly initiate the world scale spying of the world communications including your own citizens without any mandate or basis for a crime, to look for keywords in communications, is awesome, and until you admit that you are defending a crook that might get busted on the basis of lawful (while shady and questionable) actions taken by investigators (that are lawful only in the us due to your previous administrations), I won't engage further.
My country does troubling shit as well, but nothing to that level. However we do follow leads from our press when a candidate, say, received gifts from someone else or hires his wife and children on public funds, and we boot them. We do not let our DOJ change rules on the emoluments clause to allow foreign powers to gift money to the president by purposefully letting them go to his hotels, and we have him go to his official holiday house and not to his own property, where he bills the secret service and others full rate on public funds to enrich himself.
Now, THAT is a banana republic to me.
Don't waste our time making this a partisan issue. It's not. Sure, the modern surveillance state truly came into being during the Bush administration following 9/11, but it was coming into existence anyway during the 1990s and was wholly embraced by the Obama administration. And let's be crystal clear: all signs are pointing to the worst abuses being done by the Obama administration.
|
United States42254 Posts
Trump’s campaign manager meets with a known Russian intelligence officer to share internal campaign strategy info and discuss getting Trump elected.
xDaunt: Everyone does this, it just shows he’s good at cooperating with foreigners
|
It is very good and everyone does it. Which is why everyone on the Trump campaign that did it lied about it.
And it doesn’t undermine the public’s faith in elections. No possible way foreign influence could undermine the elected official’s credibility with the public.
|
On May 05 2019 17:09 Nouar wrote:
You and Danglars speaking of civics 101 and a banana republic about fisa and fbi, when the Republicans have been the ones to mainly initiate the world scale spying of the world communications including your own citizens without any mandate or basis for a crime, to look for keywords in communications, is awesome, and until you admit that you are defending a crook that might get busted on the basis of lawful (while shady and questionable) actions taken by investigators (that are lawful only in the us due to your previous administrations), I won't engage further.
My country does troubling shit as well, but nothing to that level. However we do follow leads from our press when a candidate, say, received gifts from someone else or hires his wife and children on public funds, and we boot them. We do not let our DOJ change rules on the emoluments clause to allow foreign powers to gift money to the president by purposefully letting them go to his hotels, and we have him go to his official holiday house and not to his own property, where he bills the secret service and others full rate on public funds to enrich himself.
Now, THAT is a banana republic to me.
Certainly, if you want to go back to George W Bush to blame for this, I heartily agree with you. The poor internal restrictions or ethics on what intelligence is picked up and stored is a large black mark on his administration. Now, does your criticism take a convenient 8-year break around 2008, or does it not? Are you at all interested in righting that wrong, or just making sure that Democrats benefit from a status quo you don't actually disagree with?
Show nested quote +On May 05 2019 03:01 Danglars wrote:On May 05 2019 02:11 Kyadytim wrote:On May 05 2019 01:52 Danglars wrote:On May 05 2019 00:30 xDaunt wrote:On May 04 2019 19:39 Nouar wrote:On May 04 2019 07:09 xDaunt wrote:On May 04 2019 06:55 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On May 04 2019 06:45 xDaunt wrote:On May 04 2019 05:52 Danglars wrote:
I don't think a lot of these arguments are worth pursuing if sworn testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee functions similar to user opinions and are brushed off easily. It's sworn testimony under threat of perjury. It's specific to important questions raised by elected Democratic leaders. If it can't be cited as something concrete not to be lightly dismissed, then I'm feeding obvious trolls and shame on me for not recognizing their motives. What interests me about these conversations regarding the Mueller report is the persistent grasping at straws to keep the Russia conspiracy/obstruction narrative alive. The disconnect from reality for people still promoting this stuff is astounding. That people are struggling so much with with the idea that Mueller might be a political actor or that there is no dispute that he didn't conclude in his report that there was probable cause of a crime fascinates me, as does the inability of these same people to recognize how persistently wrong that they have been on all of this stuff for two+ years. The question that I have is what do these folks need to see to finally wake up? The Mueller report clearly isn't enough. Will the upcoming OIG report matter? Will declassification of the underlying investigation documents (FISA, etc) matter? Do we have to wait for criminal prosecutions and convictions of those involved? How much is really enough? I'll take a month ban if anyone ever gets convicted for the FISA nonsense. It's going to go the same road as the Seth Rich story or the busses full of immigrants doing election fraud story -> to the trashcan. I still don't understand why you are not concerned about any of the conduct reported in the Mueller report. It really shouldn't matter if criminal charges happen or not. Or how you brush aside all the charges that were brought to the people Trump worked closely with. Those aren't fake. Manafort is in prison. The conduct cited in the Mueller report isn't great and certainly not what I really want to see from my president. However, it can't be fairly viewed in a vacuum. Think about it from Trump's perspective. He has a rogue FBI director who is not only lying to him about the scope of the FBI's investigation into his campaign, but also refuses to publicly state that Trump isn't the subject of the investigation. He has hostile elements within his administration and the DOJ who are actively leaking false and incendiary shit to the press to insinuate that he's in bed with the Russians. Then, he has to deal with a dipshit AG who needlessly recuses himself, which ultimately results in the appointment of a special counsel who makes it quite obvious that the point of the investigation isn't looking into the veracity of the Russia/Trump collusion crap so much as it is creating the basis for an obstruction of justice charge. It can't be overstated how much Trump was under siege. Frankly, I'm amazed that he acted as well as he did. Now take the opposite view, and ask yourself from the viewpoint of DOJ/FBI what should you do when a candidate to the presidency and several members of his campaign are obviously publicly lying every step of the way, and trying to hide a boatload of interactions with a foreign power considered as an enemy. They HAD to investigate, and to avoid the appearance of interfering with a political campaign, to do it in a very low-key way. The steps that Trump has taken afterwards, raising an awful lot of doubt over obstruction, are self-inflicted since he thinks he's the ultimate boss and has no grasp on how to stay safe legally when in full public view (which I find somewhat strange since he has strived for public exposure his whole life, but as a private citizen that could litigate the hell out of everything he strong-armed through. So he also has a lot of experience of legal struggles). He incited doubt every step of the way due to his overall conduct, and nearly every action he has taken for the last 3 years kept raising doubts, due to his inability to be transparent. From meetings with Putin, to public statements, to lies, to drafting false reports, to trying to remove the SC (!?), to hiring crooks, compromised people and surrounding himself with idiots (only the best he said ! Remember he appointed Sessions)... I could go on several pages. It's so apparent he doesn't even know what the fuck he is doing (except selling his brand and craving exposure by doing crazy statements). No, I don't think he acted "as well as he did", as he did pretty damning things, as he created the conditions to his siege by his own behaviour and deserved all he got. That's what happens when you fire your whole transition team prior to the transition, and so have no one to vet for positions. People of experience who could explain what you should do and how to have a good presidency. But he didn't care about the country. We don't need to try to imagine things from the FBI's perspective. It's all out there in the open in the Mueller report, and it's highly lacking in that it utterly fails to identify a valid predicate for the investigations that took place. This is the United States. Not a banana republic. I have yet to see a valid justification for any of the spying that government agencies did upon Trump and his people. Hell, Comey and other former government officials didn't even have the decency to admit that they did engage in spying operations on Trump's people. And when Barr finally suggested that it did happen, they all had a hissy fit until the NYT ran a news story confirming that spying did happen. So let's cut the shit. Who fraudulently submitted unverified information to a FISA court to get a FISA warrant? Who has been dishonest about the true origins of Crossfire Hurricane from day 1? Who has refused to discuss who Mifsud really is? Who's really the liar here? It ain't Trump. I'm a little troubled by the European view of government espoused by our French poster here. a candidate to the presidency and several members of his campaign are obviously publicly lying every step of the way, and trying to hide a boatload of interactions with a foreign power considered as an enemy.They HAD to investigate, and to avoid the appearance of interfering with a political campaign, They HAD to investigate, because people like him disagree with foreign policy and hate public lying? Seriously? Where was he with the Obama administration and pallets of cash to the Iranian regime? I didn't like his Russian reset, and response to the invasion of Ukraine's Crimean peninsula. I should have been calling for a special counsel because of these "boatload of interactions with a foreign power considered as an enemy?" This is a farcical excuse for police state government. Your delusions do not justify domestic spying. That's banana republic junk, and I'm disturbed that there's people rationalizing the stupidest abuses of power just because of their dislike of a president. The proper response to a president if you feel the behavior towards Russia and the lying is just so bad is to vote the man out. It's just so absurd of an argument on it's face. Lying and coverup at every step of the investigation into Trump, and there's still some people out there that go full banana republic justice because they don't approve of what Trump does. For the rest of the thread: The Obama administration paid Iran money the US owed Iran from the 1970s plus interest. That Obama did something wrong is one of Trump's frequently repeated lies. On May 05 2019 02:10 KwarK wrote:
Danglars, Obama didn’t send cash to Iran, they unfroze Iranian assets that had been illegally seized by the US. That’s not the same thing. I know Fox News and Trump told you that he sent them cash because he’s a secret Muslim but that’s not actually what happened. If you wish to have a productive discussion then you can’t keep repeating fake news to people who are better informed than you. These talking points of yours only work within the cult of Trump where everyone has already collectively agreed to believe the lies. In a public debate you need to stick to truth. I'm pretty sure they actually did this and repay an old debt at around the same time. TRUMP: “The Iran deal is a terrible deal. We paid $150 billion. We gave $1.8 billion in cash. That’s actual cash, barrels of cash. It’s insane. It’s ridiculous. It should have never been made. But we will be talking about it.” — remarks before a meeting with French President Emmanuel Macron. At a news conference Tuesday, he spoke about “giving them, Iran, $150 billion at one point.”
THE FACTS: There was no $150 billion payout from the U.S. treasury. The money he refers to represents Iranian assets held abroad that were frozen until the deal was reached and Tehran was allowed to access its funds.
The payout of about $1.8 billion is a separate matter. That dates to the 1970s, when Iran paid the U.S. $400 million for military equipment that was never delivered because the government was overthrown and diplomatic relations ruptured.
That left people, businesses and governments in each country indebted to partners in the other, and these complex claims took decades to sort out in tribunals and arbitration. For its part, Iran paid settlements of more than $2.5 billion to U.S. citizens and businesses.
The day after the nuclear deal was implemented, the U.S. and Iran announced they had settled the claim over the 1970s military equipment order, with the U.S. agreeing to pay the $400 million principal along with about $1.3 billion in interest. The $400 million was paid in cash and flown to Tehran on a cargo plane, which gave rise to Trump’s dramatic accounts of money stuffed in barrels or boxes and delivered in the dead of night. The arrangement provided for the interest to be paid later, not crammed into containers. www.apnews.com All that’s missing is the $400 million was used to free American prisoners and done in secret. The trouble with state sponsors of terror is some Americans agree with asset freezes because Iran funds terrorist organizations currently aiming to kill Israeli civilians. It’s no longer some settling of debts. But we’re getting into the second phase of these discussions, which is you have your justifications for why you don’t mind financing terror (maybe a nuclear arms deal is worth cash up front!) and so do I for Trump joking about Hillary’s emails (wow, i thought he had back channels for that. What a shitty colluder he turned out to be). If you want to go nuclear on banana republic bullshit, you better be ready for the worst elected official you can think of using the same explanations right back at you. And the “and ours are the REAL conspiracies” will be laughed straight out of town, and rightly so. PS thanks for going through the effort to paste in confirmation of millions of dollars in cash on pallets airlifted to Iran, even with the aforementioned deficiencies. It’s a good division of labor. Secret but legal? Sounds like a president's job. He was trying to unfreeze relations with Iran, you know, they signed a nuclear treaty and such, and if that money was illegally frozen, respecting the law (banana republic you know? Rule of law, etc) Is good, even better if you get hostages back. I don't see you complaining about providing money to SA. They sponsor (and have for decades), quite a bit of terrorism :-)
And Trump? He was making light of Hillary's mass deletion of emails under subpoena and subject to FOIA requests. It's the presidential candidates job to use humor to combat ridiculous acts by his adversary. You're very willing to condone intrusive investigations of non-crimes when it's a a Republican, but you're strangely defensive when it's potentially non-criminal acts by a Democrat. Secret airlifts of pallets of cash to a terrorist regime, kept hidden for months from the American people, is one of the first examples I'd use of flak that would go back your way under your principles. If you disagree with freezing assets of that same terrorist regime, you're still in highly debatable areas of fighting enemies with the means at America's disposal.
I also observe a reliance on partisan attacks to obscure any defense of representative government and a free society. Do you actually believe in those things, despite your authoritarian leanings when it comes to Republicans? I have my suspicions of your practical acceptance of police state powers for your ends, but do you even profess any faith in the two aforementioned things?
|
On May 05 2019 03:01 Ben... wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2019 02:10 KwarK wrote:
Danglars, Obama didn’t send cash to Iran, they unfroze Iranian assets that had been illegally seized by the US. That’s not the same thing. I know Fox News and Trump told you that he sent them cash because he’s a secret Muslim but that’s not actually what happened. If you wish to have a productive discussion then you can’t keep repeating fake news to people who are better informed than you. These talking points of yours only work within the cult of Trump where everyone has already collectively agreed to believe the lies. In a public debate you need to stick to truth. This is becoming an increasingly noticeable issue in this thread. You can't have a conversation about an issue if some people are making the claim that facts are not facts. This exchange comes to mind for me: Show nested quote +On May 03 2019 00:26 Gorsameth wrote:On May 03 2019 00:25 xDaunt wrote:On May 03 2019 00:07 Gorsameth wrote:
Here is something that popped into my head.
Barr stated yesterday that he was surprised Mueller didn't make a decision on Obstruction of justice.
Therefor either Barr doesn't know there is a standing guideline not to indict the President, or he doesn't care about it.
Surely an AG should know such a guideline exists when there is an ongoing investigation into the President. so the logical conclusion is he does't care about it.
Is it within his power to remove this guideline?
If so could Congress tell him to do so and then get Mueller to make an actual decision?
(ofcourse none of that is going to happen because Barr likely did know about the guideline and did know that Mueller wasn't going to give an indictment regardless of evidence but its an interesting line to follow and to ask Barr in front of the House committee, assuming he ever shows up there). This is an incorrect reading of the OLC guidelines. The OLC guideline did not prevent Mueller from making a decision on prosecution or a finding that there was a prosecutable crime. All that OLC guideline says is that the president cannot be indicted while in office. Presuming that this is enforceable (certainly not guaranteed), a president could still be indicted for the crime after leaving office. So when Barr says that he is "surprised" that Mueller didn't make a decision on obstruction, this is the legal backdrop. There wasn't a good reason for Mueller not to make a decision. Mueller was simply playing politics. And Barr knows it. fairness guidelines. Don't make a judgement when you can't indict and that person can't defend himself in court. Its in the report. 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 Show nested quote +On May 03 2019 00:32 xDaunt wrote:
That's the cover story. It doesn't change the accuracy of anything that I said. And again, the fact that I'm right becomes very apparent once you dig into the details of what the obstruction charges might be. They're all bullshit, because there was no underlying crime, Trump didn't actually do anything that materially impeded any investigation, and he had legitimate reasons for taking the limited actions that he did take. None of the chronicled episodes of obstruction would hold up in court. Mueller knows this, as does Barr. xDaunt makes a claim that Gorsameth rebuts citing primary source information (in this case the Mueller Report itself) that clearly and obviously proves xDaunt's statement to be incorrect. xDaunt the replies by claiming the excerpt from the Mueller Report is a cover story while providing no proof to back this claim up other than what it obviously xDaunt's opinion. This has been an increasingly common trend I've noticed. I feel like this rule has been somewhat forgotten the last few weeks. Show nested quote +1. Show, don't tell, and listen.
This one sounds simple enough, but political discussions on TL suffer from an ignorance of this cliché and oftentimes devolve accordingly. There is a huge difference between saying “Iran is a bloodthirsty despotic state” and showing how Iran could be considered bloodthirsty given particular evidence. If you can't tell the difference, don't bother posting. Furthermore, if you are here to simply pontificate, please do so elsewhere. The entire point of a forum such as TL is to foster communication, and posters who seek only to talk at others instead of with them will be ignored. If people are going to be making claims, especially ones that counter publicly available information from primary or well-cited secondary sources, they should be backing them up more than with personal opinion.
It's about time people are bringing this up. I have spent hours of my time debating a number of posters at various times, and I have had to read debunked garbage and fake news in almost every single reply. And the worst part about people in this thread, is that instead of posting "you are saying X occurred, and providing Y source, so let me show you what I found and we can discuss the merits of the sources/claims", they literally ignore your research effort and sourcing and continue to post lies. There should legitimately be a rule that posting in this thread requires posting of factual information. This shouldn't become TLCNN.net where liars are allowed to lie under the guise of "the other side getting a fair shake". Opinion and feeling are no substitute for facts.
Just because you think Hillary broke the law it doesn't make it true.
Just because you think Obama broke the law, it doesn't make it true.
Just because you think there's anti-Trump bias in the FBI/DOJ/whatever, it doesn't make it true.
Just because you were told there was no "collusion", it doesn't make it true.
Just because you were told there was no obstruction of justice, it doesn't make it true.
Just because you think the dossier started the investigation, it doesn't make it true.
Just because you think the media is "full of libruls", it doesn't make it true.
Just because you think Trump's policies are moral and just, it doesn't make it true.
Just because you think Trump isn't a racist, it doesn't make it true.
Just because you think Trump doesn't foment violence and terrorism, it doesn't make it true.
Just because you think Trump is mentally stable and not at all in cognitive decline, it doesn't make it true.
Just because you think Trump doesn't have to show his taxes, it doesn't make it true.
Just because you think everyone around Trump can lawfully ignore subpoenas for testimony and documents, it doesn't make it true.
Just because you were told that the tax bill was going to be great for the average American, it doesn't make it true.
Just because you were told that Mueller, his team, every person in SDNY, EDVA, DC, CA, and elsewhere are "angry Democrats", it doesn't make it true.
And when you cite shit like Fox, Breitbart, Zerohedge, Townhall, Dailywire, or AmericanPatriotNews247.com, everyone can pretty much assume that what you're posting is either fake as fuck or just a lie.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
