|
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 25 2019 01:44 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2019 01:37 IgnE wrote:On May 25 2019 01:30 KwarK wrote:On May 25 2019 01:11 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2019 01:05 ShoCkeyy wrote:On May 25 2019 00:54 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2019 00:35 JimmiC wrote:On May 25 2019 00:29 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2019 00:04 Doodsmack wrote:
Barr should be reviewing the intelligence and conduct that preceded the Iraq war if he is not being political. That particular instance of misconduct resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people (no exaggeration). The blood of hundreds of thousands of people are on the hands of Bush's intelligence people.
If hes investigating uranium one, He should also be investigating the trump family & China. In both of those cases, the only evidence is proximity in time between financial benefits conferred on the family and the conferrer of benefits having business before the govt. Interestingly enough, there are many conservatives who have a very different view of the CIA's intelligence assessment before the Iraq War now than they did before all of this Trump stuff. Even Rush Limbaugh said during his show in the past couple weeks that he certainly looks what happened back in 2002-2003 with a more jaundiced eye and wonders whether everything was on the up and up. I certainly don't blindly trust the federal government national security apparatus anymore. What business does Trump have with China? His family certainly can't be more tied up in China than Biden's. And again, Trump is the one actively harming Chinese interests whereas Biden, if elected, is far more likely to fellate Xi than he is to continue to Trump's confrontation of the Chinese. Is not the smart play then to make sure that neither are doing anything corrupt? This feels like when I am getting my son in trouble for something and he is like "but Justin....." and I'm all "What Justin does matters, but it doesn't make what you did any less wrong, were talking about you right now and then after I will talk to Justin". It seems odd to be fine with corruption in your party even if the other guy might be doing it as well or worse. If there's a reasonable basis for investigating something, go ahead and investigate it. What you seem to be missing with my defense of Trump is my repeatedly pointing out that I have yet to see a reasonable basis for the investigations of him that have been made. In fact, the whole mess stinks of entrapment and other criminal activity perpetrated by the investigators. The scope of the potential fraud that these people have perpetrated upon the American public and legal system is staggering. This will probably go down as the biggest political scandal of our generation, yet many (if not most) are still unaware of what's going on due to a complicit and compromised press. This is slowly changing, and Trump's declassification order signals a coming sea change in public perception of Trump and the investigations into him. What if the release of the documents don't exonerate Trump? What then? Will you still believe him or will you actually take the proof for what it's worth? Mueller’s report already exonerated Trump. So that’s not really at issue any more. The issue is whether the people investigating Trump are dirty. But yes, if this process that we are about to go through shows a valid predicate for investigating Trump, I’ll accept it and move on. It didn’t though. It said that if he wasn’t the president they’d have recommended charges. Did it say that explicitly? Can you provide a quotation? Yes and yes. Show nested quote +First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to
initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial
judgment. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that "the indictment
or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the
executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions" in violation of "the
constitutional separation of powers."1 Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the
Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations, see 28 U.S.C. § 515;
28 C.F.R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC's legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising
prosecutorialjurisdiction.
Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President
clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Or, to get to the heart of calling xDaunt a liar. Show nested quote +Literal text of the Mueller report:
Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him. It's absolutely disgraceful that xDaunt thinks that he can tells these lies about a report that specifically addresses whether it exonerates the President and states, in absolutely certain terms, that it does not. There has to be some level of decorum to any discussion for it to work.
there is a difference between explicitly saying “we would recommend charges but for the fact that he’s president” and “we cant recommend charges because he’s president, but we can exonerate him if that’s what we find.” it seems rather that mueller compiled evidence for a future decision, by someone else, about whether to bring charges
|
On May 25 2019 02:05 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2019 01:44 KwarK wrote:On May 25 2019 01:37 IgnE wrote:On May 25 2019 01:30 KwarK wrote:On May 25 2019 01:11 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2019 01:05 ShoCkeyy wrote:On May 25 2019 00:54 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2019 00:35 JimmiC wrote:On May 25 2019 00:29 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2019 00:04 Doodsmack wrote:
Barr should be reviewing the intelligence and conduct that preceded the Iraq war if he is not being political. That particular instance of misconduct resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people (no exaggeration). The blood of hundreds of thousands of people are on the hands of Bush's intelligence people.
If hes investigating uranium one, He should also be investigating the trump family & China. In both of those cases, the only evidence is proximity in time between financial benefits conferred on the family and the conferrer of benefits having business before the govt. Interestingly enough, there are many conservatives who have a very different view of the CIA's intelligence assessment before the Iraq War now than they did before all of this Trump stuff. Even Rush Limbaugh said during his show in the past couple weeks that he certainly looks what happened back in 2002-2003 with a more jaundiced eye and wonders whether everything was on the up and up. I certainly don't blindly trust the federal government national security apparatus anymore. What business does Trump have with China? His family certainly can't be more tied up in China than Biden's. And again, Trump is the one actively harming Chinese interests whereas Biden, if elected, is far more likely to fellate Xi than he is to continue to Trump's confrontation of the Chinese. Is not the smart play then to make sure that neither are doing anything corrupt? This feels like when I am getting my son in trouble for something and he is like "but Justin....." and I'm all "What Justin does matters, but it doesn't make what you did any less wrong, were talking about you right now and then after I will talk to Justin". It seems odd to be fine with corruption in your party even if the other guy might be doing it as well or worse. If there's a reasonable basis for investigating something, go ahead and investigate it. What you seem to be missing with my defense of Trump is my repeatedly pointing out that I have yet to see a reasonable basis for the investigations of him that have been made. In fact, the whole mess stinks of entrapment and other criminal activity perpetrated by the investigators. The scope of the potential fraud that these people have perpetrated upon the American public and legal system is staggering. This will probably go down as the biggest political scandal of our generation, yet many (if not most) are still unaware of what's going on due to a complicit and compromised press. This is slowly changing, and Trump's declassification order signals a coming sea change in public perception of Trump and the investigations into him. What if the release of the documents don't exonerate Trump? What then? Will you still believe him or will you actually take the proof for what it's worth? Mueller’s report already exonerated Trump. So that’s not really at issue any more. The issue is whether the people investigating Trump are dirty. But yes, if this process that we are about to go through shows a valid predicate for investigating Trump, I’ll accept it and move on. It didn’t though. It said that if he wasn’t the president they’d have recommended charges. Did it say that explicitly? Can you provide a quotation? Yes and yes. First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to
initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial
judgment. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that "the indictment
or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the
executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions" in violation of "the
constitutional separation of powers."1 Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the
Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations, see 28 U.S.C. § 515;
28 C.F.R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC's legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising
prosecutorialjurisdiction.
Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President
clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Or, to get to the heart of calling xDaunt a liar. xDaunt:
Mueller’s report already exonerated Trump Literal text of the Mueller report:
Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him. It's absolutely disgraceful that xDaunt thinks that he can tells these lies about a report that specifically addresses whether it exonerates the President and states, in absolutely certain terms, that it does not. There has to be some level of decorum to any discussion for it to work. there is a difference between explicitly saying “we would recommend charges but for the fact that he’s president” and “we cant recommend charges because he’s president, but we can exonerate him if that’s what we find.” it seems rather that mueller compiled evidence for a future decision, by someone else, about whether to bring charges
Mueller refused to make a charging decision on the obstruction charge, which prompted Barr to do it.
|
United States43585 Posts
On May 25 2019 02:05 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2019 01:44 KwarK wrote:On May 25 2019 01:37 IgnE wrote:On May 25 2019 01:30 KwarK wrote:On May 25 2019 01:11 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2019 01:05 ShoCkeyy wrote:On May 25 2019 00:54 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2019 00:35 JimmiC wrote:On May 25 2019 00:29 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2019 00:04 Doodsmack wrote:
Barr should be reviewing the intelligence and conduct that preceded the Iraq war if he is not being political. That particular instance of misconduct resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people (no exaggeration). The blood of hundreds of thousands of people are on the hands of Bush's intelligence people.
If hes investigating uranium one, He should also be investigating the trump family & China. In both of those cases, the only evidence is proximity in time between financial benefits conferred on the family and the conferrer of benefits having business before the govt. Interestingly enough, there are many conservatives who have a very different view of the CIA's intelligence assessment before the Iraq War now than they did before all of this Trump stuff. Even Rush Limbaugh said during his show in the past couple weeks that he certainly looks what happened back in 2002-2003 with a more jaundiced eye and wonders whether everything was on the up and up. I certainly don't blindly trust the federal government national security apparatus anymore. What business does Trump have with China? His family certainly can't be more tied up in China than Biden's. And again, Trump is the one actively harming Chinese interests whereas Biden, if elected, is far more likely to fellate Xi than he is to continue to Trump's confrontation of the Chinese. Is not the smart play then to make sure that neither are doing anything corrupt? This feels like when I am getting my son in trouble for something and he is like "but Justin....." and I'm all "What Justin does matters, but it doesn't make what you did any less wrong, were talking about you right now and then after I will talk to Justin". It seems odd to be fine with corruption in your party even if the other guy might be doing it as well or worse. If there's a reasonable basis for investigating something, go ahead and investigate it. What you seem to be missing with my defense of Trump is my repeatedly pointing out that I have yet to see a reasonable basis for the investigations of him that have been made. In fact, the whole mess stinks of entrapment and other criminal activity perpetrated by the investigators. The scope of the potential fraud that these people have perpetrated upon the American public and legal system is staggering. This will probably go down as the biggest political scandal of our generation, yet many (if not most) are still unaware of what's going on due to a complicit and compromised press. This is slowly changing, and Trump's declassification order signals a coming sea change in public perception of Trump and the investigations into him. What if the release of the documents don't exonerate Trump? What then? Will you still believe him or will you actually take the proof for what it's worth? Mueller’s report already exonerated Trump. So that’s not really at issue any more. The issue is whether the people investigating Trump are dirty. But yes, if this process that we are about to go through shows a valid predicate for investigating Trump, I’ll accept it and move on. It didn’t though. It said that if he wasn’t the president they’d have recommended charges. Did it say that explicitly? Can you provide a quotation? Yes and yes. First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to
initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial
judgment. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that "the indictment
or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the
executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions" in violation of "the
constitutional separation of powers."1 Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the
Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations, see 28 U.S.C. § 515;
28 C.F.R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC's legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising
prosecutorialjurisdiction.
Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President
clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Or, to get to the heart of calling xDaunt a liar. xDaunt:
Mueller’s report already exonerated Trump Literal text of the Mueller report:
Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him. It's absolutely disgraceful that xDaunt thinks that he can tells these lies about a report that specifically addresses whether it exonerates the President and states, in absolutely certain terms, that it does not. There has to be some level of decorum to any discussion for it to work. there is a difference between explicitly saying “we would recommend charges but for the fact that he’s president” and “we cant recommend charges because he’s president, but we can exonerate him if that’s what we find.” it seems rather that mueller compiled evidence for a future decision, by someone else, about whether to bring charges
Meuller wrote "If he didn't do it we would tick this box. Here is the box. It's not ticked. On purpose."
He also wrote "If he did do it we wouldn't press charges because we're not allowed to. Also we're not pressing charges."
It's not a complicated summary to understand. The only way you can find that it exonerates Trump, as xDaunt claims, is if you selectively remove the words "does not". Any reading without selectively removing words makes it pretty clear.
|
you are reading between the lines, and even if a good case can be made that mueller wanted you to read between the lines in this specific way, he wrote it very carefully that way on purpose.
i have changed my mind on whether i think he exonerates trump (see me talking about the meaning of “exonerate”) based on mueller’s probably correct interpretation that he was never allowed to bring charges in the first place. all i am saying is that there is a difference between saying “i cant exonerate him, here’s the evidence, but i’m not making a decision one way or the other” and “i would charge him with a crime but for the fact that he’s president”
also he did exonerate him w regard to conspiracy
|
On May 25 2019 02:16 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2019 02:05 IgnE wrote:On May 25 2019 01:44 KwarK wrote:On May 25 2019 01:37 IgnE wrote:On May 25 2019 01:30 KwarK wrote:On May 25 2019 01:11 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2019 01:05 ShoCkeyy wrote:On May 25 2019 00:54 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2019 00:35 JimmiC wrote:On May 25 2019 00:29 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Interestingly enough, there are many conservatives who have a very different view of the CIA's intelligence assessment before the Iraq War now than they did before all of this Trump stuff. Even Rush Limbaugh said during his show in the past couple weeks that he certainly looks what happened back in 2002-2003 with a more jaundiced eye and wonders whether everything was on the up and up. I certainly don't blindly trust the federal government national security apparatus anymore.
What business does Trump have with China? His family certainly can't be more tied up in China than Biden's. And again, Trump is the one actively harming Chinese interests whereas Biden, if elected, is far more likely to fellate Xi than he is to continue to Trump's confrontation of the Chinese. Is not the smart play then to make sure that neither are doing anything corrupt? This feels like when I am getting my son in trouble for something and he is like "but Justin....." and I'm all "What Justin does matters, but it doesn't make what you did any less wrong, were talking about you right now and then after I will talk to Justin". It seems odd to be fine with corruption in your party even if the other guy might be doing it as well or worse. If there's a reasonable basis for investigating something, go ahead and investigate it. What you seem to be missing with my defense of Trump is my repeatedly pointing out that I have yet to see a reasonable basis for the investigations of him that have been made. In fact, the whole mess stinks of entrapment and other criminal activity perpetrated by the investigators. The scope of the potential fraud that these people have perpetrated upon the American public and legal system is staggering. This will probably go down as the biggest political scandal of our generation, yet many (if not most) are still unaware of what's going on due to a complicit and compromised press. This is slowly changing, and Trump's declassification order signals a coming sea change in public perception of Trump and the investigations into him. What if the release of the documents don't exonerate Trump? What then? Will you still believe him or will you actually take the proof for what it's worth? Mueller’s report already exonerated Trump. So that’s not really at issue any more. The issue is whether the people investigating Trump are dirty. But yes, if this process that we are about to go through shows a valid predicate for investigating Trump, I’ll accept it and move on. It didn’t though. It said that if he wasn’t the president they’d have recommended charges. Did it say that explicitly? Can you provide a quotation? Yes and yes. First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to
initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial
judgment. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that "the indictment
or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the
executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions" in violation of "the
constitutional separation of powers."1 Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the
Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations, see 28 U.S.C. § 515;
28 C.F.R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC's legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising
prosecutorialjurisdiction.
Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President
clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Or, to get to the heart of calling xDaunt a liar. xDaunt:
Mueller’s report already exonerated Trump Literal text of the Mueller report:
Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him. It's absolutely disgraceful that xDaunt thinks that he can tells these lies about a report that specifically addresses whether it exonerates the President and states, in absolutely certain terms, that it does not. There has to be some level of decorum to any discussion for it to work. there is a difference between explicitly saying “we would recommend charges but for the fact that he’s president” and “we cant recommend charges because he’s president, but we can exonerate him if that’s what we find.” it seems rather that mueller compiled evidence for a future decision, by someone else, about whether to bring charges Meuller wrote "If he didn't do it we would tick this box. Here is the box. It's not ticked. On purpose." He also wrote "If he did do it we wouldn't press charges because we're not allowed to. Also we're not pressing charges." It's not a complicated summary to understand. The only way you can find that it exonerates Trump, as xDaunt claims, is if you selectively remove the words "does not". Any reading without selectively removing words makes it pretty clear.
You at least recognize that the "If he did do it we wouldn't press charges because we're not allowed to." was an opinion Mueller was entitled to argue against and elected not to?
EDIT: with igne's context clarification in mind.
|
On May 25 2019 02:11 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2019 02:05 IgnE wrote:On May 25 2019 01:44 KwarK wrote:On May 25 2019 01:37 IgnE wrote:On May 25 2019 01:30 KwarK wrote:On May 25 2019 01:11 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2019 01:05 ShoCkeyy wrote:On May 25 2019 00:54 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2019 00:35 JimmiC wrote:On May 25 2019 00:29 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Interestingly enough, there are many conservatives who have a very different view of the CIA's intelligence assessment before the Iraq War now than they did before all of this Trump stuff. Even Rush Limbaugh said during his show in the past couple weeks that he certainly looks what happened back in 2002-2003 with a more jaundiced eye and wonders whether everything was on the up and up. I certainly don't blindly trust the federal government national security apparatus anymore.
What business does Trump have with China? His family certainly can't be more tied up in China than Biden's. And again, Trump is the one actively harming Chinese interests whereas Biden, if elected, is far more likely to fellate Xi than he is to continue to Trump's confrontation of the Chinese. Is not the smart play then to make sure that neither are doing anything corrupt? This feels like when I am getting my son in trouble for something and he is like "but Justin....." and I'm all "What Justin does matters, but it doesn't make what you did any less wrong, were talking about you right now and then after I will talk to Justin". It seems odd to be fine with corruption in your party even if the other guy might be doing it as well or worse. If there's a reasonable basis for investigating something, go ahead and investigate it. What you seem to be missing with my defense of Trump is my repeatedly pointing out that I have yet to see a reasonable basis for the investigations of him that have been made. In fact, the whole mess stinks of entrapment and other criminal activity perpetrated by the investigators. The scope of the potential fraud that these people have perpetrated upon the American public and legal system is staggering. This will probably go down as the biggest political scandal of our generation, yet many (if not most) are still unaware of what's going on due to a complicit and compromised press. This is slowly changing, and Trump's declassification order signals a coming sea change in public perception of Trump and the investigations into him. What if the release of the documents don't exonerate Trump? What then? Will you still believe him or will you actually take the proof for what it's worth? Mueller’s report already exonerated Trump. So that’s not really at issue any more. The issue is whether the people investigating Trump are dirty. But yes, if this process that we are about to go through shows a valid predicate for investigating Trump, I’ll accept it and move on. It didn’t though. It said that if he wasn’t the president they’d have recommended charges. Did it say that explicitly? Can you provide a quotation? Yes and yes. First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to
initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial
judgment. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that "the indictment
or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the
executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions" in violation of "the
constitutional separation of powers."1 Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the
Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations, see 28 U.S.C. § 515;
28 C.F.R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC's legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising
prosecutorialjurisdiction.
Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President
clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Or, to get to the heart of calling xDaunt a liar. xDaunt:
Mueller’s report already exonerated Trump Literal text of the Mueller report:
Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him. It's absolutely disgraceful that xDaunt thinks that he can tells these lies about a report that specifically addresses whether it exonerates the President and states, in absolutely certain terms, that it does not. There has to be some level of decorum to any discussion for it to work. there is a difference between explicitly saying “we would recommend charges but for the fact that he’s president” and “we cant recommend charges because he’s president, but we can exonerate him if that’s what we find.” it seems rather that mueller compiled evidence for a future decision, by someone else, about whether to bring charges Mueller refused to make a charging decision on the obstruction charge, which prompted Barr to do it.
I feel like this is far more reaching in our government. There seems to be a lot of punting decisions and then complaining about what the person decides afterwards. I think I'd put that blame on congress more, but it is a broad brush.
|
United States43585 Posts
On May 25 2019 02:20 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2019 02:16 KwarK wrote:On May 25 2019 02:05 IgnE wrote:On May 25 2019 01:44 KwarK wrote:On May 25 2019 01:37 IgnE wrote:On May 25 2019 01:30 KwarK wrote:On May 25 2019 01:11 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2019 01:05 ShoCkeyy wrote:On May 25 2019 00:54 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2019 00:35 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
Is not the smart play then to make sure that neither are doing anything corrupt? This feels like when I am getting my son in trouble for something and he is like "but Justin....." and I'm all "What Justin does matters, but it doesn't make what you did any less wrong, were talking about you right now and then after I will talk to Justin".
It seems odd to be fine with corruption in your party even if the other guy might be doing it as well or worse. If there's a reasonable basis for investigating something, go ahead and investigate it. What you seem to be missing with my defense of Trump is my repeatedly pointing out that I have yet to see a reasonable basis for the investigations of him that have been made. In fact, the whole mess stinks of entrapment and other criminal activity perpetrated by the investigators. The scope of the potential fraud that these people have perpetrated upon the American public and legal system is staggering. This will probably go down as the biggest political scandal of our generation, yet many (if not most) are still unaware of what's going on due to a complicit and compromised press. This is slowly changing, and Trump's declassification order signals a coming sea change in public perception of Trump and the investigations into him. What if the release of the documents don't exonerate Trump? What then? Will you still believe him or will you actually take the proof for what it's worth? Mueller’s report already exonerated Trump. So that’s not really at issue any more. The issue is whether the people investigating Trump are dirty. But yes, if this process that we are about to go through shows a valid predicate for investigating Trump, I’ll accept it and move on. It didn’t though. It said that if he wasn’t the president they’d have recommended charges. Did it say that explicitly? Can you provide a quotation? Yes and yes. First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to
initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial
judgment. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that "the indictment
or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the
executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions" in violation of "the
constitutional separation of powers."1 Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the
Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations, see 28 U.S.C. § 515;
28 C.F.R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC's legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising
prosecutorialjurisdiction.
Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President
clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Or, to get to the heart of calling xDaunt a liar. xDaunt:
Mueller’s report already exonerated Trump Literal text of the Mueller report:
Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him. It's absolutely disgraceful that xDaunt thinks that he can tells these lies about a report that specifically addresses whether it exonerates the President and states, in absolutely certain terms, that it does not. There has to be some level of decorum to any discussion for it to work. there is a difference between explicitly saying “we would recommend charges but for the fact that he’s president” and “we cant recommend charges because he’s president, but we can exonerate him if that’s what we find.” it seems rather that mueller compiled evidence for a future decision, by someone else, about whether to bring charges Meuller wrote "If he didn't do it we would tick this box. Here is the box. It's not ticked. On purpose." He also wrote "If he did do it we wouldn't press charges because we're not allowed to. Also we're not pressing charges." It's not a complicated summary to understand. The only way you can find that it exonerates Trump, as xDaunt claims, is if you selectively remove the words "does not". Any reading without selectively removing words makes it pretty clear. You at least recognize that the "If he did do it we wouldn't press charges because we're not allowed to." was an opinion Mueller was entitled to argue against and elected not to?
That’s outside both of our expertise.
Fortunately reading is something we can all do. Mueller said if he did it I would not recommend charges and if he didn’t do it I would exonerate him. I’m not going to exonerate him. Also I’m not pressing charges. It’s not a secret code, it’s the introductory paragraph. It’s front and center. He tells you what he means by the words he uses to avoid any ambiguity.
|
On May 25 2019 02:26 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2019 02:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 25 2019 02:16 KwarK wrote:On May 25 2019 02:05 IgnE wrote:On May 25 2019 01:44 KwarK wrote:On May 25 2019 01:37 IgnE wrote:On May 25 2019 01:30 KwarK wrote:On May 25 2019 01:11 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2019 01:05 ShoCkeyy wrote:On May 25 2019 00:54 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
If there's a reasonable basis for investigating something, go ahead and investigate it. What you seem to be missing with my defense of Trump is my repeatedly pointing out that I have yet to see a reasonable basis for the investigations of him that have been made. In fact, the whole mess stinks of entrapment and other criminal activity perpetrated by the investigators. The scope of the potential fraud that these people have perpetrated upon the American public and legal system is staggering. This will probably go down as the biggest political scandal of our generation, yet many (if not most) are still unaware of what's going on due to a complicit and compromised press. This is slowly changing, and Trump's declassification order signals a coming sea change in public perception of Trump and the investigations into him. What if the release of the documents don't exonerate Trump? What then? Will you still believe him or will you actually take the proof for what it's worth? Mueller’s report already exonerated Trump. So that’s not really at issue any more. The issue is whether the people investigating Trump are dirty. But yes, if this process that we are about to go through shows a valid predicate for investigating Trump, I’ll accept it and move on. It didn’t though. It said that if he wasn’t the president they’d have recommended charges. Did it say that explicitly? Can you provide a quotation? Yes and yes. First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to
initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial
judgment. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that "the indictment
or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the
executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions" in violation of "the
constitutional separation of powers."1 Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the
Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations, see 28 U.S.C. § 515;
28 C.F.R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC's legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising
prosecutorialjurisdiction.
Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President
clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Or, to get to the heart of calling xDaunt a liar. xDaunt:
Mueller’s report already exonerated Trump Literal text of the Mueller report:
Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him. It's absolutely disgraceful that xDaunt thinks that he can tells these lies about a report that specifically addresses whether it exonerates the President and states, in absolutely certain terms, that it does not. There has to be some level of decorum to any discussion for it to work. there is a difference between explicitly saying “we would recommend charges but for the fact that he’s president” and “we cant recommend charges because he’s president, but we can exonerate him if that’s what we find.” it seems rather that mueller compiled evidence for a future decision, by someone else, about whether to bring charges Meuller wrote "If he didn't do it we would tick this box. Here is the box. It's not ticked. On purpose." He also wrote "If he did do it we wouldn't press charges because we're not allowed to. Also we're not pressing charges." It's not a complicated summary to understand. The only way you can find that it exonerates Trump, as xDaunt claims, is if you selectively remove the words "does not". Any reading without selectively removing words makes it pretty clear. You at least recognize that the "If he did do it we wouldn't press charges because we're not allowed to." was an opinion Mueller was entitled to argue against and elected not to? That’s outside both of our expertise. Fortunately reading is something we can all do. Mueller said if he did it I would not recommend charges and if he didn’t do it I would exonerate him. I’m not going to exonerate him. Also I’m not pressing charges. It’s not a secret code, it’s the introductory paragraph. It’s front and center. He tells you what he means by the words he uses to avoid any ambiguity.
I mean that's more or less what I'm doing. I'm not arguing he would win the argument, just that the assertion he couldn't have charged or recommended charges takes reading more than is there/codified. It depends on an opinion that Mueller could have argued and at minimum held the remote possibility could have been overcome. So his assessment is limited in that way.
That's to say the notion Mueller wasn't allowed to press/recommend charges was an opinion with which Mueller agreed (also happened to be rather convenient for him), not a statement of established fact.
|
For those who think that Trump did criminally obstruct justice, are you still going to insist that he committed such crime if it is verified that the entire investigation into him was illegitimate? Stated another way, are you going to argue that his resisting an unlawful investigation is criminal or impeachable conduct?
|
On May 25 2019 02:36 xDaunt wrote:
For those who think that Trump did criminally obstruct justice, are you still going to insist that he committed such crime if it is verified that the entire investigation into him was illegitimate? Stated another way, are you going to argue that his resisting an unlawful investigation is criminal or impeachable conduct?
Hes the President. Yes its impeachable. Have some standards.
|
United States43585 Posts
On May 25 2019 02:36 xDaunt wrote:
For those who think that Trump did criminally obstruct justice, are you still going to insist that he committed such crime if it is verified that the entire investigation into him was illegitimate? Stated another way, are you going to argue that his resisting an unlawful investigation is criminal or impeachable conduct?
You are not allowed to illegally resist arrest, even if you did nothing wrong lol. If you did nothing wrong you lawyer up and prove it. You don’t threaten the police chief to make him stop the investigation.
|
i wonder if a police chief is allowed to order a cop under his command not to arrest him
|
On May 25 2019 02:11 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2019 02:05 IgnE wrote:On May 25 2019 01:44 KwarK wrote:On May 25 2019 01:37 IgnE wrote:On May 25 2019 01:30 KwarK wrote:On May 25 2019 01:11 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2019 01:05 ShoCkeyy wrote:On May 25 2019 00:54 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2019 00:35 JimmiC wrote:On May 25 2019 00:29 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Interestingly enough, there are many conservatives who have a very different view of the CIA's intelligence assessment before the Iraq War now than they did before all of this Trump stuff. Even Rush Limbaugh said during his show in the past couple weeks that he certainly looks what happened back in 2002-2003 with a more jaundiced eye and wonders whether everything was on the up and up. I certainly don't blindly trust the federal government national security apparatus anymore.
What business does Trump have with China? His family certainly can't be more tied up in China than Biden's. And again, Trump is the one actively harming Chinese interests whereas Biden, if elected, is far more likely to fellate Xi than he is to continue to Trump's confrontation of the Chinese. Is not the smart play then to make sure that neither are doing anything corrupt? This feels like when I am getting my son in trouble for something and he is like "but Justin....." and I'm all "What Justin does matters, but it doesn't make what you did any less wrong, were talking about you right now and then after I will talk to Justin". It seems odd to be fine with corruption in your party even if the other guy might be doing it as well or worse. If there's a reasonable basis for investigating something, go ahead and investigate it. What you seem to be missing with my defense of Trump is my repeatedly pointing out that I have yet to see a reasonable basis for the investigations of him that have been made. In fact, the whole mess stinks of entrapment and other criminal activity perpetrated by the investigators. The scope of the potential fraud that these people have perpetrated upon the American public and legal system is staggering. This will probably go down as the biggest political scandal of our generation, yet many (if not most) are still unaware of what's going on due to a complicit and compromised press. This is slowly changing, and Trump's declassification order signals a coming sea change in public perception of Trump and the investigations into him. What if the release of the documents don't exonerate Trump? What then? Will you still believe him or will you actually take the proof for what it's worth? Mueller’s report already exonerated Trump. So that’s not really at issue any more. The issue is whether the people investigating Trump are dirty. But yes, if this process that we are about to go through shows a valid predicate for investigating Trump, I’ll accept it and move on. It didn’t though. It said that if he wasn’t the president they’d have recommended charges. Did it say that explicitly? Can you provide a quotation? Yes and yes. First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to
initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial
judgment. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that "the indictment
or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the
executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions" in violation of "the
constitutional separation of powers."1 Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the
Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations, see 28 U.S.C. § 515;
28 C.F.R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC's legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising
prosecutorialjurisdiction.
Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President
clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Or, to get to the heart of calling xDaunt a liar. xDaunt:
Mueller’s report already exonerated Trump Literal text of the Mueller report:
Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him. It's absolutely disgraceful that xDaunt thinks that he can tells these lies about a report that specifically addresses whether it exonerates the President and states, in absolutely certain terms, that it does not. There has to be some level of decorum to any discussion for it to work. there is a difference between explicitly saying “we would recommend charges but for the fact that he’s president” and “we cant recommend charges because he’s president, but we can exonerate him if that’s what we find.” it seems rather that mueller compiled evidence for a future decision, by someone else, about whether to bring charges Mueller refused to make a charging decision on the obstruction charge, which prompted Barr to do it.
It's my understanding that the report EXPLICITLY suggested it was up to congress (not Barr) to make a decision on obstruction.
Also, having an redacted version of the report for the public is one thing, but not allowing congress to see the full report doesn't make sense.
|
On May 25 2019 02:36 xDaunt wrote:
For those who think that Trump did criminally obstruct justice, are you still going to insist that he committed such crime if it is verified that the entire investigation into him was illegitimate? Stated another way, are you going to argue that his resisting an unlawful investigation is criminal or impeachable conduct?
He is AT THE VERY very very very LEAST as guilty as Clinton was.
|
On May 25 2019 02:46 IgnE wrote:
i wonder if a police chief is allowed to order a cop under his command not to arrest him
What's the meaning of "allowed" in this context?
On May 25 2019 02:44 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2019 02:36 xDaunt wrote:
For those who think that Trump did criminally obstruct justice, are you still going to insist that he committed such crime if it is verified that the entire investigation into him was illegitimate? Stated another way, are you going to argue that his resisting an unlawful investigation is criminal or impeachable conduct? You are not allowed to illegally resist arrest, even if you did nothing wrong lol. If you did nothing wrong you lawyer up and prove it. You don’t threaten the police chief to make him stop the investigation.
If you want to argue this is an injustice xDaunt you'll find my support not far behind 
|
On May 25 2019 02:36 xDaunt wrote:
For those who think that Trump did criminally obstruct justice, are you still going to insist that he committed such crime if it is verified that the entire investigation into him was illegitimate? Stated another way, are you going to argue that his resisting an unlawful investigation is criminal or impeachable conduct? Yes, if your innocent you let the investigation prove that, you don't try everything in, and out, of your power to stop it from finding that you are indeed innocent.
There is no requirement for an underlying crime for Obstruction of Justice, nor is the failure of obstructing the investigation a defence, attempted Obstruction of Justice is simply Obstruction of Justice.
|
United States43585 Posts
On May 25 2019 02:51 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2019 02:46 IgnE wrote:
i wonder if a police chief is allowed to order a cop under his command not to arrest him What's the meaning of "allowed" in this context?
This the heart of the issue. None of the stuff Trump does is really allowable, but it has been allowed to happen. I mean for fucks sake. Barr wrote a letter to Trump’s legal defence unsolicited saying he totally thought Trump was innocent and would act accordingly if he had an appointment. Barr shouldn’t be allowed to be appointed to office by Trump. He certainly shouldn’t be in a position to fulfill his end of the shameless quid pro quo. None of this is allowable. And yet it is being allowed.
|
I think such a position on obstruction would be political suicide for democrats, especially when people understand that Trump’s political opponents are behind the investigation.
|
On May 25 2019 02:54 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2019 02:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 25 2019 02:46 IgnE wrote:
i wonder if a police chief is allowed to order a cop under his command not to arrest him What's the meaning of "allowed" in this context? This the heart of the issue. None of the stuff Trump does is really allowable, but it has been allowed to happen. I mean for fucks sake. Barr wrote a letter to Trump’s legal defence unsolicited saying he totally thought Trump was innocent and would act accordingly if he had an appointment. Barr shouldn’t be allowed to be appointed to office by Trump. He certainly shouldn’t be in a position to fulfill his end of the shameless quid pro quo. None of this is allowable. And yet it is being allowed.
I have no idea if you have any accent but reading this in the voice of an exasperated Brit made the terrifying nature of what you're saying whimsical and amusing. I doubt that's what you were after but it provides the honey needed to swallow the bitter pill. Like Oliver but deadpan af with just a hint of "Iron Eyes Cody"
|
United States43585 Posts
On May 25 2019 02:51 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2019 02:46 IgnE wrote:
i wonder if a police chief is allowed to order a cop under his command not to arrest him What's the meaning of "allowed" in this context? Show nested quote +On May 25 2019 02:44 KwarK wrote:On May 25 2019 02:36 xDaunt wrote:
For those who think that Trump did criminally obstruct justice, are you still going to insist that he committed such crime if it is verified that the entire investigation into him was illegitimate? Stated another way, are you going to argue that his resisting an unlawful investigation is criminal or impeachable conduct? You are not allowed to illegally resist arrest, even if you did nothing wrong lol. If you did nothing wrong you lawyer up and prove it. You don’t threaten the police chief to make him stop the investigation. If you want to argue this is an injustice xDaunt you'll find my support not far behind
If you’re hoping his convictions on this issue will be the same if anyone else is wrongly apprehended by the police you’ll be disappointed. You’ll find no ally for police brutality. Only the assertion that no white American deserves to be treated like this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
