|
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 29 2019 23:53 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
There's no need for a new anti Barr narrative. All he needs is to confirm how badly the letter represented the report and that Barr misrepresented his statements in the phonecall.
I am prepared to be disappointed. Him not wanting to testify publicly, and not taking questions now, makes me think he just wants to sail off in the sunset instead of taking a stance one way or another.
He did what he was hired to do and is more than likely wiping his hands of this today imo.
Were liberals prepared for Mueller to shit on the anti-Barr narrative saying he thinks he's operating in good faith?
|
|
|
Meh. Just a reading of the report summaries basically.
So he gives Barr a pat on the shoulder for the release of the report.
At the same time restates the ' he didn't not do a crime' and 'we couldn't look at bringing charges due to guidelines'. Which is something Barr pretty much ignored and said no obstruction.
But nothing on what it would look like without the guidelines either. So we are just stuck in this limbo.
Confusing signals here Bob. And now saying he'll never make another statement. Off to the sunset it is.
He did re-iterate the seriousness of the election interference. Did Trump ever even officially acknowledge the interference,after denying it because Putin said so at Helsinki?
|
On May 30 2019 00:23 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
Meh. Just a reading of the report summaries basically.
So he gives Barr a pat on the shoulder for the release of the report.
At the same time restates the ' he didn't not do a crime' and 'we couldn't look at bringing charges due to guidelines'. Which is something Barr pretty much ignored and said no obstruction.
But nothing on what it would look like without the guidelines either. So we are just stuck in this limbo.
Confusing signals here Bob. And now saying he'll never make another statement. Off to the sunset it is.
I really don't think he gets out of making more statements. The dems will probably subpoena him and force the testimony
|
On May 30 2019 00:23 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
Meh. Just a reading of the report summaries basically.
So he gives Barr a pat on the shoulder for the release of the report.
At the same time restates the ' he didn't not do a crime' and 'we couldn't look at bringing charges due to guidelines'. Which is something Barr pretty much ignored and said no obstruction.
But nothing on what it would look like without the guidelines either. So we are just stuck in this limbo.
Confusing signals here Bob. And now saying he'll never make another statement. Off to the sunset it is.
He did re-iterate the seriousness of the election interference. Did Trump ever even official acknowledge the interference that after denying it because Putin said so at Helsinki?
I don't think it's confusing so much as not what was hyped by media anonymous reports of Mueller's (apperently non-existent) contempt with Barr's treatment of his report.
He knows all Barr did was remove the superficial ambiguity of Mueller's report.
|
Yeah I don't know what Mueller is smoking if he thinks he doesn't have to show up before Congress to answer questions, atleast in private.
|
First and foremost, Mueller was visibly nervous up there. For whatever reason, he was not comfortable giving that statement.
Second, it’s very obvious that he does not want to testify at all — publicly or privately. He wants zero scrutiny of what his team did or did not do.
Third, the whole point of this press conference was to create some talking points and sound bites for the anti-Trump crowd. There were a few messages that he wanted to get out there. He emphasized the charges against actual Russian agents to give the appearance that his investigation into Trump and his team were validly predicated. He all but called for Congress to impeach Trump with his interpretation and construction of DOJ guidelines. And given the building cloud over the propriety of his investigation, he wanted to make it clear that his team did nothing wrong in its investigation.
I expect that the Trump camp’s response is going to be swift and brutal.
|
On May 30 2019 00:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2019 00:23 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
Meh. Just a reading of the report summaries basically.
So he gives Barr a pat on the shoulder for the release of the report.
At the same time restates the ' he didn't not do a crime' and 'we couldn't look at bringing charges due to guidelines'. Which is something Barr pretty much ignored and said no obstruction.
But nothing on what it would look like without the guidelines either. So we are just stuck in this limbo.
Confusing signals here Bob. And now saying he'll never make another statement. Off to the sunset it is.
He did re-iterate the seriousness of the election interference. Did Trump ever even official acknowledge the interference that after denying it because Putin said so at Helsinki? I don't think it's confusing so much as not what was hyped by media anonymous reports of Mueller's (apperently non-existent) contempt with Barr's treatment of his report. He knows all Barr did was remove the superficial ambiguity of Mueller's report.
So you are firmly in the 'He made it vague on purpose to imply something that's not there' camp? I still don't see the motive for that. Do you believe the 'it was a set-up' theory too?
It's confusing because both sides will claim victory with this statement. Dems will go 'his hands were bound' and Reps will go Barr was right all along and nothing changes because Pelosi won't impeach.
|
On May 30 2019 00:26 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2019 00:23 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
Meh. Just a reading of the report summaries basically.
So he gives Barr a pat on the shoulder for the release of the report.
At the same time restates the ' he didn't not do a crime' and 'we couldn't look at bringing charges due to guidelines'. Which is something Barr pretty much ignored and said no obstruction.
But nothing on what it would look like without the guidelines either. So we are just stuck in this limbo.
Confusing signals here Bob. And now saying he'll never make another statement. Off to the sunset it is.
I really don't think he gets out of making more statements. The dems will probably subpoena him and force the testimony
That's exactly what I think will happen. Mueller's live statement, said a key thing here: "If we had confidence the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so", "we didn't make a decision if he did", then he discusses about "long standing department policy about charging a president while he's in office". He says because of this, "they would/would not reach a determination on whether the president committed a crime".
Mueller's laying out the ground work, essentially saying he won't make the judgement on the President. That it seems like Congress should make that decision and I think essentially saying that he's trying to keep the independent counsel bipartisan based on policies/memo's, etc.
Then Mueller ends it with "There were multiple systematic efforts to interfere in our election, and that allegation deserves the attention of every American".
In the final moments you here some one ask if Mueller was subpoena'd would he answer questions. And Mueller says no questions.
|
He restated the "not exonerated" standard. He certainly doesn't want to have Republicans on the hill examine wtf he thinks that is in the justice system. He gives no clarification on DOJ sources for saying the OLC had nothing to do with it. He doesn't elaborate on the new legal theory at odds with both the justice system and OLC.
He rides into the sunset telling everyone to read the report. Ok.
|
Norway28784 Posts
On May 29 2019 06:47 hunts wrote:
Am I horribly misunderstanding something here or is GH saying that we need to abolish the police because of climate change?
you're misunderstanding something in a really stupid way that makes me believe it's deliberate on your behalf, because surely you cannot have actually read his posts and reached that conclusion.
These are two entirely separate issues. You don't have to agree with either solution, but: climate change requires socialism to handle (from gh's perspective - one I largely share, although I believe there is some uncertainty with regard to how well a capitalistic technology-driven approach to dealing with it can handle it/ how long it takes before western countries truly have to grapple with it), and the american police force is so broken that it cannot be reformed, thus it has to be abolished before it can be remade into something functional.
Climate change pushes the socialist revolution (capitalism is fueled by consumption which fuels climate change) which, if socialist ideology is actually adhered to, also results in a society where hierarchical structures are largely removed, this will also certainly influence future policing.
|
On May 30 2019 00:38 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2019 00:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 30 2019 00:23 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
Meh. Just a reading of the report summaries basically.
So he gives Barr a pat on the shoulder for the release of the report.
At the same time restates the ' he didn't not do a crime' and 'we couldn't look at bringing charges due to guidelines'. Which is something Barr pretty much ignored and said no obstruction.
But nothing on what it would look like without the guidelines either. So we are just stuck in this limbo.
Confusing signals here Bob. And now saying he'll never make another statement. Off to the sunset it is.
He did re-iterate the seriousness of the election interference. Did Trump ever even official acknowledge the interference that after denying it because Putin said so at Helsinki? I don't think it's confusing so much as not what was hyped by media anonymous reports of Mueller's (apperently non-existent) contempt with Barr's treatment of his report. He knows all Barr did was remove the superficial ambiguity of Mueller's report. So you are firmly in the 'He made it vague on purpose to imply something that's not there' camp?
Yes, are you suggesting it was an accident?
I still don't see the motive for that.
It's what he was hired to do as I said at the time.
"Mueller is a pro at letting people off the hook. He cleared the NFL on the Ray Rice thing (while not really clearing them) and he helped stop the renewal of a wildly unconstitutional wiretapping program (while not really stopping the wiretapping). "
Do you believe the 'it was a setup' theory too?
"it was a setup" by who? At one point the theory was that Russia had set Trump up/was black mailing him.
It's confusing because both sides will claim victory with this statement. Dems will go 'his hands were bound' and Reps will go Barr was right all along and nothing changes because Pelosi won't impeach.
That's the spin that's confusing you, not Mueller or Barr imo. They made it quite clear what happened as far as I can tell. It just doesn't make much sense for people who bought all the way into Russiagate and think the system holds someone like Trump accountable.
|
On May 30 2019 00:47 Danglars wrote:
He restated the "not exonerated" standard. He certainly doesn't want to have Republicans on the hill examine wtf he thinks that is in the justice system. He gives no clarification on DOJ sources for saying the OLC had nothing to do with it. He doesn't elaborate on the new legal theory at odds with both the justice system and OLC.
He rides into the sunset telling everyone to read the report. Ok.
When was it said that the OLC had nothing to do with it? It's undisputed that standing DOJ policy, set forth in a OLC memo, is not to indict a sitting president. The Constitution says that as far as a sitting president is concerned, Congress's impeachment power is the only avenue for dealing with alleged crimes.
|
On May 30 2019 00:47 Danglars wrote:
He restated the "not exonerated" standard. He certainly doesn't want to have Republicans on the hill examine wtf he thinks that is in the justice system. He gives no clarification on DOJ sources for saying the OLC had nothing to do with it. He doesn't elaborate on the new legal theory at odds with both the justice system and OLC.
He rides into the sunset telling everyone to read the report. Ok.
I don't think that he's going to be riding into the sunset. We're going to be hearing from him again.
One additional thing is that I am amused by all of the people on the left who are upset with Mueller resting on his report. It's clear that they really don't understand the political gift that Mueller gave them and that it's the best that he possibly could have done given what he had to work with. Anything further that Mueller might give or supply during testimony on Capitol Hill will be detrimental to the report. As a good lawyer, Mueller knows that what you don't say is just as important what you do say. At some point, you simply need to shut up.
|
On May 30 2019 00:49 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2019 00:38 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On May 30 2019 00:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 30 2019 00:23 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
Meh. Just a reading of the report summaries basically.
So he gives Barr a pat on the shoulder for the release of the report.
At the same time restates the ' he didn't not do a crime' and 'we couldn't look at bringing charges due to guidelines'. Which is something Barr pretty much ignored and said no obstruction.
But nothing on what it would look like without the guidelines either. So we are just stuck in this limbo.
Confusing signals here Bob. And now saying he'll never make another statement. Off to the sunset it is.
He did re-iterate the seriousness of the election interference. Did Trump ever even official acknowledge the interference that after denying it because Putin said so at Helsinki? I don't think it's confusing so much as not what was hyped by media anonymous reports of Mueller's (apperently non-existent) contempt with Barr's treatment of his report. He knows all Barr did was remove the superficial ambiguity of Mueller's report. So you are firmly in the 'He made it vague on purpose to imply something that's not there' camp? Yes, are you suggesting it was an accident? No. This whole non conclusion situation is the result of doing something exactly by the book. It doesn't require a motive for implication given that there's non-zero evidence of obstructive acts so he couldn't clear him but was also prohited from charges.
What does Mueller gain by making it non-definitive on purpose, it gains him no favor on either side.
What stings is that he somehow could say
three times to us in that meeting in response to our questioning that he emphatically was not saying that but for the OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] opinion, he would have found obstruction'
to Barr in a phonecall, but not make such a statement here today. He either needs to publicly state this or refute Barr claiming he said that. He can't just not make such a statement and never answer any questions again.
|
United States43866 Posts
On May 30 2019 00:47 Danglars wrote:
He restated the "not exonerated" standard. He certainly doesn't want to have Republicans on the hill examine wtf he thinks that is in the justice system. He gives no clarification on DOJ sources for saying the OLC had nothing to do with it. He doesn't elaborate on the new legal theory at odds with both the justice system and OLC.
He rides into the sunset telling everyone to read the report. Ok.
Not exonerated is a punt to Congress. He’s saying that the investigation found that Trump did it but that charges can’t come from him. If you read the introductory paragraph to part 2 it’s all laid out clearly.
|
On May 30 2019 00:53 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2019 00:47 Danglars wrote:
He restated the "not exonerated" standard. He certainly doesn't want to have Republicans on the hill examine wtf he thinks that is in the justice system. He gives no clarification on DOJ sources for saying the OLC had nothing to do with it. He doesn't elaborate on the new legal theory at odds with both the justice system and OLC.
He rides into the sunset telling everyone to read the report. Ok. When was it said that the OLC had nothing to do with it? It's undisputed that standing DOJ policy, set forth in a OLC memo, is not to indict a sitting president. The Constitution says that as far as a sitting president is concerned, Congress's impeachment power is the only avenue for dealing with alleged crimes.
Barr's sworn senate testimony, and multiple people at the DOJ as sources for reporters. We discussed this at length previously in the thread. Mueller's talk today is in contradiction with that.
|
United States43866 Posts
On May 30 2019 01:14 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2019 00:53 Doodsmack wrote:On May 30 2019 00:47 Danglars wrote:
He restated the "not exonerated" standard. He certainly doesn't want to have Republicans on the hill examine wtf he thinks that is in the justice system. He gives no clarification on DOJ sources for saying the OLC had nothing to do with it. He doesn't elaborate on the new legal theory at odds with both the justice system and OLC.
He rides into the sunset telling everyone to read the report. Ok. When was it said that the OLC had nothing to do with it? It's undisputed that standing DOJ policy, set forth in a OLC memo, is not to indict a sitting president. The Constitution says that as far as a sitting president is concerned, Congress's impeachment power is the only avenue for dealing with alleged crimes. Barr's sworn senate testimony, and multiple people at the DOJ as sources for reporters. We discussed this at length previously in the thread. Mueller's talk today is in contradiction with that.
The Mueller report is in conflict with that too.
|
On May 30 2019 01:02 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2019 00:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 30 2019 00:38 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On May 30 2019 00:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 30 2019 00:23 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
Meh. Just a reading of the report summaries basically.
So he gives Barr a pat on the shoulder for the release of the report.
At the same time restates the ' he didn't not do a crime' and 'we couldn't look at bringing charges due to guidelines'. Which is something Barr pretty much ignored and said no obstruction.
But nothing on what it would look like without the guidelines either. So we are just stuck in this limbo.
Confusing signals here Bob. And now saying he'll never make another statement. Off to the sunset it is.
He did re-iterate the seriousness of the election interference. Did Trump ever even official acknowledge the interference that after denying it because Putin said so at Helsinki? I don't think it's confusing so much as not what was hyped by media anonymous reports of Mueller's (apperently non-existent) contempt with Barr's treatment of his report. He knows all Barr did was remove the superficial ambiguity of Mueller's report. So you are firmly in the 'He made it vague on purpose to imply something that's not there' camp? Yes, are you suggesting it was an accident? No. This whole non conclusion situation is the result of doing something exactly by the book. It doesn't require a motive for implication given that there's non-zero evidence of obstructive acts so he couldn't clear him but was also prohited from charges. What does Mueller gain by making it non-definitive on purpose, it gains him no favor on either side. What stings is that he somehow could say three times to us in that meeting in response to our questioning that he emphatically was not saying that but for the OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] opinion, he would have found obstruction' to Barr in a phonecall, but not make such a statement here today. He either needs to publicly state this or refute Barr claiming he said that. He can't just not make such a statement and never answer any questions again.
Mueller is a scumbag in my book, but he went into this with bipartisan credibility and is retiring with it. Challenging the opinion he couldn't do anything but punt to congress, or clearing Trump turns him into a partisan actor (rhetorically). This silliness lets him "stay above the fray" and really only upset the most rigorous Russiagaters like Maddow.
That he didn't refute it is basically confirmation he did considering he did make a point to say Barr was acting in good faith. Either Mueller is the scumbag I think or Barr isn't lying about that, maybe both, but definitely not neither.
|
On May 30 2019 00:56 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2019 00:47 Danglars wrote:
He restated the "not exonerated" standard. He certainly doesn't want to have Republicans on the hill examine wtf he thinks that is in the justice system. He gives no clarification on DOJ sources for saying the OLC had nothing to do with it. He doesn't elaborate on the new legal theory at odds with both the justice system and OLC.
He rides into the sunset telling everyone to read the report. Ok. I don't think that he's going to be riding into the sunset. We're going to be hearing from him again. One additional thing is that I am amused by all of the people on the left who are upset with Mueller resting on his report. It's clear that they really don't understand the political gift that Mueller gave them and that it's the best that he possibly could have done given what he had to work with. Anything further that Mueller might give or supply during testimony on Capitol Hill will be detrimental to the report. As a good lawyer, Mueller knows that what you don't say is just as important what you do say. At some point, you simply need to shut up.
I think he's trying to. Maybe the Democrats will successfully lasso him into sworn testimony in the hopes of furthering an impeachment of Barr (and they're really gunning for Barr). I don't know if they're willing to look like they're in a squabble with Mueller. Democrats want the report to do more to say Trump obstructed justice but got off on a technicality, Republicans with Trump want to compare failure to conclude based on the evidence to practical exoneration. But Democrats want to present a united front of Mueller + Congress vs Trump. It's idiotic to compell testimony from the man who just said "I hope and expect this to be the only time that I will speak to you about this matter" and "the work speaks for itself. The report is my testimony. I would not provide information beyond that which is already public in any appearance before Congress" and "I do not believe it is appropriate for me to speak further about the investigation or to comment on the actions of the justice department or Congress."
He had plenty of time to dig at Barr and many people were hoping that he'd publicly contradict Barr just then. He didn't, for personal professionalism or the weakness of his non-conclusion legal theories. The only reasons I could see him recanting all he said today is Nadler compelling him with threats or some massive change of mind in acting a part in the Democrat's stage play. He wasn't wishy washy about questions left unanswered in the report. He didn't offer anything vague like alleging further comment would cause more damage than cure harm. He said his role is done, he has nothing more to offer Congress, he expects to speak on it no further. Mueller wouldn't go so far to try to settle it if he was very open to riding back into the fray.
You're obviously right on the last point. Democrats should see the no-conclusion and strange legal theories as the gift it is. Any further griping undermines special counsel investigations of Presidents for all time. Why have the executive branch investigate it's executive, if it can go beyond OLC opinion and obstruction theory? Why air the President's dirty laundry with impunity, but say it can't reach conclusions because it would be like not allowing the President legal recourse (impunity)? Mueller knows his justifications are full of holes, so Democrats should stay content that they have an out to not uncover them further.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
