|
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 30 2019 01:16 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2019 01:02 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: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.
Barr can be acting in good faith. "It's not a lie if you believe it"-George constanza.
As long as he believes that barr believes there is no wrong doing that's acting on good faith removed from if he himself absolutely disagreed.
|
On May 30 2019 01:40 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2019 01:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 30 2019 01:02 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: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. Barr can be acting in good faith. "It's not a lie if you believe it"-George constanza. As long as he believes that barr believes there is no wrong doing that's acting on good faith removed from if he himself absolutely disagreed.
Why would Barr conclude that (on good faith) unless the implication is he's arguably right, or Mueller thinks he's lost touch with reality?
|
On May 30 2019 01:16 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2019 01:02 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: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.
Are you suggesting the bolded part is not true? Criminally charging a sitting head of state without going through the impeachment/no confidence process first (which only congress/parliament can do) is at least indirectly unconstitutional in any modern state because it supplants the executive. This is separation of powers 101.
|
On May 30 2019 03:04 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2019 01:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 30 2019 01:02 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: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. Are you suggesting the bolded part is not true? Criminally charging a sitting head of state without going through the impeachment/no confidence process first (which only congress/parliament can do) is at least indirectly unconstitutional in any modern state because it supplants the executive. This is separation of powers 101.
I'm fine with that perspective, just funny so many well paid pundits,lawyers and columnists missed something so basic for two years and you're just now pointing it out (lest I missed you doing so before).
Had the story for 2 years been that Mueller has no choice but to punt to congress it would have been a lot more obvious to the Russiagaters that Trump was safe this whole time.
|
GH is dropping some major league truth bombs. The only thing that I disagree with is the idea that Mueller’s reputation is intact. I think Mueller was nervous during his press conference because he knows that he has disgraced himself.
|
On May 30 2019 03:19 xDaunt wrote:
GH is dropping some major league truth bombs. The only thing that I disagree with is the idea that Mueller’s reputation is intact. I think Mueller was nervous during his press conference because he knows that he has disgraced himself.
I think that's why he backed Barr and his office threw a fit and sent some crap to MSNBC trying to explain to them how to argue what they wrote means what they wished it meant. (EDIT: I think Mueller will be fine, just to be clear though).
Also I don't even know how people keep the Russia thing straight in their head (I guess they pay a lot more attention to it than I ever would) but just a little critical thinking and google is all it took for me to demonstrate the tone with which DanHH responded to my post is terribly misdirected.
Mr. Mueller could seek the president’s indictment. If he believes he has enough evidence to charge Mr. Trump with a crime in federal court, the special counsel could ask a grand jury to indict him.
www.nytimes.com
Like bro, you should have called the NYT years ago and told them how obviously wrong they were.
|
On May 30 2019 03:10 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2019 03:04 Dan HH wrote:On May 30 2019 01:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 30 2019 01:02 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: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. Are you suggesting the bolded part is not true? Criminally charging a sitting head of state without going through the impeachment/no confidence process first (which only congress/parliament can do) is at least indirectly unconstitutional in any modern state because it supplants the executive. This is separation of powers 101. I'm fine with that perspective, just funny so many well paid pundits,lawyers and columnists missed something so basic for two years and you're just now pointing it out (lest I missed you doing so before). Had the story for 2 years been that Mueller has no choice but to punt to congress it would have been a lot more obvious to the Russiagaters that Trump was safe this whole time.
I haven't, but I haven't made any comments whatsoever on this story until after the investigation ended and then mostly meta ones. It didn't particularly interest me.
That said, my impression was that this story was always about impeachment. The people that wanted to get rid of Trump before the next election were hoping for such explosive findings in this investigation that there would be no choice but to impeach. They were certainly not hoping for something that's technically a crime but not scandalous enough for immediate action.
Even so, I'd be very surprised if there weren't swathes of articles and op-eds about the process of charging a president requiring the legislative to step in.
|
On May 30 2019 03:25 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +Mr. Mueller could seek the president’s indictment. If he believes he has enough evidence to charge Mr. Trump with a crime in federal court, the special counsel could ask a grand jury to indict him. www.nytimes.comLike bro, you should have called the NYT years ago and told them how obviously wrong they were.
They weren't wrong, read your link
"The office of the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, has told the president’s lawyers that it plans to abide by the Justice Department’s view that sitting presidents cannot be indicted no matter what the evidence shows. Still, if Mr. Mueller finds wrongdoing, Mr. Trump could be indicted after he leaves office."
|
On May 30 2019 03:30 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2019 03:25 GreenHorizons wrote:Mr. Mueller could seek the president’s indictment. If he believes he has enough evidence to charge Mr. Trump with a crime in federal court, the special counsel could ask a grand jury to indict him. www.nytimes.comLike bro, you should have called the NYT years ago and told them how obviously wrong they were. They weren't wrong, read your link "The office of the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, has told the president’s lawyers that it plans to abide by the Justice Department’s view that sitting presidents cannot be indicted no matter what the evidence shows. Still, if Mr. Mueller finds wrongdoing, Mr. Trump could be indicted after he leaves office."
And he's not. So, Mueller could have pursued charges if he thought he had them and he didn't.
|
On May 30 2019 03:32 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2019 03:30 Dan HH wrote:On May 30 2019 03:25 GreenHorizons wrote:Mr. Mueller could seek the president’s indictment. If he believes he has enough evidence to charge Mr. Trump with a crime in federal court, the special counsel could ask a grand jury to indict him. www.nytimes.comLike bro, you should have called the NYT years ago and told them how obviously wrong they were. They weren't wrong, read your link "The office of the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, has told the president’s lawyers that it plans to abide by the Justice Department’s view that sitting presidents cannot be indicted no matter what the evidence shows. Still, if Mr. Mueller finds wrongdoing, Mr. Trump could be indicted after he leaves office." And he's not. So, Mueller could have pursued charges if he thought he had them and he didn't.
After he leaves office means when he is no longer executive. What are you even arguing?
|
On May 30 2019 03:39 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2019 03:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 30 2019 03:30 Dan HH wrote:On May 30 2019 03:25 GreenHorizons wrote:Mr. Mueller could seek the president’s indictment. If he believes he has enough evidence to charge Mr. Trump with a crime in federal court, the special counsel could ask a grand jury to indict him. www.nytimes.comLike bro, you should have called the NYT years ago and told them how obviously wrong they were. They weren't wrong, read your link "The office of the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, has told the president’s lawyers that it plans to abide by the Justice Department’s view that sitting presidents cannot be indicted no matter what the evidence shows. Still, if Mr. Mueller finds wrongdoing, Mr. Trump could be indicted after he leaves office." And he's not. So, Mueller could have pursued charges if he thought he had them and he didn't. After he leaves office means when he is no longer executive. What are you even arguing?
That:
Mueller could get permission from Rosenstein to seek the president’s indictment. If he believes he has enough evidence to charge Trump with a crime in federal court, the special counsel could ask a grand jury to indict him.
He decided he wasn't going to do that before he had bothered to do the investigation.
|
Mueller says: "I was not able to indict a sitting president"
Other people: So here's why that's not what Mueller meant
He's telling you the conclusion, not trying to explain the in depth political philosophy that makes it true. We can assume what he said is fact and that you guys do not know more than him.
|
On May 30 2019 03:45 Mohdoo wrote:
Mueller says: "I was not able to indict a sitting president"
Other people: So here's why that's not what Mueller meant
He's telling you the conclusion, not trying to explain the in depth political philosophy that makes it true. We can assume what he said is fact and that you guys do not know more than him.
What/who are you talking about?
|
On May 30 2019 01:52 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2019 01:40 semantics wrote:On May 30 2019 01:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 30 2019 01:02 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: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. Barr can be acting in good faith. "It's not a lie if you believe it"-George constanza. As long as he believes that barr believes there is no wrong doing that's acting on good faith removed from if he himself absolutely disagreed. Why would Barr conclude that (on good faith) unless the implication is he's arguably right, or Mueller thinks he's lost touch with reality?
Because our law is subjective. In This world you can disagree with someone but still respect, work for them and trust their decision making.
This isn't as mentally exclusive as you make it out to be. People dont have to attack people they disagree with.
|
On May 30 2019 03:47 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2019 01:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 30 2019 01:40 semantics wrote:On May 30 2019 01:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 30 2019 01:02 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: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. Barr can be acting in good faith. "It's not a lie if you believe it"-George constanza. As long as he believes that barr believes there is no wrong doing that's acting on good faith removed from if he himself absolutely disagreed. Why would Barr conclude that (on good faith) unless the implication is he's arguably right, or Mueller thinks he's lost touch with reality? Because our law is subjective. In This world you can disagree with someone but still respect, work for them and trust their decision making. This isn't as mentally exclusive as you make it out to be. People dont have to attack people they disagree with.
This is the "Barr is arguably right" option, not clear why you thought your answer wasn't that option?
|
On May 30 2019 03:42 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2019 03:39 Dan HH wrote:On May 30 2019 03:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 30 2019 03:30 Dan HH wrote:On May 30 2019 03:25 GreenHorizons wrote:Mr. Mueller could seek the president’s indictment. If he believes he has enough evidence to charge Mr. Trump with a crime in federal court, the special counsel could ask a grand jury to indict him. www.nytimes.comLike bro, you should have called the NYT years ago and told them how obviously wrong they were. They weren't wrong, read your link "The office of the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, has told the president’s lawyers that it plans to abide by the Justice Department’s view that sitting presidents cannot be indicted no matter what the evidence shows. Still, if Mr. Mueller finds wrongdoing, Mr. Trump could be indicted after he leaves office." And he's not. So, Mueller could have pursued charges if he thought he had them and he didn't. After he leaves office means when he is no longer executive. What are you even arguing? That: Mueller could get permission from Rosenstein to seek the president’s indictment. If he believes he has enough evidence to charge Trump with a crime in federal court, the special counsel could ask a grand jury to indict him. He decided he wasn't going to do that before he had bothered to do the investigation.
GH, going to repost this for you:
On May 30 2019 00:39 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2019 00:26 IyMoon 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.
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.
The full transcript, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/29/us/politics/mueller-transcript.html and any other source you need, but the lines I bold above are literally contradicting what you just said.
Mueller is literally saying there's evidence the president could have committed a crime, but it's not up to them to decide, and is essentially punting it over to Congress. He did the investigation, and is allowing the people's representation to decide. He also comments on how he requested Barr to release the FULL report, but only released what he wanted.
|
|
|
On May 30 2019 03:51 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2019 03:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 30 2019 03:39 Dan HH wrote:On May 30 2019 03:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 30 2019 03:30 Dan HH wrote:On May 30 2019 03:25 GreenHorizons wrote:Mr. Mueller could seek the president’s indictment. If he believes he has enough evidence to charge Mr. Trump with a crime in federal court, the special counsel could ask a grand jury to indict him. www.nytimes.comLike bro, you should have called the NYT years ago and told them how obviously wrong they were. They weren't wrong, read your link "The office of the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, has told the president’s lawyers that it plans to abide by the Justice Department’s view that sitting presidents cannot be indicted no matter what the evidence shows. Still, if Mr. Mueller finds wrongdoing, Mr. Trump could be indicted after he leaves office." And he's not. So, Mueller could have pursued charges if he thought he had them and he didn't. After he leaves office means when he is no longer executive. What are you even arguing? That: Mueller could get permission from Rosenstein to seek the president’s indictment. If he believes he has enough evidence to charge Trump with a crime in federal court, the special counsel could ask a grand jury to indict him. He decided he wasn't going to do that before he had bothered to do the investigation. GH, going to repost this for you: Show nested quote +On May 30 2019 00:39 ShoCkeyy wrote:On May 30 2019 00:26 IyMoon 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.
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. The full transcript, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/29/us/politics/mueller-transcript.html and any other source you need, but the lines I bold above are literally contradicting what you just said. Mueller is literally saying there's evidence the president could have committed a crime, but it's not up to them to decide, and is essentially punting it over to Congress. He did the investigation, and is allowing the people's representation to decide.
I saw it, I'm not sure how else to explain this though?
That's what the "Mueller decided he wasn't going to do that (pursue charges) before he bothered to do the investigation" line is referencing.
Back when this started "respectable" publications like the NYT (and others) describe the process by which Mueller would bring charges against Trump.
When that was happening Mueller quickly told them that he had precluded himself (by way of agreeing with the memo, not a law) that he couldn't do what publications like the NYT explained he could.
Instead of keeping in people's minds that Mueller had precluded himself from doing anything but punting to congress it was widely speculated here and elsewhere that Mueller may recommend or bring charges until it started to become clear that wasn't going to happen (I don't know, maybe ~6 months ago or soEDIT: I guess it's closer to 12 months when the collusion narrative fell apart).
|
On May 30 2019 03:47 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2019 03:45 Mohdoo wrote:
Mueller says: "I was not able to indict a sitting president"
Other people: So here's why that's not what Mueller meant
He's telling you the conclusion, not trying to explain the in depth political philosophy that makes it true. We can assume what he said is fact and that you guys do not know more than him. What/who are you talking about?
I am using "other people" to describe anyone who is refuting what Mueller said.
|
On May 30 2019 03:42 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2019 03:39 Dan HH wrote:On May 30 2019 03:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 30 2019 03:30 Dan HH wrote:On May 30 2019 03:25 GreenHorizons wrote:Mr. Mueller could seek the president’s indictment. If he believes he has enough evidence to charge Mr. Trump with a crime in federal court, the special counsel could ask a grand jury to indict him. www.nytimes.comLike bro, you should have called the NYT years ago and told them how obviously wrong they were. They weren't wrong, read your link "The office of the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, has told the president’s lawyers that it plans to abide by the Justice Department’s view that sitting presidents cannot be indicted no matter what the evidence shows. Still, if Mr. Mueller finds wrongdoing, Mr. Trump could be indicted after he leaves office." And he's not. So, Mueller could have pursued charges if he thought he had them and he didn't. After he leaves office means when he is no longer executive. What are you even arguing? That: Mueller could get permission from Rosenstein to seek the president’s indictment. If he believes he has enough evidence to charge Trump with a crime in federal court, the special counsel could ask a grand jury to indict him. He decided he wasn't going to do that before he had bothered to do the investigation.
Right below that it has a section with the the complications that would arise from that action. Including the obvious that the indictment's constitutionality would be challenged. What it doesn't mention is that it would 100% get struck down
I'm not some expert in the US constitution, but in any constitution there is a section about the executive branch, throw a dart at any line in such a section and you have a good chance of finding a stipulation that will be broken by indicting the head of state while in office.
I'm also not responsible for what every columnist has ever written about a subject I haven't followed. Though the one you chose to contradict me with certainly doesn't do so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
