US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1505

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.

On May 30 2019 04:09 Danglars wrote:

"I was not able to reach a conclusion on obstruction"
::Why?
"Well, it wasn't the OLC that stopped me."
::Why?
"Well, it has to do with the president not being able to clear his name legally?"
::Then why publish a bunch of all these almost-obstruction vignettes that the President can't do anything about? Aren't those also allegations that the President can't clear, since you refused to make a finding?
"<Silence>"
::The special prosecutor has one job, and that's to investigate whether evidence exists for the charges and reach a conclusion on it. Why do you insist on neither concluding he obstructed justice, but stating you can't indict, nor concluding accounts in testimony didn't amount to obstruction, so no charging was possible?
"Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial decision, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the president’s conduct."
::Sigh
...
Media/Democrats: Proceed to ignore all the inconsistencies with Mueller's rationalizations, insist that it's straightforward OLC, ignore troubling ramifications for future special prosecutors and faith in the justice system.

We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime. The introduction to the volume two of our report explains that decision. It explains that under long-standing Department policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that too is prohibited. The special counsel’s office is part of the Department of Justice and by regulation it was bound by that Department policy. Charging the president with a crime was, therefore, not an option we could consider.

On May 30 2019 04:11 xDaunt wrote:
Just a reminder: there was nothing to stop Mueller from stating explicitly in his report that "but for the OLC guidelines, we would charge Trump with [insert crime here]" or "we found probable cause that Trump committed [insert crime here]." As I have pointed out repeatedly, those omissions give away the true political nature of what Mueller and his team have been doing.

Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice
Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply
an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. The
threshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person's conduct
"constitutes a federal offense." U.S . Dep't of Justice, Justice Manual§ 9-27.220 (2018) (Justice
Manual) . Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges
can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a
speedy and public trial , with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An
individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In
contrast, a prosecutor's judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought ,
affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name -clearing before an impartial adjudicator.

On May 30 2019 04:05 Mohdoo wrote:


I am using "other people" to describe anyone who is refuting what Mueller said.

On May 30 2019 04:05 Dan HH wrote:

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.

If Mueller submits a referral for obstruction charges to the House will matter at lot

On May 30 2019 04:13 Gorsameth wrote:
The report disagrees with you.

On May 30 2019 04:11 xDaunt wrote:
Just a reminder: there was nothing to stop Mueller from stating explicitly in his report that "but for the OLC guidelines, we would charge Trump with [insert crime here]" or "we found probable cause that Trump committed [insert crime here]." As I have pointed out repeatedly, those omissions give away the true political nature of what Mueller and his team have been doing.

On May 30 2019 04:17 Mohdoo wrote:


Would you mind elaborating on how your qualifications compare with Mueller's? From my limited understanding of your background, I think you are a lawyer. But your career held side by side with Mueller's probably has some differences. I can't help but wonder if Mueller's experience led him to other conclusions.

On May 30 2019 04:21 xDaunt wrote:


You don't need to be a lawyer to come to the conclusion that I did. All you need to understand is that Barr is subject to the same rules and regulations as Mueller, and that Barr made the determination that there was no probable cause of a crime. It's common sense.

On May 30 2019 04:22 Gorsameth wrote:
They are bound by the same rules. the one that says you can't indict a sitting President. And Barr decided not to indict a sitting President.

Glad we agree Mueller couldn't indict and that its up to Congress.

Just a reminder: there was nothing to stop Mueller from stating explicitly in his report that "but for the OLC guidelines, we would charge Trump with [insert crime here]" or "we found probable cause that Trump committed [insert crime here]."

On May 30 2019 04:26 xDaunt wrote:


These statements...



...are not the same things as indictments. Indictments are specific actions.

On May 30 2019 04:26 xDaunt wrote:


These statements...



...are not the same things as indictments. Indictments are specific actions.

On May 30 2019 04:21 xDaunt wrote:


You don't need to be a lawyer to come to the conclusion that I did. All you need to understand is that Barr is subject to the same rules and regulations as Mueller, and that Barr made the determination that there was no probable cause of a crime. It's common sense.

On May 30 2019 04:33 Mohdoo wrote:


You just stated a few things but I have no reason to trust anything you said. Until you can show your qualifications as equal to that of Barr/Mueller, your interpretation of their actions/thoughts is just a guess. You can't just cite "common sense" when everyone involved with the decision of "indict - yes or no" has a resume 20 feet long. I think there is a reason they were chosen over me.

I don't think this is even really a topic we are worthy of discussing. We aren't experts. The only things we can discuss are what Mueller said and what Barr said. There is a reason Mueller/Barr were chosen over some random lawyers with 15-20 years of experience. From my perspective, you are disregarding the value of expertise in a situation that seems to strongly value expertise. Until you can show why expertise does not matter in this situation, nothing you are saying really matters to me.

Granted, people just kinda enjoy talking about subjects and theory crafting legal stuff, and that's fine, I think it is fun too. But I would never pretend to be capable of refuting any of the people involved. There is a distinction between discussion and critique.

On May 30 2019 04:36 GreenHorizons wrote:


Just to be clear I think xDaunt (and probably danglars but possibly not) are spinning it pretty hard without outright lying.

That said, what I'm doing is simply taking what's been said and pointing out contradictions.

On May 30 2019 04:41 Mohdoo wrote:


From my perspective, the contradictions you are outlining are valid.

If I was to describe a project I am working on at work, there are a few things that you could say are downright contradictions and that the experiments I am running are a stupid waste of time. Some chemistry students would probably say the same. But because the kind of work I do is very specific, there is a world of nuance that no one would ever learn without directly doing my job.

My expectation is that the same applies to all sorts of other expert positions. It is very easy for certain things to appear straight forward and "common sense", but that is often the case in many other situations. And in many of those situations, it is deceptive. It isn't actually that simple many times.

After being in many situations where lack of experience makes things appear more straight forward than they are, I can only assume that applies to other scenarios. For that reason, I firmly believe that before refuting an expert, someone must show why they have at least the same level of experience.

So that is why I look at your post and think: "yeah, that logic seems to perfectly follow.", But it is logic being outlined by a non-expert, then interpreted by a non-expert. Its essentially nothing, just noise. It is mentally stimulating, but nothing beyond that.

On May 30 2019 04:41 Stratos_speAr wrote:


Yup. Because Barr's track record makes him look totally non-partisan and trustworthy.

On May 30 2019 04:41 Mohdoo wrote:


From my perspective, the contradictions you are outlining are valid.

If I was to describe a project I am working on at work, there are a few things that you could say are downright contradictions and that the experiments I am running are a stupid waste of time. Some chemistry students would probably say the same. But because the kind of work I do is very specific, there is a world of nuance that no one would ever learn without directly doing my job.

My expectation is that the same applies to all sorts of other expert positions. It is very easy for certain things to appear straight forward and "common sense", but that is often the case in many other situations. And in many of those situations, it is deceptive. It isn't actually that simple many times.

After being in many situations where lack of experience makes things appear more straight forward than they are, I can only assume that applies to other scenarios. For that reason, I firmly believe that before refuting an expert, someone must show why they have at least the same level of experience.

So that is why I look at your post and think: "yeah, that logic seems to perfectly follow.", But it is logic being outlined by a non-expert, then interpreted by a non-expert. Its essentially nothing, just noise. It is mentally stimulating, but nothing beyond that.

On May 30 2019 04:51 GreenHorizons wrote:


That sounds like some severe authority bias in general but do you see that I'm not refuting any experts?

On May 30 2019 04:33 Mohdoo wrote:


You just stated a few things but I have no reason to trust anything you said. Until you can show your qualifications as equal to that of Barr/Mueller, your interpretation of their actions/thoughts is just a guess. You can't just cite "common sense" when everyone involved with the decision of "indict - yes or no" has a resume 20 feet long. I think there is a reason they were chosen over me.

I don't think this is even really a topic we are worthy of critiquing. We aren't experts. The only things we can discuss are what Mueller said and what Barr said. There is a reason Mueller/Barr were chosen over some random lawyers with 15-20 years of experience. From my perspective, you are disregarding the value of expertise in a situation that seems to strongly value expertise. Until you can show why expertise does not matter in this situation, nothing you are saying really matters to me.

Granted, people just kinda enjoy talking about subjects and theory crafting legal stuff, and that's fine, I think it is fun too. But I would never pretend to be capable of refuting any of the people involved. There is a distinction between discussion and critique.