|
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 04:58 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2019 04:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 30 2019 04:41 Mohdoo wrote:On May 30 2019 04:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 30 2019 04:33 Mohdoo wrote:On May 30 2019 04:21 xDaunt wrote:On May 30 2019 04:17 Mohdoo wrote: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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. That sounds like some severe authority bias in general but do you see that I'm not refuting any experts? Authority and expertise are real things. There is a reason you wouldn't want me to perform open heart surgery on you. There is a reason I wouldn't ask you to serve as my dentist. And while I do agree that blind faith in authority is bad, I don't think that's what I am doing. I am just explaining why in this specific instance, there is so much nuance and expertise floating around that it is clearly beyond any of our capability. And no, I do not see that. You are still interpreting the statements of experts and assuming you know the technical mechanisms used to arrive at their statements. The statements are a product of expertise that you simply don't have.
As far as I can tell that's exactly what you're doing. You're treating the situation like a black box that only "experts" can understand rather than attempting to do any real reconciling of the contradictions between what media is telling you and what is plain and the media isn't providing an explanation to those contradictions (if there is one like you assume).
What you're doing is making a series of assumptions (including a severe authority bias imo) to avoid reconciling why you don't have explanations for those contradictions imo.
|
On May 30 2019 05:00 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2019 04:33 Mohdoo wrote:On May 30 2019 04:21 xDaunt wrote:On May 30 2019 04:17 Mohdoo wrote: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. 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. 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. 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. To be quite blunt, this is a pretty stupid way of assessing my argument. Refusal to even consider the merits of the argument without first being satisfied that the maker is properly credentialed? You're not a lemming. You can think for yourself.
If I told you I needed surgery, and you said I do not, I would ask what you understand that my doctor does not. Sure, there are lots of approachable concepts in medicine, but many are not accessible. Same with law, science and engineering. Your views are legitimate and whatnot, but when it comes to critique, you simply don't matter. You are a nobody, just like me, GH and everyone else on this board. There are some very accomplished lawyers who are still nothing standing next to Mueller or Barr.
I can think for myself, and when I do so, I determine nothing anyone is saying on this topic really means anything. It is just that people have a natural desire to feel like they understand things. And it is fun to discuss things. So here we are. It doesn't mean the views being expressed should be considered equally to those of Mueller/Barr.
On May 30 2019 05:00 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2019 04:33 Mohdoo wrote:On May 30 2019 04:21 xDaunt wrote:On May 30 2019 04:17 Mohdoo wrote: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. 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. 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. 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. But hey, you don't have to believe me. J ust look at what Mueller writes in his report and how he structures his argument for not making a charging decision. His argument isn't difficult to decipher. He takes rules and regs stating that the "president cannot be indicted" and, using appeals to public policy, argues that he could not fairly make a charging decision. It's obvious from Mueller's own statements in the report that there is no regulation that prohibits a charging decision or the types of statements that I outlined above.
My point is that I lack the knowledge to properly interpret his words.
There are many, many instances where "common sense" completely defies technical truth. Since law is clearly an area where expertise matters a lot, I just kinda bow out. So when I hear someone disagree with Mueller, I want to know if their expertise matches Mueller's.
|
On May 30 2019 05:07 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2019 05:00 xDaunt wrote:On May 30 2019 04:33 Mohdoo wrote:On May 30 2019 04:21 xDaunt wrote:On May 30 2019 04:17 Mohdoo wrote: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. 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. 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. 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. To be quite blunt, this is a pretty stupid way of assessing my argument. Refusal to even consider the merits of the argument without first being satisfied that the maker is properly credentialed? You're not a lemming. You can think for yourself. If I told you I needed surgery, and you said I do not, I would ask what you understand that my doctor does not. Sure, there are lots of approachable concepts in medicine, but many are not accessible. Same with law, science and engineering. Your views are legitimate and whatnot, but when it comes to critique, you simply don't matter. You are a nobody, just like me, GH and everyone else on this board. There are some very accomplished lawyers who are still nothing standing next to Mueller or Barr. I can think for myself, and when I do so, I determine nothing anyone is saying on this topic really means anything. It is just that people have a natural desire to feel like they understand things. And it is fun to discuss things. So here we are. It doesn't mean the views being expressed should be considered equally to those of Mueller/Barr. Show nested quote +On May 30 2019 05:00 xDaunt wrote:On May 30 2019 04:33 Mohdoo wrote:On May 30 2019 04:21 xDaunt wrote:On May 30 2019 04:17 Mohdoo wrote: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. 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. 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. 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. But hey, you don't have to believe me. J ust look at what Mueller writes in his report and how he structures his argument for not making a charging decision. His argument isn't difficult to decipher. He takes rules and regs stating that the "president cannot be indicted" and, using appeals to public policy, argues that he could not fairly make a charging decision. It's obvious from Mueller's own statements in the report that there is no regulation that prohibits a charging decision or the types of statements that I outlined above. My point is that I lack the knowledge to properly interpret his words. There are many, many instances where "common sense" completely defies technical truth. Since law is clearly an area where expertise matters a lot, I just kinda bow out. So when I hear someone disagree with Mueller, I want to know if their expertise matches Mueller's.
I can't believe that you're actually doubling down on this line of thinking. It's wrong on damned near every level. GH is right. You are outright deluding yourself to avoid having to confront some very uncomfortable truths about Mueller and the investigation into Trump.
|
On May 30 2019 05:12 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2019 05:07 Mohdoo wrote:On May 30 2019 05:00 xDaunt wrote:On May 30 2019 04:33 Mohdoo wrote:On May 30 2019 04:21 xDaunt wrote:On May 30 2019 04:17 Mohdoo wrote: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. 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. 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. 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. To be quite blunt, this is a pretty stupid way of assessing my argument. Refusal to even consider the merits of the argument without first being satisfied that the maker is properly credentialed? You're not a lemming. You can think for yourself. If I told you I needed surgery, and you said I do not, I would ask what you understand that my doctor does not. Sure, there are lots of approachable concepts in medicine, but many are not accessible. Same with law, science and engineering. Your views are legitimate and whatnot, but when it comes to critique, you simply don't matter. You are a nobody, just like me, GH and everyone else on this board. There are some very accomplished lawyers who are still nothing standing next to Mueller or Barr. I can think for myself, and when I do so, I determine nothing anyone is saying on this topic really means anything. It is just that people have a natural desire to feel like they understand things. And it is fun to discuss things. So here we are. It doesn't mean the views being expressed should be considered equally to those of Mueller/Barr. On May 30 2019 05:00 xDaunt wrote:On May 30 2019 04:33 Mohdoo wrote:On May 30 2019 04:21 xDaunt wrote:On May 30 2019 04:17 Mohdoo wrote: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. 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. 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. 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. But hey, you don't have to believe me. J ust look at what Mueller writes in his report and how he structures his argument for not making a charging decision. His argument isn't difficult to decipher. He takes rules and regs stating that the "president cannot be indicted" and, using appeals to public policy, argues that he could not fairly make a charging decision. It's obvious from Mueller's own statements in the report that there is no regulation that prohibits a charging decision or the types of statements that I outlined above. My point is that I lack the knowledge to properly interpret his words. There are many, many instances where "common sense" completely defies technical truth. Since law is clearly an area where expertise matters a lot, I just kinda bow out. So when I hear someone disagree with Mueller, I want to know if their expertise matches Mueller's. I can't believe that you're actually doubling down on this line of thinking. It's wrong on damned near every level. GH is right. You are outright deluding yourself to avoid having to confront some very uncomfortable truths about Mueller and the investigation into Trump.
It's incredible to me.
So when I hear someone disagree with X, I want to know if their expertise matches X's.
Should sound alarm bells for being extremely problematic. Especially without establishing what qualifies as "expertise"
|
On May 30 2019 04:11 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2019 04:09 Danglars wrote: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. "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. 3 lines in and your already wrong. Even today Mueller explained that because of the OLC he was never going to reach a conclusion. Show nested quote +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. And yes I know your going to counter with 'but Barr said'. GL with that. The words out of Barr are meaningless because of his partisan actions.
You're putting a lot of faith in Barr actually perjuring himself. Mueller, on the other hand, has not testified under oath and have not accused Barr of lying or misstating his conversations on the matter when given the chance. OLC guidance has been around for a very long time and did not stop honest prosecutors from reaching decisions in the past. You've got nothing besides dramatically confusing possibility of indictment and possibility of reaching a conclusion on criminal activities. You've made it obvious that you're going down with that ship, so carry on. I'm a bit done with credentialism and religious faith in place of addressing arguments.
|
On May 30 2019 05:25 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2019 04:11 Gorsameth wrote:On May 30 2019 04:09 Danglars wrote: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. "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. 3 lines in and your already wrong. Even today Mueller explained that because of the OLC he was never going to reach a conclusion. 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. And yes I know your going to counter with 'but Barr said'. GL with that. The words out of Barr are meaningless because of his partisan actions. You're putting a lot of faith in Barr actually perjuring himself. Mueller, on the other hand, has not testified under oath and have not accused Barr of lying or misstating his conversations on the matter when given the chance. OLC guidance has been around for a very long time and did not stop honest prosecutors from reaching decisions in the past. You've got nothing besides dramatically confusing possibility of indictment and possibility of reaching a conclusion on criminal activities. You've made it obvious that you're going down with that ship, so carry on. I'm a bit done with credentialism and religious faith in place of addressing arguments.
Andrew McCarthy had an interesting point during an interview today about the OLC guidelines. It was never Mueller's job to apply them. As the lead prosecutor, Mueller was supposed to come to a charging decision. Once he reached a charging decision, he would deliver that decision to the DOJ, where the AG would then be responsible for deciding what to do with the OLC guidelines and application thereof.
|
On May 30 2019 05:12 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2019 05:07 Mohdoo wrote:On May 30 2019 05:00 xDaunt wrote:On May 30 2019 04:33 Mohdoo wrote:On May 30 2019 04:21 xDaunt wrote:On May 30 2019 04:17 Mohdoo wrote: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. 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. 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. 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. To be quite blunt, this is a pretty stupid way of assessing my argument. Refusal to even consider the merits of the argument without first being satisfied that the maker is properly credentialed? You're not a lemming. You can think for yourself. If I told you I needed surgery, and you said I do not, I would ask what you understand that my doctor does not. Sure, there are lots of approachable concepts in medicine, but many are not accessible. Same with law, science and engineering. Your views are legitimate and whatnot, but when it comes to critique, you simply don't matter. You are a nobody, just like me, GH and everyone else on this board. There are some very accomplished lawyers who are still nothing standing next to Mueller or Barr. I can think for myself, and when I do so, I determine nothing anyone is saying on this topic really means anything. It is just that people have a natural desire to feel like they understand things. And it is fun to discuss things. So here we are. It doesn't mean the views being expressed should be considered equally to those of Mueller/Barr. On May 30 2019 05:00 xDaunt wrote:On May 30 2019 04:33 Mohdoo wrote:On May 30 2019 04:21 xDaunt wrote:On May 30 2019 04:17 Mohdoo wrote: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. 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. 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. 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. But hey, you don't have to believe me. J ust look at what Mueller writes in his report and how he structures his argument for not making a charging decision. His argument isn't difficult to decipher. He takes rules and regs stating that the "president cannot be indicted" and, using appeals to public policy, argues that he could not fairly make a charging decision. It's obvious from Mueller's own statements in the report that there is no regulation that prohibits a charging decision or the types of statements that I outlined above. My point is that I lack the knowledge to properly interpret his words. There are many, many instances where "common sense" completely defies technical truth. Since law is clearly an area where expertise matters a lot, I just kinda bow out. So when I hear someone disagree with Mueller, I want to know if their expertise matches Mueller's. I can't believe that you're actually doubling down on this line of thinking. It's wrong on damned near every level. GH is right. You are outright deluding yourself to avoid having to confront some very uncomfortable truths about Mueller and the investigation into Trump.
I assure you I am entirely comfortable with you thinking that. We don't need to agree.
|
On May 30 2019 05:37 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2019 05:12 xDaunt wrote:On May 30 2019 05:07 Mohdoo wrote:On May 30 2019 05:00 xDaunt wrote:On May 30 2019 04:33 Mohdoo wrote:On May 30 2019 04:21 xDaunt wrote:On May 30 2019 04:17 Mohdoo wrote: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. 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. 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. 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. To be quite blunt, this is a pretty stupid way of assessing my argument. Refusal to even consider the merits of the argument without first being satisfied that the maker is properly credentialed? You're not a lemming. You can think for yourself. If I told you I needed surgery, and you said I do not, I would ask what you understand that my doctor does not. Sure, there are lots of approachable concepts in medicine, but many are not accessible. Same with law, science and engineering. Your views are legitimate and whatnot, but when it comes to critique, you simply don't matter. You are a nobody, just like me, GH and everyone else on this board. There are some very accomplished lawyers who are still nothing standing next to Mueller or Barr. I can think for myself, and when I do so, I determine nothing anyone is saying on this topic really means anything. It is just that people have a natural desire to feel like they understand things. And it is fun to discuss things. So here we are. It doesn't mean the views being expressed should be considered equally to those of Mueller/Barr. On May 30 2019 05:00 xDaunt wrote:On May 30 2019 04:33 Mohdoo wrote:On May 30 2019 04:21 xDaunt wrote:On May 30 2019 04:17 Mohdoo wrote: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. 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. 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. 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. But hey, you don't have to believe me. J ust look at what Mueller writes in his report and how he structures his argument for not making a charging decision. His argument isn't difficult to decipher. He takes rules and regs stating that the "president cannot be indicted" and, using appeals to public policy, argues that he could not fairly make a charging decision. It's obvious from Mueller's own statements in the report that there is no regulation that prohibits a charging decision or the types of statements that I outlined above. My point is that I lack the knowledge to properly interpret his words. There are many, many instances where "common sense" completely defies technical truth. Since law is clearly an area where expertise matters a lot, I just kinda bow out. So when I hear someone disagree with Mueller, I want to know if their expertise matches Mueller's. I can't believe that you're actually doubling down on this line of thinking. It's wrong on damned near every level. GH is right. You are outright deluding yourself to avoid having to confront some very uncomfortable truths about Mueller and the investigation into Trump. I assure you I am entirely comfortable with you thinking that. We don't need to agree.
Okay. But you should expect to eat your own words on this hyper-credentialism stuff in future discussions on other topics.
|
On May 30 2019 05:37 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2019 05:12 xDaunt wrote:On May 30 2019 05:07 Mohdoo wrote:On May 30 2019 05:00 xDaunt wrote:On May 30 2019 04:33 Mohdoo wrote:On May 30 2019 04:21 xDaunt wrote:On May 30 2019 04:17 Mohdoo wrote: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. 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. 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. 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. To be quite blunt, this is a pretty stupid way of assessing my argument. Refusal to even consider the merits of the argument without first being satisfied that the maker is properly credentialed? You're not a lemming. You can think for yourself. If I told you I needed surgery, and you said I do not, I would ask what you understand that my doctor does not. Sure, there are lots of approachable concepts in medicine, but many are not accessible. Same with law, science and engineering. Your views are legitimate and whatnot, but when it comes to critique, you simply don't matter. You are a nobody, just like me, GH and everyone else on this board. There are some very accomplished lawyers who are still nothing standing next to Mueller or Barr. I can think for myself, and when I do so, I determine nothing anyone is saying on this topic really means anything. It is just that people have a natural desire to feel like they understand things. And it is fun to discuss things. So here we are. It doesn't mean the views being expressed should be considered equally to those of Mueller/Barr. On May 30 2019 05:00 xDaunt wrote:On May 30 2019 04:33 Mohdoo wrote:On May 30 2019 04:21 xDaunt wrote:On May 30 2019 04:17 Mohdoo wrote: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. 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. 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. 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. But hey, you don't have to believe me. J ust look at what Mueller writes in his report and how he structures his argument for not making a charging decision. His argument isn't difficult to decipher. He takes rules and regs stating that the "president cannot be indicted" and, using appeals to public policy, argues that he could not fairly make a charging decision. It's obvious from Mueller's own statements in the report that there is no regulation that prohibits a charging decision or the types of statements that I outlined above. My point is that I lack the knowledge to properly interpret his words. There are many, many instances where "common sense" completely defies technical truth. Since law is clearly an area where expertise matters a lot, I just kinda bow out. So when I hear someone disagree with Mueller, I want to know if their expertise matches Mueller's. I can't believe that you're actually doubling down on this line of thinking. It's wrong on damned near every level. GH is right. You are outright deluding yourself to avoid having to confront some very uncomfortable truths about Mueller and the investigation into Trump. I assure you I am entirely comfortable with you thinking that. We don't need to agree.
You can't agree is the point. You're argument has removed any semblance of critical thinking in lieu of waiting for expert testimony that Mueller told you isn't coming and shouldn't.
On May 30 2019 05:46 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2019 05:37 Mohdoo wrote:On May 30 2019 05:12 xDaunt wrote:On May 30 2019 05:07 Mohdoo wrote:On May 30 2019 05:00 xDaunt wrote:On May 30 2019 04:33 Mohdoo wrote:On May 30 2019 04:21 xDaunt wrote:On May 30 2019 04:17 Mohdoo wrote: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. 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. 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. 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. To be quite blunt, this is a pretty stupid way of assessing my argument. Refusal to even consider the merits of the argument without first being satisfied that the maker is properly credentialed? You're not a lemming. You can think for yourself. If I told you I needed surgery, and you said I do not, I would ask what you understand that my doctor does not. Sure, there are lots of approachable concepts in medicine, but many are not accessible. Same with law, science and engineering. Your views are legitimate and whatnot, but when it comes to critique, you simply don't matter. You are a nobody, just like me, GH and everyone else on this board. There are some very accomplished lawyers who are still nothing standing next to Mueller or Barr. I can think for myself, and when I do so, I determine nothing anyone is saying on this topic really means anything. It is just that people have a natural desire to feel like they understand things. And it is fun to discuss things. So here we are. It doesn't mean the views being expressed should be considered equally to those of Mueller/Barr. On May 30 2019 05:00 xDaunt wrote:On May 30 2019 04:33 Mohdoo wrote:On May 30 2019 04:21 xDaunt wrote:On May 30 2019 04:17 Mohdoo wrote: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. 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. 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. 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. But hey, you don't have to believe me. J ust look at what Mueller writes in his report and how he structures his argument for not making a charging decision. His argument isn't difficult to decipher. He takes rules and regs stating that the "president cannot be indicted" and, using appeals to public policy, argues that he could not fairly make a charging decision. It's obvious from Mueller's own statements in the report that there is no regulation that prohibits a charging decision or the types of statements that I outlined above. My point is that I lack the knowledge to properly interpret his words. There are many, many instances where "common sense" completely defies technical truth. Since law is clearly an area where expertise matters a lot, I just kinda bow out. So when I hear someone disagree with Mueller, I want to know if their expertise matches Mueller's. I can't believe that you're actually doubling down on this line of thinking. It's wrong on damned near every level. GH is right. You are outright deluding yourself to avoid having to confront some very uncomfortable truths about Mueller and the investigation into Trump. I assure you I am entirely comfortable with you thinking that. We don't need to agree. Okay. But you should expect to eat your own words on this hyper-credentialism stuff in future discussions on other topics.
Unless you're an expert in argument analysis then your pointing out of his failure to make a reasonable argument is just noise and unless someone with comparable expertise in deciphering his own arguments appears, he'll assume there's a technical explanation for why he's actually right that the experts haven't shared with us yet.
Or he'll abandon this reasoning altogether when convenient.
|
On May 30 2019 05:00 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2019 04:33 Mohdoo wrote:On May 30 2019 04:21 xDaunt wrote:On May 30 2019 04:17 Mohdoo wrote: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. 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. 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. 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. To be quite blunt, this is a pretty stupid way of assessing my argument. Refusal to even consider the merits of the argument without first being satisfied that the maker is properly credentialed? You're not a lemming. You can think for yourself. But hey, you don't have to believe me. Just look at what Mueller writes in his report and how he structures his argument for not making a charging decision. His argument isn't difficult to decipher. He takes rules and regs stating that the "president cannot be indicted" and, using appeals to public policy, argues that he could not fairly make a charging decision. It's obvious from Mueller's own statements in the report that there is no regulation that prohibits a charging decision or the types of statements that I outlined above.
Can you break down this structure of not making charge? Mueller said during the press conference the department has a policy where they cannot investigate or indict a sitting president. He said there is a process for that in congress (impeachment). If he felt confident the president didn’t commit a crime he would say so.
|
On May 30 2019 05:59 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2019 05:00 xDaunt wrote:On May 30 2019 04:33 Mohdoo wrote:On May 30 2019 04:21 xDaunt wrote:On May 30 2019 04:17 Mohdoo wrote: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. 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. 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. 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. To be quite blunt, this is a pretty stupid way of assessing my argument. Refusal to even consider the merits of the argument without first being satisfied that the maker is properly credentialed? You're not a lemming. You can think for yourself. But hey, you don't have to believe me. Just look at what Mueller writes in his report and how he structures his argument for not making a charging decision. His argument isn't difficult to decipher. He takes rules and regs stating that the "president cannot be indicted" and, using appeals to public policy, argues that he could not fairly make a charging decision. It's obvious from Mueller's own statements in the report that there is no regulation that prohibits a charging decision or the types of statements that I outlined above. Can you break down this structure of not making charge? Mueller said during the press conference the department has a policy where they cannot investigate or indict a sitting president. He said there is a process for that in congress (impeachment). If he felt confident the president didn’t commit a crime he would say so.
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.
Basically Democrats want to read the Mueller report as a referral for congress to impeach, but that's explicitly not what it was and rather than deal with that they are vacillating between the idea that he couldn't and he did.
|
I asked xDaunt, not you GH. If that's your take on what's going on then, you're looking it from one point. I took the report as it literally saying "we can't do anything even if we wanted to, if you want to do something, here is the data".
|
On May 30 2019 05:34 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2019 05:25 Danglars wrote:On May 30 2019 04:11 Gorsameth wrote:On May 30 2019 04:09 Danglars wrote: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. "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. 3 lines in and your already wrong. Even today Mueller explained that because of the OLC he was never going to reach a conclusion. 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. And yes I know your going to counter with 'but Barr said'. GL with that. The words out of Barr are meaningless because of his partisan actions. You're putting a lot of faith in Barr actually perjuring himself. Mueller, on the other hand, has not testified under oath and have not accused Barr of lying or misstating his conversations on the matter when given the chance. OLC guidance has been around for a very long time and did not stop honest prosecutors from reaching decisions in the past. You've got nothing besides dramatically confusing possibility of indictment and possibility of reaching a conclusion on criminal activities. You've made it obvious that you're going down with that ship, so carry on. I'm a bit done with credentialism and religious faith in place of addressing arguments. Andrew McCarthy had an interesting point during an interview today about the OLC guidelines. It was never Mueller's job to apply them. As the lead prosecutor, Mueller was supposed to come to a charging decision. Once he reached a charging decision, he would deliver that decision to the DOJ, where the AG would then be responsible for deciding what to do with the OLC guidelines and application thereof.
It makes sense. The AG applies OLC and decides whether to release report to Congress/to the public. I'll let the lawyers debate if there's big controversy on that line.
One more word on Mohdoo/Gorsameth's cognitive dissonance. From their perspective, Mueller should be itching to clear his name. Barr's got him contradicting himself on no less than three occasions, but Barr's evil. Few give satisfactory justifications for his legal theories on obstruction or on declining a prosecutorial decision. If they were right, he should be first in line to swear under oath to Nadler's committee that he said no such thing to the DOJ. He should be using his superior lawyer credentials to run circles around the opposition lawyers claiming his legal theories are hogwash. Instead, he makes no testimony under oath, claims he never will, and simply restates the same circuitous arguments found in the report.
It's not even a good Savior complex. Mueller ends up being both an unquestionable legal genius and hopelessly robbed of personal agency at the same time.
|
On May 30 2019 06:17 ShoCkeyy wrote:
I asked xDaunt, not you GH. If that's your take on what's going on then, you're looking it from one point. I took the report as it literally saying "we can't do anything even if we wanted to, if you want to do something, here is the data".
I know. What several people have tried to explain several times to the same handful of people is that your interpretation is wrong and why.
It gets explained there's some pushback, we reach a point where the person asking does what Mohdoo did more or less (rejecting the argument in favor of an argument that doesn't come) and we start back at square one again when someone asks the same question again and a handful of people pretend it wasn't just clearly explained.
xDaunt has done it again for us, so now we can watch the process play out again.
|
On May 30 2019 05:59 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2019 05:00 xDaunt wrote:On May 30 2019 04:33 Mohdoo wrote:On May 30 2019 04:21 xDaunt wrote:On May 30 2019 04:17 Mohdoo wrote: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. 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. 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. 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. To be quite blunt, this is a pretty stupid way of assessing my argument. Refusal to even consider the merits of the argument without first being satisfied that the maker is properly credentialed? You're not a lemming. You can think for yourself. But hey, you don't have to believe me. Just look at what Mueller writes in his report and how he structures his argument for not making a charging decision. His argument isn't difficult to decipher. He takes rules and regs stating that the "president cannot be indicted" and, using appeals to public policy, argues that he could not fairly make a charging decision. It's obvious from Mueller's own statements in the report that there is no regulation that prohibits a charging decision or the types of statements that I outlined above. Can you break down this structure of not making charge? Mueller said during the press conference the department has a policy where they cannot investigate or indict a sitting president. He said there is a process for that in congress (impeachment). If he felt confident the president didn’t commit a crime he would say so.
From Volume II of the report:
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
prosecutorial jurisdiction. And apart from OLC's constitutional view, we recognized that a federal
criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President's capacity to
govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.
Here's where Mueller recognizes the OLC guidelines.
Second, while the OLC opinion concludes that a sitting President may not be prosecuted,
it recognizes that a criminal investigation during the President's term is permissible.
3 The OLC opinion also recognizes that a President does not have immunity after he leaves office.4 And if individuals other than the President committed an obstruction offense, they may be prosecuted at this time. Given those considerations, the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system, we conducted a thorough factual
investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary
materials were available.
Here's where Mueller recognizes that he's allowed to investigate a president nonetheless.
Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice
Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply
an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. The
threshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person's conduct
"constitutes a federal offense." U.S. Dep't of Justice, Justice Manual§ 9-27.220 (2018) (Justice
Manual). Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges
can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a
speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An
individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In
contrast, a prosecutor's judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought,
affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator.
5
The concerns about the fairness of such a determination would be heightened in the case
of a sitting President, where a federal prosecutor's accusation of a crime, even in an internal report,
could carry consequences that extend beyond the realm of criminal justice. OLC noted similar
concerns about sealed indictments. Even if an indictment were sealed during the President's term,
OLC reasoned, "it would be very difficult to preserve [an indictment's] secrecy," and if an
indictment became public, "[t]he stigma and opprobrium" could imperil the President's ability to
govern."6 Although a prosecutor's internal report would not represent a formal public accusation
akin to an indictment, the possibility of the report's public disclosure and the absence of a neutral
adjudicatory forum to review its findings counseled against potentially determining "that the
person's conduct constitutes a federal offense." Justice Manual § 9-27.220.
Here's where Mueller recognizes that prosecutors are supposed to make charging decisions, but nonetheless declines to do so due to concerns of "fairness" to the president -- NOT DUE TO THE OLC GUIDELINES. That second sentence that I underlined in that section with footnote 5 encapsulates the public policy considerations behind the concerns for fairness.
Let's just take a moment to marvel at the stunning disingenuousness of Mueller's argument here. He refused to come to a charging decision about Trump because it would be unfair to Trump, yet he nonetheless proceeded to tar Trump with a bunch of innuendo suggesting that Trump committed a crime. Looks like Mueller was being "fair" to me!
EDIT: By the way, I'd love for someone to explain to Mohdoo that this isn't very difficult to read and understand.
|
On May 30 2019 06:25 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2019 05:59 ShoCkeyy wrote:On May 30 2019 05:00 xDaunt wrote:On May 30 2019 04:33 Mohdoo wrote:On May 30 2019 04:21 xDaunt wrote:On May 30 2019 04:17 Mohdoo wrote: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. 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. 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. 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. To be quite blunt, this is a pretty stupid way of assessing my argument. Refusal to even consider the merits of the argument without first being satisfied that the maker is properly credentialed? You're not a lemming. You can think for yourself. But hey, you don't have to believe me. Just look at what Mueller writes in his report and how he structures his argument for not making a charging decision. His argument isn't difficult to decipher. He takes rules and regs stating that the "president cannot be indicted" and, using appeals to public policy, argues that he could not fairly make a charging decision. It's obvious from Mueller's own statements in the report that there is no regulation that prohibits a charging decision or the types of statements that I outlined above. Can you break down this structure of not making charge? Mueller said during the press conference the department has a policy where they cannot investigate or indict a sitting president. He said there is a process for that in congress (impeachment). If he felt confident the president didn’t commit a crime he would say so. From Volume II of the report: 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
prosecutorial jurisdiction. And apart from OLC's constitutional view, we recognized that a federal
criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President's capacity to
govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct. Here's where Mueller recognizes the OLC guidelines. Show nested quote +Second, while the OLC opinion concludes that a sitting President may not be prosecuted,
it recognizes that a criminal investigation during the President's term is permissible.
3 The OLC opinion also recognizes that a President does not have immunity after he leaves office.4 And if individuals other than the President committed an obstruction offense, they may be prosecuted at this time. Given those considerations, the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system, we conducted a thorough factual
investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary
materials were available. Here's where Mueller recognizes that he's allowed to investigate a president nonetheless. Show nested quote +Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice
Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply
an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. The
threshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person's conduct
"constitutes a federal offense." U.S. Dep't of Justice, Justice Manual§ 9-27.220 (2018) (Justice
Manual). Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges
can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a
speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An
individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In
contrast, a prosecutor's judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought,
affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator.
5
The concerns about the fairness of such a determination would be heightened in the case
of a sitting President, where a federal prosecutor's accusation of a crime, even in an internal report,
could carry consequences that extend beyond the realm of criminal justice. OLC noted similar
concerns about sealed indictments. Even if an indictment were sealed during the President's term,
OLC reasoned, "it would be very difficult to preserve [an indictment's] secrecy," and if an
indictment became public, "[t]he stigma and opprobrium" could imperil the President's ability to
govern."6 Although a prosecutor's internal report would not represent a formal public accusation
akin to an indictment, the possibility of the report's public disclosure and the absence of a neutral
adjudicatory forum to review its findings counseled against potentially determining "that the
person's conduct constitutes a federal offense." Justice Manual § 9-27.220. Here's where Mueller recognizes that prosecutors are supposed to make charging decisions, but nonetheless declines to do so due to concerns of "fairness" to the president -- NOT DUE TO THE OLC GUIDELINES. That second sentence that I underlined in that section with footnote 5 encapsulates the public policy considerations behind the concerns for fairness. Let's just take a moment to marvel at the stunning disingenuousness of Mueller's argument here. He refused to come to a charging decision about Trump because it would be unfair to Trump, yet he nonetheless proceeded to tar Trump with a bunch of innuendo suggesting that Trump committed a crime. Looks like Mueller was being "fair" to me! EDIT: By the way, I'd love for someone to explain to Mohdoo that this isn't very difficult to read and understand.
You need better reading comprehension. Your bolded part says 'when no charges can be brought' and the reason why they can't be brought is the OLC guidelines.
|
EDIT: By the way, I'd love for someone to explain to Mohdoo that this isn't very difficult to read and understand.
Fueled seems to want to prove otherwise.
Honestly I was hoping someone would just go with "well it's less bad than ____" like for Joe Biden and we could just wrap it up.
|
On May 30 2019 06:37 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2019 06:25 xDaunt wrote:On May 30 2019 05:59 ShoCkeyy wrote:On May 30 2019 05:00 xDaunt wrote:On May 30 2019 04:33 Mohdoo wrote:On May 30 2019 04:21 xDaunt wrote:On May 30 2019 04:17 Mohdoo wrote: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. 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. 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. 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. To be quite blunt, this is a pretty stupid way of assessing my argument. Refusal to even consider the merits of the argument without first being satisfied that the maker is properly credentialed? You're not a lemming. You can think for yourself. But hey, you don't have to believe me. Just look at what Mueller writes in his report and how he structures his argument for not making a charging decision. His argument isn't difficult to decipher. He takes rules and regs stating that the "president cannot be indicted" and, using appeals to public policy, argues that he could not fairly make a charging decision. It's obvious from Mueller's own statements in the report that there is no regulation that prohibits a charging decision or the types of statements that I outlined above. Can you break down this structure of not making charge? Mueller said during the press conference the department has a policy where they cannot investigate or indict a sitting president. He said there is a process for that in congress (impeachment). If he felt confident the president didn’t commit a crime he would say so. From Volume II of the report: 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
prosecutorial jurisdiction. And apart from OLC's constitutional view, we recognized that a federal
criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President's capacity to
govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct. Here's where Mueller recognizes the OLC guidelines. Second, while the OLC opinion concludes that a sitting President may not be prosecuted,
it recognizes that a criminal investigation during the President's term is permissible.
3 The OLC opinion also recognizes that a President does not have immunity after he leaves office.4 And if individuals other than the President committed an obstruction offense, they may be prosecuted at this time. Given those considerations, the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system, we conducted a thorough factual
investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary
materials were available. Here's where Mueller recognizes that he's allowed to investigate a president nonetheless. Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice
Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply
an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. The
threshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person's conduct
"constitutes a federal offense." U.S. Dep't of Justice, Justice Manual§ 9-27.220 (2018) (Justice
Manual). Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges
can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a
speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An
individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In
contrast, a prosecutor's judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought,
affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator.
5
The concerns about the fairness of such a determination would be heightened in the case
of a sitting President, where a federal prosecutor's accusation of a crime, even in an internal report,
could carry consequences that extend beyond the realm of criminal justice. OLC noted similar
concerns about sealed indictments. Even if an indictment were sealed during the President's term,
OLC reasoned, "it would be very difficult to preserve [an indictment's] secrecy," and if an
indictment became public, "[t]he stigma and opprobrium" could imperil the President's ability to
govern."6 Although a prosecutor's internal report would not represent a formal public accusation
akin to an indictment, the possibility of the report's public disclosure and the absence of a neutral
adjudicatory forum to review its findings counseled against potentially determining "that the
person's conduct constitutes a federal offense." Justice Manual § 9-27.220. Here's where Mueller recognizes that prosecutors are supposed to make charging decisions, but nonetheless declines to do so due to concerns of "fairness" to the president -- NOT DUE TO THE OLC GUIDELINES. That second sentence that I underlined in that section with footnote 5 encapsulates the public policy considerations behind the concerns for fairness. Let's just take a moment to marvel at the stunning disingenuousness of Mueller's argument here. He refused to come to a charging decision about Trump because it would be unfair to Trump, yet he nonetheless proceeded to tar Trump with a bunch of innuendo suggesting that Trump committed a crime. Looks like Mueller was being "fair" to me! EDIT: By the way, I'd love for someone to explain to Mohdoo that this isn't very difficult to read and understand. You need better reading comprehension. Your bolded part says 'when no charges can be brought' and the reason why they can't be brought is the OLC guidelines.
What he meant by that is that without charging Trump, the special counsel could say they've reached the conclusion that Trump's conduct does 'constitute a federal offense'. The only roadblock to doing so is their own concept of fairness.
But by making it as obvious as possible without outright saying it that they do believe Trump obstructed justice, that fairness gesture is meaningless and only creates unnecessary fog.
This is fair criticism.
On May 30 2019 06:10 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2019 05:59 ShoCkeyy wrote:On May 30 2019 05:00 xDaunt wrote:On May 30 2019 04:33 Mohdoo wrote:On May 30 2019 04:21 xDaunt wrote:On May 30 2019 04:17 Mohdoo wrote: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. 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. 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. 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. To be quite blunt, this is a pretty stupid way of assessing my argument. Refusal to even consider the merits of the argument without first being satisfied that the maker is properly credentialed? You're not a lemming. You can think for yourself. But hey, you don't have to believe me. Just look at what Mueller writes in his report and how he structures his argument for not making a charging decision. His argument isn't difficult to decipher. He takes rules and regs stating that the "president cannot be indicted" and, using appeals to public policy, argues that he could not fairly make a charging decision. It's obvious from Mueller's own statements in the report that there is no regulation that prohibits a charging decision or the types of statements that I outlined above. Can you break down this structure of not making charge? Mueller said during the press conference the department has a policy where they cannot investigate or indict a sitting president. He said there is a process for that in congress (impeachment). If he felt confident the president didn’t commit a crime he would say so. 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. Basically Democrats want to read the Mueller report as a referral for congress to impeach, but that's explicitly not what it was and rather than deal with that they are vacillating between the idea that he couldn't and he did.
This is not fair criticism. That the special counsel could have pursued this is an a manner very likely to be struck down as unconstitutional, even by the account of its proponents, is not relevant and never was realistic.
|
On May 30 2019 06:43 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +EDIT: By the way, I'd love for someone to explain to Mohdoo that this isn't very difficult to read and understand. Fueled seems to want to prove otherwise. Honestly I was hoping someone would just go with "well it's less bad than ____" like for Joe Biden and we could just wrap it up.
I don't even know what to do with his post. His failure to read is utterly catastrophic. I'm just going to pretend it doesn't exist.
|
Mueller definitely took the easy way out, and it's disappointing to see. The guy was too afraid to even fight for the ability to question key individuals under oath. Expected more from a seasoned prosecutor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
