|
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 |
Democrats still on track for loosing in 2020? Looks like it.
When trump gets re-elected i will blame the democrats.
The person in the street he doesn't care about the report. He is tired with the report after hearing about it for 2,5 years and probably 1,5 more years to come. Why don't the democrats focus on other things,on things that matter for the man in the street?
|
On May 30 2019 09:50 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2019 09:31 xDaunt wrote:On May 30 2019 09:23 Stratos_speAr wrote:On May 30 2019 09:21 xDaunt wrote:On May 30 2019 08:50 Stratos_speAr wrote:On May 30 2019 08:16 xDaunt wrote:On May 30 2019 08:10 Stratos_speAr wrote:On May 30 2019 07:30 xDaunt wrote:On May 30 2019 07:05 Stratos_speAr wrote:On May 30 2019 06:25 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
From Volume II of the report:
[quote]
Here's where Mueller recognizes the OLC guidelines.
[quote]
Here's where Mueller recognizes that he's allowed to investigate a president nonetheless.
[quote]
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. I'm not agreeing with Mohdoo's argument but your argument is incredibly weak. You're basically implying that if Mueller wanted to stick to "fairness" he shouldn't have investigated at all. That argument is bullshit on it's face. Mueller presented the evidence. That's it. His conclusion is the definition of "here's the evidence. No conclusions are made". You're just throwing a temper tantrum because the evidence makes your guy look bad. This isn't my argument. My argument (which I have outlined at length previously) is that Mueller should have reached a charging decision. If he decided that there was a chargeable crime, then he should have provided a full explanation of the basis for that decision. If he decided that there was no chargeable crime, then he should have simply left it at that and provided no explanation for that rationale. That is how prosecutors are supposed to act. We already know that you think that. However, you stated that Mueller's reasoning for not coming to a charging decision (that it would be unfair) was disingenuous because the report that he presented is unfair. I called you out on that bullshit because his report is pretty much "here's the evidence. I refuse to say anything at all about what it means. Have at it." That's about as far away from "tarring with innuendos" as you can get. You're spinning it to try to make Mueller look partisan and it makes you look like you're throwing a temper tantrum over reality not supporting your conclusions. You're missing the point: if a prosecutor does not charge someone, then the prosecutor is not supposed to list all of the evidence that he reviewed and considered. Whether Mueller shaped his report be anti-Trump (he did) is quite besides the point. What makes Mueller's rationale for not coming to a charging decision yet deciding to lay out all of the evidence anyway even more ludicrous is that he cites in Footnote 5 to the very authority showing why the state is not supposed to do what Mueller did. EDIT I previously explained this in detail to Gorsameth in a series of posts starting here. Unless I'm reading the wrong U.S. vs. Briggs https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-briggs-5 (this is the one that came up after searching Mueller's footnote 5 in Volume II) Then arguing that this case applies to Mueller's situation is incredibly weak, at best. Your stating in conclusory fashion that my argument that the case applies to Mueller's situation "is weak" is not particularly compelling given that 1) you have yet to demonstrate a passable understanding of any of the issues being discussed, and 2) Mueller cited that case in his report, thereby showing that he certainly think that it applies. You and Mueller cited them for two completely different legal arguments. I was referring to yours. Try again. Actually we didn't. We cited the case for the exact same policy propositions. But I'm sure you already knew that before you made your conclusory statement that my argument was weak. No, you really didn't. You used the case to argue something different from what Mueller used it to argue. But I can understand how you see it as the same, considering how much of a political hack you are.
Well let's take look. Here's what Mueller says:
For that reason, criticisms have been lodged against the practice of naming unindicted coconspirators in an indictment. See United States v.Briggs,514 F.2d 794,802 (5th Cir. 1975) ("The courts have struck down with strong language efforts by grand juries to accuse persons of crime while affording them no forum in which to vindicate themselves.")
And here's what I said:
On May 05 2019 05:48 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2019 05:33 Gorsameth wrote:On May 05 2019 05:27 xDaunt wrote:On May 05 2019 05:12 Gorsameth wrote:On May 05 2019 05:11 xDaunt wrote:On May 05 2019 05:05 Gorsameth wrote:On May 05 2019 04:57 xDaunt wrote:On May 05 2019 04:33 Gorsameth wrote:On May 05 2019 03:25 xDaunt wrote:On May 05 2019 03:01 Ben... wrote:
[quote]
This is becoming an increasingly noticeable issue in this thread. You can't have a conversation about an issue if some people are making the claim that facts are not facts.
This exchange comes to mind for me:
[quote][quote]
xDaunt makes a claim that Gorsameth rebuts citing primary source information (in this case the Mueller Report itself) that clearly and obviously proves xDaunt's statement to be incorrect. xDaunt the replies by claiming the excerpt from the Mueller Report is a cover story while providing no proof to back this claim up other than what it obviously xDaunt's opinion. This has been an increasingly common trend I've noticed.
I feel like this rule has been somewhat forgotten the last few weeks.
[quote]
If people are going to be making claims, especially ones that counter publicly available information from primary or well-cited secondary sources, they should be backing them up more than with personal opinion.
This is getting old. There is no guideline that says what Gorsameth and others have been claiming regarding a prohibition on the DOJ's ability to conclude that the president likely committed a crime. The only prohibition is on the ability to indict. What Mueller does is cite that prohibition and then create an argument out of whole cloth justifying his not coming to a conclusion regarding whether to prosecute Trump. Anyone who can't distinguish between an actual guideline and someone's spin on existing guidelines should seriously reconsider their participation in this thread. EDIT: And if anyone disagrees with this, then go cite the guideline. I obviously can't prove a negative. But you should already know what I'm saying is correct just by reading the Mueller report and by looking at Barr's -- who is subject to the exact guidelines as Mueller -- conclusion that Trump did not commit a crime. That would be United States v. Briggs, 514 F.2d 794 (5th Cir. 1975). Why? And before you answer, you should consider the fact that the lawsuit concerns claims that are not too dissimilar from what Mueller did to Trump. Stated another way, the case supports my point that Mueller is a political hack. You wanted me to cite the basis behind Muellers reasoning, There it is. And yes I understand that ideally Trump wouldn't even be mentioned by name but that's kinda hard when he is the sole subject of that particular part of the investigation. I said it before, there was no clear line for Mueller to go Mueller has to deliver a report. He can't indict Trump as per DoJ guidelines. He shouldn't mention Trump if he can't indict as per United States v. Briggs. So what can he deliver? a blank page and a shrug? That sure would have put this matter to rest... What US v. Briggs suggests is that Mueller should have condensed all sections of his report concerning Trump down to a page or two stating that he did not find sufficient evidence of a prosecutable crime. What Mueller did, instead, is no different than what the grand jury did in US v. Briggs and which the court found so offensive. which would be a lie because he did find evidence. So what does he do then? At the same time, if we had confidence after a
thorough investigation of the facts that the Pres ident clearly did not commit obstruction of justice,
we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach
that judgment. No, it's not a lie at all. He didn't find sufficient evidence of a prosecutable crime per his report and per Barr who asked him explicitly whether the OLC guidelines prevented him making such determination. And besides, if he did find such evidence, then US v. Briggs says that Mueller should have actually stated as such rather than doing what Mueller did. Regardless of how you look at it, Mueller's report does not comply with US v. Briggs. Why does US vs Briggs state that Mueller should have said there was evidence if he can't indict? Surely that goes entirely against that case? US v. Briggs says that prosecutors should not tarnish suspects if there is no criminal prosecution. Regardless of his reasons for not indicting and prosecuting Trump, the fact of the matter is that Mueller clearly tarnishes Trump without indicting or prosecuting him. That's not allowed. So the issue then becomes what should a prosecutor do when there is sufficient evidence that a crime has been committed yet some technical point of law prevents immediate -- but not eventual -- prosecution? US v. Briggs doesn't clearly address this point, but there is certainly nothing inconsistent in that case with the idea that the prosecutor should simply state that there is sufficient evidence of a prosecutable crime, thereby opening the door to prosecution at a later date. Regardless, it is clear that what Mueller did in failing to reach any definitive conclusion on the obstruction charge is improper under US v. Briggs. Trump's attorneys have laid out Mueller's unethical conduct in quite a bit of detail in a letter to Barr. Even they acknowledge that there was nothing stopping Mueller from making a prosecutorial decision and they argue quite vociferously that he should have done just that rather than what he did.
It's the same proposition: that the state should not accuse of persons of crimes without charging them for those crimes.
Anyway, given how nasty you have gotten, and given that I've gotten quite bored of shooting down your ill-considered posts, consider this my last response to your posts.
|
On May 30 2019 10:23 pmh wrote:
Democrats still on track for loosing in 2020? Looks like it.
When trump gets re-elected i will blame the democrats.
The person in the street he doesn't care about the report. He is tired with the report after hearing about it for 2,5 years and probably 1,5 more years to come. Why don't the democrats focus on other things,on things that matter for the man in the street?
Because they don't have functional solutions, just rhetoric on doing better than Republicans which is a bar so low that just disappearing and preventing someone from replacing them would put them comfortably above it imo.
Remember earlier today when people were dismissing Biden's creepy non-consensual touching of strange girls/women was just the new Russian Republican division campaign of 2020
Or their "Have you seen the other guys" campaign slogan?
|
On May 30 2019 10:08 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2019 09:40 xDaunt wrote:On May 30 2019 09:35 ShoCkeyy wrote:
The best analogy I heard was that the FBI was investigating Russian interference during the election. It wasn’t the FBI’s fault that Trump Associates kept walking in and out of the surveillance of Russian actors. And how about the "Russian actors" that were actually Western spies, such as Mifsud? Here's the better analogy. Remember the story from a few months ago where it was found that Diane Feinstein had an actual Chinese spy on her staff? What did the FBI do there? Did they get a FISA warrant on DiFi and otherwise conduct a full roto-rooter rectal exam of all of her affairs to see if she was dirty? Nope. They gave her a defensive briefing and moved on with investigating the spy. That the FBI did not do this with Trump says all we need to know about how dirty and corrupt these people are. This seems like a poor analogy. The FBI's actions are aligned with national security interests/threat. Feinstein's spy had what sort of access to secret or top secret material? Trump's posse had what sort of access to secret or top secret material?
I think you're looking at it backwards. If anything, the DiFi situation warranted the full rectal exam far more than the Trump situation given the heightened severity of the interests at issue.
|
United States42771 Posts
On May 30 2019 10:28 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2019 10:08 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On May 30 2019 09:40 xDaunt wrote:On May 30 2019 09:35 ShoCkeyy wrote:
The best analogy I heard was that the FBI was investigating Russian interference during the election. It wasn’t the FBI’s fault that Trump Associates kept walking in and out of the surveillance of Russian actors. And how about the "Russian actors" that were actually Western spies, such as Mifsud? Here's the better analogy. Remember the story from a few months ago where it was found that Diane Feinstein had an actual Chinese spy on her staff? What did the FBI do there? Did they get a FISA warrant on DiFi and otherwise conduct a full roto-rooter rectal exam of all of her affairs to see if she was dirty? Nope. They gave her a defensive briefing and moved on with investigating the spy. That the FBI did not do this with Trump says all we need to know about how dirty and corrupt these people are. This seems like a poor analogy. The FBI's actions are aligned with national security interests/threat. Feinstein's spy had what sort of access to secret or top secret material? Trump's posse had what sort of access to secret or top secret material? I think you're looking at it backwards. If anything, the DiFi situation warranted the full rectal exam far more than the Trump situation given the heightened severity of the interests at issue.
Are you from the timeline where Trump didn't have a foreign agent working as National Security Adviser and refused to fire him when told?
|
On May 30 2019 09:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2019 09:23 Stratos_speAr wrote:On May 30 2019 09:21 xDaunt wrote:On May 30 2019 08:50 Stratos_speAr wrote:On May 30 2019 08:16 xDaunt wrote:On May 30 2019 08:10 Stratos_speAr wrote:On May 30 2019 07:30 xDaunt wrote:On May 30 2019 07:05 Stratos_speAr wrote:On May 30 2019 06:25 xDaunt wrote:On May 30 2019 05:59 ShoCkeyy wrote:
[quote]
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. I'm not agreeing with Mohdoo's argument but your argument is incredibly weak. You're basically implying that if Mueller wanted to stick to "fairness" he shouldn't have investigated at all. That argument is bullshit on it's face. Mueller presented the evidence. That's it. His conclusion is the definition of "here's the evidence. No conclusions are made". You're just throwing a temper tantrum because the evidence makes your guy look bad. This isn't my argument. My argument (which I have outlined at length previously) is that Mueller should have reached a charging decision. If he decided that there was a chargeable crime, then he should have provided a full explanation of the basis for that decision. If he decided that there was no chargeable crime, then he should have simply left it at that and provided no explanation for that rationale. That is how prosecutors are supposed to act. We already know that you think that. However, you stated that Mueller's reasoning for not coming to a charging decision (that it would be unfair) was disingenuous because the report that he presented is unfair. I called you out on that bullshit because his report is pretty much "here's the evidence. I refuse to say anything at all about what it means. Have at it." That's about as far away from "tarring with innuendos" as you can get. You're spinning it to try to make Mueller look partisan and it makes you look like you're throwing a temper tantrum over reality not supporting your conclusions. You're missing the point: if a prosecutor does not charge someone, then the prosecutor is not supposed to list all of the evidence that he reviewed and considered. Whether Mueller shaped his report be anti-Trump (he did) is quite besides the point. What makes Mueller's rationale for not coming to a charging decision yet deciding to lay out all of the evidence anyway even more ludicrous is that he cites in Footnote 5 to the very authority showing why the state is not supposed to do what Mueller did. EDIT I previously explained this in detail to Gorsameth in a series of posts starting here. Unless I'm reading the wrong U.S. vs. Briggs https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-briggs-5 (this is the one that came up after searching Mueller's footnote 5 in Volume II) Then arguing that this case applies to Mueller's situation is incredibly weak, at best. Your stating in conclusory fashion that my argument that the case applies to Mueller's situation "is weak" is not particularly compelling given that 1) you have yet to demonstrate a passable understanding of any of the issues being discussed, and 2) Mueller cited that case in his report, thereby showing that he certainly think that it applies. You and Mueller cited them for two completely different legal arguments. I was referring to yours. Try again. You definitely know my questions though, they are in this quote train. I don't know what questions you're talking about and am happy to answer them as I mentioned? You know where to find them. By the way, if you didn't notice, I think you're just straight-up lying about not knowing the questions. I wouldn't put it past you. lol okaaayyyy. Believe what you want but you're turning down the opportunity to have me answer the questions you're upset about, apparently to try and keep the complaint alive and "get back" at me by doing something I've been instructed not to do. I don't get it?
In my conversations/experience with you you've been pretty selective on what you're willing to answer. In the mass shooting thread I asked for clarification on your points and didn't respond at all.
+ Show Spoiler +On May 26 2019 02:36 ShambhalaWar wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2019 12:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 25 2019 12:37 ShambhalaWar wrote:On May 25 2019 11:52 GreenHorizons wrote:You said: it trend specifically in that direction (left/liberalism/science) regardless of effort. To which I'm telling you that is not true. Your example of Nazism and slavery are in incongruent to the argument you made which I challenged. Ok... first off. You're not even quoting my original point, the one which you imposed a bunch of ideas on top of, you are quoting my response to you. Nothing in my original posts explicitly suggests what you're saying. The effort I refer to in the response, is in regard to the efforts "against" the trend toward the left. I could have stated it clearer if I said, "I said nothing about the effort required to bring about change, only that it trend specifically in that direction regardless of effort in opposition to that trend." You still haven't made anything even approaching a counter argument to what I've said. "That isn't true." is not a valid counter argument. I stand by everything I've said. Try providing any example, or looking at how Nechubad forms a good counter point. He has his own ideas and does a good job of explaining them clearly. You're posts simply amount to some version of, "No that's not true." At best you say there are no markers for this in history, but then you provide no other statement to back it up, just the idea that what I said "isn't true." Another example, would be the slaughter of native American people by the whites that took the land from them. While we still persecute Native people in America, I would stand by the idea that if white America committed genocide on a scale like that in present day, the world condemn it on a massive scale, and if possible would likely hold us to account. And also that the vast majority of our US society would is likely appalled that we did such a thing in the first place, this is something America still has to truly acknowledge as part of our past. It is the "shadow" (as Jung would say) of our culture (that and slavery). Overall I would say that is a trend toward equal rights, though we clearly aren't there yet. And I stand by my point of slavery as well, the whole world has trended away from it, though it still occurs. Next time you respond do so with some examples to back up your statements and reasoning behind it, or I won't bother responding. I in no way think that the trend toward liberalism in the world requires no effort, only that all the majority of the effort put forth in the world will trend in that direction (barring a catastrophe). I can't explain that point any more directly. I again disagree based on the assertion that you can't provide any example of this majority of the effort trending in that direction without deliberate effort and advocacy. The examples you have provided weren't inevitable without people who told liberals to "shut up and get out of the way". I don't disagree that by and large we've trended toward liberalism (if we don't consider the looming climate apocalypse), what I disagreed with was the notion that it's a natural state of things rather than the product of countless gallons of blood sweat and tears, quite often to the protest of said liberals. We very much can and will descend into fascism/theocracies/etc... should those people to the left of liberals stop dragging them kicking and screaming toward those same liberals own alleged ambitions. I don't feel confused on what your point of disagreement is, but feel free to correct me if paraphrase you incorrectly. You believe that the general movement of the world is toward liberalism but that comes at the cost of "blood, sweat, and tears" of many people that work hard to make those changes happen. Is that correct? In my posts I've never made the assertion that change doesn't require "blood, sweat, and tears" of the people in the world working for that change. You appear to make some assertion that "effort" isn't a natural process, if that is your position I disagree with it. The very nature of human existence is effort. If you ask a human being to sit in a room and do nothing their whole life (food will be brought to them, they will be cleaned and taken care of), they will be incapable of doing that. Humans will begin to do things without being asked, it is the nature of humans to "do". What they "do" will be in one direction or the other. They will move toward pain or pleasure, discomfort or comfort, good or evil... etc... I don't see things as much in those dualistic ways, but I believe it is more the common language in the world now. This "do" isn't an exceptional thing, it's part of life and natural imo. Notice how everyone is doing something. Take all the combined effort of the world (the "doing" of the world), pool it up, and then look at the trend... It is in my opinion (over the large arc of humanity's existence), something I would say that strongly resembles liberal characteristics. I'll quote my own last sentence from my last post, "I in no way think that the trend toward liberalism in the world requires no effort, only that all the majority of the effort put forth in the world will trend in that direction (barring a catastrophe). I can't explain that point any more directly." I don't believe that statement is unclear or poorly written. More than anything you seem confused on my points, but I truly don't know how to say what I'm saying any more clear. Are you confused? Can you paraphrase my points back to me in a way that I feel completely understood by you? If you cannot reflect what I'm saying to me, then maybe you do not understand what I'm saying... Then we will be having a pointless discussion. Because what you're telling me I'm saying and what I'm actually saying (or at least what I'm intending to say) are two different things. You don't really seem interested in my view points or ideas, but more so interested in arguing for the sake of argument. Or even more likely, what I think may be happening is that we are actually both saying the same thing, but (frustratingly) we are hung up on some semantic difference, that is causing a glitch between us. If my points are confusing, or don't make sense to you, maybe try asking me a clarifying question about my ideas, I'd be happy to try and explain what I mean. And for my own clarification, what do you mean by "to the left of the liberals."? In my country liberals are defined as the far left... I can't think of a group any farther to the left.
|
On May 30 2019 10:28 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2019 10:08 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On May 30 2019 09:40 xDaunt wrote:On May 30 2019 09:35 ShoCkeyy wrote:
The best analogy I heard was that the FBI was investigating Russian interference during the election. It wasn’t the FBI’s fault that Trump Associates kept walking in and out of the surveillance of Russian actors. And how about the "Russian actors" that were actually Western spies, such as Mifsud? Here's the better analogy. Remember the story from a few months ago where it was found that Diane Feinstein had an actual Chinese spy on her staff? What did the FBI do there? Did they get a FISA warrant on DiFi and otherwise conduct a full roto-rooter rectal exam of all of her affairs to see if she was dirty? Nope. They gave her a defensive briefing and moved on with investigating the spy. That the FBI did not do this with Trump says all we need to know about how dirty and corrupt these people are. This seems like a poor analogy. The FBI's actions are aligned with national security interests/threat. Feinstein's spy had what sort of access to secret or top secret material? Trump's posse had what sort of access to secret or top secret material? I think you're looking at it backwards. If anything, the DiFi situation warranted the full rectal exam far more than the Trump situation given the heightened severity of the interests at issue.
You're going to have to explain like I'm five that one.
|
On May 30 2019 10:39 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2019 10:28 xDaunt wrote:On May 30 2019 10:08 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On May 30 2019 09:40 xDaunt wrote:On May 30 2019 09:35 ShoCkeyy wrote:
The best analogy I heard was that the FBI was investigating Russian interference during the election. It wasn’t the FBI’s fault that Trump Associates kept walking in and out of the surveillance of Russian actors. And how about the "Russian actors" that were actually Western spies, such as Mifsud? Here's the better analogy. Remember the story from a few months ago where it was found that Diane Feinstein had an actual Chinese spy on her staff? What did the FBI do there? Did they get a FISA warrant on DiFi and otherwise conduct a full roto-rooter rectal exam of all of her affairs to see if she was dirty? Nope. They gave her a defensive briefing and moved on with investigating the spy. That the FBI did not do this with Trump says all we need to know about how dirty and corrupt these people are. This seems like a poor analogy. The FBI's actions are aligned with national security interests/threat. Feinstein's spy had what sort of access to secret or top secret material? Trump's posse had what sort of access to secret or top secret material? I think you're looking at it backwards. If anything, the DiFi situation warranted the full rectal exam far more than the Trump situation given the heightened severity of the interests at issue. You're going to have to explain like I'm five that one.
Oh, you're talking about Flynn. Flynn wasn't the basis for the FISA surveillance of the Trump campaign, so I'm not sure why you're bringing him up.
|
Because multiple people warned trump about him and yet he did nothing about it until he was caught and publicly outed as being a foreign agent?
|
The difference is Feinstein wasnt using the spy to get backchannels with the chinese to obtain hacked information and talk sanction relief and foreign policy while having high value real estate deal talks with the government.
She was the one being spied upon.
And she managed to not fire the FBI director for looking in to it
|
On May 30 2019 10:46 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Because multiple people warned trump about him and yet he did nothing about it until he was caught and publicly outed as being a foreign agent?
Flynn's a different case. But since you bring him up, I'm pretty sure that Trump was not even given a specific defensive briefing on Flynn where he was made aware of the fact that Flynn was under investigation for a particular crime. All he was given was a vague, unsubstantiated warning from Obama.
EDIT: And speaking of Flynn, I'm still not sold on him having done anything criminal. I think we're going to find out a lot more on this point by the end of the week, which, if I recall correctly, is the deadline for the prosecution to produce all recordings that the government has on Flynn.
|
On May 30 2019 10:37 ShambhalaWar wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2019 09:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 30 2019 09:23 Stratos_speAr wrote:On May 30 2019 09:21 xDaunt wrote:On May 30 2019 08:50 Stratos_speAr wrote:On May 30 2019 08:16 xDaunt wrote:On May 30 2019 08:10 Stratos_speAr wrote:On May 30 2019 07:30 xDaunt wrote:On May 30 2019 07:05 Stratos_speAr wrote:On May 30 2019 06:25 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
From Volume II of the report:
[quote]
Here's where Mueller recognizes the OLC guidelines.
[quote]
Here's where Mueller recognizes that he's allowed to investigate a president nonetheless.
[quote]
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. I'm not agreeing with Mohdoo's argument but your argument is incredibly weak. You're basically implying that if Mueller wanted to stick to "fairness" he shouldn't have investigated at all. That argument is bullshit on it's face. Mueller presented the evidence. That's it. His conclusion is the definition of "here's the evidence. No conclusions are made". You're just throwing a temper tantrum because the evidence makes your guy look bad. This isn't my argument. My argument (which I have outlined at length previously) is that Mueller should have reached a charging decision. If he decided that there was a chargeable crime, then he should have provided a full explanation of the basis for that decision. If he decided that there was no chargeable crime, then he should have simply left it at that and provided no explanation for that rationale. That is how prosecutors are supposed to act. We already know that you think that. However, you stated that Mueller's reasoning for not coming to a charging decision (that it would be unfair) was disingenuous because the report that he presented is unfair. I called you out on that bullshit because his report is pretty much "here's the evidence. I refuse to say anything at all about what it means. Have at it." That's about as far away from "tarring with innuendos" as you can get. You're spinning it to try to make Mueller look partisan and it makes you look like you're throwing a temper tantrum over reality not supporting your conclusions. You're missing the point: if a prosecutor does not charge someone, then the prosecutor is not supposed to list all of the evidence that he reviewed and considered. Whether Mueller shaped his report be anti-Trump (he did) is quite besides the point. What makes Mueller's rationale for not coming to a charging decision yet deciding to lay out all of the evidence anyway even more ludicrous is that he cites in Footnote 5 to the very authority showing why the state is not supposed to do what Mueller did. EDIT I previously explained this in detail to Gorsameth in a series of posts starting here. Unless I'm reading the wrong U.S. vs. Briggs https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-briggs-5 (this is the one that came up after searching Mueller's footnote 5 in Volume II) Then arguing that this case applies to Mueller's situation is incredibly weak, at best. Your stating in conclusory fashion that my argument that the case applies to Mueller's situation "is weak" is not particularly compelling given that 1) you have yet to demonstrate a passable understanding of any of the issues being discussed, and 2) Mueller cited that case in his report, thereby showing that he certainly think that it applies. You and Mueller cited them for two completely different legal arguments. I was referring to yours. Try again. You definitely know my questions though, they are in this quote train. I don't know what questions you're talking about and am happy to answer them as I mentioned? You know where to find them. By the way, if you didn't notice, I think you're just straight-up lying about not knowing the questions. I wouldn't put it past you. lol okaaayyyy. Believe what you want but you're turning down the opportunity to have me answer the questions you're upset about, apparently to try and keep the complaint alive and "get back" at me by doing something I've been instructed not to do. I don't get it? In my conversations/experience with you you've been pretty selective on what you're willing to answer. In the mass shooting thread I asked for clarification on your points and didn't respond at all. + Show Spoiler +On May 26 2019 02:36 ShambhalaWar wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2019 12:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 25 2019 12:37 ShambhalaWar wrote:On May 25 2019 11:52 GreenHorizons wrote:You said: it trend specifically in that direction (left/liberalism/science) regardless of effort. To which I'm telling you that is not true. Your example of Nazism and slavery are in incongruent to the argument you made which I challenged. Ok... first off. You're not even quoting my original point, the one which you imposed a bunch of ideas on top of, you are quoting my response to you. Nothing in my original posts explicitly suggests what you're saying. The effort I refer to in the response, is in regard to the efforts "against" the trend toward the left. I could have stated it clearer if I said, "I said nothing about the effort required to bring about change, only that it trend specifically in that direction regardless of effort in opposition to that trend." You still haven't made anything even approaching a counter argument to what I've said. "That isn't true." is not a valid counter argument. I stand by everything I've said. Try providing any example, or looking at how Nechubad forms a good counter point. He has his own ideas and does a good job of explaining them clearly. You're posts simply amount to some version of, "No that's not true." At best you say there are no markers for this in history, but then you provide no other statement to back it up, just the idea that what I said "isn't true." Another example, would be the slaughter of native American people by the whites that took the land from them. While we still persecute Native people in America, I would stand by the idea that if white America committed genocide on a scale like that in present day, the world condemn it on a massive scale, and if possible would likely hold us to account. And also that the vast majority of our US society would is likely appalled that we did such a thing in the first place, this is something America still has to truly acknowledge as part of our past. It is the "shadow" (as Jung would say) of our culture (that and slavery). Overall I would say that is a trend toward equal rights, though we clearly aren't there yet. And I stand by my point of slavery as well, the whole world has trended away from it, though it still occurs. Next time you respond do so with some examples to back up your statements and reasoning behind it, or I won't bother responding. I in no way think that the trend toward liberalism in the world requires no effort, only that all the majority of the effort put forth in the world will trend in that direction (barring a catastrophe). I can't explain that point any more directly. I again disagree based on the assertion that you can't provide any example of this majority of the effort trending in that direction without deliberate effort and advocacy. The examples you have provided weren't inevitable without people who told liberals to "shut up and get out of the way". I don't disagree that by and large we've trended toward liberalism (if we don't consider the looming climate apocalypse), what I disagreed with was the notion that it's a natural state of things rather than the product of countless gallons of blood sweat and tears, quite often to the protest of said liberals. We very much can and will descend into fascism/theocracies/etc... should those people to the left of liberals stop dragging them kicking and screaming toward those same liberals own alleged ambitions. I don't feel confused on what your point of disagreement is, but feel free to correct me if paraphrase you incorrectly. You believe that the general movement of the world is toward liberalism but that comes at the cost of "blood, sweat, and tears" of many people that work hard to make those changes happen. Is that correct? In my posts I've never made the assertion that change doesn't require "blood, sweat, and tears" of the people in the world working for that change. You appear to make some assertion that "effort" isn't a natural process, if that is your position I disagree with it. The very nature of human existence is effort. If you ask a human being to sit in a room and do nothing their whole life (food will be brought to them, they will be cleaned and taken care of), they will be incapable of doing that. Humans will begin to do things without being asked, it is the nature of humans to "do". What they "do" will be in one direction or the other. They will move toward pain or pleasure, discomfort or comfort, good or evil... etc... I don't see things as much in those dualistic ways, but I believe it is more the common language in the world now. This "do" isn't an exceptional thing, it's part of life and natural imo. Notice how everyone is doing something. Take all the combined effort of the world (the "doing" of the world), pool it up, and then look at the trend... It is in my opinion (over the large arc of humanity's existence), something I would say that strongly resembles liberal characteristics. I'll quote my own last sentence from my last post, "I in no way think that the trend toward liberalism in the world requires no effort, only that all the majority of the effort put forth in the world will trend in that direction (barring a catastrophe). I can't explain that point any more directly." I don't believe that statement is unclear or poorly written. More than anything you seem confused on my points, but I truly don't know how to say what I'm saying any more clear. Are you confused? Can you paraphrase my points back to me in a way that I feel completely understood by you? If you cannot reflect what I'm saying to me, then maybe you do not understand what I'm saying... Then we will be having a pointless discussion. Because what you're telling me I'm saying and what I'm actually saying (or at least what I'm intending to say) are two different things. You don't really seem interested in my view points or ideas, but more so interested in arguing for the sake of argument. Or even more likely, what I think may be happening is that we are actually both saying the same thing, but (frustratingly) we are hung up on some semantic difference, that is causing a glitch between us. If my points are confusing, or don't make sense to you, maybe try asking me a clarifying question about my ideas, I'd be happy to try and explain what I mean. And for my own clarification, what do you mean by "to the left of the liberals."? In my country liberals are defined as the far left... I can't think of a group any farther to the left.
iirc someone responded to that with a lot more effort than I was willing to entertain so I let them handle it. To be frank, not all arguments/posts are worth addressing imo. As a revolutionary I have to focus my efforts on people demonstrating an interest in dialogue or on arguments that help me identify contradictions. I didn't feel like that post met my threshold at the moment I saw it so I moved on, you should too imo.
The "liberal" thing has come up before too so I will touch that one because it's also helpful for clear communication, but in the US? Progressives, Greens, soc-dem, dem-soc, socialist, communist, maybe anarchy depending on the sect all would probably scoff at the label "liberal" though I'd imagine there's some in most that would accept or possibly embrace that nomenclature.
|
On May 30 2019 10:48 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2019 10:46 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Because multiple people warned trump about him and yet he did nothing about it until he was caught and publicly outed as being a foreign agent? Flynn's a different case. But since you bring him up, I'm pretty sure that Trump was not even given a specific defensive briefing on Flynn where he was made aware of the fact that Flynn was under investigation for a particular crime. All he was given was a vague, unsubstantiated warning from Obama. EDIT: And speaking of Flynn, I'm still not sold on him having done anything criminal. I think we're going to find out a lot more on this point by the end of the week, which, if I recall correctly, is the deadline for the prosecution to produce all recordings that the government has on Flynn.
You're really going to willfully ignore the Flynn warning? The Obama team warned the Trump team 48 hours after the election in November. Do you really think that was vague? It's funny how Fox News is the only "reporting" outlet that says Trump was never warned, but every other outlet says otherwise.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39847417
|
I would say that the 2020 election is a lot simpler for Republicans to win but a lot easier for Democrats to win. The model to win for Trump is pretty obvious, just lean on the midwestern states and continue what they did in 2016. For dems to win they have to pick a candidate that won't piss off the progressive wing of the party.
This is all moot as impeachment is the molotov cocktail of predictions.
|
On May 30 2019 09:37 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2019 09:32 Introvert wrote:
This is the type of word game people are playing with the OLC opinion.
Exactly. Like I have said repeatedly, Mueller used the OLC guidelines as an excuse to avoid stating that he did not find sufficient evidence to support a charge of obstruction of justice. His actions here are purely political.
Nearly a thousand former federal prosecutors disagree with your repeated assertions that Mueller did not find sufficient evidence to support charges of obstruction of justice.
medium.com
|
On May 30 2019 10:48 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2019 10:46 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Because multiple people warned trump about him and yet he did nothing about it until he was caught and publicly outed as being a foreign agent? Flynn's a different case. But since you bring him up, I'm pretty sure that Trump was not even given a specific defensive briefing on Flynn where he was made aware of the fact that Flynn was under investigation for a particular crime. All he was given was a vague, unsubstantiated warning from Obama. EDIT: And speaking of Flynn, I'm still not sold on him having done anything criminal. I think we're going to find out a lot more on this point by the end of the week, which, if I recall correctly, is the deadline for the prosecution to produce all recordings that the government has on Flynn.
I am curious about this part. Why was it a vague and unsubstantiated warning?
|
On May 30 2019 11:07 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2019 09:37 xDaunt wrote:Exactly. Like I have said repeatedly, Mueller used the OLC guidelines as an excuse to avoid stating that he did not find sufficient evidence to support a charge of obstruction of justice. His actions here are purely political. Nearly a thousand former federal prosecutors disagree with your repeated assertions that Mueller did not find sufficient evidence to support charges of obstruction of justice. medium.com
Is there a threshold for which it would have been unacceptable for Mueller to defer to congress without even a recommendation to prosecute?
Or even if Mueller uncovered a pile of dead bodies with 2 Polaroids (1 together alive and 1 together with the corpse) in his bedroom and a diary of how he did it, would you argue that Mueller had no choice but to leave it to congress) without recommending what they should do and hope Republicans did something about it because of the memo?
I don't think most Democrats have a threshold, and would actually still count on Republicans, even if after all this wasn't close to enough.
|
On May 30 2019 10:45 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2019 10:39 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On May 30 2019 10:28 xDaunt wrote:On May 30 2019 10:08 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On May 30 2019 09:40 xDaunt wrote:On May 30 2019 09:35 ShoCkeyy wrote:
The best analogy I heard was that the FBI was investigating Russian interference during the election. It wasn’t the FBI’s fault that Trump Associates kept walking in and out of the surveillance of Russian actors. And how about the "Russian actors" that were actually Western spies, such as Mifsud? Here's the better analogy. Remember the story from a few months ago where it was found that Diane Feinstein had an actual Chinese spy on her staff? What did the FBI do there? Did they get a FISA warrant on DiFi and otherwise conduct a full roto-rooter rectal exam of all of her affairs to see if she was dirty? Nope. They gave her a defensive briefing and moved on with investigating the spy. That the FBI did not do this with Trump says all we need to know about how dirty and corrupt these people are. This seems like a poor analogy. The FBI's actions are aligned with national security interests/threat. Feinstein's spy had what sort of access to secret or top secret material? Trump's posse had what sort of access to secret or top secret material? I think you're looking at it backwards. If anything, the DiFi situation warranted the full rectal exam far more than the Trump situation given the heightened severity of the interests at issue. You're going to have to explain like I'm five that one. Oh, you're talking about Flynn. Flynn wasn't the basis for the FISA surveillance of the Trump campaign, so I'm not sure why you're bringing him up.
Carter Page was a part of Trump's campaign.
Trump announced Page as a foreign policy adviser in his campaign on March 21, 2016.
Flynn is also a highly questionable character that was part of Trump's campaign though. I only mention Page specifically because your post included FISA surveillance.
|
On May 30 2019 11:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2019 11:07 Kyadytim wrote:On May 30 2019 09:37 xDaunt wrote:Exactly. Like I have said repeatedly, Mueller used the OLC guidelines as an excuse to avoid stating that he did not find sufficient evidence to support a charge of obstruction of justice. His actions here are purely political. Nearly a thousand former federal prosecutors disagree with your repeated assertions that Mueller did not find sufficient evidence to support charges of obstruction of justice. medium.com Is there a threshold for which it would have been unacceptable for Mueller to defer to congress without even a recommendation to prosecute? Or even if Mueller uncovered a pile of dead bodies with 2 Polaroids (1 together alive and 1 together with the corpse) in his bedroom and a diary of how he did it, would you argue that Mueller had no choice but to leave it to congress) without recommending what they should do and hope Republicans did something about it because of the memo?
This is comparing apples to oranges. If there was enough proof that the President did murder some one, I highly doubt Congress would stand by, and not impeach to bring indictments. I mean we impeached Bill Clinton for lying about a blowjob.
|
On May 30 2019 11:34 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2019 11:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 30 2019 11:07 Kyadytim wrote:On May 30 2019 09:37 xDaunt wrote:Exactly. Like I have said repeatedly, Mueller used the OLC guidelines as an excuse to avoid stating that he did not find sufficient evidence to support a charge of obstruction of justice. His actions here are purely political. Nearly a thousand former federal prosecutors disagree with your repeated assertions that Mueller did not find sufficient evidence to support charges of obstruction of justice. medium.com Is there a threshold for which it would have been unacceptable for Mueller to defer to congress without even a recommendation to prosecute? Or even if Mueller uncovered a pile of dead bodies with 2 Polaroids (1 together alive and 1 together with the corpse) in his bedroom and a diary of how he did it, would you argue that Mueller had no choice but to leave it to congress) without recommending what they should do and hope Republicans did something about it because of the memo? This is comparing apples to oranges. If there was enough proof that the President did murder some one, I highly doubt Congress would stand by, and not impeach to bring indictments. I mean we impeached Bill Clinton for lying about a blowjob.
I don't know why people answer questions like this.
Your answer here is "no I do not have a threshold for which it would be unacceptable for Mueller to punt to congress without so much as even a recommendation"
Or "No, I don't" if they wanted to be brief.
I highly doubt Congress would stand by, and not impeach to bring indictments. I mean we impeached Bill Clinton for lying about a blowjob.
This line is from 2017 back when impeachment was still seriously thought (by liberals) to be a possibility (beyond optics).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
