|
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 June 26 2019 09:10 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2019 09:03 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2019 08:57 KwarK wrote:On June 26 2019 08:54 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2019 08:49 KwarK wrote:On June 26 2019 08:38 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2019 08:32 Gorsameth wrote:On June 26 2019 08:27 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2019 07:53 KwarK wrote:On June 26 2019 07:48 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
I am not dodging anything. It’s not a material conflict for the reasons I already discussed. It’s not a serious issue. You discussed whether Barr is entitled to have opinions earlier. That wasn't the issue. Try again. Maybe try reading the post before responding to it. That way you'll be able to see what you're meant to be responding to and can tailor your response. If you're still struggling you can probably ask literally any other person to explain the issue to you. I wasn't paying attention to your response to my first where you shifted the focus completely away from Barr and on Trump. But like I said, focusing on the conflict of interest that Trump had in picking Barr to be his AG is even dumber than asking about Barr's conflict of interest. Every president has this same conflict because every president picks his AG. It simply isn't a material issue. You might as well ask whether water is wet. And like I pointed out, there are multiple checks on this exercise of presidential authority, so it isn't a problem. How many of those Presidents were under investigation by the DoJ at the time they picked their AG? It doesn't matter. First, AG's, as attorneys, are bound by their own rules of ethical conduct. If there's a real conflict, they have to recuse. But there's no real conflict per my prior post discuss Barr at length. Second, the appointment of the AG is still subject to congressional approval. Lastly, the AG isn't responsible for prosecuting a sitting president anyway. That has to be dealt with by Congress through impeachment proceedings. And again, let me remind you that the investigation had already been delegated to a special counsel at the time of Barr's appointment and Barr let the special counsel complete the investigation. There's not even a whiff of impropriety here. 1) "Let me answer the question of whether Trump is conflicted with a sudden change of subject. Did you know Barr is a lawyer? Lawyers are subject to ethical standards. I trust that answers the question of whether Trump is conflicted." 2) "Let me answer the question of whether Trump is conflicted with some trivia about the political process. Did you know that the AG nomination is reviewed by the party that controls the house. I trust that answers the question of whether Trump is conflicted." 3) "Let me answer the question of whether Trump is conflicted with some misdirection. The AG, although in a position to conclude on what the report said and preemptively exonerate Trump in conflict with the text of the report, is not responsible for prosecution. I trust that answers the question of whether Trump is conflicted." You managed to cram three different introducing of new and separate issues into a single response. It's a rare triple daunt. Three different answers to questions that nobody was asked which fail to address the issue. He asked whether the conflict was material, and I directly explained why it wasn't. This isn't hard. You didn't even address the conflict. You just introduced three new issues and rested your case. How does Barr being a lawyer make Trump less conflicted when choosing who to nominate? It's the nomination process that Trump is conflicted over. Lawyers being subject to ethical standards is completely irrelevant to the nomination process. Why do I need to address the conflict when the conflict doesn't matter? Your point boils down to "water is wet." Big fucking deal. Who cares? It's neither interesting nor profound nor worthy of discussion for the reasons that I have given. And no, I did not introduce three new issues. I gave three reasons why the conflict does not matter. Here's what's really going on: you are avoiding the reality that you're asking an incredibly stupid question that is predicated upon a poor understanding of how the system works and the specific facts in this instance. And we finally get to it. After six different attempts to answer different questions and change the issue, each of which was rejected, you finally state that accusing Trump of being conflicted when nominating a guy to oversee the investigation into Trump is like saying water is wet. But in a sudden twist we switch to gaslighting. "Why do you even care about the conflict? You're stating the obvious. Water is wet. Who fucking cares? Big fucking deal". Your problem, xDaunt, is that I know what you're doing. After you've been unable to successfully change the subject to something other than the conflict you're now insisting that the conflict doesn't even matter. So naturally I'm going to do my part in this game and call you out again. You can't just go "big fucking deal" and make everyone agree that it's a small chaste deal.
so Trump appointed a lap dog and Congress approved it. i’m not sure what you are getting at? are you trying to get xdaunt to restate this and explicitly agree with you? or do you think a law has been broken? that the bar association should disbar Barr?
|
|
|
i guess we should vote some people in to change the law then
|
On June 26 2019 09:54 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2019 09:41 IgnE wrote:On June 26 2019 09:10 KwarK wrote:On June 26 2019 09:03 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2019 08:57 KwarK wrote:On June 26 2019 08:54 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2019 08:49 KwarK wrote:On June 26 2019 08:38 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2019 08:32 Gorsameth wrote:On June 26 2019 08:27 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
I wasn't paying attention to your response to my first where you shifted the focus completely away from Barr and on Trump. But like I said, focusing on the conflict of interest that Trump had in picking Barr to be his AG is even dumber than asking about Barr's conflict of interest. Every president has this same conflict because every president picks his AG. It simply isn't a material issue. You might as well ask whether water is wet. And like I pointed out, there are multiple checks on this exercise of presidential authority, so it isn't a problem. How many of those Presidents were under investigation by the DoJ at the time they picked their AG? It doesn't matter. First, AG's, as attorneys, are bound by their own rules of ethical conduct. If there's a real conflict, they have to recuse. But there's no real conflict per my prior post discuss Barr at length. Second, the appointment of the AG is still subject to congressional approval. Lastly, the AG isn't responsible for prosecuting a sitting president anyway. That has to be dealt with by Congress through impeachment proceedings. And again, let me remind you that the investigation had already been delegated to a special counsel at the time of Barr's appointment and Barr let the special counsel complete the investigation. There's not even a whiff of impropriety here. 1) "Let me answer the question of whether Trump is conflicted with a sudden change of subject. Did you know Barr is a lawyer? Lawyers are subject to ethical standards. I trust that answers the question of whether Trump is conflicted." 2) "Let me answer the question of whether Trump is conflicted with some trivia about the political process. Did you know that the AG nomination is reviewed by the party that controls the house. I trust that answers the question of whether Trump is conflicted." 3) "Let me answer the question of whether Trump is conflicted with some misdirection. The AG, although in a position to conclude on what the report said and preemptively exonerate Trump in conflict with the text of the report, is not responsible for prosecution. I trust that answers the question of whether Trump is conflicted." You managed to cram three different introducing of new and separate issues into a single response. It's a rare triple daunt. Three different answers to questions that nobody was asked which fail to address the issue. He asked whether the conflict was material, and I directly explained why it wasn't. This isn't hard. You didn't even address the conflict. You just introduced three new issues and rested your case. How does Barr being a lawyer make Trump less conflicted when choosing who to nominate? It's the nomination process that Trump is conflicted over. Lawyers being subject to ethical standards is completely irrelevant to the nomination process. Why do I need to address the conflict when the conflict doesn't matter? Your point boils down to "water is wet." Big fucking deal. Who cares? It's neither interesting nor profound nor worthy of discussion for the reasons that I have given. And no, I did not introduce three new issues. I gave three reasons why the conflict does not matter. Here's what's really going on: you are avoiding the reality that you're asking an incredibly stupid question that is predicated upon a poor understanding of how the system works and the specific facts in this instance. And we finally get to it. After six different attempts to answer different questions and change the issue, each of which was rejected, you finally state that accusing Trump of being conflicted when nominating a guy to oversee the investigation into Trump is like saying water is wet. But in a sudden twist we switch to gaslighting. "Why do you even care about the conflict? You're stating the obvious. Water is wet. Who fucking cares? Big fucking deal". Your problem, xDaunt, is that I know what you're doing. After you've been unable to successfully change the subject to something other than the conflict you're now insisting that the conflict doesn't even matter. So naturally I'm going to do my part in this game and call you out again. You can't just go "big fucking deal" and make everyone agree that it's a small chaste deal. so Trump appointed a lap dog and Congress approved it. i’m not sure what you are getting at? are you trying to get xdaunt to restate this and explicitly agree with you? or do you think a law has been broken? that the bar association should disbar Barr? I think he is trying to point out that it is a conflict of interest for the person under investigation to appoint the person who oversees the investigation. Even more so when the person he appoints writes a paper about how not matter what the evidence or investigation unfolds that person will be exonerated. Most democracies do not allow this because not only is it unfair, but you are supposed to avoid even the appearance of unfair.
The conflict point is academic. Mueller ran the investigation. There has been no allegation from him or anyone else on the special counsel team that Barr interfered with the investigation or otherwise acted with any impropriety. The only complaint has concerned Barr's initial summary letter of the findings of the report, which has nothing to do with Barr's involvement in the investigation itself. So people can bitch and moan about Trump getting to pick "his guy" as AG while under criminal investigation, but there's zero evidence showing that this mattered in the slightest in terms of some kind of impropriety having occurred.
|
On June 26 2019 09:28 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2019 09:14 ShambhalaWar wrote:On June 26 2019 08:27 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2019 07:53 KwarK wrote:On June 26 2019 07:48 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2019 07:43 KwarK wrote:On June 26 2019 07:38 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2019 07:24 KwarK wrote:
xDaunt you’re not remotely addressing the issue. You're doing the exact same thing you always do which is insisting that the issue is something completely unrelated to what the subject is, creating a straw man defence for the unrelated issue, and then complaining that everyone else is talking about the wrong thing.
If you weren't doing it intentionally I'd think you had some kind of disability.
Please feel free to stop making a fool out of yourself whenever you like and address the quid pro quo issue and not whether lawyers are required to have absolutely no opinions which appears to be a straw man you introduced. Complaining about Trump’s ability to pick who he wants for AG is even dumber than complaining about Barr. It’s his constitutional right. It is checked by the confirmation process and, if necessary, impeachment. Again you're dodging the issue. The issue is whether Trump selecting a guy to control an investigation into Trump is a conflict. You're answering the question of whether the constitution gives Trump the authority to select an AG and using that answer to somehow prove that there is no conflict because of a mystery step which you neglected to cover. You're responding to me pointing out that you only ever answer different questions to the ones asked by answering a different question to the one asked. You're a cliché. I am not dodging anything. It’s not a material conflict for the reasons I already discussed. It’s not a serious issue. You discussed whether Barr is entitled to have opinions earlier. That wasn't the issue. Try again. Maybe try reading the post before responding to it. That way you'll be able to see what you're meant to be responding to and can tailor your response. If you're still struggling you can probably ask literally any other person to explain the issue to you. I wasn't paying attention to your response to my first where you shifted the focus completely away from Barr and on Trump. But like I said, focusing on the conflict of interest that Trump had in picking Barr to be his AG is even dumber than asking about Barr's conflict of interest. Every president has this same conflict because every president picks his AG. It simply isn't a material issue. You might as well ask whether water is wet. And like I pointed out, there are multiple checks on this exercise of presidential authority, so it isn't a problem. Presidents prior to trump picked an AG based on qualifications to do the job, trump picked barr because he agreed to shut down the mueller investigation. On that fact alone they are both guilty of obstruction. I think Barr did shut down the Mueller investigation, but I think he did it for very different reasons than you think he did.
What were those reasons?
|
On June 26 2019 10:12 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2019 09:28 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2019 09:14 ShambhalaWar wrote:On June 26 2019 08:27 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2019 07:53 KwarK wrote:On June 26 2019 07:48 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2019 07:43 KwarK wrote:On June 26 2019 07:38 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2019 07:24 KwarK wrote:
xDaunt you’re not remotely addressing the issue. You're doing the exact same thing you always do which is insisting that the issue is something completely unrelated to what the subject is, creating a straw man defence for the unrelated issue, and then complaining that everyone else is talking about the wrong thing.
If you weren't doing it intentionally I'd think you had some kind of disability.
Please feel free to stop making a fool out of yourself whenever you like and address the quid pro quo issue and not whether lawyers are required to have absolutely no opinions which appears to be a straw man you introduced. Complaining about Trump’s ability to pick who he wants for AG is even dumber than complaining about Barr. It’s his constitutional right. It is checked by the confirmation process and, if necessary, impeachment. Again you're dodging the issue. The issue is whether Trump selecting a guy to control an investigation into Trump is a conflict. You're answering the question of whether the constitution gives Trump the authority to select an AG and using that answer to somehow prove that there is no conflict because of a mystery step which you neglected to cover. You're responding to me pointing out that you only ever answer different questions to the ones asked by answering a different question to the one asked. You're a cliché. I am not dodging anything. It’s not a material conflict for the reasons I already discussed. It’s not a serious issue. You discussed whether Barr is entitled to have opinions earlier. That wasn't the issue. Try again. Maybe try reading the post before responding to it. That way you'll be able to see what you're meant to be responding to and can tailor your response. If you're still struggling you can probably ask literally any other person to explain the issue to you. I wasn't paying attention to your response to my first where you shifted the focus completely away from Barr and on Trump. But like I said, focusing on the conflict of interest that Trump had in picking Barr to be his AG is even dumber than asking about Barr's conflict of interest. Every president has this same conflict because every president picks his AG. It simply isn't a material issue. You might as well ask whether water is wet. And like I pointed out, there are multiple checks on this exercise of presidential authority, so it isn't a problem. Presidents prior to trump picked an AG based on qualifications to do the job, trump picked barr because he agreed to shut down the mueller investigation. On that fact alone they are both guilty of obstruction. I think Barr did shut down the Mueller investigation, but I think he did it for very different reasons than you think he did. What were those reasons?
Namely that Barr found out that Mueller was completely out of control with the scope of his investigation and had no legitimate basis for continuing.
|
Why was he out of scope? What did he do different than what they did to Bill Clinton and a blow job?
|
from CNN (i dont know how to post twitter screenshots lol)
"Special counsel Robert Mueller agrees to testify publicly before two House committees on July 17"
Anybody want to take any guesses as what Trump will do from now until then?
|
I posted earlier today
I edited my link into it because I figured I already spoke about it, and gave my thoughts.
Attorney General Bill Barr killed seven different lines of investigations started by special counsel Robert Mueller just ten days after he submitted his report.
CNN’s Katelyn Polantz had filed a request to unseal documents related to the special counsel’s investigation and on Monday the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia agreed.
Chief Judge Beryl A Howell ordered the release of multiple documents, including Attachment B, which listed information on applications for court orders requested by Mueller.
The 65-page document shows seven cases that were closed on April Fools Day — only ten days after Mueller submitted his report.
The document reveals the orders involved the companies AT&T, Twitter and Facebook.
|
|
|
On June 26 2019 10:17 HelpMeGetBetter wrote:
from CNN (i dont know how to post twitter screenshots lol)
"Special counsel Robert Mueller agrees to testify publicly before two House committees on July 17"
Anybody want to take any guesses as what Trump will do from now until then?
Find a way to take the heat off the Democrats who will probably back out of having him testify publicly after pretending they want it.
|
On June 26 2019 10:17 HelpMeGetBetter wrote:
from CNN (i dont know how to post twitter screenshots lol)
"Special counsel Robert Mueller agrees to testify publicly before two House committees on July 17"
Anybody want to take any guesses as what Trump will do from now until then?
Kind of surprising tbh. I'll bet he was threatened with a subpoena.
|
United States43674 Posts
On June 26 2019 09:41 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2019 09:10 KwarK wrote:On June 26 2019 09:03 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2019 08:57 KwarK wrote:On June 26 2019 08:54 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2019 08:49 KwarK wrote:On June 26 2019 08:38 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2019 08:32 Gorsameth wrote:On June 26 2019 08:27 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2019 07:53 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
You discussed whether Barr is entitled to have opinions earlier. That wasn't the issue. Try again. Maybe try reading the post before responding to it. That way you'll be able to see what you're meant to be responding to and can tailor your response. If you're still struggling you can probably ask literally any other person to explain the issue to you. I wasn't paying attention to your response to my first where you shifted the focus completely away from Barr and on Trump. But like I said, focusing on the conflict of interest that Trump had in picking Barr to be his AG is even dumber than asking about Barr's conflict of interest. Every president has this same conflict because every president picks his AG. It simply isn't a material issue. You might as well ask whether water is wet. And like I pointed out, there are multiple checks on this exercise of presidential authority, so it isn't a problem. How many of those Presidents were under investigation by the DoJ at the time they picked their AG? It doesn't matter. First, AG's, as attorneys, are bound by their own rules of ethical conduct. If there's a real conflict, they have to recuse. But there's no real conflict per my prior post discuss Barr at length. Second, the appointment of the AG is still subject to congressional approval. Lastly, the AG isn't responsible for prosecuting a sitting president anyway. That has to be dealt with by Congress through impeachment proceedings. And again, let me remind you that the investigation had already been delegated to a special counsel at the time of Barr's appointment and Barr let the special counsel complete the investigation. There's not even a whiff of impropriety here. 1) "Let me answer the question of whether Trump is conflicted with a sudden change of subject. Did you know Barr is a lawyer? Lawyers are subject to ethical standards. I trust that answers the question of whether Trump is conflicted." 2) "Let me answer the question of whether Trump is conflicted with some trivia about the political process. Did you know that the AG nomination is reviewed by the party that controls the house. I trust that answers the question of whether Trump is conflicted." 3) "Let me answer the question of whether Trump is conflicted with some misdirection. The AG, although in a position to conclude on what the report said and preemptively exonerate Trump in conflict with the text of the report, is not responsible for prosecution. I trust that answers the question of whether Trump is conflicted." You managed to cram three different introducing of new and separate issues into a single response. It's a rare triple daunt. Three different answers to questions that nobody was asked which fail to address the issue. He asked whether the conflict was material, and I directly explained why it wasn't. This isn't hard. You didn't even address the conflict. You just introduced three new issues and rested your case. How does Barr being a lawyer make Trump less conflicted when choosing who to nominate? It's the nomination process that Trump is conflicted over. Lawyers being subject to ethical standards is completely irrelevant to the nomination process. Why do I need to address the conflict when the conflict doesn't matter? Your point boils down to "water is wet." Big fucking deal. Who cares? It's neither interesting nor profound nor worthy of discussion for the reasons that I have given. And no, I did not introduce three new issues. I gave three reasons why the conflict does not matter. Here's what's really going on: you are avoiding the reality that you're asking an incredibly stupid question that is predicated upon a poor understanding of how the system works and the specific facts in this instance. And we finally get to it. After six different attempts to answer different questions and change the issue, each of which was rejected, you finally state that accusing Trump of being conflicted when nominating a guy to oversee the investigation into Trump is like saying water is wet. But in a sudden twist we switch to gaslighting. "Why do you even care about the conflict? You're stating the obvious. Water is wet. Who fucking cares? Big fucking deal". Your problem, xDaunt, is that I know what you're doing. After you've been unable to successfully change the subject to something other than the conflict you're now insisting that the conflict doesn't even matter. So naturally I'm going to do my part in this game and call you out again. You can't just go "big fucking deal" and make everyone agree that it's a small chaste deal. so Trump appointed a lap dog and Congress approved it. i’m not sure what you are getting at? are you trying to get xdaunt to restate this and explicitly agree with you? or do you think a law has been broken? that the bar association should disbar Barr?
My stance is that Trump nominating the guy who would subsequently summarize the investigation into Trump and then subsequently shut down the investigation is an obvious conflict of interest and something which any president even remotely interested in the appearance of propriety would have given to a bipartisan committee. However xDaunt contested that for a long time before backtracking and insisting that he never contested it because it wasn't important. The quid pro quo was naked, Barr wrote to Trump's legal defence saying he believed the investigation should be shut down, Trump appointed Barr to AG and Barr then shut the defence down. That is a wholly accurate summary, something which incidentally Barr did not provide.
As with the rest of the shit with this administration there aren't specific laws against the president abusing his power, or at least not laws that are actually enforced. He's not meant to be running his businesses. He's not meant to be charging secret service millions of dollars for Trump hotels and golf courses. He's not meant to be introducing his daughter and son in law to politicians around the world and helping them set up business deals. He's not meant to be openly saying that he would accept foreign interference in elections and wouldn't report it to the FBI. He's not meant to lie to the people on a daily basis. He's not meant to refuse to hold press conferences and threaten to shut down hostile media. In a working system he'd have been impeached a while ago for this shit. But generally laws get made after they're shown to be necessary. Trump is the guy who is the reason we're going to need a bunch of new laws saying shit like that the President can't float pardons to his allies in exchange for their noncooperation into an investigation of him.
As for whether Barr should be disbarred, I think yes. But that's step two of the conflict of interest issues and we spent forever trying to get xDaunt to understand step 1. Barr is in no way impartial in the question of Trump's for three reasons. Firstly, he was hired on an explicit understanding that he would absolve Trump of wrongdoing, a quid pro quo, he gets a job, Trump gets influence. Secondly, as a Trump appointee he is not a disinterested party in the investigation of obstruction of justice. By definition he cannot be, whenever Barr gets involved the question of obstruction of justice immediately gets reopened because of his previous statements on the report (before he'd even seen the contents) and his appointment by Trump with the understanding that he would obstruct the report. Thirdly, Barr's career, power, influence, and wealth are directly tied to Trump's administration. He has a direct and material stake in the outcome of the investigation and therefore should recuse himself.
|
Mueller is going to have a very bad time up there.
|
United States43674 Posts
On June 26 2019 10:04 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2019 09:54 JimmiC wrote:On June 26 2019 09:41 IgnE wrote:On June 26 2019 09:10 KwarK wrote:On June 26 2019 09:03 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2019 08:57 KwarK wrote:On June 26 2019 08:54 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2019 08:49 KwarK wrote:On June 26 2019 08:38 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2019 08:32 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]How many of those Presidents were under investigation by the DoJ at the time they picked their AG? It doesn't matter. First, AG's, as attorneys, are bound by their own rules of ethical conduct. If there's a real conflict, they have to recuse. But there's no real conflict per my prior post discuss Barr at length. Second, the appointment of the AG is still subject to congressional approval. Lastly, the AG isn't responsible for prosecuting a sitting president anyway. That has to be dealt with by Congress through impeachment proceedings. And again, let me remind you that the investigation had already been delegated to a special counsel at the time of Barr's appointment and Barr let the special counsel complete the investigation. There's not even a whiff of impropriety here. 1) "Let me answer the question of whether Trump is conflicted with a sudden change of subject. Did you know Barr is a lawyer? Lawyers are subject to ethical standards. I trust that answers the question of whether Trump is conflicted." 2) "Let me answer the question of whether Trump is conflicted with some trivia about the political process. Did you know that the AG nomination is reviewed by the party that controls the house. I trust that answers the question of whether Trump is conflicted." 3) "Let me answer the question of whether Trump is conflicted with some misdirection. The AG, although in a position to conclude on what the report said and preemptively exonerate Trump in conflict with the text of the report, is not responsible for prosecution. I trust that answers the question of whether Trump is conflicted." You managed to cram three different introducing of new and separate issues into a single response. It's a rare triple daunt. Three different answers to questions that nobody was asked which fail to address the issue. He asked whether the conflict was material, and I directly explained why it wasn't. This isn't hard. You didn't even address the conflict. You just introduced three new issues and rested your case. How does Barr being a lawyer make Trump less conflicted when choosing who to nominate? It's the nomination process that Trump is conflicted over. Lawyers being subject to ethical standards is completely irrelevant to the nomination process. Why do I need to address the conflict when the conflict doesn't matter? Your point boils down to "water is wet." Big fucking deal. Who cares? It's neither interesting nor profound nor worthy of discussion for the reasons that I have given. And no, I did not introduce three new issues. I gave three reasons why the conflict does not matter. Here's what's really going on: you are avoiding the reality that you're asking an incredibly stupid question that is predicated upon a poor understanding of how the system works and the specific facts in this instance. And we finally get to it. After six different attempts to answer different questions and change the issue, each of which was rejected, you finally state that accusing Trump of being conflicted when nominating a guy to oversee the investigation into Trump is like saying water is wet. But in a sudden twist we switch to gaslighting. "Why do you even care about the conflict? You're stating the obvious. Water is wet. Who fucking cares? Big fucking deal". Your problem, xDaunt, is that I know what you're doing. After you've been unable to successfully change the subject to something other than the conflict you're now insisting that the conflict doesn't even matter. So naturally I'm going to do my part in this game and call you out again. You can't just go "big fucking deal" and make everyone agree that it's a small chaste deal. so Trump appointed a lap dog and Congress approved it. i’m not sure what you are getting at? are you trying to get xdaunt to restate this and explicitly agree with you? or do you think a law has been broken? that the bar association should disbar Barr? I think he is trying to point out that it is a conflict of interest for the person under investigation to appoint the person who oversees the investigation. Even more so when the person he appoints writes a paper about how not matter what the evidence or investigation unfolds that person will be exonerated. Most democracies do not allow this because not only is it unfair, but you are supposed to avoid even the appearance of unfair. The conflict point is academic. Mueller ran the investigation. There has been no allegation from him or anyone else on the special counsel team that Barr interfered with the investigation or otherwise acted with any impropriety. The only complaint has concerned Barr's initial summary letter of the findings of the report, which has nothing to do with Barr's involvement in the investigation itself. So people can bitch and moan about Trump getting to pick "his guy" as AG while under criminal investigation, but there's zero evidence showing that this mattered in the slightest in terms of some kind of impropriety having occurred.
It's interesting that you've now reframed this to "sure, Barr is Trump's guy and sure, he may have misrepresented the report in a way that is the lasting public impression despite the contents of the report, but did any of that actually matter?"
Personally I think yes, it did matter. But it's important that you're asking the big questions.
|
On June 26 2019 10:29 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2019 10:04 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2019 09:54 JimmiC wrote:On June 26 2019 09:41 IgnE wrote:On June 26 2019 09:10 KwarK wrote:On June 26 2019 09:03 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2019 08:57 KwarK wrote:On June 26 2019 08:54 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2019 08:49 KwarK wrote:On June 26 2019 08:38 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
It doesn't matter. First, AG's, as attorneys, are bound by their own rules of ethical conduct. If there's a real conflict, they have to recuse. But there's no real conflict per my prior post discuss Barr at length. Second, the appointment of the AG is still subject to congressional approval. Lastly, the AG isn't responsible for prosecuting a sitting president anyway. That has to be dealt with by Congress through impeachment proceedings.
And again, let me remind you that the investigation had already been delegated to a special counsel at the time of Barr's appointment and Barr let the special counsel complete the investigation. There's not even a whiff of impropriety here. 1) "Let me answer the question of whether Trump is conflicted with a sudden change of subject. Did you know Barr is a lawyer? Lawyers are subject to ethical standards. I trust that answers the question of whether Trump is conflicted." 2) "Let me answer the question of whether Trump is conflicted with some trivia about the political process. Did you know that the AG nomination is reviewed by the party that controls the house. I trust that answers the question of whether Trump is conflicted." 3) "Let me answer the question of whether Trump is conflicted with some misdirection. The AG, although in a position to conclude on what the report said and preemptively exonerate Trump in conflict with the text of the report, is not responsible for prosecution. I trust that answers the question of whether Trump is conflicted." You managed to cram three different introducing of new and separate issues into a single response. It's a rare triple daunt. Three different answers to questions that nobody was asked which fail to address the issue. He asked whether the conflict was material, and I directly explained why it wasn't. This isn't hard. You didn't even address the conflict. You just introduced three new issues and rested your case. How does Barr being a lawyer make Trump less conflicted when choosing who to nominate? It's the nomination process that Trump is conflicted over. Lawyers being subject to ethical standards is completely irrelevant to the nomination process. Why do I need to address the conflict when the conflict doesn't matter? Your point boils down to "water is wet." Big fucking deal. Who cares? It's neither interesting nor profound nor worthy of discussion for the reasons that I have given. And no, I did not introduce three new issues. I gave three reasons why the conflict does not matter. Here's what's really going on: you are avoiding the reality that you're asking an incredibly stupid question that is predicated upon a poor understanding of how the system works and the specific facts in this instance. And we finally get to it. After six different attempts to answer different questions and change the issue, each of which was rejected, you finally state that accusing Trump of being conflicted when nominating a guy to oversee the investigation into Trump is like saying water is wet. But in a sudden twist we switch to gaslighting. "Why do you even care about the conflict? You're stating the obvious. Water is wet. Who fucking cares? Big fucking deal". Your problem, xDaunt, is that I know what you're doing. After you've been unable to successfully change the subject to something other than the conflict you're now insisting that the conflict doesn't even matter. So naturally I'm going to do my part in this game and call you out again. You can't just go "big fucking deal" and make everyone agree that it's a small chaste deal. so Trump appointed a lap dog and Congress approved it. i’m not sure what you are getting at? are you trying to get xdaunt to restate this and explicitly agree with you? or do you think a law has been broken? that the bar association should disbar Barr? I think he is trying to point out that it is a conflict of interest for the person under investigation to appoint the person who oversees the investigation. Even more so when the person he appoints writes a paper about how not matter what the evidence or investigation unfolds that person will be exonerated. Most democracies do not allow this because not only is it unfair, but you are supposed to avoid even the appearance of unfair. The conflict point is academic. Mueller ran the investigation. There has been no allegation from him or anyone else on the special counsel team that Barr interfered with the investigation or otherwise acted with any impropriety. The only complaint has concerned Barr's initial summary letter of the findings of the report, which has nothing to do with Barr's involvement in the investigation itself. So people can bitch and moan about Trump getting to pick "his guy" as AG while under criminal investigation, but there's zero evidence showing that this mattered in the slightest in terms of some kind of impropriety having occurred. It's interesting that you've now reframed this to "sure, Barr is Trump's guy and sure, he may have misrepresented the report in a way that is the lasting public impression despite the contents of the report, but did any of that actually matter?" Personally I think yes, it did matter. But it's important that you're asking the big questions.
I think I've made it pretty clear that I think that Barr's letter was wholly appropriate and that the complaints about it are frivolous at best. That you still think that Barr misrepresented something in his letter is just as ill-founded as your belief that Barr should be disbarred.
|
I tell you what. If I ever need a defense attorney, I'm calling xDaunt. This guy sticks by his shit no matter what. I can applaud you that much.
Edit: I should say that you'd get me acquitted on technicality. If this was wholly up to a court of purely public opinion, you'd have me fried.
|
United States43674 Posts
On June 26 2019 10:36 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2019 10:29 KwarK wrote:On June 26 2019 10:04 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2019 09:54 JimmiC wrote:On June 26 2019 09:41 IgnE wrote:On June 26 2019 09:10 KwarK wrote:On June 26 2019 09:03 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2019 08:57 KwarK wrote:On June 26 2019 08:54 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2019 08:49 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
1) "Let me answer the question of whether Trump is conflicted with a sudden change of subject. Did you know Barr is a lawyer? Lawyers are subject to ethical standards. I trust that answers the question of whether Trump is conflicted."
2) "Let me answer the question of whether Trump is conflicted with some trivia about the political process. Did you know that the AG nomination is reviewed by the party that controls the house. I trust that answers the question of whether Trump is conflicted."
3) "Let me answer the question of whether Trump is conflicted with some misdirection. The AG, although in a position to conclude on what the report said and preemptively exonerate Trump in conflict with the text of the report, is not responsible for prosecution. I trust that answers the question of whether Trump is conflicted."
You managed to cram three different introducing of new and separate issues into a single response. It's a rare triple daunt. Three different answers to questions that nobody was asked which fail to address the issue. He asked whether the conflict was material, and I directly explained why it wasn't. This isn't hard. You didn't even address the conflict. You just introduced three new issues and rested your case. How does Barr being a lawyer make Trump less conflicted when choosing who to nominate? It's the nomination process that Trump is conflicted over. Lawyers being subject to ethical standards is completely irrelevant to the nomination process. Why do I need to address the conflict when the conflict doesn't matter? Your point boils down to "water is wet." Big fucking deal. Who cares? It's neither interesting nor profound nor worthy of discussion for the reasons that I have given. And no, I did not introduce three new issues. I gave three reasons why the conflict does not matter. Here's what's really going on: you are avoiding the reality that you're asking an incredibly stupid question that is predicated upon a poor understanding of how the system works and the specific facts in this instance. And we finally get to it. After six different attempts to answer different questions and change the issue, each of which was rejected, you finally state that accusing Trump of being conflicted when nominating a guy to oversee the investigation into Trump is like saying water is wet. But in a sudden twist we switch to gaslighting. "Why do you even care about the conflict? You're stating the obvious. Water is wet. Who fucking cares? Big fucking deal". Your problem, xDaunt, is that I know what you're doing. After you've been unable to successfully change the subject to something other than the conflict you're now insisting that the conflict doesn't even matter. So naturally I'm going to do my part in this game and call you out again. You can't just go "big fucking deal" and make everyone agree that it's a small chaste deal. so Trump appointed a lap dog and Congress approved it. i’m not sure what you are getting at? are you trying to get xdaunt to restate this and explicitly agree with you? or do you think a law has been broken? that the bar association should disbar Barr? I think he is trying to point out that it is a conflict of interest for the person under investigation to appoint the person who oversees the investigation. Even more so when the person he appoints writes a paper about how not matter what the evidence or investigation unfolds that person will be exonerated. Most democracies do not allow this because not only is it unfair, but you are supposed to avoid even the appearance of unfair. The conflict point is academic. Mueller ran the investigation. There has been no allegation from him or anyone else on the special counsel team that Barr interfered with the investigation or otherwise acted with any impropriety. The only complaint has concerned Barr's initial summary letter of the findings of the report, which has nothing to do with Barr's involvement in the investigation itself. So people can bitch and moan about Trump getting to pick "his guy" as AG while under criminal investigation, but there's zero evidence showing that this mattered in the slightest in terms of some kind of impropriety having occurred. It's interesting that you've now reframed this to "sure, Barr is Trump's guy and sure, he may have misrepresented the report in a way that is the lasting public impression despite the contents of the report, but did any of that actually matter?" Personally I think yes, it did matter. But it's important that you're asking the big questions. I think I've made it pretty clear that I think that Barr's letter was wholly appropriate and that the complaints about it are frivolous at best. That you still think that Barr misrepresented something in his letter is just as ill-founded as your belief that Barr should be disbarred.
The report: Does not exonerate
The summary: Does exonerate
Do you think it's strange that the report included the phrase "does not exonerate" and yet the summary led everyone to believe "does exonerate"? I think that's pretty odd. It's almost as if by reading the summary they got a completely untrue understanding of what was in the report.
Given that the report was released anyway it's also pretty strange that the mechanism Barr chose was to keep the contents secret from the public, give them to the White House press office so that they could prepare a response, release a summary that caused more questions than answers, and then eventually only release the report when forced to. That seems like an unusual way of handling it unless your goal is misrepresentation. But maybe Barr is just incompetent rather than malicious. My money would be on him being both though, that's the general pattern for the administration.
|
United States43674 Posts
On June 26 2019 10:43 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I tell you what. If I ever need a defense attorney, I'm calling xDaunt. This guy sticks by his shit no matter what. I can applaud you that much.
Dude, aren't you black? That's a fucking high risk play right there.
|
On June 26 2019 10:43 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I tell you what. If I ever need a defense attorney, I'm calling xDaunt. This guy sticks by his shit no matter what. I can applaud you that much. Shit is so full of holes the Judge is going to facepalm tho.
Might convince a jury cause why leave justice to the experts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
