Mueller Report

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

I've read the summary that was written by the top lawyer in the country. ;)

---

You have not. The "summary" is not that—it is deliberately misleading, and contains almost none of the information in the report apart from a few incomplete sentences. If you are interested in accuracy—let alone justice, and I realize both are big ifs—you can and should read analyses of the (redacted) report itself, eg. on Lawfare, JustSecurity etc, where they have gone through it in detail. Barr has repeatedly lied about the report and about Mueller's reasoning—that much is clear from what we know; to be satisfied with his inaccurate description of the investigation is just laughable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

The pardoning powers of most governors are based on that of the president. If state officials can charge a sitting governor despite technically working for them, I don't see why the same can't happen at the federal level.

---

Why stop there? Let's also say that the way a city council interprets their town charter is applicable to the President and the Constitution too. States are not the federal government, and there've been tons of cases where subtle changes in their wordings have resulted in vastly different powers available to state officials compared to their federal counterparts, both intentionally and unintentionally. State constitutions do not change the US Constitution.

And we do have other protections to make sure the law can't be used as a political weapon. That was an often revisited topic. You also can't arrest congressmen to keep them out of a Congressional session, except in certain cases. Meanwhile, State legislators have been forced govern from jail cells before, which I guess from your earlier logic should override the Constitution. Don't tell Trump there was a secret invisible removal of that clause, he might get ideas.

Quote:

---

(think about why Nixon didn't pardon himself after deciding he was going to resign)

---

Because it would have been easily worked around and just made him more determined enemies. Congress was set to impeach and convict, and resigning only protects him from impeachment if Congress lets it. Once impeached, his pardon would have been nullified. The Constitution explicitly allows all other legal penalties to come into play after impeachment & conviction. Pardoning himself when impeachment was already as certain as it was would have almost guaranteed he'd wind up in jail. Congress > pardon.

Quote:

---

Incidentally, the reason we allow impeachment separate from criminal indictment is because impeachment does not require a crime to have been committed (e.g., it could be used for gross incompetence or unwillingness to obey the Constitution). It's a separate mechanism for a separate problem.

---

I know "high crimes and misdemeanors" leaves room for interpretation, but you're on pretty shaky grounds if it doesn't involve a crime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

You have not. The "summary" is not that—it is deliberately misleading, and contains almost none of the information in the report apart from a few incomplete sentences. If you are interested in accuracy—let alone justice, and I realize both are big ifs—you can and should read analyses of the (redacted) report itself, eg. on Lawfare, JustSecurity etc, where they have gone through it in detail. Barr has repeatedly lied about the report and about Mueller's reasoning—that much is clear from what we know; to be satisfied with his inaccurate description of the investigation is just laughable.

---

Well surely Mueller would have been quick to directly condemn Barr for doing so. Can you show me a direct quote where he has?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Well surely Mueller would have been quick to directly condemn Barr for doing so. Can you show me a direct quote where he has?

---

Mueller would not "surely" condemn Barr in public. He has nevertheless made several statements that directly contradict Barr's claims about the report and about the team's reasoning, in addition to the written objection he sent Barr. Surely you—an intelligent and literate man concerned with truth and criminal justice—are aware of the extensive reporting on these matters?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wraith

I know "high crimes and misdemeanors" leaves room for interpretation, but you're on pretty shaky grounds if it doesn't involve a crime.

---

There are compelling arguments for why "misdemeanor" should be regarded as being construed more broadly in this context than it is in more familiar legal contexts. It doesn't appear to be a particularly radical view that a president can be impeached for conduct that doesn't rise to the level of a crime but that nevertheless shows him to be unfit for his high office, eg. failing to uphold the constitution, or subverting it outright:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...eached/548144/

Of course, that is moot, given that Trump appears to have acted in ways that would have been construed as criminal obstruction of justice—were he not the president.

So much fun to go through a second iteration of Watergate. Like the first time didn't come with the destruction of reason in American politics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

There are compelling arguments for why "misdemeanor" should be regarded as being construed more broadly in this context than it is in more familiar legal contexts. It doesn't appear to be a particularly radical view that a president can be impeached for conduct that doesn't rise to the level of a crime but that nevertheless shows him to be unfit for his high office, eg. failing to uphold the constitution, or subverting it outright:

---

It's definitely open to argument, and it's not strictly defined. I remember the Democrats were arguing pretty hard back in the Clinton era that "misdemeanor" was relative to "high crimes", and that the "high" modifier applied to both, so impeachment could only happen for very serious offenses. At the same time, the Republicans were arguing just what you said - that "misdemeanor" just means any lesser offense. I can't imagine anyone seriously arguing that failing to uphold the Constitution isn't valid grounds for impeachment - it's the supreme law of the land, easily argued as treason (explicitly a reason for impeachment), breaking the Presidential oath, and most will agree that it counts as a high crime too.

The Constitution provides another method to remove a president who is unfit and gives that to the Executive branch (specifically the Vice President), so that's a solid argument that merely being "unfit for office" isn't good enough for an impeachment. An argument, not a conclusion.

When Congress is allowed to impeach is certainly not well defined, but there's a reason that all serious attempts at Presidential impeachment have involved actual crimes. Congress gets a lot of leverage from all the wriggle room in that phrase, but if they push it too far it'll give the Supreme Court the power to strictly define it, and that's very likely going to end with a loss of utility for Congress. I don't think we'll ever see a Presidential impeachment that doesn't involve a crime in spite of the legal possibility existing.

Also agreed that the point is moot, because if Congress wanted to impeach Trump, they have the charge of obstruction. That's what Clinton was impeached for, so precedent is pretty firm.

I think at this point though we need to just admit that impeachment isn't going to happen under this Congress. We need to just buckle up and try to make it through the next 18 months, and hope that the electorate's insanity in 2016 was only temporary and not chronic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wraith

I think at this point though we need to just admit that impeachment isn't going to happen under this Congress. We need to just buckle up and try to make it through the next 18 months, and hope that the electorate's insanity in 2016 was only temporary and not chronic.

---

Given that we know that Russia tried to interfere in 2016, and have every reason to think they'll try and do so in 2020, that seems like a foolish optimistic strategy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Well surely Mueller would have been quick to directly condemn Barr for doing so. Can you show me a direct quote where he has?

---

Why would you use this extremely roundabout way to find out whether the Barr letter accurately represents the Mueller report, when both are available on the internet and you can just compare what they say?

He's misleading about Russia and outright misrepresents about obstruction of justice.

Laziness?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

Why would you use this extremely roundabout way to find out whether the Barr letter accurately represents the Mueller report

---

Because daddy wouldn't lie to us. Distrusting daddy is something Satan tricks bad boys into doing, and, if you listen to Satan, daddy has to spank your faithless bottom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Because daddy wouldn't lie to us. Distrusting daddy is something Satan tricks bad boys into doing, and, if you listen to Satan, daddy has to spank your faithless bottom.

---

I mean, if that's actually true then fair enough because that sounds awful.

Oh my God, you can't make this shit up, or you could and it would be the sequel to Burn After Reading

Twitter Link

Just the dumbest fucking timeline. What a bunch of utter nimrods.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wraith

Also agreed that the point is moot, because if Congress wanted to impeach Trump, they have the charge of obstruction. That's what Clinton was impeached for, so precedent is pretty firm.

I think at this point though we need to just admit that impeachment isn't going to happen under this Congress. We need to just buckle up and try to make it through the next 18 months, and hope that the electorate's insanity in 2016 was only temporary and not chronic.

---

Be interesting how it all plays out. The left's social media platforms are working in overdrive to suppress conservative voices and we'll see it get even tighter up until a few months prior to the election. Then we have abortion as a major hot button issue because of several states pushing for a SCOTUS review. On the other hand economy is still doing well and you have the general power of the incumbency.

Are you another fan of Paul Nehlen?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Are you another fan of Paul Nehlen?

---

lol no - no mainstream conservative (or libertarian) is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

lol no - no mainstream conservative (or libertarian) is.

---

What does that make Laura Ingraham, whose talking points you're parroting?

Trump is out-spending pretty much everyone on Facebook. If you look closely at prominent purportedly "conservative" voices that have banned from mainstream social media platforms, you'll find that they are not mainstream conservatives, and also that they have not been banned for espousing conservative views. It's hilarious but a little disturbing to see how completely you've absorbed the conspiratorial memes of senile 70-y-o Fox addicts with a pathological persecution complex.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

What does that make Laura Ingraham, whose talking points you're parroting?

---

Oh did she defend his views? Pretty sad to see you fall for such a fake news moment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Be interesting how it all plays out. The left's social media platforms are working in overdrive to suppress conservative voices and we'll see it get even tighter up until a few months prior to the election. Then we have abortion as a major hot button issue because of several states pushing for a SCOTUS review. On the other hand economy is still doing well and you have the general power of the incumbency.

---

You just made the case for an impeachment inquiry. Hearings televised live for all to see. That might be the only way to make the truth public -- and penetrate that Fox & Friends news bubble you and millions of others are hiding in. Not many people are going to read the whole Mueller report, but if you're relying on interpretations or 'summaries' from within the Trump camp of lapdogs and sycophants, you're either content with being conned, delusional, or just plain lazy. :donkey:



PS Wraith, wasn't Clinton impeached for lying under oath to congress (not obstruction of justice)?

He was charged with both perjury and obstruction of justice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeac...f_Bill_Clinton

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Oh did she defend his views? Pretty sad to see you fall for such a fake news moment.

---

She went after social media companies for banning him. That includes an alt-right company that banned him for doxxing. The fact that you see this guy as one of the "victims" of attacks on conservatism says a lot about both you and what you take to be conservatism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

She went after social media companies for banning him. That includes an alt-right company that banned him for doxxing. The fact that you see this guy as one of the "victims" of attacks on conservatism says a lot about both you and what you take to be conservatism.

---

"She went after social media companies for banning him."

As all free speech advocates should. Now I don't know the guy but unless he made specific terroristic threats he shouldn't be banned. Far too much silencing of people going on. And while yes a private company has every right to ban who they want it isn't something we should encourage or stay silent about.

Look at all the clamoring by the left to silence Steven Crowder. They were never going to stop at Alex Jones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

"She went after social media companies for banning him."

As all free speech advocates should. Now I don't know the guy but unless he made specific terroristic threats he shouldn't be banned. Far too much silencing of people going on. And while yes a private company has every right to ban who they want it isn't something we should encourage or stay silent about.

---

Lewk, have you ever read the Constitution? There's never a bad time to start. When you do get around to it, work out whose powers the document tries to restrict.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Lewk, have you ever read the Constitution? There's never a bad time to start. When you do get around to it, work out whose powers the document tries to restrict.

---

You do realize that when someone uses the term free speech advocate they are talking about more than just the 1st amendment? The term "government censorship" is not a redundant phrase, there exists more than one type of censorship. And while YouTube has the absolute legal ability to ban Crowder and every other conservative it isn't something that sits well with people who believe in the value of free speech.

So why is the free speech of those assholes more important than the free speech YouTube and such are expressing by clarifying the direction intention and use of their product? Would you not be infringing on the constitutional rights of these companies in forcing them to provide their services and products in ways they do not wish to maintain?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

You do realize that when someone uses the term free speech advocate they are talking about more than just the 1st amendment? The term "government censorship" is not a redundant phrase, there exists more than one type of censorship. And while YouTube has the absolute legal ability to ban Crowder and every other conservative it isn't something that sits well with people who believe in the value of free speech.

---

So free speech means banning private actors from enforcing their own rules on their own property? No, that really isn't what the concept means. And I'm surprised that you're advocating this warped version of the concept.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

So free speech means banning private actors from enforcing their own rules on their own property? No, that really isn't what the concept means. And I'm surprised that you're advocating this warped version of the concept.

---

I swear you are fucking dense.

ME: "Hey people shouldn't vote for Democrats."

LOKI: "You want to take away the right to vote? How can you support this?"

Me: :|

The only bad thing about YouTube's conduct in the Crowder nonsense was the company's initial decision to not enforce its standards, effectively sanctioning targeted harassment of an individual. Crowder hasn't been banned—his channel has been demonetized; there's nothing questionable about not letting someone profit off of your platform by harassing others on your platform. YouTube has previously done worse to thousands of LGBT-oriented channels, for more dubious reasons. I doubt you had any real issues with that. So cry more, tryhard

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

I swear you are fucking dense.

ME: "Hey people shouldn't vote for Democrats."

LOKI: "You want to take away the right to vote? How can you support this?"

Me: :|

---

When your hypocrisy paints you into yet another corner it looks better if you just shut up and ignore that the conversation ever happened, as you usually do. Responding like this, reminding everyone you have next to no tact or comprehension skills just gets you laughed at.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

The only bad thing about YouTube's conduct in the Crowder nonsense was the company's initial decision to not enforce its standards, effectively sanctioning targeted harassment of an individual. Crowder hasn't been banned—his channel has been demonetized; there's nothing questionable about not letting someone profit off of your platform by harassing others on your platform. YouTube has previously done worse to thousands of LGBT-oriented channels, for more dubious reasons. I doubt you had any real issues with that. So cry more, tryhard

---

YouTube was wrong to do that to LGBT channels and its wrong to do it Crowder. Carlos has actually said far worse and actively promotes violence and public intimidation. Crowder makes jokes akin to South Park with no real vitriol behind them, just teenage humor. He does go after Carlos for his shitty journalist on a more serious basis but he has never called for violence or public intimidation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

When your hypocrisy paints you into yet another corner it looks better if you just shut up and ignore that the conversation ever happened, as you usually do. Responding like this, reminding everyone you have next to no tact or comprehension skills just gets you laughed at.

---

There's no corner, just you and Loki making piss poor assumptions. If I say "yeah this is bad it shouldn't happen" that doesn't mean I'm demanding government action. I get that you two worship at the alter of big brother and just naturally assume government is everyone's automatic solution but try to keep up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

There's no corner, just you and Loki making piss poor assumptions. If I say "yeah this is bad it shouldn't happen" that doesn't mean I'm demanding government action. I get that you two worship at the alter of big brother and just naturally assume government is everyone's automatic solution but try to keep up.

---

Says the guy who regularly supports the president at the expense of private individuals and organizations. :bored: Are you one of those Fox Newsites who like to pretend Clinton is president so you can whine against the evil government while supporting everything the government actually does?

Notice Lewk said, "The left's social media platforms are working in overdrive to suppress conservative voices..." then goes on about Free Speech and Big Brother? I think he just parrots what he sees on Fox/Trump TV and doesn't have a clue why it's hypocritical. :rolleyes:

It's amazing and kinda scary that millions of people are buying the Fox con. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

If I say "yeah this is bad it shouldn't happen" that doesn't mean I'm demanding government action.

---

We can't have that, how would you go on without being able to fall back on your conservative victimhood complex? You just want to bitch and moan, spread bullshit and lies so people react, cause you need attention, and once people get tired of your shit you scream about being persecuted. The only defense you have for your positions/opinions is that they aren't illegal to have. Yet once people express their own actual constitutionally protected rights you bitch some more that its gone to far.

Back to the Mueller report: today the house judiciary committee held hearings and John Dean from the Nixon/Watergate era testified. I've seen some clips and the (R) members weren't interested in anything but trashing Dean with personal insults. :rolleyes:

If this is just going to be "theater" then someone should show video footage of Lindsay Graham during the Clinton hearings....to remind the "audience" just how much the GOP has changed, and how far they'll go to protect Trump.

It's amazing and disturbing that so far only ONE (R) congressman has concluded that Trump should be impeached. If the rest haven't bothered to read the full report and relied on Barr's "summary" instead, that's also disturbing. Because then they tell their constituents (and Fox News) what Trump wants them to say: no collusion, no obstruction, it's all a hoax, an attempted coup by angry Democrats, fake news! --- and they believe it! :eek:

New Ad Urges Congressional Republicans To Take Obstruction Allegations Against Donald Trump 'Seriously'

Quote:

---

“Congressional Republicans are more than happy to admit in private that they are troubled, disappointed, and disturbed by President Trump’s abuses of executive power,” Republicans for the Rule of Law spokesperson Chris Truax said. “When none of their constituents can hear them, they speak frankly about their moral qualms and objections about their roles in undermining the original design of our Constitution. Their constituents — and all Americans — deserve to hear the same in public.”

Currently, Michigan Rep. Justin Amash is the only serving Republican in Congress who has thrown his support behind starting impeachment proceedings because of the obstruction claims. He also supports Truax’s statement, saying other Republicans in Congress have expressed concern over Trump behind closed doors.

And this is just the latest in a series of ads the Republicans for the Rule of Law have aired. Previous ones had shown Republican-appointed prosecutors saying Trump would have been charged with obstruction if he wasn’t President.

---

https://www.ibtimes.com/new-ad-urges...donald-2799410


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1up...o#action=share

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

We can't have that, how would you go on without being able to fall back on your conservative victimhood complex? You just want to bitch and moan, spread bullshit and lies so people react, cause you need attention, and once people get tired of your shit you scream about being persecuted. The only defense you have for your positions/opinions is that they aren't illegal to have. Yet once people express their own actual constitutionally protected rights you bitch some more that its gone to far.

---

Again, me saying "You shouldn't do that" is not me saying "There ought to be a law preventing you for doing that thing I don't like you doing."

The fact that conservatives are the ones almost exclusively targeted by social media companies should tell you something. But of course since it helps your political cause you don't care at all, hell you probably do want people who are politically opposed to you silenced.