Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 136

Thread: Mueller Report

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    misstated something
    Oh Lewk

    Never change
    Sing in grief, a requiem, the curse of our millennium, these souls keep whispering from the river beds
    An end to all these violent means, alive in these red water dreams, their haunted burdens stirring in my head on streets still running red
    Most went in the flood, a few were martyred by the flames, yet those who unleashed the waters are still guilty all the same
    When the ignorance of puppets serves the masters larger game, they let it rain, they let it rain
    When I get the chance to rise I'll find the light in their cold eyes or lose myself and carry out revenge
    The righteous hunt has just begun, the dimming of the bleeding sun will let these waters run clear once again



  2. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    Enoch, he doesn't give a shit whether or not it's a crime. He's not going to be punished. Here, look:

    I don't think Barr has said or believes a four page letter could fully capture the context, nature, and substance of a multi-year investigation that concluded with a 400+ page executive summary, let alone the vast quantities of supplemental evidence and testimony gathered, and ongoing criminal investigations. Barr's letter wasn't the end of the line, it was the first step in the process of releasing the report. This doesn't even seem particularly weasely to me.

    I'm sure you aware that quote goes on...

    "I think, I suspect that they probably wanted more put out. But in my view, I was not interested in putting out summaries or trying to summarize because I think any summary — regardless of who prepares it — not only runs the risk of being underinclusive or overinclusive but also would trigger a lot of discussion and analysis that really should await everything coming out at once."

    ...which very much sound like what Mueller was saying in his letter.
    Last edited by Enoch the Red; 05-03-2019 at 05:04 AM.

  3. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Democrats can't depend on impeachment (was unlikely to happen in the first place) they'll have to win at the ballot box. Florida allowing felons to vote will help them there but we'll see how the Dem primary goes. It will be especially bruising in all likelihood and if the economy remains strong we might just get to see the epic REEEEEEEing of a Trump re-election.
    If one of the (few) Democratic candidates with relatively sane views wins the nomination it will likely result in me voting for one of the major parties in the presidential election for the first time. I think you underestimate the damage Donald Trump, and honestly many Republicans who claim to be people of character, are doing to this country. I may not agree with a Democratic nominee like Buttigieg on much, but it would be a considerable challenge for him to do a worse job as president.

  4. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    If one of the (few) Democratic candidates with relatively sane views wins the nomination it will likely result in me voting for one of the major parties in the presidential election for the first time. I think you underestimate the damage Donald Trump, and honestly many Republicans who claim to be people of character, are doing to this country. I may not agree with a Democratic nominee like Buttigieg on much, but it would be a considerable challenge for him to do a worse job as president.
    Trump is an embarrassment but the policies that have been pushed have been a net plus.

    *Draw down in the Middle East (sadly his statements aren't fully backed by actions but it is a start)
    *Solid direct moral support of Israel
    *Appointment of conservative judges (which on the whole is more libertarian friendly than liberal activist judges)
    *Lower taxes
    *Vastly decreased business regulation
    *Demands of our allies to step up (oh look Nato has started to, nice)
    *Better relations with NK

    Now he's had some negatives, like throwing his subordinates under the bus, retarded protectionism, weakness on border issues (again talk vs. action) everything on twitter, the silly trans military nonsense and... that's about it. While bad it is molehill compared to the mountain of shit all but MAYBE one or two moderates on the D side.

  5. #35
    Trump has done nothing to improve NATO, and has instead both undermined the US's standing and strengthened Russia. He has accomplished little of note wrt NK, other than to let the US get played. He has harmed US trade and, as a result, harmed US businesses and consumers. He's eroded the norms that help safeguard the republic against a corrupt executive, and sabotaged the alliances that help protect the US against its enemies. His presidency has not been a net positive from a principled conservative perspective—only from a nihilistic shitposting perspective.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  6. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    I don't think Barr has said or believes a four page letter could fully capture the context, nature, and substance of a multi-year investigation that concluded with a 400+ page executive summary, let alone the vast quantities of supplemental evidence and testimony gathered, and ongoing criminal investigations. Barr's letter wasn't the end of the line, it was the first step in the process of releasing the report. This doesn't even seem particularly weasely to me.
    Did you miss the point about the timeline? Mueller had put his letter in to Barr on the 27th of March, and this exchange took place on the 20th of April where Mueller had already made his concerns clear.

    If you intent is to Rules Lawyer whether or not Mueller's statement that Barr's letter didn't "fully capture the context, nature, and substance" of his report amounts to the same thing as him saying he disagreed with Barr's conclusion, then... there's you answer about how Barr woulds expect to get away with lying about what Mueller had said to him face to face.


    I'm sure you aware that quote goes on...

    "I think, I suspect that they probably wanted more put out. But in my view, I was not interested in putting out summaries or trying to summarize because I think any summary — regardless of who prepares it — not only runs the risk of being underinclusive or overinclusive but also would trigger a lot of discussion and analysis that really should await everything coming out at once."

    ...which very much sound like what Mueller was saying in his letter.
    "Steely, did Enoch respond to your post with examples of Barr lying under oath?"
    "No, he didn't but I suspect he wouldn't actually characterise what Barr said as lies."

    That's not lying in your world? What?

    The fact that I summerized your argument after I said you didn't reply just proves I was lying, since I've just demonstrated I saw and read your post.
    Sing in grief, a requiem, the curse of our millennium, these souls keep whispering from the river beds
    An end to all these violent means, alive in these red water dreams, their haunted burdens stirring in my head on streets still running red
    Most went in the flood, a few were martyred by the flames, yet those who unleashed the waters are still guilty all the same
    When the ignorance of puppets serves the masters larger game, they let it rain, they let it rain
    When I get the chance to rise I'll find the light in their cold eyes or lose myself and carry out revenge
    The righteous hunt has just begun, the dimming of the bleeding sun will let these waters run clear once again



  7. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    Trump has done nothing to improve NATO, and has instead both undermined the US's standing and strengthened Russia. He has accomplished little of note wrt NK, other than to let the US get played. He has harmed US trade and, as a result, harmed US businesses and consumers. He's eroded the norms that help safeguard the republic against a corrupt executive, and sabotaged the alliances that help protect the US against its enemies. His presidency has not been a net positive from a principled conservative perspective—only from a nihilistic shitposting perspective.
    Trump put NATO on notice for not meeting the 2% military spending guidelines. In response, our NATO allies started increasing military spending.

    As far as Russia is concerned, Trump signed CAATSA and the Trump Administration pushed sanctions on Russian Oligarch's as well.

    As far as the rest of the nonsense he didn't fire the special consul, he didn't fire Rod Rosenstein. Corrupt executive? I'm sure there's corruption just like there was in the Obama, Clinton and Bush administrations but I've seen no indication it is any worse than usual.

    Regarding allies, Japan seems to like us.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/bar...-asked-n972661

    So does Israel

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/23/w...hts-trump.html

    So does Italy

    https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/30/opini...ntl/index.html

    Poland likes us too

    https://www.apnews.com/64d0bb402f034cf8bc286a8996a7d8e3

    Potentially naming a base "Fort Trump" lol

    Heck even tiny Lithuania comments on Trumps leadership as something the world needs.

    https://globalnews.ca/news/4120483/d...hip-lithuania/

    I understand that the old alliances have benefited America, after all there was immense gratitude towards our country from saving Western Europe from the twin nightmares of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union but they have constantly bitched about how we do things and undermined our ability to lead the world. So yeah fuck them unless they want to play ball.

    I'll take conservative governments over liberal governments any day of the week.

  8. #38
    Getting back to Mueller's report about Russian Interference and AG Barr: if he didn't want to use "summaries" then why did he release his own "summary" (which turned out to be misleading), continue to mislead the senate under oath, then refuse to attend congressional hearings?

    The AG is supposed to be the head lawyer for the country. But Barr apparently believes in a powerful Executive and the Unitary Executive Theory, which gives the president broad powers over any executive branch (like the DoJ or FBI). There's also that DoJ "guideline memo" which says a sitting president can't be indicted for a crime, or attempted crimes. If Barr includes criminal intent, then the president is above the law, untouchable.

    Can't obstruct justice when you're in charge of the DoJ. Reminds me of Nixon saying, "If the president does it, it can't be illegal".

    All this leaves the legislative branch rather impotent for its checks/balances and oversight mandates (and no longer a co-equal branch of gov't). The only way to clear this mess up might be official impeachment hearings. I wonder if that's what Trump's toadies want after all -- as a political strategy right before the 2020 elections?

  9. #39
    STATEMENT BY FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTORS

    We are former federal prosecutors. We served under both Republican and Democratic administrations at different levels of the federal system: as line attorneys, supervisors, special prosecutors, United States Attorneys, and senior officials at the Department of Justice. The offices in which we served were small, medium, and large; urban, suburban, and rural; and located in all parts of our country.
    Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice.
    The Mueller report describes several acts that satisfy all of the elements for an obstruction charge: conduct that obstructed or attempted to obstruct the truth-finding process, as to which the evidence of corrupt intent and connection to pending proceedings is overwhelming. These include:
    · The President’s efforts to fire Mueller and to falsify evidence about that effort;
    · The President’s efforts to limit the scope of Mueller’s investigation to exclude his conduct; and
    · The President’s efforts to prevent witnesses from cooperating with investigators probing him and his campaign.
    Attempts to fire Mueller and then create false evidence
    Despite being advised by then-White House Counsel Don McGahn that he could face legal jeopardy for doing so, Trump directed McGahn on multiple occasions to fire Mueller or to gin up false conflicts of interest as a pretext for getting rid of the Special Counsel. When these acts began to come into public view, Trump made “repeated efforts to have McGahn deny the story” — going so far as to tell McGahn to write a letter “for our files” falsely denying that Trump had directed Mueller’s termination.
    Firing Mueller would have seriously impeded the investigation of the President and his associates — obstruction in its most literal sense. Directing the creation of false government records in order to prevent or discredit truthful testimony is similarly unlawful. The Special Counsel’s report states: “Substantial evidence indicates that in repeatedly urging McGahn to dispute that he was ordered to have the Special Counsel terminated, the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn’s account in order to deflect or prevent scrutiny of the President’s conduct toward the investigation.”
    Attempts to limit the Mueller investigation
    The report describes multiple efforts by the president to curtail the scope of the Special Counsel’s investigation.
    First, the President repeatedly pressured then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to reverse his legally-mandated decision to recuse himself from the investigation. The President’s stated reason was that he wanted an attorney general who would “protect” him, including from the Special Counsel investigation. He also directed then-White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus to fire Sessions and Priebus refused.
    Second, after McGahn told the President that he could not contact Sessions himself to discuss the investigation, Trump went outside the White House, instructing his former campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, to carry a demand to Sessions to direct Mueller to confine his investigation to future elections. Lewandowski tried and failed to contact Sessions in private. After a second meeting with Trump, Lewandowski passed Trump’s message to senior White House official Rick Dearborn, who Lewandowski thought would be a better messenger because of his prior relationship with Sessions. Dearborn did not pass along Trump’s message.
    As the report explains, “[s]ubstantial evidence indicates that the President’s effort to have Sessions limit the scope of the Special Counsel’s investigation to future election interference was intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct” — in other words, the President employed a private citizen to try to get the Attorney General to limit the scope of an ongoing investigation into the President and his associates.
    All of this conduct — trying to control and impede the investigation against the President by leveraging his authority over others — is similar to conduct we have seen charged against other public officials and people in powerful positions.
    Witness tampering and intimidation
    The Special Counsel’s report establishes that the President tried to influence the decisions of both Michael Cohen and Paul Manafort with regard to cooperating with investigators. Some of this tampering and intimidation, including the dangling of pardons, was done in plain sight via tweets and public statements; other such behavior was done via private messages through private attorneys, such as Trump counsel Rudy Giuliani’s message to Cohen’s lawyer that Cohen should “[s]leep well tonight[], you have friends in high places.”
    Of course, these aren’t the only acts of potential obstruction detailed by the Special Counsel. It would be well within the purview of normal prosecutorial judgment also to charge other acts detailed in the report.
    We emphasize that these are not matters of close professional judgment. Of course, there are potential defenses or arguments that could be raised in response to an indictment of the nature we describe here. In our system, every accused person is presumed innocent and it is always the government’s burden to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. But, to look at these facts and say that a prosecutor could not probably sustain a conviction for obstruction of justice — the standard set out in Principles of Federal Prosecution — runs counter to logic and our experience.
    As former federal prosecutors, we recognize that prosecuting obstruction of justice cases is critical because unchecked obstruction — which allows intentional interference with criminal investigations to go unpunished — puts our whole system of justice at risk. We believe strongly that, but for the OLC memo, the overwhelming weight of professional judgment would come down in favor of prosecution for the conduct outlined in the Mueller Report.

    https://medium.com/@dojalumni/statem...s-8ab7691c2aa1

  10. #40
    I'm having trouble understanding some things. Why is that Office of Legal Counsel "memo" still being used as DoJ "policy"?

    It's not a law or statute, just a guideline. It's never been tested in court because (presumably) everyone just keeps following it -- including establishment types like Mueller -- and because we assume impeachment hearings would be the way to handle both criminal activity and "high crimes and misdemeanors"?

    This is really messed up. It seems like even the *potential* impeachment process is being obstructed, with the WH telling people to ignore subpoenas and refuse to testify in congressional hearings. Trump is fighting to block McGahn and says Mueller shouldn't testify, McConnell made a speech on the senate floor saying "it's over", and even AG Barr is getting blowback from legal professionals.

    Isn't using the legal process as a delay tactic just more obstruction of justice?

  11. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Isn't using the legal process as a delay tactic just more obstruction of justice?
    lol no

  12. #42

  13. #43
    Not really
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  14. #44
    3 false or misleading statements in the first 3 sentences.
    Oh, its Solomon, one of Hannity's groupies.
    Shared by Lewk, the resident dumbass.

    More par for the course than interesting.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  15. #45
    It's 2019 and we're arguing like middle schoolers over whether a summary counts for the full assignment.

  16. #46
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  17. #47
    Mueller's ass must look like a gridiron.

    "Our investigation concluded that the president didn't not commit a crime. But was the crime he didn't not commit a crime crime, or just crime? And really, what even is crime? DOJ policy forbids me to opine. Get all applications in to me before the deadline, cos it's a fine line between strifeful crimes and a life of crime. But you will reach the day, and it's all mine..."
    Last edited by Steely Glint; 05-29-2019 at 06:13 PM.
    Sing in grief, a requiem, the curse of our millennium, these souls keep whispering from the river beds
    An end to all these violent means, alive in these red water dreams, their haunted burdens stirring in my head on streets still running red
    Most went in the flood, a few were martyred by the flames, yet those who unleashed the waters are still guilty all the same
    When the ignorance of puppets serves the masters larger game, they let it rain, they let it rain
    When I get the chance to rise I'll find the light in their cold eyes or lose myself and carry out revenge
    The righteous hunt has just begun, the dimming of the bleeding sun will let these waters run clear once again



  18. #48
    Is that an actual quote?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  19. #49
    An accurate summary.
    Sing in grief, a requiem, the curse of our millennium, these souls keep whispering from the river beds
    An end to all these violent means, alive in these red water dreams, their haunted burdens stirring in my head on streets still running red
    Most went in the flood, a few were martyred by the flames, yet those who unleashed the waters are still guilty all the same
    When the ignorance of puppets serves the masters larger game, they let it rain, they let it rain
    When I get the chance to rise I'll find the light in their cold eyes or lose myself and carry out revenge
    The righteous hunt has just begun, the dimming of the bleeding sun will let these waters run clear once again



  20. #50
    Finding it difficult to blame Mueller. He has to adhere to what he believes is dept. policy and the law. The failure lies with congress. It's remarkable that the only Republican legislator (afaict) who's publicly and forcefully called out Trump and Barr over this is a TPer.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  21. #51
    I might be wrong here, but AFAIK the DOJ policy about how they can't indite a sitting president is just that: a policy. There's no, like legal precedent, constitutional interpretation or case law behind it, it's just something the DOJ has decided they can't do - again, as far as I know.

    That not withstanding, he could seriously do with a) dropping the Yoda speak and b) Agree to testify before congress.
    Sing in grief, a requiem, the curse of our millennium, these souls keep whispering from the river beds
    An end to all these violent means, alive in these red water dreams, their haunted burdens stirring in my head on streets still running red
    Most went in the flood, a few were martyred by the flames, yet those who unleashed the waters are still guilty all the same
    When the ignorance of puppets serves the masters larger game, they let it rain, they let it rain
    When I get the chance to rise I'll find the light in their cold eyes or lose myself and carry out revenge
    The righteous hunt has just begun, the dimming of the bleeding sun will let these waters run clear once again



  22. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    I might be wrong here, but AFAIK the DOJ policy about how they can't indite a sitting president is just that: a policy. There's no, like legal precedent, constitutional interpretation or case law behind it, it's just something the DOJ has decided they can't do - again, as far as I know.

    That not withstanding, he could seriously do with a) dropping the Yoda speak and b) Agree to testify before congress.
    There's nothing to stop them from inditing a sitting President, but the President still has the power to issue pardons, so if they charged him with something he could pardon himself and they'd never be able to charge him for the same crime again. The only limit to that power is through impeachment. There are other hijinks that can happen since the President is in charge of legal enforcement, and the DoJ is under him in the executive branch, not the judicial. If you want to charge the President with a crime and don't want to wait for his term to expire, it needs to be done through Congress.

  23. #53
    It's not clear if the president could pardon himself. The Supreme Court would have to decide in the end.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  24. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    It's not clear if the president could pardon himself. The Supreme Court would have to decide in the end.
    Given the Attorney General and DoJ work for the President, who would have judicial standing to go against him in that case?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  25. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    It's not clear if the president could pardon himself. The Supreme Court would have to decide in the end.
    I know that's an argument that's been had, but I haven't heard any reasoning I buy. I also never heard anyone argue that the President lacks that power before Trump. It just looks like wishful thinking to me. The text from the constitution:

    Quote Originally Posted by US Constitution
    The President ... shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment
    Since one limitation was explicitly mentioned ("except in cases of impeachment"), and that limitation makes it clear they thought about the case of a President pardoning himself, it's hard to argue that there's an extra secret limitation that's both broader and adjacent to the non-secret one. The President cannot pardon himself if he's impeached, but barring some involvement of impeachment, his power to pardon is pretty unlimited.

  26. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by Wraith View Post
    I also never heard anyone argue that the President lacks that power before Trump.
    It's never really come up before. We've never seen a president who was just prepared to sort of brazen it out if he got caught doing a crime. Even Nixon was, like, "yup, busted!" and resigned before he could be impeached.
    Sing in grief, a requiem, the curse of our millennium, these souls keep whispering from the river beds
    An end to all these violent means, alive in these red water dreams, their haunted burdens stirring in my head on streets still running red
    Most went in the flood, a few were martyred by the flames, yet those who unleashed the waters are still guilty all the same
    When the ignorance of puppets serves the masters larger game, they let it rain, they let it rain
    When I get the chance to rise I'll find the light in their cold eyes or lose myself and carry out revenge
    The righteous hunt has just begun, the dimming of the bleeding sun will let these waters run clear once again



  27. #57
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  28. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    It's never really come up before. We've never seen a president who was just prepared to sort of brazen it out if he got caught doing a crime. Even Nixon was, like, "yup, busted!" and resigned before he could be impeached.
    That's not true. Nixon was prepared to brazen it out for years even after he was busted. It was only when the Republicans in Congress made it clear he would be impeached if he didn't resign that he finally did.

    This also came up in debates about Clinton (Bill).
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  29. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    It's never really come up before. We've never seen a president who was just prepared to sort of brazen it out if he got caught doing a crime. Even Nixon was, like, "yup, busted!" and resigned before he could be impeached.
    Still believing in the Russian collusion hoax?

  30. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    I might be wrong here, but AFAIK the DOJ policy about how they can't indite a sitting president is just that: a policy. There's no, like legal precedent, constitutional interpretation or case law behind it, it's just something the DOJ has decided they can't do - again, as far as I know.
    I asked about that earlier but no one gave an explanation. Barr did write that 'memo' outlining why the DoJ can't indict a sitting president (something about being in charge of law enforcement, not wanting to impede his duties of office, plus broad Executive powers). Probably why Trump wanted him as AG.

    Since AG Barr would never agree to criminal indictments, the 'policy' perpetuates itself. Mueller seems to be a process & procedure lawyer, following 'guidelines' and rules as mandates. Presidential indictments were never on the table because that's 'policy'.

    What's even crazier about this is how Barr misled the public about the report's findings....and even made it sound like Mueller could have gone outside DoJ guidelines if he wanted to. So many contradictions and confusions, what a mess.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •