US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[bstanko6]

That's the look I give when I listen to The democrats! Uncanny!

[Buddahaid]

It's so easy when all you see is white hats and black hats. Doesn't stress any brain cells at all.

[MaDef]

What the hell is going on with these people?

Mota saturation.

[Onkel Neal]

Sanders opened himself to scrutiny this week after saying that not only should incarcerated prisoners be permitted to vote but that Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev should also be permitted to vote.

"If somebody commits a serious crime, sexual assault, murder, they will be punished. But I think the right to vote is inherent to our democracy. Yes, even for terrible people," Sanders said Monday on a CNN Town Hall.

Oh, crazy Bernie.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Dowly

- Mueller did not find Trump not guilty of obstruction.

It is not Mueller's job to find anyone guilty. Mueller is not a judge, he is an investigator and prosecuter. He should only have two choices, to present an indictment or not. An indictment does not make anyone guilty. A prosecuter still has to prove his case in court. Someone else decides guilt or innocence. His decision not to indict means he didn't think he could win that case.

- What to do next is up to Congress.

And now the case moves from a matter of the law to political nonsense. One can predict how that will go.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by u crank

It is not Mueller's job to find anyone guilty. Mueller is not a judge, he is an investigator and prosecuter. He should only have two choices, to present an indictment or not. An indictment does not make anyone guilty. A prosecuter still has to prove his case in court. Someone else decides guilt or innocence.

Yes, you are correct. Bad choice of words. To avoid further confusion, this is what Mueller writes:
"At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation ofthe facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction ofjustice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

His decision not to indict means he didn't think he could win that case.

Not true. He did not indict because per DOJ guidelines a sitting president can't/should not be indicted.
Here's the relevant portion:

https://i.imgur.com/BEzeyLS.jpg
(Page 1-2 of volume 1)

[bstanko6]

We should go back to the way our forefathers intended. Only property owners should vote. Eliminate some of the fool votes out there.

If we voted this way, we wouldn’t have people listening to AOC or Sanders.

[Dowly]

If you want to eliminate the fool votes, why not go with voting rights for only the better educated people? I mean, doesn't that make more sense?

[u crank]

Originally Posted by bstanko6

We should go back to the way our forefathers intended. Only property owners should vote. Eliminate some of the fool votes out there.

You are joking...right. Say you are joking.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Dowly

If you want to eliminate the fool votes, why not go with voting rights for only the better educated people? I mean, doesn't that make more sense?

While we are speculating...

How about a simple means test before you are handed a ballot. Something that would prove you understood the process you are about to take part in.

As for better educated people...better educated in what?

[em2nought]

A number of democrat voters already own small plots of land.

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Dowly

Yes, you are correct. Bad choice of words. To avoid further confusion, this is what Mueller writes:
"At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation ofthe facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction ofjustice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

Not true. He did not indict because per DOJ guidelines a sitting president can't/should not be indicted.
Here's the relevant portion:

https://i.imgur.com/BEzeyLS.jpg
(Page 1-2 of volume 1)

Another reason he did not indict is there is a difference between 'not guilty' and 'innocent'. Declaring someone 'not guilty' means it could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime was committed.


Leave it too the circus of partisan politics though to gin up the reality TV drama and unreasonable doubt.

[bstanko6]

I’m not kidding! Right now we have people voting for race, sexual preference, and political correctness!

We need voters that are concerned with long term issues. Not feelings!

[AVGWarhawk]

And so it begins. Do we stick with this US Politics thread for the 2020 election and prediction or create a thread just for that purpose?

The current field of near-do-wells:

1. Joe (Mr. Handy) Biden
2. Cory (Spartacus) Booker
3. Beto (I'm Mexican) O'Rouke
4. Elizabeth (I'm Native American. Let me grab me a beer) Warren
5. Kamala (smoke weed and listen to music not created yet) Harris
6. Kirsten(watch me exercise) Gillibrand
7. Pete (not a chance) Buttigieg
8. Bernie(I'll spend your money for you) Sanders
9. A hand full of no names better off working Dunkin Donuts.

Quite a field of pandering for votes if I have ever seen one. Pick your winner.

I'm certain know my pick. It is not from the list above.

[u crank]

This is the kind of thing that will become more and more evident as time goes on. Mueller has had his moment but that doesn't mean he won't have to defend his tactics or conclusions.

5 Times The Mueller Probe Broke Prosecutorial Rules That Ensure Justice

https://thefederalist.com/2019/04/25...nsure-justice/

1. Using Leaks And Press Conferences to Trash Un-charged Targets.

Rod Rosenstein... "The guidance I always gave my prosecutors and the agents I worked with during my tenure on the front lines of law enforcement were if we aren’t prepared to prove our case beyond a reasonable doubt in court, then we have no business making allegations against American citizens.”

So why didn’t he order Mueller to edit out the report’s innuendo and accusation that the team did not have the gumption to prosecute? Rosenstein understands the unfairness of what he did. And he did it anyway.

2. Using Their Power to Crush Client-Attorney Privilege.

We want our president, and all Americans, to be able to have a confidential conversation with his legal advisor, possibly blowing off steam or even contemplating unwise acts, without those conversations ending up in a special counsel report. It is the essence of an attorney-client relationship that the attorney is given the opportunity to confidentially guide his client away from rash action.

Because of the damage Mueller has done, future presidents may now avoid their White House counsel for fear that a special counsel will publicize the conversation. Instead, the president may act without counsel. That’s bad.

3. Prosecuting Despite Knowing They Can’t Prove Their Case.

There’s no apparent legitimate explanation for the Mueller probe to have continued the “hunt” for Russia collusion after both the House and Senate concluded their investigations finding the same thing Mueller eventually admitted.

Mueller executed approximately 500 search warrants against our fellow Americans, all to no end.

4. Special Counsels Aren’t Supposed to Be a Partisan Hit Squad.

Federal law regarding the “Independence of the Special Counsel” says: “An individual named as Special Counsel shall be a lawyer with a reputation for integrity and impartial decisionmaking,..

As one example, the prominent attorney Jeannie Rhee worked for the Clintons to keep Hillary’s emails out of public view only months before joining the Mueller team to investigate Hillary’s political opponent.

Is it a surprise that Clinton’s role in hiring Fusion GPS appears nowhere in the report?

Who worked on the Papadopoulos prosecutions? Jeannie Rhee.

5. Rosenstein Used His Government Position to Protect Himself.

Federal conflict of interest law (28 C.F.R. § 45.2 (a)) says:

Unless authorized under paragraph (b) of this section, no employee shall participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with: (1) Any person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution; or (2) Any person or organization which he knows has a specific and substantial interest that would be directly affected by the outcome of the investigation or prosecution.

..the special counsel found no fault with Rosenstein’s participation in the Comey firing. Would Rosenstein have approved a report that said otherwise?

The explanation justifying Rosenstein’s continued participation is nonsensical. In any case, Rosenstein should not have overseen the investigation into the president’s motives because, guess what, the investigator ended up taking a view of the facts that helped Rosenstein.

There will likely be more of this to come in the future.