US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Deepseadiver

Can you show us the other photos? I am genuinely interested in seeing them.

I don't know, was there only one?

[Aktungbby]

POLITICS RULE # 1 OF THE ENGLISH SPEAKING LAKE(THE ATLANTIC): IMITATION IS THE SINCEREST FORM OF FLATTERY...??!!...

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by u crank

I'll ask the obvious question. What did AG Barr change about the reports conclusion?

You could know that by now, it has been reported and described often enough, last time just one day ago - ONCE AGAIN.

Barr “did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office's work and conclusions,” Mueller wrote. "There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations."

(...)

What did Barr do with all that? As soon as Mueller dropped his report in the attorney general’s lap, Barr whipped up his own interpretation over a weekend before anyone else had a chance to read it. He then force-fed the nation his story of choice: In a four-page letter, Barr said that Trump didn’t conspire criminally and also didn’t obstruct justice. Mueller hadn’t exonerated the president or ruled on obstruction, Barr noted, so he decided to make those judgments himself. No conspiracy, no obstruction, case closed.

The media then helped Barr’s narrative along, as a mixture of journalists, Trump apologists and Russia sympathizers said a “reckoning” was afoot for anyone who had thought that the Mueller probe might’ve imperiled Trump’s presidency or implicated him in criminal acts. The report actually did demonstrate that the probe was an existential threat to Trump and was indisputably incriminating. But the reckoning crowd passed judgment with only Barr’s letter – and not the report – in hand.
You can imagine Mueller and his team being irked as they realized that Barr had just outflanked them. So what did Mueller do? He wrote his letter. Of course he did. He’s a profound institutionalist and a by-the-books prosecutor. Maybe he didn’t fully anticipate how rough-and-tumble Barr was prepared to be. Surely, a letter was the answer.
Nope, that letter rolled right off Barr’s back. “The letter’s a bit snitty” Barr told the Senate when he later testified about his handling of the special counsel’s report. Unlike Mueller, Barr wasn’t going to limit himself to gentlemanly missives about the finer points of law. When he unveiled his redacted version of the full report in April, he began the event with an unusual press briefing in which he simply reiterated Trump’s talking points.
“The special counsel found no ‘collusion’ by any American,” Barr said in a massively inappropriate display of political bravado. But Mueller hadn’t investigated collusion, which Barr knew full well. As Mueller noted in his report, his team “applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of ‘collusion.’"
None of that deterred Barr from spinning. “There is substantial evidence to show that the president was frustrated and angered by a sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents, and fueled by illegal leaks,” he complained, stacking the deck against a report he had yet to release. “Apart from whether the acts were obstructive, this evidence of non-corrupt motives weighs heavily against any allegation that the president had a corrupt intent to obstruct the investigation.”
After this bit of dissembling, public interest in the report was deflated. By and large, most Americans and most politicians still haven’t read it.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/ar...ed-bob-mueller


But you culd as well take any other of the many, many, many links like this that tell the story of Barr outmanouvering Mueller.

[Deepseadiver]

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal

I don't know, was there only one?

You said "photos" plural. I would not mind seeing them.

[Platapus]

So each political party was trying to spin Mueller to support their agenda and Mueller was too smart to fall for it.



I think he was the right man for the job.

[August]

Originally Posted by Platapus

So each political party was trying to spin Mueller to support their agenda and Mueller was too smart to fall for it.



I think he was the right man for the job.

I think more than anything it showed that Mueller was nothing but a figurehead. They should change it's name to the Weissmann/Rhee Report.

[vienna]

Originally Posted by Platapus

So each political party was trying to spin Mueller to support their agenda and Mueller was too smart to fall for it.

I think he was the right man for the job.

Second that...

Mueller was who he always has been: his own man. That is what has so infuriated the pols on both ends of the spectrum; he exists away from their games, lies, and proselytism. He was given a task, he saw it through, he gave his report and that was all he signed on to do. Just like the Marine officer he was and, at heart, still is, he completed his mission and now has moved on...

In an odd way, Mueller is sort of like Omar Khayyim's "moving finger":


The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.”


Neither the copious wailing and gnashing and grinding of teeth of the Far Right nor the supplications of the Far Left can or will shake him...

Mueller has just given them all 'the Finger' and he's moved on...







<O>

[vienna]

Well, the GOP giveth and the GOP taketh away...


After Mueller's testimony yesterday about the extent, intent, and future of Russian interference in US election processes, the GOP-led Senate Select Committee on Intelligence released their Report on "Russian Active Measures Campaigns and Interference". The report further bolsters the findings of the SC and outlines possible remedies. Now it seems the only one who still believes Russia didn't interfere in the 2016 Presidential Election cycle is - surprise, surprise - the guy who was the benficiary of Russian largess, Donald Trump...


Senate Intel Committee Unveils Election Security Report In Wake Of Mueller Hearings --

https://www.npr.org/2019/07/25/74520...of-mueller-day


A direct link to the PDF of the Report:

https://apps.npr.org/documents/docum...n-Interference



So, of course, the Senate GOP Leader leaped into action and took decisive action to combat the nefarious evil-doings!!...



...just kidding...


GOP senators block election security legislation hours after Mueller warns of Russian interference --

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/25/polit...ion/index.html


Gee, it must be horrible to be a GOP politician who is so desperate to try and hold on to their dwindling grasp of power that they would rather sell-out the security of the US and its election process(es), an essential element of the American heritage. I wonder how badly O'Connell, et al, must believe they are going to suffer in the sinking of the SS Trump in 2020? The stench of desperation is strong on the GOP side of the aisle: seems they believe they can't win by making an honest appeal to the voters, so they are resorting to political thievery and the benevolence of Uncle Vlad...







<O>

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by vienna

GOP senators block election security legislation hours after Mueller warns of Russian interference --

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/25/polit...ion/index.html

How many election security bills is that now? Four? Five?

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

3. Under the Constitution, the President has the unrestricted power to hire and fire prosecutors, so he had the legal power to order the firing Mueller at any time. Exercising your legal powers under the Constitution is not obstruction of justice, unless you can show corrupt intent, but there is the "catch 22" since:

--3.1- there was no underlying crime so no one can point to a "corrupt intent" and

--3.2 - Mueller was not fired in any event.

There is a whole section (Vol.2,Section III) in the report that examines the letter sent by Trump's lawyer (from where what you write originates from). It is about 30 pages of boring text, but it sums that yes, the President can obstruct and can be investigated for obstruction.

In sum, contrary to the position taken by the President ' s counsel, we concluded that, in
light of the Supreme Court precedent governing separation-of-powers issues , we had a valid basis
for investigating the conduct at issue in this report. In our view, the application of the obstruction
statutes would not impermissibly burden the President's performance of his Article II function to
supervise prosecutorial conduct or to remove inferior law-enforcement officers. And the
protection of the criminal justice system from corrupt acts by any person-including
the President-accords the the fundamental principle of our government that
"[n]o [person] in this country is so high that he is above the law."
United States v. Lee, I 06 U.S. 196, 220 (1882); see also Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. at 697 ; United States v. Nixon , supra.

3.1) Obstruction doesn't require one. The President was a subject of investigation, that was enough.

3.2) Obstruction doesn't need to succeed for it to be obstruction.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Aktungbby

POLITICS RULE # 1 OF THE ENGLISH SPEAKING LAKE(THE ATLANTIC): IMITATION IS THE SINCEREST FORM OF FLATTERY...??!!...

Similarly here in the UK

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Skybird

But you culd as well take any other of the many, many, many links like this that tell the story of Barr outmanouvering Mueller.

There is no out manouvering to it. Mueller worked for Barr. If Mueller is not happy with his boss he can publicly complain and he did. Barr responded publicly.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Dowly

There is a whole section (Vol.2,Section III) in the report that examines the letter sent by Trump's lawyer (from where what you write originates from). It is about 30 pages of boring text, but it sums that yes, the President can obstruct and can be investigated for obstruction.

Well no, that is a different, although equally valid argument, namely that when POTUS exercises a power granted to him by the Constitution, his actions cannot be reviewed at all. That argument has been made by some excellent U.S. Constitutional lawyers, including Alan Dershowitz.

The fact that Mueller's team rejects the argument does not resolve the issue since that is just the opinion of a different set of lawyers. Ultimately, the decision will be made by the Courts.

My argument is more basic and grounded in the principles of criminal law, namely the concept of "reasonable doubt".

The mistake non-lawyers are making is thinking that proving "obstruction of justice" is just a matter of "connecting the dots" of various facts which could hypothetically be argued to be "obstruction". In fact, you have to prove each element beyond a "reasonable doubt", which means not only proving that each fact that you are relying on is true, but also that the defendant does not have a reasonable defence for his actions, i.e. "reasonable doubt".

In the case of POTUS, because he has a constitutional duty to oversee the justice system, including prosecutors, it becomes impossible to prove obstruction of justice beyond a reasonable doubt, if there is no underlying crime as I will explain.

3.1) Obstruction doesn't require one. The President was a subject of investigation, that was enough.

well no, the mere fact that POTUS was a target is not enough. You have to show that he was exercising his powers for a corrupt motive and not carrying out his legal Constitutional duties.

To use an extreme example, assume that prior to a new democratic President taking office in jan. 2025, a Republican U.S. attorney launches a politically motivated investigation against him (or her). Are you saying that the President would be guilty of "obstruction of justice" if he fired that U.S. attorney and shut down the investigation?

Here we have a case where POTUS was investigated for a crime which: 1) he knew he was innocent of, since Mueller found no actual criminal act, i.e. no collusion; and 2) that the investigation was politically motivated since its true purpose was to force him out of office. If he had fired Mueller, that would have been an entirely reasonable defence.

So because Mueller found no underlying crime, it is impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that any of the actions by POTUS constituted criminal obstruction of justice.

3.2) Obstruction doesn't need to succeed for it to be obstruction.

true, but you still have to show that the actions were done in an attempt to obstruct justice.

POTUS could have fired Mueller at any time and he would have been legally justified to do it. He did not, he allowed the investigation to conclude and provided reasonable cooperation. In the circumstances, it would be impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was trying to obstruct justice.

[August]

https://thefederalist.com/2019/07/26...tigation-sham/

That Mueller had no knowledge of Fusion GPS seems to cement the conclusion that the supposedly wide-ranging, thorough investigation Mueller oversaw over Russia interference in the 2016 election ignored what was potentially the most significant interference that took place: Russia feeding Steele, the Democratic National Committee, and in turn the U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and federal surveillance courts, fake intel allowing for spying on a political campaign.

So it looks like the Steele Dossier itself was a Russian attempt to interfere in our election.


Who was the Russians supposedly helping again?

[Rockstar]

I still say it was politically motivated, prime example of policing for profit, 22 month long, 35 million dollar, government boondoggle. Its almost dead, nothing left of the horse now but political high drama, threats, finger pointing, editorials and sound bites.