• Welcome to TalkWeather!
    We see you lurking around TalkWeather! Take the extra step and join us today to view attachments, see less ads and maybe even join the discussion.
    CLICK TO JOIN TALKWEATHER
  • April 2024 Weather Video of the Month
    Post your nominations now!

Archive 2017-2019 Political Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

gangstonc

Member
Messages
2,809
Reaction score
299
Location
Meridianville
E

Evan

Member
Messages
2,288
Reaction score
1,455
Location
McCalla, AL
Mike S said:
This guy writes for one of the most conservative outlets in all of American media - Rolling Stone magazine

Click to expand...


I think this is a misunderstanding of why the SCO issued a statement in regards to the Buzzfeed story, and how that differs from Barr's letter. The Buzzfeed story made a specific factual claim that the SCO possessed specific evidence. The SCO issued a statement rebutting that factual claim.

In contrast, Barr's letter makes legal conclusions and uses a few quotes from the SCO report to support those conclusions. Unless Bart made a specific false claim about evidence contained in the SCO report, it would be consistent for the SCO not to comment.

Let me give an example of what I'm referring to:

"The Special Counsel's decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime."

The last half of that sentence is Barr's opinion. He believes that because Mueller didn't make a LEGAL conclusion (meaning prosecutorial) about obstruction, that then leaves such a decision to the AG.

Notably, Barr doesn't quote Mueller as saying that was what Mueller intended for the AG to do by not making a legal conclusion/decision about obstruction. We will have to see the report to understand WHY Mueller chose not to make a decision. All Bart gives us is that Mueller viewed making a decision on obstruction as being predicated on "difficult issues" and Barr characterizes those "difficult issues" as being in regards to law and fact - - although, again, it is notable that Mueller doesn't actually say that. That'd simply Barr's interpretation or characterization of the "difficult issues" that Mueller encountered.

But, I find this part of Barr's letter very telling:

"After making a 'thorough factual investigation' into these matters, the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion - one way or the other – as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction."

Notice that yet again the bulk of Barr's claim is simply Barr's own opinion/characterization of Mueller's intent or thought process. There's only one small quote from the SCO report, and it simply says" thorough factual investigation." Barr claims that Mueller considered evaluating Trump's conduct under DOJ standards governing prosecution and declination, but ultimately determined not to make a "traditional prosecutorial judgment" which is, yet again, Barr's opinion of Mueller's intent. And that may very well be VERY accurate. If Mueller actually believes that Trump obstructed justice, but considered that DOJ standards don't allow for the indictment/prosecution of a sitting President, and thus believed his hands were tied, he would then not make a "traditional" prosecutorial judgment about seeking a grand jury indictment - - he would have to present all the evidence with the hope that the House would consider impeachment.

Because Mueller was absolutely willing to say he wasn't going to seek further indictments as it pertained to Russian interference in our elections. He was willing to make that decision (although no one has any idea WHY he chose not make further indictments). So why wouldn't Mueller simply say he was declining prosecution of Trump with regards to obstruction if there wasn't anything there?

Even more, we are still stuck with Barr's characterization that the SCO did not "find" that any Trump campaign official or associate "conspired" or KNOWINGLY "coordinated" with the IRA as it pertains to influencing the election by using social media to sow discord. Does that mean that there were people who unknowingly coordinated with the IRA? Or that Mueller had proof of coordination, but couldn't make a finding that they "KNOWINGLY" coordinated?

That really sticks out because when it comes to the DNC hack activities, Barr claims the SCO did not "find" (Barr's characterization) "that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government." <--- all quotes from Barr and not Mueller. Why was "KNOWINGLY coordinated" used in reference to the Trump campaign as it pertains to the IRA, but then left out when referring to the election hacking? Why does the election hacking claim only refer to the Russian Government and not other Russians that might have governmental ties, or links to the Russian government?

None of this is answered by Barr's original letter. Yet again, it is quite notable that Barr sent out a second letter disputing that his first letter was a "summary" of the Mueller report. No, Barr claims, my original letter "provided...a summary of it's [the SCO report] 'principal conclusions.' Which is quite an odd claim considering that much of Barr's first letter was merely Barr's characterization of what Mueller's report found/didn't find in a few key areas, and actually provides zero summary or explanation of why Mueller didn't make a decision on obstruction, and instead substitutes Barr's own legal analysis to make a determination that Trump's obstructive activities were not criminal, even though Mueller himself had refused to do so.

I say all of what I just said to make one key point. Until we have a fair representation of what the Mueller report actually says (not Barr's hackish summary and Barr's own legal theories) it is not prudent to claim that Trump is exonerated or that Trump should be impeached. And, it also isn't comparable to the Buzzfeed story because Mueller is STILL REQUIRED to submit to DOJ regulations regarding public comment, and any such comment would require approval of the Attorney General. In other words, even if Barr's letter said that Mueller's report found that Trump is the smartest human being alive, and Mueller made no such finding, Mueller can't say a word about that publicly without Barr's permission, or when under oath before a Congressional Committee conducting oversight. Even then, Barr himself would have to commit to allowing Mueller to speak freely as DOJ regs would still restrict Mueller's ability to discuss certain aspects of his investigation.

If people want to know what Mueller actually thinks and believes, his report needs to be made public to the full extent possible, and then Mueller should be subpoenaed to testify before the appropriate House Committees while extracting a commitment from Barr that Mueller can comment on everything he's asked as long as it doesn't violate rules regarding classified information or expose sources and methods.

Barr was never required to do anything in his letter but provide a short explanation for actions taken by the SCO during the SCO investigation. He's not even required to provide a summary of findings (which he claims he didn't do anyway).

Here's what the SCO regs say:

§ 600.9 Notification and reports by the
Attorney General.
(a) The Attorney General will notify
the Chairman and Ranking Minority
Member of the Judiciary Committees
of each House of Congress, with an ex-
planation for each action—
(1) Upon appointing a Special Coun-
sel;
(2) Upon removing any Special Coun-
sel; and
(3) Upon conclusion of the Special
Counsels investigation, including, to
the extent consistent with applicable
law, a description and explanation of
instances (if any) in which the Attor-
ney General concluded that a proposed
action by a Special Counsel was so in-
appropriate or unwarranted under es-
tablished Departmental practices that
it should not be pursued.
(b) The notification requirement in
paragraph (a)(1) of this section may be
tolled by the Attorney General upon a
finding that legitimate investigative or
privacy concerns require confiden-
tiality. At such time as confidentiality
is no longer needed, the notification
will be provided.
(c)The Attorney General may deter-
mine that public release of these re-
ports would be in the public interest,
to the extent that release would com-
ply with applicable legal restrictions.
All other releases of information by
any Department of Justice employee,
including the Special Counsel and
staff, concerning matters handled by
Special Counsels shall be governed by
the generally applicable Departmental
guidelines concerning public comment
with respect to any criminal investiga-
tion, and relevant law.
 
G

gangstonc

Member
Messages
2,809
Reaction score
299
Location
Meridianville
Matt said:
You'll have to ask them. Did Hilarry and the DNC turn their servers over to the FBI ?
Click to expand...
She did on August 12, 2015. But that doesn’t matter here.

Don’t you think it’s important that Trumps team didn’t contact the FBI? I know that if a bunch of people from another country started calling me and offering help, i would be very suspicious.
 
E

Evan

Member
Messages
2,288
Reaction score
1,455
Location
McCalla, AL
To add to my extremely long post above, if anyone is taking Barr's two letters at face value then you're actually not trusting Mueller or getting an adequate understanding of what Mueller's investigation actually found.

If Mueller's report exonerates Trump and his campaign, then you'd think Trump would be pressuring his Attorney General, as he did to both Sessions and Whittaker, regarding numerous other matters, to get the report out to the public as soon as possible.

Trump isn't doing that is he?

To be quite frank, we don't really know that much more about what Mueller found, or the recommendations found in his report, than what we knew before Barr's two letters were released. But I'm a logical person, and I doubt Mueller's 400 some odd pages of report are simply glowing feedback about what a great guy Trump is, and how ethical and clean his campaign was.

It doesn't help that the Democrats are wholly incapable of providing a moderating influence on this country, and instead have spent the past two years lurching further and further to the left.

I can already say I'm 99.9% positive I won't be doing anything but a write-in come 2020. Both parties are disgusting abysses of extremism, selfish preening, and sellers of masturbatory partisan fantasies to their followers. 2020 looks to be a barrel of laughs with Trump scape-goating immigrants and creating a fake border crisis again, and the Democrats can't wait to get my guns or regulate my lifestyle into oblivion.

I hope one day soon the American people will wake up and realize they all need to go. Every incumbent - - Republican or Democrat - - needs to be voted out. We've strayed so far from the ideals and foundations of our Founding Fathers that this country is almost unrecognizable.
 
E

Evan

Member
Messages
2,288
Reaction score
1,455
Location
McCalla, AL
Matt said:
Ask the Hildabeast about foreign intrusion. I believe Trump is putting America first.
Click to expand...

Trump puts Trump first. That will never change.
 
M

Matt

Member
Messages
1,632
Reaction score
123
Location
Alabaster
gangstonc said:
She did on August 12, 2015. But that doesn’t matter here.

Don’t you think it’s important that Trumps team didn’t contact the FBI? I know that if a bunch of people from another country started calling me and offering help, i would be very suspicious.
Click to expand...

The FBI was corrupt to the core. I would not trust them one iota.
 
M

Matt

Member
Messages
1,632
Reaction score
123
Location
Alabaster
gangstonc said:
She did on August 12, 2015. But that doesn’t matter here.

Don’t you think it’s important that Trumps team didn’t contact the FBI? I know that if a bunch of people from another country started calling me and offering help, i would be very suspicious.
Click to expand...

Did she wipe her server and destroy her phones with hammers ?
 
Kory

Kory

Member
Messages
4,928
Reaction score
2,119
Location
Tuscaloosa, Alabama
Funny how the Left wing narrative shifted from "Believe All Women" with Kavanaugh to visceral defense of Joe Biden when accused of sexually harassing behavior.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top