Archive 2017-2019 Political Thread

[gangstonc]

So, Barr is lying ? Of course!

He’s done it before. Like i said, all the concrete evidence does not support Barr.

 

[gangstonc]

He just corrected himself in regards to the OLC opinion. Where can I find more info about the Department of Exoneration ?

No further testimony needed. That’s the opposite of an exoneration. Start the impeachment hearings.

 

[gangstonc]

Rep. Turner just owned Mueller!

No he didn’t.

 

[Evan]

He just corrected himself in regards to the OLC opinion. Where can I find more info about the Department of Exoneration ?

He did, and in doing so he went back to what the report says. Which is that they didn't "reach a decision." I think his exchange with Lieu was a case of Mueller saying the quiet part out loud as the report was worded in a way that allowed them to make that implication without being so explicit because it contradicts DOJ guidelines. We discussed this back when the report was released. They were bound by the DOJ US Attorney's manual and other guidance. You're not allowed to say you would have indicted someone.

Although Mueller was a US Attorney for a long time, he was most recently the Director of the FBI, and his response to Lieu probably reflects his law enforcement view. In contrast, the prosecutorial view in the report threads the needle to imply they'd have indicted absent the OLC memo, but since they cannot say that explicitly per DOJ guidelines, they had to present it under the guise of discussing why they didn't make a traditional prosecutorial decision. If you've read the report, then it's not surprising that someone might slip up during testimony and say it explicitly.

It was definitely a mistake by Mueller. I'm both glad he made the mistake and cleaned it up. Now we know the true feelings of his team, and he is still showing he has the integrity necessary to have been in charge of this investigation. Remember, Mueller has repeatedly stated he's not going to discuss internal deliberations. The exchange with Lieu is why. It's too easy to slip up. What they concluded internally is different than their report which is legally binding. Americans don't do nuance and uncertainty, so that's why the Mueller report and testimony were always going to struggle to move the needle.

Americans can understand an explicit claim that we'd have indicted him if he wasn't POTUS. They don't understand a novel legal tactic in which you decline to make a decision so that you can argue why you didn't make a decision one way or the other. If Mueller decides to charge Trump then he's blocked by the OLC memo and the entire section on obstruction gets buried. You can't release evidence when you've declined to indict or been blocked by DOJ from doing so. But if you decline to make a decision altogether, your legal analysis IS allowed to be included in the report.

 

[gangstonc]

I found it very interesting that Mueller wouldn’t answer a 2020 question due to classification instead of scope.

They are going to do it again next time.

 

[gangstonc]

I liked Swalwell’s comparison of how many times trump met with Putin while Mueller was trying to meet with Trump.

 

[Matt]

I liked Swalwell’s comparison of how many times trump met with Putin while Mueller was trying to meet with Trump.

As president it would be negligence for him not to be in contact with a foreign leader of Putin's magnitude!

 

[Matt]

He did, and in doing so he went back to what the report says. Which is that they didn't "reach a decision." I think his exchange with Lieu was a case of Mueller saying the quiet part out loud as the report was worded in a way that allowed them to make that implication without being so explicit because it contradicts DOJ guidelines. We discussed this back when the report was released. They were bound by the DOJ US Attorney's manual and other guidance. You're not allowed to say you would have indicted someone.

Although Mueller was a US Attorney for a long time, he was most recently the Director of the FBI, and his response to Lieu probably reflects his law enforcement view. In contrast, the prosecutorial view in the report threads the needle to imply they'd have indicted absent the OLC memo, but since they cannot say that explicitly per DOJ guidelines, they had to present it under the guise of discussing why they didn't make a traditional prosecutorial decision. If you've read the report, then it's not surprising that someone might slip up during testimony and say it explicitly.

It was definitely a mistake by Mueller. I'm both glad he made the mistake and cleaned it up. Now we know the true feelings of his team, and he is still showing he has the integrity necessary to have been in charge of this investigation. Remember, Mueller has repeatedly stated he's not going to discuss internal deliberations. The exchange with Lieu is why. It's too easy to slip up. What they concluded internally is different than their report which is legally binding. Americans don't do nuance and uncertainty, so that's why the Mueller report and testimony were always going to struggle to move the needle.

Americans can understand an explicit claim that we'd have indicted him if he wasn't POTUS. They don't understand a novel legal tactic in which you decline to make a decision so that you can argue why you didn't make a decision one way or the other. If Mueller decides to charge Trump then he's blocked by the OLC memo and the entire section on obstruction gets buried. You can't release evidence when you've declined to indict or been blocked by DOJ from doing so. But if you decline to make a decision altogether, your legal analysis IS allowed to be included in the report.

He lacked the integrity to not charge and then shut up. It is not a prosecutors job to exonerate. I'm still looking for that office.

 

[Evan]

He lacked the integrity to not charge and then shut up. It is not a prosecutors job to exonerate. I'm still looking for that office.

His job was to investigate and then explain his prosecutorial decisions including any indictments or declinations.

As Mueller explained in his testimony, and is also explained in the report, they didn't make a traditional prosecutorial decision because they were bound by the OLC memo, and there were questions of law that could not be easily resolved because it wouldn't be fair to accuse someone of a crime if they couldn't be indicted for it and have a trial.

This is a classic usage of the begging the question fallacy. You're making the premises and the conclusion the same thing and in turn saying that means your position is true. Because of the intricacies of law, DOJ guidelines and Constitutional concerns, Mueller was presented with a fair acompli. Either say Trump is effectively above the law, or investigate, decline to make a prosecutorial decision, and lay out the evidence for a prosecutor to make a decision once the legal, Constitutional, and DOJ guidelines don't prevent a prosecutor from making one of the two choices (seeking an indictment or choosing not to seek an indictment).

 

[Matt]

Trump is entitled to the presumption of innocence is he not ?

 

[Matt]

One person that should be part of this conversation but is not is one Barack Huessein Obama. This attack happened under his watch and he did little or nothing to stop it.

 

[Evan]

He lacked the integrity to not charge and then shut up. It is not a prosecutors job to exonerate. I'm still looking for that office.

You and Trump have both claimed repeatedly that Mueller's report exonerated Trump and his campaign on "collusion." I don't think you even realize that with one side of your mouth you're claiming Mueller can't exonerate anyone and with the other claiming (like Trump) that Mueller's report is a "complete and total exoneration."

For the record, we agree. It wasn't Mueller's job to exonerate Trump, and he doesn't have the legal power to do so. Thankfully, Robert Mueller has never said that he does have such a power. You're taking Trump's comments about exoneration and applying them to the Mueller report, and then twisting the report to make it seem like Mueller said he couldn't exonerate the President. Mueller never said any such thing nor did he imply it.

Here is what Matt and a number of Republicans are trying to gaslight us into believing says that Mueller refused to exonerate Trump, and that exoneration isn't a prosecutor's job.

This is the only passage in Mueller's report or previous press conferences that include the term exonerate or exoneration:

"Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

What is controversial about the Mueller report's summarizing it's own findings? That CLEARLY doesn't say anything about exoneration being something Mueller or his team were in charge of. They're describing that the report neither concludes that Trump committed a crime nor does it conclude that he's innocent (exonerate him). That's not a legal conclusion or concept. It's an accurate description of the contents of the report.

Gaslighting and making false claims about what Mueller or his report says is the only defense Matt has of the President's behavior.

 

[Evan]

Trump is entitled to the presumption of innocence is he not ?

Which the Mueller report gives him throughout the report. It specifically says that the report itself does not conclude that Trump committed a crime.

I'm curious as to how you think Trump hasn't been given the presumption of innocence. Has he been indicted? Charged? Convicted? Did Mueller say he committed a crime or accused him of committing a crime? Nope. So the legal system presumes he's innocent until proven guilty.

The opinion of the public, the opinion of members of Congress, etc so not equate to the legal system. They're free to assume Trump is guilty as sin if they so choose.

 

[Matt]

You and Trump have both claimed repeatedly that Mueller's report exonerated Trump and his campaign on "collusion." I don't think you even realize that with one side of your mouth you're claiming Mueller can't exonerate anyone and with the other claiming (like Trump) that Mueller's report is a "complete and total exoneration."

For the record, we agree. It wasn't Mueller's job to exonerate Trump, and he doesn't have the legal power to do so. Thankfully, Robert Mueller has never said that he does have such a power. You're taking Trump's comments about exoneration and applying them to the Mueller report, and then twisting the report to make it seem like Mueller said he couldn't exonerate the President. Mueller never said any such thing nor did he imply it.

Here is what Matt and a number of Republicans are trying to gaslight us into believing says that Mueller refused to exonerate Trump, and that exoneration isn't a prosecutor's job.

This is the only passage in Mueller's report or previous press conferences that include the term exonerate or exoneration:

"Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

What is controversial about the Mueller report's summarizing it's own findings? That CLEARLY doesn't say anything about exoneration being something Mueller or his team were in charge of. They're describing that the report neither concludes that Trump committed a crime nor does it conclude that he's innocent (exonerate him). That's not a legal conclusion or concept. It's an accurate description of the contents of the report.

Gaslighting and making false claims about what Mueller or his report says is the only defense Matt has of the President's behavior.

Let me clarify. He was not charged, therefore he is presumed innocent. Fair enough ?

 

[Evan]

One person that should be part of this conversation but is not is one Barack Huessein Obama. This attack happened under his watch and he did little or nothing to stop it.

I thought it was all a hoax? You're saying Obama should've stopped Trump's DOJ from perpetuating a hoax on Trump? Weird flex, but OK.

 

[Evan]

Let me clarify. He was not charged, therefore he is presumed innocent. Fair enough ?

He's presumed innocent by the legal system. I'm not the legal system. Congress is not the legal system. The public is not the legal system.

So, yes its fair enough to say Trump is presumed innocent before our legal system. But nowhere else. Because we're all entitled to our own opinions under the 1st Amendment.

 

[Matt]

I thought it was all a hoax? You're saying Obama should've stopped Trump's DOJ from perpetuating a hoax on Trump? Weird flex, but OK.

2016 Barry was president. What did he do to thwart Russian meddling in the election ? I think he told Putin to "cut it out" !

 

[Evan]

I'll be darned, it's Robert Mueller saying all defendants in his report are to be presumed innocent.

 

[Matt]

I think today was a bad day for the dems and a disaster for Mueller.

 

[ghost]

How is this not obstruction of justice?

"Former special counsel Robert Mueller confirmed in testimony before the House Judiciary Committee Wednesday that President Trump directed staffers to falsify records connected to Mueller’s investigation.

Asked by Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-La.) whether it was “fair to say” Trump “tried to protect himself by asking staff to falsify records relevant to an ongoing investigation,” Mueller responded, “I would say that's generally a summary.”

Mueller tells House panel Trump asked staff to falsify records

Former special counsel Robert Mueller confirmed in testimony before the House Judiciary Committee Wednesday that President Trump directed staffers to falsify records connected to Mueller’s inv…

thehill.com