The whistleblower report was gossip, deep-state dinner theater. Zero first hand knowledge. It mentions names that Trump doesn’t, and even cites twitter and the NYT. It’s a CIA charade. — NOS4A2
Barr’s letter wasn’t a summary. — NOS4A2
I am writing today to advise you of the principal conclusions reached by Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III ...
Again, you didn't answer it and are just repeating yourself. What if reasonable people disagree? What then? How do you suggest to resolve this on the particular subject of corrupt intent? And while you're at it, what's the legal standard to impeach? Is corrupt intent required? In other words, is it even relevant?
As to Mueller's judgment; this is just a silly attempt to distract from your lack of arguments. What's Mueller's judgment on this matter again? Oh right, he doesn't have one...
As an apparent libertarian your political views align with the current administration to a large degree. Trump is not truly conservative, liberal, or even libertarian for that matter. The best description of his politics might simply be ‘dictator wannabe’. He’ll do anything to gain power, basically.
Someone has to turn this ship around. It looks like Trump is the one doing it. — NOS4A2
We’ve had enough of the eloquent lawyers speaking in glittering generalities and pontificating on our shared humanity. All they could do was talk and be politically correct. — NOS4A2
Reduced taxes for the rich, deregulation, increased military spending, more border fencing... yeah, real groundbreaking stuff.
Like the typical Trump supporter, you probably believe that Obama (eloquent lawyer) caused the great recession and it was Trump who turned it around. You're probably unable to acknowledge any of Obama's accomplishments.
To be a Trump supporter is to be unconcerned with truth.
If reasonable people tell me they disagree, then hopefully they have a reasonable reason as to why they do.
So tell me, why do accept Mueller’s judgement? Why do you discount and discredit Barr’s? I’ve told you why I agree with Barr’s assessment, so why don’t you tell me why don’t? — NOS4A2
I wasn't referring to our disagreement on the matter but the fact that Barr and Mueller disagree. You're appealing to authority and it makes me wonder why you think you're incapable of making up your own mind based on the facts as reported in the Mueller report.
As said, Mueller doesn't reach a judgment so it's not what I'm accepting as I already stated in my previous post. I actually read the report, and in the basis of what's relayed in it I disagree with Barr's representation of the "principal conclusions" of it. I don't think he could be considered objective on the matter considering the unsolicited memo taking issue with the entire investigation to begin with. But that's neither here nor there when we can compare the facts of the report with what Barr pretended it said; eg. the facts are there because it's written down.
So I've asked before: Are you aware of the material differences between his representation of the report in that letter and the facts described in the Mueller report? And you said yes, but accept Barr's conclusions while the falsity of them could be readily established.
We are now left with some possible conclusions, none of them very good:
1. You have not, in fact, read the report or the letter or both and lied about it;
2. You have a problem comprehending the English language and erroneously conclude the documents state materially the same thing;
3. You're simply biased and incapable of questioning your own assumptions (did I mention I'm Dutch so I don't have a horse in this race?); or,
4. (I'll help you out here and give it a positive) you think the only worthwhile conclusion was the absence of corrupt intent.
I suspect 1. But let's run with 4. Why did he lie about the principle conclusions of the report? What does it matter what Barr concludes if 1. sitting presidents can't be indicted and 2. corrupt intent is not a requirement for impeachment?
In other words, things don't add up and that's why besides his conclusion being irrelevant I also don't trust his judgment.
And the results are? Great economy, increased wages, more jobs you can shake a stick at, a stronger border, the end of the caliphate — NOS4A2
the US is no longer the laughing stock of the Middle East, China and Russia. — NOS4A2
I liked Obama. I voted for him twice. You can ask me what I believe instead of assuming it. No, the previous administrations pulled us out of the Great Recession by spending our money. That’s not an accomplishment to me. — NOS4A2
As I’ve stated countless times now, I agree with Barr, but not only because he happens to be the top authority in the land, but because I agree with his arguments. I stated the argument I agree with, which you mysteriously leave out in every reply. — NOS4A2
I've dealt with your "corrupt intent" remark as inconsequential to impeachment at least 2 posts back and again in the last. You're mysteriously dense when arguments fail to agree with your unexamined conclusions..
Exactly. And the reason for that is that there appears a divide between people who think the end justifies the means and those who don't. And in the US that seems to follow party lines to an important extent.
But we'll see because I'm not offering a theory here just gut feelings. — Benkei
With no evidence of corrupt intent, it doesn’t rise to the level of obstruction. Therefor no obstruction. — NOS4A2
Substantial evidence indicates that the catalyst for the President’s decision to fire Comey was Comey’s unwillingness to publicly state that the President was not personally under investigation….Some evidence indicates that the President believed that the erroneous perception he was under investigation harmed his ability to manage domestic and foreign affairs….Other evidence, however, indicates that the President wanted to protect himself from an investigation into his campaign….[T]he evidence does indicate that a thorough FBI investigation would uncover facts about the campaign and the President personally that the President could have understood to be crimes.
Substantial evidence indicates that the President’s attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel’s oversight of investigations that involved the President’s conduct—and most immediately, to reports that the President was being investigated for potential obstruction of justice.
Substantial 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….There is evidence that at least one purpose of the President’s conduct toward Sessions was to have Sessions assume control over the Russia investigation and supervise it in a way that would restrict its scope….A reasonable inference […] is that the President believed that an unrecused Attorney General would play a protective role and could shield the President from the ongoing Russia investigation.
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 further scrutiny of the President’s conduct towards the investigation.
In analyzing the President’s intent in his actions towards Cohen as a potential witness, there is evidence that could support the inference that the President intended to discourage Cohen from cooperating with the government because Cohen’s information would shed adverse light on the President’s campaign-period conduct and statements.
The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that “the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions” in violation of “the constitutional separation of powers.” Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulation, see 28 U.S.C. § 515; 28 C.F.R § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC’s legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction.
[W]e considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. ... Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges can be brought.
The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President's corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.
So while a majority of voters probably want impeachment I doubt it matters for the impeachment outcome in a Senate controlled by the Republicans. And then come election time that will be played in favour of the Republicans. — Benkei
Mueller didn't say that there was no evidence.
It simply came down to the fact that the DOJ policy is that a President can't be indicted.
Rep. Adam Schiff illegally made up a FAKE & terrible statement, pretended it to be mine as the most important part of my call to the Ukrainian President, and read it aloud to Congress and the American people. It bore NO relationship to what I said on the call. Arrest for Treason?
One of Trump’s persecutor’s ... — NOS4A2
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.