ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags donald trump , impeachment , Ken Starr , Mueller investigation , Robert Mueller , William Barr

Reply
Old 29th May 2019, 11:38 PM   #1
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 8,206
Robert Mueller, Trump's Best Friend

For two years, Trump had no better defender than Robert Mueller. And he still is shielding Trump from any consequences, political or otherwise.


In his Report, and in his statement, Mueller made clear that early on he made the decision that charging Trump was not an option, and that only through Impeachment a sitting President could be removed.

The MOMENT he made that decision would have been the time to inform Congress that if they are considering Impeachment, they would have to do their own inquiry.
By taking over the legal aspects of the Russian interference, Mueller made it next to impossible for others to do their own investigation without interfering in his. That would have been ok if he had provided his work product as it developed, so that Congress could decide to join in or do their own thing at any point.
But after blocking the investigation for two years he is coming out with a "Yeah, I was never going to do what everyone expected me to do" statement he is de facto robbing Congress of its ability to do an Impeachment in a timely manner to the offense.
What is the point of the Power of Impeachment when it takes more than four years to do it methodically instead of for purely political reasons?

Mueller is kidding himself if he thinks he did the right thing.

Screw you, Bob Mueller.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isnít.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2019, 11:50 PM   #2
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,344
You realise that Mueller's report is pretty quick. Starr's took 4 years!

As to your claims, they are bogus. It was well known that the DoJ could not indict a sitting President, it has been known that this was the likely case since Nixon.

Mueller did exactly what he could do and what the office allowed him to do, to gather the evidence, determine if the evidence cleared the President, then pass it all to Congress with the advice that they use it as evidence to progress it all further.

This is exactly the same thing that the Starr Report did.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)


Last edited by PhantomWolf; 29th May 2019 at 11:51 PM.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 12:30 AM   #3
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 8,206
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
You realise that Mueller's report is pretty quick. Starr's took 4 years!

As to your claims, they are bogus. It was well known that the DoJ could not indict a sitting President, it has been known that this was the likely case since Nixon.

Mueller did exactly what he could do and what the office allowed him to do, to gather the evidence, determine if the evidence cleared the President, then pass it all to Congress with the advice that they use it as evidence to progress it all further.

This is exactly the same thing that the Starr Report did.
No.
Starr handed Congress a 'Roadmap' to Impeachment, and publicly supported his work product.
At the very, very least, Mueller should have let the Grand Jury decide to hand over their material to Congress.

Mueller thinks he brought the office of Special Council back to where it belonged.
But in fact, he has made it obsolete.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isnít.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 12:44 AM   #4
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 20,881
The report is fine. The problem is that the AG is a Trump installed defender.
__________________
'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman
Sideroxylon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 02:16 AM   #5
Cavemonster
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,395
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
No.
Starr handed Congress a 'Roadmap' to Impeachment, and publicly supported his work product.
At the very, very least, Mueller should have let the Grand Jury decide to hand over their material to Congress.

Mueller thinks he brought the office of Special Council back to where it belonged.
But in fact, he has made it obsolete.
Starr was an independent counsel Mueller was a special counsel working within the confines of the DOJ. The differences between their communications are not all due to the decisions the two men made. They had different levels of freedom to act and communicate due to the difference in those two roles.
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON
Cavemonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 03:41 AM   #6
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 19,368
Death to all who oppose Dems
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 04:07 AM   #7
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,225
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Mueller is kidding himself if he thinks he did the right thing.

Screw you, Bob Mueller.
Mueller did the job he was tasked with. Seemed to do a fine job, to me, despite the roadblocks.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 04:19 AM   #8
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 20,881
Originally Posted by applecorped View Post
Death to all who oppose Dems
A couple of centuries of liberal democratic traditions with their checks and balances are being **** on and torn up but its all good if you get to trigger some Dems.
__________________
'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman
Sideroxylon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 04:21 AM   #9
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 12,064
Originally Posted by applecorped View Post
Death to all who oppose Dems
Beep boop.
__________________
www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun!

Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.
kookbreaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 09:19 AM   #10
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,181
What I'm not at all sure on is why everyone seemed to agree that the Justice Department guideline, policy, whatever of not indicting a sitting president has the force of established judicial precedent when basically it's an opinion, and one that will tend to protect the president because he can hire or fire the AG, so there might be a bit of a conflict there.

I'm not sure of the difference between Starr and Mueller's remit but I wasn't aware there was a key distinction - independent counsel vs. special counsel under the auspices of the AG's office. How did that come about?

Oddly maybe I kind of come out on Trump's side on this - he can push the needle toward obstruction of justice but really, the AG is his appointee; he has at least de facto power to give the AG orders and probably de juris as well, although I'm not clear on the underlying constitutional clause or interpretation. Of course if it's to stop an investigation one can argue that is a criminal act, but essentially it sounds as if the president is insulated from actual federal charges while in office. IOW, he is above federal law. At least that is Mueller's understanding and I believe he is sincere in that regard.
Minoosh is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 09:49 AM   #11
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,761
Mueller did what everyone expected him to do: he delivered evidence of an impeachable offense to Congress. He didn't need to make a roadmap to impeachment, he provided a list of impeachable actions. It isn't his fault that Congress is unwilling to do their damned jobs and act on that information.
Beelzebuddy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 09:57 AM   #12
ahhell
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,335
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
What I'm not at all sure on is why everyone seemed to agree that the Justice Department guideline, policy, whatever of not indicting a sitting president has the force of established judicial precedent when basically it's an opinion, and one that will tend to protect the president because he can hire or fire the AG, so there might be a bit of a conflict there.
Not everyone agrees but it has been the Justice Departments policy for 40+ years, so absent a federal prosecutor willing to take a case to the supreme court despite having been fired, practically the issue is settled.
Quote:
I'm not sure of the difference between Starr and Mueller's remit but I wasn't aware there was a key distinction - independent counsel vs. special counsel under the auspices of the AG's office. How did that come about?
From what I gather, after the the Starr report the legislation that created the independent council was allowed to expire. The key difference being that the Independent Council was independent and could bring charges independent from the Justice department. As I understand it.
Quote:
Oddly maybe I kind of come out on Trump's side on this - he can push the needle toward obstruction of justice but really, the AG is his appointee; he has at least de facto power to give the AG orders and probably de juris as well, although I'm not clear on the underlying constitutional clause or interpretation. Of course if it's to stop an investigation one can argue that is a criminal act, but essentially it sounds as if the president is insulated from actual federal charges while in office. IOW, he is above federal law. At least that is Mueller's understanding and I believe he is sincere in that regard.
I think this is accurate. As to whether the President can be indicted by the justice department, that seems to be debated sincerely among legal scholars and there appears to be folks of both left and right opinions on either side of that debate. I think it was Gorsuch(maybe kavanaugh) that argued previously in some op ed or speech that congress should pass a law suspending the statute of limitations for the POTUS on account of this in order to clarify that ultimately presidents aren't above the law.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 10:31 AM   #13
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 34,813
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
Mueller did what everyone expected him to do: he delivered evidence of an impeachable offense to Congress. He didn't need to make a roadmap to impeachment, he provided a list of impeachable actions. It isn't his fault that Congress is unwilling to do their damned jobs and act on that information.
It's not actually Congress's job to impeach every arguably impeachable offense.

Impeachment is an option they have, which they may choose if and when they see fit. Most of Congress's job, in fact, consists of duties which they can fulfill just as much by omission as by commission. You can elect someone with the hope or expectation that they will impeach. You can even vote them out if they don't. But that's about it.

As far as I can tell, US legislators don't actually have a "job" per se. They have a role, and a bunch of optional duties. They don't have to show up for votes. They don't have to sponsor bills or sit on committees. They don't have to do anything, really, besides get elected and draw a paycheck.

Your Representative is maybe not doing the job you want them to do, of urging impeachment, but impeaching the president isn't actually a job they have to do or are supposed to be doing. It's an optional activity they can legitimately opt out of.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 11:21 AM   #14
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,069
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
Mueller did what everyone expected him to do: he delivered evidence of an impeachable offense to Congress. He didn't need to make a roadmap to impeachment, he provided a list of impeachable actions. It isn't his fault that Congress is unwilling to do their damned jobs and act on that information.
True, its not Mueller's fault that the republicans have the majority in the senate. And its also not his fault that they are a bunch of unprincipled scumbags.

But, he should have recognized the political landscape at the time (that the Senate would never convict Trump regardless of the evidence that was provided) and written his report appropriately.

The first line in the report should have been "Trump is guilty". The last line should have been "He's still guilty". Each page should have a big watermark that says "guilty as hell". Granted, the senate will still never vote to remove him from office, but at least people will have a clearer idea of where they really stand on "law and order". By not giving a simple, definitive statement on his guilt, he is giving cover to Trump and his supporters, to claim "See? The report never said I was guilty, so I must be innocent!".
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 11:22 AM   #15
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,069
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
It's not actually Congress's job to impeach every arguably impeachable offense.

Impeachment is an option they have, which they may choose if and when they see fit. Most of Congress's job, in fact, consists of duties which they can fulfill just as much by omission as by commission. You can elect someone with the hope or expectation that they will impeach. You can even vote them out if they don't. But that's about it.
Are you trying to bob the thread?
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 12:31 PM   #16
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 34,813
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Are you trying to bob the thread?
Absolutely not, and I hope you don't take it that way.

I'm trying to explain that "impeach on the advice of DOJ special counsel" is not actually a required duty of Congress. It is an option they have. Dismissing that option with little or no consideration is just as much doing the job as taking that option would be.

"Not doing their job" in this context means simply, "not doing what Beelzebuddy wants".

Beelzebuddy seems to be trying to set up something like, "special counsel has laid out the case for impeachment, and now Congress has to impeach".

I disagree with that. I think that special counsel has laid out the case for impeachment, and now Congress doesn't have to do anything.

Last edited by theprestige; 30th May 2019 at 12:32 PM.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 02:28 PM   #17
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 43,959
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Mueller did the job he was tasked with. Seemed to do a fine job, to me, despite the roadblocks.
Exactly. To prosecute or not to prosecute was never Mueller's call.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 02:31 PM   #18
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 43,959
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
Mueller did what everyone expected him to do: he delivered evidence of an impeachable offense to Congress. He didn't need to make a roadmap to impeachment, he provided a list of impeachable actions. It isn't his fault that Congress is unwilling to do their damned jobs and act on that information.
This.
If Mueller is a friend of Trump,then Donnie does not need any enemies.
I think people are angry and are aiming their fire on the wrong people.
They also have a mistaken idea of what Mueller was impowered to do.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 02:32 PM   #19
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 7,532
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
Mueller did what everyone expected him to do: he delivered evidence of an impeachable offense to Congress. He didn't need to make a roadmap to impeachment, he provided a list of impeachable actions. It isn't his fault that Congress is unwilling to do their damned jobs and act on that information.
I agree.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 02:33 PM   #20
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 43,959
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
True, its not Mueller's fault that the republicans have the majority in the senate. And its also not his fault that they are a bunch of unprincipled scumbags.

But, he should have recognized the political landscape at the time (that the Senate would never convict Trump regardless of the evidence that was provided) and written his report appropriately.

The first line in the report should have been "Trump is guilty". The last line should have been "He's still guilty". Each page should have a big watermark that says "guilty as hell". Granted, the senate will still never vote to remove him from office, but at least people will have a clearer idea of where they really stand on "law and order". By not giving a simple, definitive statement on his guilt, he is giving cover to Trump and his supporters, to claim "See? The report never said I was guilty, so I must be innocent!".
That was not the job Mueller was empowered to do. His job was to present the facts in a report, not decide on Trump's innocence or guilty. You just don't understand how the system works.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 02:52 PM   #21
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,902
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Absolutely not, and I hope you don't take it that way.

I'm trying to explain that "impeach on the advice of DOJ special counsel" is not actually a required duty of Congress. It is an option they have. Dismissing that option with little or no consideration is just as much doing the job as taking that option would be.

"Not doing their job" in this context means simply, "not doing what Beelzebuddy wants".

Beelzebuddy seems to be trying to set up something like, "special counsel has laid out the case for impeachment, and now Congress has to impeach".

I disagree with that. I think that special counsel has laid out the case for impeachment, and now Congress doesn't have to do anything.
But the issue is not "the DoJ's advice." The issue is Trump tried to obstruct the investigation into a foreign government interfering in the election. Why is it the right wingers in this thread don't think that is incredibly serious?

Congress would be shirking its balance of powers duty if it just lets that slide.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 03:11 PM   #22
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 34,813
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Congress would be shirking its balance of powers duty if it just lets that slide.
It is exactly this premise that I dispute.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 03:57 PM   #23
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,181
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
That was not the job Mueller was empowered to do. His job was to present the facts in a report, not decide on Trump's innocence or guilty. You just don't understand how the system works.
Or maybe he decided and was ethically bound not to express his opinion. If you're indicted, the prosecutor says you're guilty but you have the opportunity to defend yourself in court. Mueller wasn't going to say he's guilty in a report, no matter what he thought, because there was no indictment and hence no mechanism for Trump to deny the allegations (i.e., a trial). Which put the matter in Congress' hands. Arguably it puts the matter in the AG's hands, but the AG has the same problem, only more so because it's his boss.

Don't know if that convinces anyone, but it's my understanding.
Minoosh is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 04:02 PM   #24
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 34,813
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
Or maybe he decided and was ethically bound not to express his opinion. If you're indicted, the prosecutor says you're guilty but you have the opportunity to defend yourself in court. Mueller wasn't going to say he's guilty in a report, no matter what he thought, because there was no indictment and hence no mechanism for Trump to deny the allegations (i.e., a trial). Which put the matter in Congress' hands. Arguably it puts the matter in the AG's hands, but the AG has the same problem, only more so because it's his boss.



Don't know if that convinces anyone, but it's my understanding.
Given that Mueller is now going for the "I'm not saying, I'm just saying" play, it doesn't really convince me.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 04:19 PM   #25
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 20,881
He wouldn’t be saying anything at all were it not from the lies being told by Trump and his AG.
__________________
'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman
Sideroxylon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 05:18 PM   #26
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,344
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Given that Mueller is now going for the "I'm not saying, I'm just saying" play, it doesn't really convince me.
It's not a case of saying it now, he said it in the report too. The only difference is that more people get to hear the sound bite on the news than bothered to actually read it in the report, and likely hearing it makes it come across more effectively than just reading it.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2019, 05:57 AM   #27
ahhell
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,335
I can only assume that Mueller did something right. He's got trump saying that he's a terrible person and never trumper with some of the worst people in the world on his team while anti-trumpers are saying he's been covering for Trump for two years.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2019, 06:25 AM   #28
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 27,115
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Given that Mueller is now going for the "I'm not saying, I'm just saying" play, it doesn't really convince me.


And this was Mueller's biggest failing (in the current social and political climate). He should have known that a mature, nuanced appraisal of the situation would simply be ignored by the vested interests in the GOP, and misunderstood by the no-nothing crowd in Trump's base.

He wrote a report that charitably assumed a good faith effort by the readers to understand his results, but there was essentially zero chance that Trump et al. would ever read that report in good faith.

Mueller should have been more explicit, period.
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2019, 07:28 AM   #29
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,582
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
And this was Mueller's biggest failing (in the current social and political climate). He should have known that a mature, nuanced appraisal of the situation would simply be ignored by the vested interests in the GOP, and misunderstood by the no-nothing crowd: Trump's base.

He wrote a report that charitably assumed a good faith effort by the readers to understand his results, but there was essentially zero chance that Trump et al. would ever read that report in good faith.

Mueller should have been more explicit, period.
Fixed that for you!!!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2019, 07:30 AM   #30
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,582
Originally Posted by fuelair View Post
Fixed that for you!!!!!
Including the correct fecal color for trumpfs base of odiforous slime.
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2019, 08:57 AM   #31
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,069
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
Quote:
True, its not Mueller's fault that the republicans have the majority in the senate. And its also not his fault that they are a bunch of unprincipled scumbags.

But, he should have recognized the political landscape at the time (that the Senate would never convict Trump regardless of the evidence that was provided) and written his report appropriately.

The first line in the report should have been "Trump is guilty".
That was not the job Mueller was empowered to do. His job was to present the facts in a report, not decide on Trump's innocence or guilty. You just don't understand how the system works.
Yes, his job was to report the facts... and the fact was, Trump was guilty.

Now, if its a case of him not wanting to use the 'G' word (guilty) and wanted to try to remain more... detached, he could have said "Trump engaged in actions that would cause him to be prosecuted if he were not president", or "clear indication of illegal activity". Not quite as clear cut as "Guilty!" but still clearer than "The report didn't clear him so you have to read between the lines to understand that he did break the law".

And besides, who would actually complain even if he did overstep the bounds of what he was expected to do and said "Guilty"? The Democrats (and I suspect the vast majority of the population) would probably welcome such a blunt statement (since that's what a lot of people were expecting anyways). Trump and his supporters would raise a fuss of course, but then they're complaining anyways, so no loss there.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2019, 01:03 PM   #32
Lurch
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 777
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
Or maybe he decided and was ethically bound not to express his opinion. If you're indicted, the prosecutor says you're guilty but you have the opportunity to defend yourself in court. Mueller wasn't going to say he's guilty in a report, no matter what he thought, because there was no indictment and hence no mechanism for Trump to deny the allegations (i.e., a trial). Which put the matter in Congress' hands. Arguably it puts the matter in the AG's hands, but the AG has the same problem, only more so because it's his boss.

Don't know if that convinces anyone, but it's my understanding.
^ This is how I see it.

Mueller was tightly constrained by policy. The most damning thing he could do under such constraint is to say he could not absolve. Anything more would be seen as an unfair "charging" where no redress could be undertaken. Even to be as 'tepid' as not absolving was probably a bold step for as buttoned-down a straight shooter as Mueller.

And it's as clear as the Constitution lays out that only Congress retains the power to charge and convict. The DoJ has utterly declined any responsibility here because of that OLC *opinion* which has become policy. Were that *policy* to be revisited and overturned (and affirmed by the SC, one presumes), the legal system then could treat the President as it (nominally) does every other US citizen.
Lurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2019, 01:07 AM   #33
Norman Alexander
Philosopher
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 5,435
Quote:
The attorney general, William Barr, has said Robert Mueller “could have reached a decision” on whether Donald Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice – an implicit criticism of Mueller’s refusal to clear Trump of criminal activity.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...n-william-barr

Uh, he did. Didn't he? 10 counts of same.

Oh, you wanted Mueller to actually launch proceedings against Trump, did you, Mr AG? Expressly in contradiction to your own department's policy, and the constitution (let's not forget that). So why would you want him to do that? Was it because then you could publicly call him out for overstepping your boundaries, and thus discredit the whole investigation? Naw, you wouldn't be that nasty, would you. Of COURSE not.
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornetsí nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015

Last edited by Norman Alexander; 1st June 2019 at 01:09 AM.
Norman Alexander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2019, 09:22 AM   #34
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,582
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...n-william-barr

Uh, he did. Didn't he? 10 counts of same.

Oh, you wanted Mueller to actually launch proceedings against Trump, did you, Mr AG? Expressly in contradiction to your own department's policy, and the constitution (let's not forget that). So why would you want him to do that? Was it because then you could publicly call him out for overstepping your boundaries, and thus discredit the whole investigation? Naw, you wouldn't be that nasty, would you. Of COURSE not.
Of course Barr is a flaming bag of crap on our doorsteps!!!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2019, 12:35 PM   #35
Donal
Illuminator
 
Donal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,792
Mueller was given a very limited scope within which to work and was going to be a slave to precedent. We can argue over whether he should have gone about things the way he did, but I think he has been pretty clear on why he did them that way. The fact that he actually went after Flynn was a huge deal.

He was never going to indict a sitting president. He did, however, give Congress a pretty good case for impeachment.

Last edited by Donal; 3rd June 2019 at 12:36 PM.
Donal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2019, 12:59 PM   #36
Tommok
Student
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 42
I still don't get why the public is having Barr stand there and say he has made the decision that there was no obstruction.

I seemed clear from the getgo that this wasn't his job but rather a blatant attempt to shape the narrative before the report was even released.

I wish there was a public outcry about this very transparent and very blatant and very stupid maneuver, and I don't quite get why there isn't.

I think in most other civilized countries there would be.
Tommok is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th June 2019, 07:36 AM   #37
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 27,115
Originally Posted by Tommok View Post
I wish there was a public outcry about this very transparent and very blatant and very stupid maneuver, and I don't quite get why there isn't.


There is a public outcry about this. It's just confined almost entirely to the Democratic side of the body politic, and the people with the power to actually do something about it simply refuse to listen to them.


Or are you actually looking for crowds of people marching in the streets about it?
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:21 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.