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 , Mueller investigation , Robert Mueller , Trump controversies , Trump-Russia connections , William Barr

Closed Thread
Old 24th April 2019, 07:41 AM   #121
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 13,248
Originally Posted by Drewbot View Post
Is anyone tempering their hatred for Donald Trump, now that he has been investigated, and not charged with anything?

I know people like my brother were telling me that once the Mueller Report came out, i'd start hating him too, and I agreed that when it did, and he was charged with a crime, i'd turn on Trump in a heartbeat.

Now that he has not been charged, has anyone gone the other way?

It seems for 2 years Fox, Trump, and his supporters have been correct, and now that the Mueller report is out, no one is realizing that they have been fooled for two years.

The media and DNC have been trying to correct their galactically bad 2016 campaign for almost 3 years, is the fog of cognitive dissonance starting to lift?

Honesty please.
Doesn't it bother you that your President did everything he could to obstruct justice and was only halted by the disobedience of his underlings? Doesn't it bother you that his campaign were so willing to accept aid from a hostile foreign power and only managed to escape being charged due to being so bad at it?

Honesty please.
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1
uke2se 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 Back to Top
Old 24th April 2019, 07:44 AM   #122
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,477
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
Doesn't it bother you that your President did everything he could to obstruct justice and was only halted by the disobedience of his underlings? Doesn't it bother you that his campaign were so willing to accept aid from a hostile foreign power and only managed to escape being charged due to being so bad at it?

Honesty please.
How about instead of asking a non sequitur, you answer his question?
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th April 2019, 07:47 AM   #123
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 37,190
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
I can't find it now, but I saw data the other day which showed that the public approval of the impeachment of Nixon was very low (around 14%, IIRC) until it had been underway for a while. It's also worth bearing in mind that impeachment would uncover and make public even more evidence against Trump. One last point that I saw made elsewhere was there was a commentator who said "Americans wait for the TV show" - meaning that the majority of people aren't going to read the Mueller report. But a lot of them would watch impeachment hearings. So even the reiteration in an official setting of information that is now public would help to change hearts and minds.
I'm not sure this analysis makes sense with the timeline of the Nixon impeachment process.

The House of Representatives began its investigation to determine whether to impeach Nixon in February 1974. This was only a year after the Senate's initial investigation into Watergate. Five months later, in late July, the House Judiciary Committee approved three articles of impeachment. A week later, August 9, 1974, Nixon resigned. The House never even voted on whether to impeach.

It's possible that if the House picks up where Mueller left off, and continues to investigate Trump, people will get more entusiastic about impeachment. But Trump's been under investigation for two and a half years already. I'm not sure there's an untapped well of impeachment enthusiasm out there.

Plus, my view is that each president is a unique situation. Trump isn't Nixon. This isn't Watergate. It isn't even the same American public, nor the same America, nor the same world situation. Any parallels between two presidents thirty years apart are going to be shaky at best. Comparing presidents only really works to highlight the contrasts, in my opinion. It's a mistake to make predictions based on arbitrary similarities.

Also, I'm curious: That data about public approval for impeachment that you saw. Was it archival data that you dug up? Or was it brought to you by some current author, making the case that if the House starts the process, public enthusiasm will materialize as they go through it? Or did the data come to you some other way that I haven't enumerated?

Last edited by theprestige; 24th April 2019 at 07:49 AM.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th April 2019, 07:49 AM   #124
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 9,057
When it comes to Trump, everything seems to be priced-in already: I don't think there is anything Trump can do to lose base support except endorse a "liberal" agenda.

The biggest determinant will be the economy, which will continue to deteriorate.

So I think it won't matter if or if not Dems impeach Trump - it won't change minds.
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 Back to Top
Old 24th April 2019, 07:51 AM   #125
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,477
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
When it comes to Trump, everything seems to be priced-in already: I don't think there is anything Trump can do to lose base support except endorse a "liberal" agenda.

The biggest determinant will be the economy, which will continue to deteriorate.

So I think it won't matter if or if not Dems impeach Trump - it won't change minds.
What do you mean by deteriorate?
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th April 2019, 07:54 AM   #126
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 37,190
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
When it comes to Trump, everything seems to be priced-in already: I don't think there is anything Trump can do to lose base support except endorse a "liberal" agenda.
That's kind of how I see it.

Most of the complaints about Trump are about things we knew or reasonably suspected before the election. In order to really shift public opinion, he'd have to do something new that isn't already accounted for, or new information that isn't already accounted for would have to be produced.

Nixon actually released audio recordings that clearly established his complicity in Watergate. Then he resigned. I don't see Trump doing either of those things. Mainly because I see Trump as being neither as good a man as Nixon, nor as stupid a man as Nixon.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th April 2019, 08:09 AM   #127
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,545
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
No he doesn't. He can't fire Mueller directly, for instance.
Originally Posted by Drewbot View Post
He didn't fire Mueller...
...because the guy he told to fire Mueller refused. That's absolutely consistent with Belz's post.
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th April 2019, 08:10 AM   #128
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 9,057
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
What do you mean by deteriorate?
the last recession was 10 years ago, so another is due - and there is no indication that the Tax Cuts helped prolong the boost;
companies are hoarding money, not investing, which is a sign that they don't see growth.
Unemployment can only go up, since it is very low and has been for a while.
And without compromising with Dems, which neither Trump nor McConnell will do close to an election, no Kensian stimuli passage is likely to pass.
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 Back to Top
Old 24th April 2019, 08:14 AM   #129
Bogative
Graduate Poster
 
Bogative's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,221
Originally Posted by Crossbow View Post
If the first place, it would have been quite unlikely that Trump would have been charged with a crime regardless of what the Mueller investigation would have found. After all, it has been clearly stated that the Justice Department will not charge a sitting President with a crime.
During Barr's pre-SO report press conference, he was asked directly by a reporter if the reason Mueller had not indicted the president for obstruction was because of the DOJ's policy of not indicting a sitting president.

He said Mueller told him, Rosenstein and Principal Associate Deputy O'Callaghan "several times", during their March 5 meeting, the reason for not issuing indictments against the president was not based on DOJ policy.


ETA: Exchange can be seen here.

Last edited by Bogative; 24th April 2019 at 08:20 AM.
Bogative is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th April 2019, 08:19 AM   #130
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,936
Originally Posted by Bogative View Post
During Barr's pre-SO report press conference, he was asked directly by a reporter if the reason Mueller had not indicted the president for obstruction was because of the DOJ's policy of not indicting a sitting president.

He said Mueller told him, Rosenstein and Principal Associate Deputy O'Callaghan "on several occasions", during their March 5 meeting, the reason for not issuing indictments against the president was not based on DOJ policy.
Followed by the report itself saying otherwise.
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 Back to Top
Old 24th April 2019, 08:21 AM   #131
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 19,635
Talking

Clinton's Revenge won't happen
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 24th April 2019, 08:25 AM   #132
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 31,679
Originally Posted by Drewbot View Post
Is anyone tempering their hatred for Donald Trump, now that he has been investigated, and not charged with anything?

I know people like my brother were telling me that once the Mueller Report came out, i'd start hating him too, and I agreed that when it did, and he was charged with a crime, i'd turn on Trump in a heartbeat.

Now that he has not been charged, has anyone gone the other way?

It seems for 2 years Fox, Trump, and his supporters have been correct, and now that the Mueller report is out, no one is realizing that they have been fooled for two years.

The media and DNC have been trying to correct their galactically bad 2016 campaign for almost 3 years, is the fog of cognitive dissonance starting to lift?

Honesty please.
Your post contains a number of false assumptions and understandings. Several other people have pointed some of them out, but just to itemize them the best I can:
  • The purpose of the Mueller Report was not to indict Trump of anything, in fact, it explicitly couldn't. Therefore, not indicting Trump does not mean Trump did not commit crimes.
  • The report, in fact, outlines several crimes Trump, in fact, committed and other he attempted to commit.
  • The report makes the case that, while it is inappropriate for the DOJ to indict Trump, it is appropriate for Congress to investigate those crimes while Trump is president.
  • Failing that, the report indicates that Trump may be indicted on these charges once he is no longer president, assuming the statute of limitations have not run out. (I believe that happens at the end of 2021 or early 2022, after his first term has run out.)
So, honestly, the report says Trump was not charged because he had not committed crimes. Trump was not charged because he currently holds the office of President.

Is your "turn on Trump in a heartbeat" contingent on whether Mueller found that evidence that Trump committed a crime or merely upon the Special Council's ability to charge Trump with a crime? If the former, you should feel free to start turning now, because that's what the report is saying. If the latter, then that is pretty safe way of saying that you would never turn on Trump, no matter what the facts are.

Ugh. And I didn't even get into the stuff about Trump's supporters and Fox News (but, I repeat myself) being correct and unfooled for two years. Maybe next time.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th April 2019, 08:30 AM   #133
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 25,268
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Plus, my view is that each president is a unique situation. Trump isn't Nixon. This isn't Watergate. It isn't even the same American public, nor the same America, nor the same world situation. Any parallels between two presidents thirty years apart are going to be shaky at best. Comparing presidents only really works to highlight the contrasts, in my opinion. It's a mistake to make predictions based on arbitrary similarities.
Of course each situation is unique, and you'll notice that I didn't make a prediction based on arbitrary similarities between the two.

The point of the Nixon comparison is that the argument that Trump shouldn't be impeached because "it would divide the country" is spurious, at best. There are other arguments against that that I didn't go in to, of course, but the Nixon point demonstrates that just because something is unpopular when it starts doesn't imply that it will be unpopular when it ends.

Quote:
Also, I'm curious: That data about public approval for impeachment that you saw. Was it archival data that you dug up? Or was it brought to you by some current author, making the case that if the House starts the process, public enthusiasm will materialize as they go through it? Or did the data come to you some other way that I haven't enumerated?
It was archival data that someone else dug up, but without the argument that you've attached to it.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th April 2019, 08:35 AM   #134
Bogative
Graduate Poster
 
Bogative's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,221
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
Followed by the report itself saying otherwise.
I must've missed that part of the report, can you provide a link to the quote?
Bogative is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th April 2019, 08:44 AM   #135
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 25,268
Originally Posted by Bogative View Post
During Barr's pre-SO report press conference, he was asked directly by a reporter if the reason Mueller had not indicted the president for obstruction was because of the DOJ's policy of not indicting a sitting president.

He said Mueller told him, Rosenstein and Principal Associate Deputy O'Callaghan "several times", during their March 5 meeting, the reason for not issuing indictments against the president was not based on DOJ policy.


ETA: Exchange can be seen here.
Well, if Barr said it in his press conference, then it must be the truth.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th April 2019, 08:47 AM   #136
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 31,679
Originally Posted by Bogative View Post
I must've missed that part of the report, can you provide a link to the quote?
Page 214*:
Quote:
Third, we 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. The threshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person's conduct "constitutes a federal offense." U.S. Dep't of Justice, Justice Manual§ 9-27.220 (2018) (Justice Manual). Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In contrast , a prosecutor's judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought , affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator .5

The concerns about the fairness of such a determination would be heightened in the case of a sitting President, where a federal prosecutor's accusation of a crime, even in an internal report , could carry consequences that extend beyond the realm of criminal justice. OLC noted similar concerns about sealed indictments. Even if an indictment were sealed during the President's term , OLC reasoned, "it would be very difficult to preserve [an indictment 's] secrecy, " and if an indictment became public, "[t]he stigma and opprobrium" could imperil the President's ability to govern." 6 Although a prosecutor's internal report would not represent a formal public accusation akin to an indictment, the possibility of the report 's public disclosure and the absence of a neutral adjudicatory forum to review its findings counseled against potentially determining "that the person's conduct constitutes a federal offense ." Justice Manual § 9-27.220.
Which appears just above the portion where they say "If we couldn't find any evidence of the President committing a crime, we'd say so. ...we can't say so."

Quote:
Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice , we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards , however , we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President 's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.
* That's in PDF pages, it's also Volume II, page 2
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.

Last edited by Upchurch; 24th April 2019 at 08:54 AM.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th April 2019, 08:47 AM   #137
Fast Eddie B
Philosopher
 
Fast Eddie B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Mineral Bluff, GA
Posts: 5,740
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
So, honestly, the report says Trump was not charged because he had not committed crimes. Trump was not charged because he currently holds the office of President.
Did you mean to say, “the report doesn’t say Trump was not charged because he had not committed crimes.”

Stipulated that all the double negatives floating around can confuse anyone!
__________________
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that...I will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” - President Donald J. Trump, January 20, 2017.
"And it's, frankly, disgusting the way the press is able to write whatever they want to write. And people should look into it." - President Donald J. Trump, October 11, 2017.
Fast Eddie B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th April 2019, 08:50 AM   #138
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 31,679
Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B View Post
Did you mean to say, “the report doesn’t say Trump was not charged because he had not committed crimes.”

Stipulated that all the double negatives floating around can confuse anyone!
...wait ...doesn't say ...not charged....


Yes. That's what I mean ...I think ...maybe
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th April 2019, 09:09 AM   #139
Fast Eddie B
Philosopher
 
Fast Eddie B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Mineral Bluff, GA
Posts: 5,740
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
...wait ...doesn't say ...not charged....


Yes. That's what I mean ...I think ...maybe
I see now there’s a triple negative involved. These are the negatives that try men’s souls!
__________________
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that...I will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” - President Donald J. Trump, January 20, 2017.
"And it's, frankly, disgusting the way the press is able to write whatever they want to write. And people should look into it." - President Donald J. Trump, October 11, 2017.
Fast Eddie B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th April 2019, 09:14 AM   #140
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 6,364
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
How about instead of asking a non sequitur, you answer his question?
Someone obviously has no idea what the words "non sequitur" mean.
__________________
"Circumcision and death threats go together like milk and cookies." - William Parcher

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss
plague311 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th April 2019, 09:23 AM   #141
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
 
Crossbow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 12,715
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
Someone obviously has no idea what the words "non sequitur" mean.
Thanks much.

I was thinking about the same thing myself.
__________________
On 22 JUL 2016, Candidate Donald Trump in his acceptance speech: "There can be no prosperity without law and order."
On 05 FEB 2019, President Donald Trump said in his Sate of the Union Address: "If there is going to be peace and legislation, there cannot be war and investigation."
On 15 FEB 2019 'BobTheCoward' said: "I constantly assert I am a fool."
A man's best friend is his dogma.
Crossbow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th April 2019, 09:28 AM   #142
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,477
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
Someone obviously has no idea what the words "non sequitur" mean.
Good point. The question did not logically follow from the question asked, but the question itself is not a conclusion or statement, itself.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th April 2019, 09:35 AM   #143
Regnad Kcin
Philosopher
 
Regnad Kcin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 9,419
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
Russocurious?
Ha!
__________________
My heros are Alex Zanardi and Evelyn Glennie.
Regnad Kcin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th April 2019, 09:43 AM   #144
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 21,889
Trump Tweets

No Collusion, No Obstruction - there has NEVER been a President who has been more transparent. Millions of pages of documents were given to the Mueller Angry Dems, plus I allowed everyone to testify, including W.H. counsel. I didn’t have to do this, but now they want more.....

...Congress has no time to legislate, they only want to continue the Witch Hunt, which I have already won. They should start looking at The Criminals who are already very well known to all. This was a Rigged System - WE WILL DRAIN THE SWAMP!
Captain_Swoop 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 Back to Top
Old 24th April 2019, 09:46 AM   #145
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 37,190
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Page 214*:


Which appears just above the portion where they say "If we couldn't find any evidence of the President committing a crime, we'd say so. ...we can't say so."



* That's in PDF pages, it's also Volume II, page 2
That says that they didn't try to show that crimes were committed, because they weren't going to bring charges. It doesn't say why they weren't going to bring charges.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th April 2019, 09:58 AM   #146
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 13,851
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Trump Tweets

No Collusion, No Obstruction - there has NEVER been a President who has been more transparent.
Well, that's true.

His repeated attempts to lie are pretty damn transparent.
__________________
Ideologies separate us. Dreams and anguish bring us together. - Eugene Ionesco
Hellbound is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th April 2019, 10:09 AM   #147
Lurch
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 901
Originally Posted by Drewbot View Post
Is anyone tempering their hatred for Donald Trump, now that he has been investigated, and not charged with anything?

I know people like my brother were telling me that once the Mueller Report came out, i'd start hating him too, and I agreed that when it did, and he was charged with a crime, i'd turn on Trump in a heartbeat.

Now that he has not been charged, has anyone gone the other way?

It seems for 2 years Fox, Trump, and his supporters have been correct, and now that the Mueller report is out, no one is realizing that they have been fooled for two years.

The media and DNC have been trying to correct their galactically bad 2016 campaign for almost 3 years, is the fog of cognitive dissonance starting to lift?

Honesty please.
You've set an impossibly high bar for yourself.

Trump was *never* going to be indicted/charged for a crime simply because the OLC of the Justice Department guidline--which Mueller scrupulously observed-- that a sitting President cannot be indicted was in effect from the outset.

You are being either naive or disingenuous if an actual criminal *charge* was to be your threshold.

In regards to Trump himself, this was always a *political* process, not a legal one. How very convenient for you that a legally binding result for Trump did not obtain.
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 Back to Top
Old 24th April 2019, 10:16 AM   #148
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 37,190
Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
Well, that's true.

His repeated attempts to lie are pretty damn transparent.
Trump is basically a naked political singularity. The corruption and mendacity common to all politicians is not hidden behind the event horizon of establishment politics. I think a lot of people are horrified at Trump not because he's the same as other politicians, but because he doesn't have the political professionalism to keep that fact tastefully hidden behind a cloud of cigar smoke in a back room at the sausage-making factory.

---

In before the "naked Trump? Ew!" jokes. Be less predictable, people.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th April 2019, 10:22 AM   #149
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 31,679
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
That says that they didn't try to show that crimes were committed, because they weren't going to bring charges. It doesn't say why they weren't going to bring charges.
Yeah, it does. It's hard to narrow it down to single sentence, but to remove the extra language, it's something like:
Quote:
The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a speedy and public trial [where] An individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to [...] clear his name.

[A] prosecutor's judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought, affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator.

The concerns about the fairness [...]would be heightened in the case of a sitting President, where a federal prosecutor's accusation of a crime [...] could carry consequences that extend beyond the realm of criminal justice.
tl;dr: When a prosecutor decides a crime was committed, they can either announce it so the defendant can try to clear their name in court OR keep it quiet if they decide to not prosecute. A sitting President cannot be drug into federal criminal court to defend themselves, so a prosecutor cannot announce their crimes.

^ That is why they cannot indict the President, even if they decide he did crimes.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th April 2019, 10:36 AM   #150
Bogative
Graduate Poster
 
Bogative's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,221
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Page 214*:
9-27.220, nor any of what you posted mentions the OLC's policy that a sitting president cannot be indicted.


Quote:
Which appears just above the portion where they say "If we couldn't find any evidence of the President committing a crime, we'd say so. ...we can't say so."* That's in PDF pages, it's also Volume II, page 2
What you quoted also says, "this report does not conclude the president committed a crime." There is nothing preventing the Special Counsel from listing any crimes committed by the president in his report, only that he can't issue an indictment. In other words, Mueller could have pointed out any crimes and let Congress deal with them because he is unable to under current DOJ policy, but he didn't.

None of what you have provided states that Mueller didn't indict Trump because he couldn't, which was Crossbow and Beelzebuddy's original claims.
Bogative is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th April 2019, 10:44 AM   #151
Bogative
Graduate Poster
 
Bogative's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,221
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Well, if Barr said it in his press conference, then it must be the truth.
Oh, hey, looky there… we're back to "Bill Barr is a liar!!!111!1111!1!"

I look forward to your excuses when Mueller agrees with Barr in front of the Congress.
Bogative is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th April 2019, 10:50 AM   #152
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 31,679
Originally Posted by Bogative View Post
9-27.220, nor any of what you posted mentions the OLC's policy that a sitting president cannot be indicted.
It's in footnote 6, mentioned in the second paragraph, I believe.

Originally Posted by Bogative View Post
What you quoted also says, "this report does not conclude the president committed a crime." There is nothing preventing the Special Counsel from listing any crimes committed by the president in his report, only that he can't issue an indictment.
He basically did. That's what most of Volume II is. What he can't do is officially call Trump out without providing him a mechanism to clear his name. That's what impeachment is for and Mueller can't start that.


Originally Posted by Bogative View Post
In other words, Mueller could have pointed out any crimes and let Congress deal with them because he is unable to under current DOJ policy, but he didn't.
That is specifically what he did. I'm running to a meeting now, so I'll have to look up the exact citation later. (Maybe some nice sole can do it for me?)

Originally Posted by Bogative View Post
None of what you have provided states that Mueller didn't indict Trump because he couldn't, which was Crossbow and Beelzebuddy's original claims.
Read again, you've been misinformed about the report.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.

Last edited by Upchurch; 24th April 2019 at 10:52 AM.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th April 2019, 10:53 AM   #153
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 6,364
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
(Maybe some nice sole can do it for me?)
I refuse to do it, I'm putting my foot down.
__________________
"Circumcision and death threats go together like milk and cookies." - William Parcher

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss
plague311 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th April 2019, 10:54 AM   #154
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 31,679
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
I refuse to do it, I'm putting my foot down.
goddamn it. me and language are not friends today.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th April 2019, 10:57 AM   #155
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 25,268
Originally Posted by Bogative View Post
Oh, hey, looky there… we're back to "Bill Barr is a liar!!!111!1111!1!"
We're not so much "back" to it as "never left" it. Know why? Because he has lied. One example, and even that leaves things out.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th April 2019, 11:26 AM   #156
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,993
Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B View Post
I agree. It’s not clear cut. Which is why I just said I’m leaning towards impeachment. I certainly appreciate the arguments against.
I tend towards 'let justice be done' anyway (hence the screen name), so I'm inclined towards the House doing its duty even if they know full well the Senate will refuse to do theirs anyway.

I mean, the House should still work on and refine good legislation. No one suggests they stop doing that, even though it won't pass for the exact same reason that impeachment won't.

Trump is violating the law constantly, openly. He is still telling people to break the law. He is openly still obstructing justice.

The report shows that Trump et al knew about and welcomed an attack on the US. Even if that isn't criminal, it's still absolutely abhorrent. It is telling that his followers are celebrating that. This proves they at best put party above country. At best. Therefore, I'm disinclined to give any consideration to what they think on the matter of impeachment.

They'll not change anyway. They've in effect left their seat at the table empty. At some point the truth is more valuable than political concerns. Fearing the wrath of those who refuse the truth is a losing hand.

What Trump has done is wrong enough that trying to seem reasonable to unreasonable people has little value.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th April 2019, 12:12 PM   #157
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 21,863
Originally Posted by Bogative View Post
9-27.220, nor any of what you posted mentions the OLC's policy that a sitting president cannot be indicted.


What you quoted also says, "this report does not conclude the president committed a crime." There is nothing preventing the Special Counsel from listing any crimes committed by the president in his report, only that he can't issue an indictment. In other words, Mueller could have pointed out any crimes and let Congress deal with them because he is unable to under current DOJ policy, but he didn't.

None of what you have provided states that Mueller didn't indict Trump because he couldn't, which was Crossbow and Beelzebuddy's original claims.

Did you actually read the Mueller report. Mueller was very clear about a few things.

The first was he could not indict a sitting President because of longstanding DOJ policy.

The second was he could not exonerate the President although he would have like to have been able to.

And finally he would not incriminate the President as that was up to Congress.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.

Last edited by acbytesla; 24th April 2019 at 12:41 PM.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th April 2019, 12:25 PM   #158
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 31,679
Originally Posted by Bogative View Post
In other words, Mueller could have pointed out any crimes and let Congress deal with them because he is unable to under current DOJ policy, but he didn't.
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
That is specifically what he did. I'm running to a meeting now, so I'll have to look up the exact citation later. (Maybe some nice sole can do it for me?)
Okay, the section is too big for me to quote. It starts on page 368, or Volume II page 156, with the heading Overarching Factual Issues, which summarizes the behavior described in the previous 156-ish pages. Then, on page 371 or VII p159, the report begins a lengthy legal justification for (1) how Congress can use it's impeachment powers to deal with Presidential obstruction of justice and (2) how the statute of limitations applies to Presidents once they are no longer in office. It's under the heading LEGAL DEFENSES To THE APPLICATION OF OBSTRUCTION-OF-JUSTICE STATUTES To THE PRESIDENT. The section concludes with, page 392 or VII p180,
Quote:
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 with the fundamental principle of our government that "[n]o [person] in this country is so high that he is above the law."
tl;dr: Congress can investigate and prosecute obstruction charges against the President without the problems caused if the DOJ did it.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th April 2019, 02:25 PM   #159
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,151
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
When it comes to Trump, everything seems to be priced-in already: I don't think there is anything Trump can do to lose base support except endorse a "liberal" agenda.

I'm gonna disagree with you, there. Trump has already endorsed positions that fly in the face of what conservatives have claimed to want, and that didn't erode his base much. I'm pretty sure that if Trump came out and called for everything Sanders or AOC have been asking for, Trump's supporters would immediately claim those had always been his positions and we've always been at war with Eastasia.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th April 2019, 02:28 PM   #160
Bogative
Graduate Poster
 
Bogative's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,221
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Did you actually read the Mueller report. Mueller was very clear about a few things.

The first was he could not indict a sitting President because of longstanding DOJ policy.

The second was he could not exonerate the President although he would have like to have been able to.

And finally he would not incriminate the President as that was up to Congress.
I agree that all of these are true. However, this does not prove Mueller would have indicted the president only but for he was not allowed to by DOJ policy. As the prestige said earlier, Mueller's report only says that they are not going to bring charges, not why they are not going to bring charges as claimed earlier.
Bogative is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

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 01:23 AM.
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.