Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #12101  
Old 11-03-2019, 09:37 PM
steatopygia's Avatar
steatopygia is offline
Experimental FOC Test Pilot
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: North Idaho mostly
Posts: 2,084
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
...

I also think that it is likely that both Mueller and Barr know that Trump is compromised and that somewhere in there, the decision has been made to protect that secret because the alternative is the risk of war with Russia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc.

...

I don't see any real risk of war when the depth of Trump's allegiance to Putin is exposed (if ever). Putin comes out the winner either way. Either Trump continues to be his puppet or he gets to gloat that he ran the biggest con of the 21st century. Saudi Arabia is likely pissed at this point that they didn't see how easy it was to manipulate Trump earlier. Erdogan has his victory.
  #12102  
Old 11-04-2019, 08:17 AM
DesertDog is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Mesa, Ariz.
Posts: 6,168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
No. He doesn't give a shit who he goes to lunch with, and you have exactly zero evidence for the assertion that it is so. The guy is a decorated Marine, for fuck's sake. Do not try to tell me about his "distaste for conflict." He's already a hero.
Yet he managed to testify before Congress and not say, "Barr's redacted version of my report is, at best, a misleading version of the facts, at worst a fucking lie."
  #12103  
Old 11-04-2019, 12:25 PM
Ann Hedonia's Avatar
Ann Hedonia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,792
Quote:
Originally Posted by DesertDog View Post
Yet he managed to testify before Congress and not say, "Barr's redacted version of my report is, at best, a misleading version of the facts, at worst a fucking lie."
Yeah, this.

I was cutting Mueller slack until recently. I realize it is difficult to push back against a corrupt system. I realize that he had prime directive, probably issued by Barr, that he wasn’t allowed to say anything negative against Trump. Because there was no mechanism that would allow him to clear his name.
But funny how the FBI accused HRC of careless and negligent behavior even as they “cleared” her, which left her in the same position of being unable to clear her name.

But I think for a prosecutor to “decline to make a traditional prosecutorial judgement” was a dereliction of duty. And I do think there were underlying crimes, other than the obstruction, that were deserving of prosecution.

And all this whitewashing has emboldened Trump, who has interpreted all this as a mandate to do whatever he wants, regardless of legality. And I am surprised that a person like Mueller, who has invested his life in the reputation of federal law enforcement, is standing idly by while these institutions are destroyed. And I suspect he’s scared. He’s seen how he’s devasted the lives of Comey and McCabe, who are good conservative men who tried to make a stand. And I suspect he’s putting his pension and freedom ( the DOJ is still trying to drum up criminal charges against McCabe and Comey ) ahead of his principles. And while I can’t say I’d blame him, I hoped he had more integrity than that.

Old news, right? Not really. Most of my recent frustrations come down to the current events that lead to the current impeachment inquiry. I get frustrated because everyone thinks it a new situation when ITS THE SAME GODDAMN THING, pro-Russian Ukrainian interests attempting to infiltrate US politics in order to influence US foreign policy.

And Trump, Barr, Giuliani and are attempting to negate and discredit the entire Mueller report. Not just the No Obstruction, No Collusion part. They are trying to clear Manafort by making him out to be a victim of US foreign policy. They are trying to rewrite the narrative of Russian collusion to make Russian a victim of Ukraine, the Democrats and years of pro-Western Ukrainian policy.

And yet Mueller is silent, as always. It seems like he is unable or unwilling to defend his conclusions, which negates his work. And so it goes.

Last edited by Ann Hedonia; 11-04-2019 at 12:27 PM.
  #12104  
Old 11-04-2019, 01:01 PM
SteveG1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Van Nuys CA
Posts: 14,842
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
There's no logical or reasonable way to go down that trail. I've about decided we're so dumb as a nation we get exactly the government we deserve.



What are you talking about, holding back information? Are you really this ill informed?

What's being released now are the redacted portions of the report, which were redacted by Barr, not Mueller. Buzzfeed and other press members had to file a FOIA to get the redacted information -- which was granted and finally turned over by DOJ. I guess Barr isn't willing to quite ignore the courts he's fucking sworn to uphold. Yet.

How you and others can ignore Barr's role in this whole situation is gobsmacking to me.

I mean seriously, it's Mueller's fault that Barr lied about what Mueller's report contained? And you think Barr and Mueller conspired for this to happen, knowing everyone in the country would be so dumb and lazy, they would ignore what is actually written on the first page of the 448 (not 800) heavily redacted report? Literally the second paragraph, where he says, "The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systemic fashion." And in the sixth paragraph on page one where he said, "The investigation identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign."

Yeah, that sneaky Mueller. Just... wow.
I haven't forgotten Barr's role AT ALL.
  #12105  
Old 11-04-2019, 01:03 PM
SteveG1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Van Nuys CA
Posts: 14,842
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann Hedonia View Post
Yeah, I’m pretty pissed off at Robert “If we had found that the President did not rob the bank at gunpoint we would’ve said so” Mueller. I’m thinking he was in the bag for Trump all along. And now that Trump and the DOJ are trying to discredit the Russian interference conclusion, it’s like that asshole has dropped off the face of the earth.

There’s good stuff in the Mueller report. And I think Mueller knew that the best way to bury that stuff was to hide it inside an 800 page document that was so deliberately boring that no one could possibly read it. Then answer every question you are asked with “It’s somewhere in my report”. So I think Mueller has, by omission, has weighed in pretty solidly on the “Better Russian than Democrat” side of the equation.
This is what I was trying to say.
  #12106  
Old 11-04-2019, 01:05 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,783
Mueller needed to place himself in the gears and say that he could not make any determinations unless he heard from the president in person. Imagine a special investigation where the pres gets to opt out?

Not doing this was a failure in his function. A majority of americans voted against dt and they are paying his, tirnps and all the other salaries involved. They are all working for us. It is a betrayal of every voter.

I think that instead he basically punted, to "anyone but himself." "You know you need to impeach him but I'm a marine and I have my privacy to protect. Go to it"

Last edited by drad dog; 11-04-2019 at 01:06 PM.
  #12107  
Old 11-04-2019, 01:10 PM
SteveG1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Van Nuys CA
Posts: 14,842
Quote:
Originally Posted by steatopygia View Post
I don't see any real risk of war when the depth of Trump's allegiance to Putin is exposed (if ever). Putin comes out the winner either way. Either Trump continues to be his puppet or he gets to gloat that he ran the biggest con of the 21st century. Saudi Arabia is likely pissed at this point that they didn't see how easy it was to manipulate Trump earlier. Erdogan has his victory.
Putin has already gotten much of what he wanted. So did MBS and Erdogan.
  #12108  
Old 11-04-2019, 03:25 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,602
Quote:
Originally Posted by drad dog View Post
Mueller needed to place himself in the gears and say that he could not make any determinations unless he heard from the president in person. Imagine a special investigation where the pres gets to opt out?

Not doing this was a failure in his function. A majority of americans voted against dt and they are paying his, tirnps and all the other salaries involved. They are all working for us. It is a betrayal of every voter.

I think that instead he basically punted, to "anyone but himself." "You know you need to impeach him but I'm a marine and I have my privacy to protect. Go to it"
Legally, his function doesn't exist (as you envision).

There is no clause in the Constitution for impeachment spearheads. Mueller's role existed as a minimally modified Federal attorney general, working at the order of the President, under the guidelines and under the same command structure as any other Federal attorney general.

That role is problematic at a fundamental level. If the executive is unimpeachable (i.e., trustworthy and honest), then the role is not called for and somewhat useless. If he is corrupt, then having that role be a subordinate to him immediately nullifies the role in nearly all instances.

But, likewise, giving Congress free reign to create and operate their own "impeach agents" over the Executive could be vastly misused and make the Executive a meaningless role, just a toady to Congress.

More fundamentally (I would say) is that the role is simply not
meant to exist and should not (under our Constitution) exist. That it does is an artifact of things having gone wrong. That such a thing had to be created is, in essence, already a Constitutional crisis, it's just one that happened before our time and became somewhat acceptable because it mostly worked in the case of Nixon.

There is, for example, the Borda Count, a simple system of performing a ranked vote.

If you give the Borda Count to a bunch of honest, upstanding people who are quite happy to abide by the outcome of the vote, whatever that may be, then it is a completely decent and workable voting method. Whereas, if you give it to people who will play games to get their way, then the system immediately breaks down and it creates a race to the bottom.

The fundamental concept of a governmental representative is that it is a person whom the people know well enough and respect well enough that they are willing to delegate control of their region to that person. Giving that sort of power and control to someone who is not trustworthy would be stupid, after all.

Of course, this was a time when the voting base is a small group of educated land-owners who are all in close contact and in the same social circles, knowing who the crazies, rogues, etc. are and who are the people who are quite boring and reliable. And, we should note, anyone who is too much of an ass has a pretty high chance of getting a sword stuck through his chest.

During the campaign, when Trump insulted the one judge's Mexican heritage, for example, it probably would have been completely expected that the judge would proceed to challenge Trump to a duel, giving Trump a 50/50 chance of having the blood in his body necessary to continue campaigning - if this had been the 18th century.

The fundamental issue of our political issues today is not that we're using the electoral college instead of the popular vote or that we haven't found the right criteria for a head impeachment investigator, it's that we're not electing people who are trustworthy. We should be able to trust that our representatives in government will, of their own, impeach a corrupt President. There should need to be a quasi-fourth branch of government to investigate and freely choose to declare whether or not the President has committed impeachable acts because Congress is so full of craven and corrupt human facades that they can't muster up the strength of character to defend the Constitution.

If you're at that point, Mueller is not the problem.

Last edited by Sage Rat; 11-04-2019 at 03:27 PM.
  #12109  
Old 11-04-2019, 07:55 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,783
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
Legally, his function doesn't exist (as you envision).

There is no clause in the Constitution for impeachment spearheads. Mueller's role existed as a minimally modified Federal attorney general, working at the order of the President, under the guidelines and under the same command structure as any other Federal attorney general.

That role is problematic at a fundamental level. If the executive is unimpeachable (i.e., trustworthy and honest), then the role is not called for and somewhat useless. If he is corrupt, then having that role be a subordinate to him immediately nullifies the role in nearly all instances.

But, likewise, giving Congress free reign to create and operate their own "impeach agents" over the Executive could be vastly misused and make the Executive a meaningless role, just a toady to Congress.

More fundamentally (I would say) is that the role is simply not
meant to exist and should not (under our Constitution) exist. That it does is an artifact of things having gone wrong. That such a thing had to be created is, in essence, already a Constitutional crisis, it's just one that happened before our time and became somewhat acceptable because it mostly worked in the case of Nixon.

There is, for example, the Borda Count, a simple system of performing a ranked vote.

If you give the Borda Count to a bunch of honest, upstanding people who are quite happy to abide by the outcome of the vote, whatever that may be, then it is a completely decent and workable voting method. Whereas, if you give it to people who will play games to get their way, then the system immediately breaks down and it creates a race to the bottom.

The fundamental concept of a governmental representative is that it is a person whom the people know well enough and respect well enough that they are willing to delegate control of their region to that person. Giving that sort of power and control to someone who is not trustworthy would be stupid, after all.

Of course, this was a time when the voting base is a small group of educated land-owners who are all in close contact and in the same social circles, knowing who the crazies, rogues, etc. are and who are the people who are quite boring and reliable. And, we should note, anyone who is too much of an ass has a pretty high chance of getting a sword stuck through his chest.

During the campaign, when Trump insulted the one judge's Mexican heritage, for example, it probably would have been completely expected that the judge would proceed to challenge Trump to a duel, giving Trump a 50/50 chance of having the blood in his body necessary to continue campaigning - if this had been the 18th century.

The fundamental issue of our political issues today is not that we're using the electoral college instead of the popular vote or that we haven't found the right criteria for a head impeachment investigator, it's that we're not electing people who are trustworthy. We should be able to trust that our representatives in government will, of their own, impeach a corrupt President. There should need to be a quasi-fourth branch of government to investigate and freely choose to declare whether or not the President has committed impeachable acts because Congress is so full of craven and corrupt human facades that they can't muster up the strength of character to defend the Constitution.

If you're at that point, Mueller is not the problem.
Mueller had a job, powers to do it, and the opportunity to make himself matter.

If he let the chance slip by it wasn't because he couldn't do anything. He was Ok with sliding into the muck to maintain his comfort and privacy.

Plenty of people who voted against dt were watching Mueller decline to interview dt and saying wtf. We were paying the bills for this, were being treated like the pres was not our pres, but only that of his base, and ...no interview!?!?

We should never forget Hillary! (I don't mean her emails. I mean 11 hours of testimony from her vs 0 from the actual president.)
  #12110  
Old 11-04-2019, 08:26 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,568
Quote:
Originally Posted by drad dog View Post
Mueller had a job, powers to do it, and the opportunity to make himself matter.
If he let the chance slip by it wasn't because he couldn't do anything. ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by DesertDog View Post
Yet he managed to testify before Congress and not say, "Barr's redacted version of my report is, at best, a misleading version of the facts, at worst a fucking lie."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann Hedonia View Post
...I was cutting Mueller slack until recently. I realize it is difficult to push back against a corrupt system. I realize that he had prime directive, probably issued by Barr, that he wasn’t allowed to say anything negative against Trump. Because there was no mechanism that would allow him to clear his name.
But funny how the FBI accused HRC of careless and negligent behavior even as they “cleared” her, which left her in the same position of being unable to clear her name.

But I think for a prosecutor to “decline to make a traditional prosecutorial judgement” was a dereliction of duty. And I do think there were underlying crimes, other than the obstruction, that were deserving of prosecution.

And all this whitewashing has emboldened Trump, who has interpreted all this as a mandate to do whatever he wants, regardless of legality. And I am surprised that a person like Mueller, who has invested his life in the reputation of federal law enforcement, is standing idly by while these institutions are destroyed.

...And yet Mueller is silent, as always. It seems like he is unable or unwilling to defend his conclusions, which negates his work. And so it goes.
I agree with these points. Taken all in all, Mueller could have done more to stand up for the rule of law. His silence gives comfort to those asserting that a president is above the law.

I'm sorry that Aspenglow objects to these views, as I do respect Aspenglow a great deal. I can't agree with the proposition that Mueller's undoubted courage as a Marine confers immunity from being criticized for his choices, though.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
...The fundamental concept of a governmental representative is that it is a person whom the people know well enough and respect well enough that they are willing to delegate control of their region to that person. Giving that sort of power and control to someone who is not trustworthy would be stupid, after all.

Of course, this was a time when the voting base is a small group of educated land-owners who are all in close contact and in the same social circles, knowing who the crazies, rogues, etc. are and who are the people who are quite boring and reliable. And, we should note, anyone who is too much of an ass has a pretty high chance of getting a sword stuck through his chest.

The fundamental issue of our political issues today is not that we're using the electoral college instead of the popular vote or that we haven't found the right criteria for a head impeachment investigator, it's that we're not electing people who are trustworthy. We should be able to trust that our representatives in government will, of their own, impeach a corrupt President. ...
It's a whole other thread, of course, but we can no longer follow the example of the framers, who on no account wanted to insult George Washington by hedging him about with requirements and mandated oversight of his affairs.

As you point out, for many decades we have not had the luxury of assuming that a presidential candidate will be honest and honorable. So we need a comprehensive set of requirements that all future presidents must meet---including being subject to full investigation of crimes during their terms, with possible prosecution to follow their leaving office, unprotected by any statutes of limitations.
  #12111  
Old 11-04-2019, 09:09 PM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 17,225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
...So we need a comprehensive set of requirements that all future presidents must meet---including being subject to full investigation of crimes during their terms, with possible prosecution to follow their leaving office, unprotected by any statutes of limitations.
I don't think you're wrong, but... serious questions:
  • They must meet these requirements or what?
  • Being subject to full investigation by whom?
  • Prosecution by whom?
For such regulation to work, both sides have to submit to it. We're seeing right now what happens when one side disregards the law, and the other side can't or won't enforce it.
  #12112  
Old 11-04-2019, 10:05 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,602
Quote:
Originally Posted by drad dog View Post
Mueller had a job, powers to do it, and the opportunity to make himself matter.

If he let the chance slip by it wasn't because he couldn't do anything. He was Ok with sliding into the muck to maintain his comfort and privacy.

Plenty of people who voted against dt were watching Mueller decline to interview dt and saying wtf. We were paying the bills for this, were being treated like the pres was not our pres, but only that of his base, and ...no interview!?!?

We should never forget Hillary! (I don't mean her emails. I mean 11 hours of testimony from her vs 0 from the actual president.)
If Mueller had forced Trump to testify, Trump would either have lied his ass off, claimed to not remember anything, or pleaded the 5th all of the way through. In the first instance, Mueller could have added perjury to obstruction of justice and that will would have simply amounted to an "add on crime".

Clinton was never going to get impeached for getting a blowjob and Trump was never going to be impeached for being a whiny liar and bully. These are fundamental components of these individuals that the general public knew and expected going in. Mueller would have been wasting his time.

If you can get Al Capone on taxes, great. But getting him on jaywalking, when the guy can easily afford the ticket is a waste of effort.

Mueller's one shot to get Trump was to flip Paul Manafort. The instant that fell through, Mueller called it a day and stopped fighting for the sit-down with Trump. If there was something more that he could have done to get Manafort to flip, I don't know. Probably nothing legal.

Beyond that, all he could do was hand off all the other crimes he saw and hope that someone else would find the path back to Trump and be in a position to do something about it.
  #12113  
Old 11-04-2019, 10:06 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 23,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThelmaLou View Post
I don't think you're wrong, but... serious questions:
  • They must meet these requirements or what?
  • Being subject to full investigation by whom?
  • Prosecution by whom?
I've been making noises about the prospects for reform in this area as well:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu
As I've said before, if our governmental system survives this episode, one consequence is going to be the development of a lot more explicit legislative checks on the executive, and probably judiciary checks on the legislature as well. We'll have actual laws, rather than just time-honored "protocols", requiring the POTUS to release his tax returns and blind-trust his assets and conform to a schedule for filling administrative positions and so forth.

Last edited by Kimstu; 11-04-2019 at 10:06 PM.
  #12114  
Old 11-04-2019, 10:14 PM
steatopygia's Avatar
steatopygia is offline
Experimental FOC Test Pilot
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: North Idaho mostly
Posts: 2,084
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
I've been making noises about the prospects for reform in this area as well:
I've also mentioned this. For a party that says that are for deregulation, republicans inspire a whole lotta laws.
  #12115  
Old 11-04-2019, 10:53 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,602
After Nixon, we required the government to start releasing documentation of everything that they were working on, which lobbyists were paying who, etc.

The end result of that is that we know exactly how much money Nancy Pelosi and Paul Ryan were making from various sources and...how much does that influence your vote? If Ryan took none, while Pelosi continued to bring in millions from various sources, would you think, "Naughty Nancy, I will vote for Paul instead of you!"? (Presuming, obviously, that the two of them were competing in your district against each other.)

Look, for example, at Joe Ganim. As the judges said when he tried to get reinstated to the Connecticut State Bar, "Allowing an applicant to be readmitted to the practice of law following a conviction on 16 counts of racketeering, conspiracy, extortion, mail fraud, bribery and filing false income tax returns without any apology, expression of remorse, or explanation, and with only a vague acceptance of an unspecified event, simply would set the bar for readmission too low in the state, and we are unwilling to do that." But the voters? Knowing the above, they went for it and elected the guy. They don't care. It's not a Republican thing nor a Democratic thing, the voters consider lawkeeping to be the problem for the police and don't give a rat's ass if their guy is a crook, so long as he's their guy.

We can make it easier to arrest the President and other politicians, but that won't clean the office any more than it has kept Netanyahu out of his position. In a sense, it only filters for the ones who are smart enough to get away with it and it opens the door for someone to pull a J Edgar Hoover and use their investigative force for ill-will.

It may be that it is possible to arrange things in such a way that you can get that investigative force set up so that it is trustworthy and will stay trustworthy, but if you have that apparatus to find and filter for trustworthy people, why not use it on the rest of government as well?

Policing is all well and dandy but why stop at that level if you can do better? Here is a list of things that would reduce corruption at the political level:

1) Restore the voice vote.
2) Make voting districts competitive.
3) Give people a holiday to vote on, so they have time to look into the candidates.
4) Populate the electoral college with non-partisan members and give them the job of head-hunting and choosing the candidates. Give them access to sensitive and private information about the candidates, to take away from that whatever they choose.
5) Reinstate the OTA.
6) Ban TV cameras from Congress.
7) Popularize the concept that the job of the citizens is to elect the person who they would trust was telling the truth if that person told them that they were wrong about what they thought was the right answer.
  #12116  
Old 11-05-2019, 05:57 AM
psychonaut is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 6,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
If Mueller had forced Trump to testify, Trump would either have lied his ass off, claimed to not remember anything, or pleaded the 5th all of the way through. In the first instance, Mueller could have added perjury to obstruction of justice and that will would have simply amounted to an "add on crime".

Clinton was never going to get impeached for getting a blowjob and Trump was never going to be impeached for being a whiny liar and bully.
But Clinton was impeached for getting a blowjob—or more precisely, for lying about getting a blowjob. If lying about something that politically inconsequential was enough for impeachment, then it stands to reason that yes, Trump could have been impeached for "being a whiny liar", with the proviso (as you already noted) that the lie was effected during a prosecutorial interview.
  #12117  
Old 11-05-2019, 10:51 AM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 17,225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
If Mueller had forced Trump to testify....
There's no way on earth that Mueller could possibly have forced The Donald to testify. What reality are you thinking of? Not the current one.
  #12118  
Old 11-05-2019, 11:12 AM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,602
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThelmaLou View Post
There's no way on earth that Mueller could possibly have forced The Donald to testify. What reality are you thinking of? Not the current one.
He could have fought it up through the Supremes. Current precedent would suggest that the President does have to sit for an interview. I would be surprised if the court decided otherwise.
  #12119  
Old 11-05-2019, 11:13 AM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,602
Quote:
Originally Posted by psychonaut View Post
But Clinton was impeached for getting a blowjob—or more precisely, for lying about getting a blowjob. If lying about something that politically inconsequential was enough for impeachment, then it stands to reason that yes, Trump could have been impeached for "being a whiny liar", with the proviso (as you already noted) that the lie was effected during a prosecutorial interview.
If Trump was completely innocent on Russia, than lying about it was politically inconsequential.
  #12120  
Old 11-05-2019, 11:31 AM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 22,072
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThelmaLou View Post
There's no way on earth that Mueller could possibly have forced The Donald to testify. What reality are you thinking of? Not the current one.
They could have forced him had they taken it to the Supremes. If the Supremes forced Nixon to turn over his tapes I can't see how they'd rule different now. It would be 9-0 or 8-1 depending on Kavanaugh's sobriety. Of course he'd plead the fifth or say he couldn't recall for each and every question.

Mueller had a chance and he blew it. Perhaps his Republican loyalty outweighed his patriotism.
  #12121  
Old 11-05-2019, 11:36 AM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 24,300
Wonder if Mueller came into this thing completely outFoxed, i.e., believing the Seth Rich crap, believing the Ukranian server crap, believing the Hannity-spun conspiracy theories that he's watched for years?
  #12122  
Old 11-05-2019, 12:22 PM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 17,225
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
They could have forced him had they taken it to the Supremes. If the Supremes forced Nixon to turn over his tapes I can't see how they'd rule different now. It would be 9-0 or 8-1 depending on Kavanaugh's sobriety. Of course he'd plead the fifth or say he couldn't recall for each and every question.

Mueller had a chance and he blew it. Perhaps his Republican loyalty outweighed his patriotism.
My bold.

So, in effect, he would not have testified (i.e., revealed anything meaningful) at all.

I stand by my statement: Supremes or no Supremes, there is no way Mueller could have forced DJT to sit in a chair and REVEAL ANYTHING OF CONSEQUENCE. Mueller might have gotten him into the room and into the chair (but if the SCOTUS had to get involved, we'd still be waiting for that to happen...), but Mueller could not force him to say anything of consequence.
  #12123  
Old 11-05-2019, 12:31 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,632
I'd be much more willing to believe that Trump, under oath, would have lied about something. He'd have done that before pleading the fifth to every single question.
  #12124  
Old 11-05-2019, 12:55 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,589
Nothing has done more to discourage me from having faith in our ability to overcome the cancer that has overtaken our country than the recent comments in this thread. Congratulations. You're viewing this situation through the partisan lens that Trump and Putin want you to, and can't any longer recognize a true patriot when he's standing right in front of you.

There are a number of false assertions made in recent posts that I feel it is important to correct.

The Mueller report is 448 pages, not 800. It is heavily redacted and footnoted, so actual reading, if you're just skimming and ignoring footnotes, is probably less than 300 pages. Not really a huge burden. It is clear, concise and frankly, rather short considering the enormous course of corrupt conduct contained in its pages. The hardest thing for me in reading it was to keep all the Russians straight.

There is nothing buried in the corners. Mueller makes it crystal clear who was subverting our 2016 election, right down to server numbers and where they were located, as well as the numerous interactions between Russians and members of the Trump campaign. His report is plain as can be -- if you read it.

Mueller's pension is not, and never was, at risk. He's been collecting it since 2013, when he retired from the FBI.

Mueller did not have unlimited powers. He was a Special Counsel, not an Independent Prosecutor. He always answered to the DOJ, and required protection by Jeff Sessions, then Rod Rosenstein and finally Bill Barr to complete it. He didn't stop the investigation when he couldn't flip Manafort. He stopped it when Bill Barr took over as AG. Curious, that.

It is true that Mueller could have subpoenaed Trump to testify. The resultant court action would have taken years to wend its way through the courts for a dispositive ruling -- likely past 2021. He made a hard call, and I believe it was the right one. Again, anyone who actually reads his report will not doubt that he had the goods on Trump, with or without Trump's testimony. It is Barr who formed the false narrative.

Mueller does not care about lunches with his Republican buddies. He risked his standing with them the minute he took on the probe, and he didn't demur. His report shows he shirked at nothing. There is no logic in believing it was easier to hide things by actually publishing them than by simply not publishing them at all. Such thinking is about as Orwellian as it gets.

Mueller's public statement to correct Barr's lies was clear, as was his testimony under oath. I watched both in full. There was no ambiguity on the big questions. He's not flashy, but the words were said.

As a former long-term civil servant myself, I must add that it is beyond offensive to see someone accused of partisanship as a motivation for his actions when nothing could be further from the reality of the requirements for his work. Mueller ran the FBI for 12 years in an entirely non-partisan way. There is zero reason to think his ethics changed during his probe, and I am embarrassed for those who attribute such motives without proof of any kind -- especially if they haven't even bothered to read the report, as it is obvious many here who are throwing up shit on Mueller's reputation have not.

I've nothing more to say on the subject. It's obvious how invested some here are in believing what they choose. Can't say it's a great day for fighting ignorance, though.
  #12125  
Old 11-05-2019, 01:01 PM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 24,370
Well said, Aspenglow.
  #12126  
Old 11-05-2019, 01:06 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 24,300
Your assumption that Mueller cannot, in any way be corrupted is merely that: an assumption, regardless if it is stated as a fact.

Fact: If Mueller thought Trump guilty of crimes, he could have said so. He could have appeared at the meetings as a private citizen, and not one constrained by rules he is accepting to follow. As you said - he already has his pension. Why not?

Sorry, Aspen, but admitting the possibility that Mueller may have had his own internal demons to battle is more "fighting ignorance" than a blanket assertion that merely because he is a civil servant "it is beyond offensive to see someone accused of partisanship as a motivation for his actions when nothing could be further from the reality of the requirements for his work."

Partisanship isn't required. But it very well may have helped Mueller pull his punches.

The ex FBI head is literally investigating the President stealing our fucking votes, and he can't go to Congress and say "Hey, the President is guilty of this shit" when he finds out the President is guilty of this shit? And he cites a fucking memorandum as his justification? That's just crap, and if your argument is as to why Mueller pulled his punches is because he's blinded by the rules and procedures (willfully so?) to not see, or even comment on, the overall picture, then he, eventually, was useless except as a compiler of crimes, and thereby guilty of "partisanship" of yet another sort.

Last edited by JohnT; 11-05-2019 at 01:08 PM.
  #12127  
Old 11-05-2019, 01:15 PM
steronz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 5,345
Do you honestly think it would have made any difference if he had come out and said any of that?
  #12128  
Old 11-05-2019, 01:17 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 24,300
Yes, it would have. The fact that he didn't is why we're having this sidebar, is it not?

I mean, the Trump/Zelensky call was one day after the Mueller testimony. Do you think the call happens if Mueller unequivocally said the above? Probably not, for, as reported, Trump was emboldened by Mueller's performance.

Hell, it could even be argued that had Mueller been more forceful, Trump wouldn't have betrayed our allies in yet another phone call made post-Mueller hearing.

Last edited by JohnT; 11-05-2019 at 01:22 PM.
  #12129  
Old 11-05-2019, 01:24 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 24,300
That article is dated July 24th. The call happened on July 25th. Seriously, it's not that hard to figure out that Mueller's performance emboldened Trump to do as he did subsequently, and it's not hard to see the whistleblowers seeing themselves as people coming out to do the job Mueller failed to do - to bring this criminal to account.

Last edited by JohnT; 11-05-2019 at 01:25 PM.
  #12130  
Old 11-05-2019, 01:36 PM
kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 32,808
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
Nothing has done more to discourage me from having faith in our ability to overcome the cancer that has overtaken our country than the recent comments in this thread. Congratulations. You're viewing this situation through the partisan lens that Trump and Putin want you to, and can't any longer recognize a true patriot when he's standing right in front of you.

There are a number of false assertions made in recent posts that I feel it is important to correct.

The Mueller report is 448 pages, not 800. It is heavily redacted and footnoted, so actual reading, if you're just skimming and ignoring footnotes, is probably less than 300 pages.
To put it in perspective, only two Harry Potter novels came in under 300 pages. And four of them topped 600.

Quote:
Not really a huge burden. It is clear, concise and frankly, rather short considering the enormous course of corrupt conduct contained in its pages. The hardest thing for me in reading it was to keep all the Russians straight.
You should approach it the way Linus Van Pelt approached Dostoyevsky...

Quote:
There is nothing buried in the corners. Mueller makes it crystal clear who was subverting our 2016 election, right down to server numbers and where they were located, as well as the numerous interactions between Russians and members of the Trump campaign. His report is plain as can be -- if you read it.

Mueller's pension is not, and never was, at risk. He's been collecting it since 2013, when he retired from the FBI.

Mueller did not have unlimited powers. He was a Special Counsel, not an Independent Prosecutor. He always answered to the DOJ, and required protection by Jeff Sessions, then Rod Rosenstein and finally Bill Barr to complete it. He didn't stop the investigation when he couldn't flip Manafort. He stopped it when Bill Barr took over as AG. Curious, that.

It is true that Mueller could have subpoenaed Trump to testify. The resultant court action would have taken years to wend its way through the courts for a dispositive ruling -- likely past 2021. He made a hard call, and I believe it was the right one. Again, anyone who actually reads his report will not doubt that he had the goods on Trump, with or without Trump's testimony. It is Barr who formed the false narrative.

Mueller does not care about lunches with his Republican buddies. He risked his standing with them the minute he took on the probe, and he didn't demur. His report shows he shirked at nothing. There is no logic in believing it was easier to hide things by actually publishing them than by simply not publishing them at all. Such thinking is about as Orwellian as it gets.

Mueller's public statement to correct Barr's lies was clear, as was his testimony under oath. I watched both in full. There was no ambiguity on the big questions. He's not flashy, but the words were said.

As a former long-term civil servant myself, I must add that it is beyond offensive to see someone accused of partisanship as a motivation for his actions when nothing could be further from the reality of the requirements for his work. Mueller ran the FBI for 12 years in an entirely non-partisan way. There is zero reason to think his ethics changed during his probe, and I am embarrassed for those who attribute such motives without proof of any kind -- especially if they haven't even bothered to read the report, as it is obvious many here who are throwing up shit on Mueller's reputation have not.

I've nothing more to say on the subject. It's obvious how invested some here are in believing what they choose. Can't say it's a great day for fighting ignorance, though.
. . .

What are you looking here for? Aspenglow has advanced her position admirably, and I can’t even add a smartass remark at this point.
  #12131  
Old 11-05-2019, 01:39 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 24,300
I can add that her assertion that civil servants are non-partisan is merely that: An assertion, not a fact.

I can also assert that a white, 70-something Republican man retired since 2012 has very likely filled his head with Fox News crap for 5 years prior to being called as a "safe choice" to handle the investigation. That, too, may not be factual, but in my experience (as Aspen expects us to depend upon hers), that's a strong possibility.

Last edited by JohnT; 11-05-2019 at 01:40 PM.
  #12132  
Old 11-05-2019, 02:12 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,783
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
If Mueller had forced Trump to testify, Trump would either have lied his ass off, claimed to not remember anything, or pleaded the 5th all of the way through. In the first instance, Mueller could have added perjury to obstruction of justice and that will would have simply amounted to an "add on crime".

Clinton was never going to get impeached for getting a blowjob and Trump was never going to be impeached for being a whiny liar and bully. These are fundamental components of these individuals that the general public knew and expected going in. Mueller would have been wasting his time.

If you can get Al Capone on taxes, great. But getting him on jaywalking, when the guy can easily afford the ticket is a waste of effort.

Mueller's one shot to get Trump was to flip Paul Manafort. The instant that fell through, Mueller called it a day and stopped fighting for the sit-down with Trump. If there was something more that he could have done to get Manafort to flip, I don't know. Probably nothing legal.

Beyond that, all he could do was hand off all the other crimes he saw and hope that someone else would find the path back to Trump and be in a position to do something about it.
I don't think you can or should make projections about what might have happened if someone did the things that they are supposed to do, to protect the rule of law, instead of not do it.

The whole point of having rm in that role was to root out the lies, before further crimes or injuries to justice, or americans, happens

By passing on any interview it made for bad outcomes, policies, and incentives for everyone in that system. And we are living with it now, arguing about whether dt would give up information, or not. It's irrelevant. dt needed to be interviewed, and if he refused he needed to be forced to defend that in front of history. That would have been just as valid and right an outcome as any that we have had.

How is it that protecting democracy is just done where it's easiest and the light is better?
  #12133  
Old 11-05-2019, 02:23 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 14,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
Your assumption that Mueller cannot, in any way be corrupted is merely that: an assumption, regardless if it is stated as a fact.
Funny, I didn't see that assumption being made. I saw the conclusion that he hasn't been corrupted, backed with an argument intended to show that there's absolutely no reason to believe he has been, but I don't recall him having been described as God.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
Fact: If Mueller thought Trump guilty of crimes, he could have said so. He could have appeared at the meetings as a private citizen, and not one constrained by rules he is accepting to follow. As you said - he already has his pension. Why not?
Er, I thought he made it damn clear that he viewed the courts/congress as the arbiters of guilt, and that as neither judge, jury, or even a prosecutor in court he couldn't put forth a decision or even an accusation. Sure, he had volumes of very hard evidence, which he pointed to at every opportunity, but while his evidence was allowed to speak for itself, he wasn't given the role of judge.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
Sorry, Aspen, but admitting the possibility that Mueller may have had his own internal demons to battle is more "fighting ignorance" than a blanket assertion that merely because he is a civil servant "it is beyond offensive to see someone accused of partisanship as a motivation for his actions when nothing could be further from the reality of the requirements for his work."

Partisanship isn't required. But it very well may have helped Mueller pull his punches.
On the subject of assumptions...

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
The ex FBI head is literally investigating the President stealing our fucking votes, and he can't go to Congress and say "Hey, the President is guilty of this shit" when he finds out the President is guilty of this shit? And he cites a fucking memorandum as his justification? That's just crap, and if your argument is as to why Mueller pulled his punches is because he's blinded by the rules and procedures (willfully so?) to not see, or even comment on, the overall picture, then he, eventually, was useless except as a compiler of crimes, and thereby guilty of "partisanship" of yet another sort.
The sad part about "innocent until proven guilty" is if you're not allowed to make the determination of proof, you can't assert they're not innocent.

I mean, you or I can, because we're sloppy non-lawyers who don't give a fuck about formal proof in court.
  #12134  
Old 11-05-2019, 03:14 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,783
Mueller taking a pass on dt sitting down for a normal interview led directly to the arrogant flouting of congress by all of his toadies, including the Sec of State.

Once you let that go by, why not just invite don to be president for life?
  #12135  
Old 11-05-2019, 03:21 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 24,300
I'm sorry, but the timeline of events following the Mueller report, and especially the Mueller testimony, has shown that even the Trump Administration expected a more forceful response than what they received.

Mueller, July 24th. Zelensky call, July 25th. Erdogan call, October 6th. God knows what else since 7-24-2019.

We can argue as to why the report and the testimony wasn't enough to put him down, but keeping Mueller himself above this argument, as he's some sort of Jesus ("Jesus was OK, it was all his followers that f-ed everything up", said by half of Christianity at one time in their lives), is more inconsistent with the principles of the SDMB than bad arguments re: Mueller's level of responsibility in the report not generating the impact it should have.

Aspenglow's correct in that the facts are there. But I'm correct in saying that Mueller was derelict in not making it crystal clear that Trump should be impeached, and, as noted above, the events after his testimony do more to corroborate my contention that he could've done more. It was literally what the country was waiting for, he didn't do it, and the President went insane with vote-stealing power the very next day.

There comes a time in ones life when protecting and serving the United States means doing more than protecting and serving your institutional norms. His Congressional testimony was one of those times, and Mueller didn't meet it.

Last edited by JohnT; 11-05-2019 at 03:23 PM.
  #12136  
Old 11-05-2019, 03:23 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,602
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
The Mueller report is 448 pages, not 800. It is heavily redacted and footnoted, so actual reading, if you're just skimming and ignoring footnotes, is probably less than 300 pages. Not really a huge burden. It is clear, concise and frankly, rather short considering the enormous course of corrupt conduct contained in its pages. The hardest thing for me in reading it was to keep all the Russians straight.

There is nothing buried in the corners. Mueller makes it crystal clear who was subverting our 2016 election, right down to server numbers and where they were located, as well as the numerous interactions between Russians and members of the Trump campaign. His report is plain as can be -- if you read it.
No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people and that's why Donald Trump has won so far and you have not.


The one thing that a person will want to know, reading the Mueller Report is: Did Trump collude?

If you open the report and go to page 1, it will not tell you. 90% of readers will not continue past this point. Page 2 will not tell you. 90% of the 10% who remained will stop reading. Page 3 will not tell you. Page 4 will not tell you. Page 5 will not tell you. Page 6 will not tell you. Page 7 will not tell you. Page 8 will not tell you.

On page 9, at the bottom of the page, Robert Mueller confirms exactly what William Barr told us in his letter. 90% of the readers who made it to this point - which is a mere few hundred or maybe, if we are lucky, thousand ordinary citizens - will cash out at this point without even moving on to the next paragraph.

Robert Mueller was tasked to investigate connections between the Trump campaign and Russia. He has just spent eight pages writing about Russian propaganda campaigns that have nothing to do with the Trump campaign nor any member of it. Following that, he immediately exonerates Trump.

On page 10, a page that you and I read and no Republican outside of, maybe, Justin Amash, Mueller mentions that so much information was deleted and hidden and there were so many lies told and intimidation of witnesses that the conclusion he just reached is not meant to be taken as an exoneration but as a "white flag" of surrender.

Now if you lead, page 1, with the paragraphs after the exoneration, the Mueller Report would have been released in much the same form as the Zelensky transcript - a reordered paraphrase of nearly everything that was discussed with a few key exclusions.

One of the most harrowing scenes of Part 1 is the tale of Steve Bannon and Eric Prince in the Seychelles. Would you say that this story is near to or far from the start of the detailed section? Where is the stuff about Russian propaganda - again, a thing that is entirely tangential to Mueller's explicit investigatory mandate.

Mueller completely refrains from mentioning the Trump Tower server that should play into this.

He does, in fact, bury his most consequential revelation inside of a footnote, that there has existed in Eastern Europe blackmail material on our President, supposedly destroyed.

This is all buried. To be sure it is there and it is, as said, harrowing.

Conceivably, the choice bits were not intentionally buried and Mueller simply formatted and ordered things in a more or less arbitrary manner or sought a simple chronological order.

I doubt that strongly, however. The man who came up with, "I'm not allowed to issue a verdict or suggest any crimes, as that would not allow those mentioned to defend themselves", is unlikely to have not understood what he needed to do to launder some amount of information into the public record.

Last edited by Sage Rat; 11-05-2019 at 03:24 PM.
  #12137  
Old 11-05-2019, 03:37 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 24,300
Actually, the bottom of page one does conclude:

"Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

And subsequent events since the Mueller testimony has shown us the Trump people actually have a deep aversion to foreign interference with our government, especially regarding elections. I'm glad that Mueller was able to see through the smoke to, what was it, "not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with..." any foreign government, or otherwise I would be worried about all this Ukraine mess! Now why doesn't Congress investigate Hunter Biden, now that Mueller effectively cleared the Trump team on page 1?

/Trump Supporter

Last edited by JohnT; 11-05-2019 at 03:38 PM.
  #12138  
Old 11-05-2019, 03:48 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,602
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
Actually, the bottom of page one does conclude:

"Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."
Sorry, I missed that on a skim. But so, I would vote that only compounds my point.
  #12139  
Old 11-05-2019, 04:05 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 24,300
But, it completely beggars belief, does it not? That a NYC real estate huckster turned carnival pitchman who positioned himself as a master of the deal, who has had 3 decades of dealing with Russia, a man without any government experience or knowledge, would not "conspire... or coordinate... with the Russian government in its election interference activities" even though, as is noted in that very same sentence, "the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts" and the subsequent 400 pages actually proved that very thing page 1 denies?

Wait... phone is ringing... holy, shit, it's 2010!

REALLY?

Last edited by JohnT; 11-05-2019 at 04:06 PM.
  #12140  
Old 11-05-2019, 04:41 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 14,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
I'm sorry, but the timeline of events following the Mueller report, and especially the Mueller testimony, has shown that even the Trump Administration expected a more forceful response than what they received.

Mueller, July 24th. Zelensky call, July 25th. Erdogan call, October 6th. God knows what else since 7-24-2019.

We can argue as to why the report and the testimony wasn't enough to put him down, but keeping Mueller himself above this argument, as he's some sort of Jesus ("Jesus was OK, it was all his followers that f-ed everything up", said by half of Christianity at one time in their lives), is more inconsistent with the principles of the SDMB than bad arguments re: Mueller's level of responsibility in the report not generating the impact it should have.

Aspenglow's correct in that the facts are there. But I'm correct in saying that Mueller was derelict in not making it crystal clear that Trump should be impeached, and, as noted above, the events after his testimony do more to corroborate my contention that he could've done more. It was literally what the country was waiting for, he didn't do it, and the President went insane with vote-stealing power the very next day.

There comes a time in ones life when protecting and serving the United States means doing more than protecting and serving your institutional norms. His Congressional testimony was one of those times, and Mueller didn't meet it.
I agree that Trump expected Mueller to come storming in, ranting and raving, his bad combover flapping in the wind as he raised a tiny-fingered orange fist and shouted out Trump's destruction. That Mueller didn't meet his self-image-based expectations certainly emboldened the orange turd with bad results.

But that doesn't mean Mueller's failure to rant was a calculated move designed to sabotage his own report. It is alternately possible that Mueller is just unable to stop being the adult in the room - an adult who doesn't believe that it's his job to stand in front of Congress and do Congress's job. It is certainly possible that this is the case.

Now, you can hate him for failing to break the rules (or are they laws? Hard to tell at this level) and do a job that wasn't his and wield accusatory power he did not legally possess. But is that any different than being mad at him because he failed to murder Trump by shooting him in the head? Rules, scmooles, am I right?
  #12141  
Old 11-05-2019, 04:48 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 24,300


When you're capable of not comparing (a) the inability to state clearly the obvious conclusions in your own report and (b) murder, perhaps we can continue this discussion?
  #12142  
Old 11-05-2019, 05:11 PM
SteveG1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Van Nuys CA
Posts: 14,842
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
I can add that her assertion that civil servants are non-partisan is merely that: An assertion, not a fact.

I can also assert that a white, 70-something Republican man retired since 2012 has very likely filled his head with Fox News crap for 5 years prior to being called as a "safe choice" to handle the investigation. That, too, may not be factual, but in my experience (as Aspen expects us to depend upon hers), that's a strong possibility.
I'm here to tell everyone that SOME of them ARE partisan... hyperpartisan in fact. I have to listen to their nonsense more often than I like … All Clintons and all Democrats are traitors. Bill Clinton should have been lynched. Hillary sucks and Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi. GW Bush could do no wrong. Trump more Bushy than Bush, but better. Lou Dobbs Rush Limbaugh Tucker Carlson are The Word Of God. Ted Nugent is an American hero.

Etc etc etc ad nauseum.

Last edited by SteveG1; 11-05-2019 at 05:12 PM.
  #12143  
Old 11-05-2019, 05:14 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 14,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post


When you're capable of not comparing (a) the inability to state clearly the obvious conclusions in your own report and (b) murder, perhaps we can continue this discussion?
Hey, whatever shuts you up.


Mueller is, as I understand it, a person. As a person, he is capable, as I understand it, of having beliefs and opinions. Opinions, as I understand it, can include the belief that the rule of law is a good thing. Belief in the rule of law can, as I understand it, include the belief that different government organizations and individuals have specific and limited powers and authorities.

I mean, yes, we here on the SDMB are huge fans of members of government overstepping the customs and rules of their roles, but we should try to remember that not everyone is a fan of government people behaving like Trump.

Where was I? Oh, yes. Limited powers and authorities can, as I understand it, include the belief that one doesn't have the authority to use your platform as a government official to levy unproven* accusations of criminal wrongdoing. (*, as I understand it, refers to being proven in a court of law specifically.) And given the Mueller didn't have the legal authority to levy accusations, it's my understanding that wishing him to do so anyway is to wish him to disregard the law.

So. Given what I understand it, it makes perfect sense to me that Mueller might not choose to open his speech to congress with "Screw due process, the president is a crook! You don't have to understand me and I don't have to present my evidence; I just know it, because I'm a smart guy! And also he's a crook and a traitor and he's committed treason! Burn the witch!"

You appear to disagree with me that it's possible for Mueller to conclude that being judge and jury was outside his purview. That being the case, we presumably disagree upon something I understand to be true. If we don't differ on whether he should break the law, perhaps we differ on whether he's human?
  #12144  
Old 11-05-2019, 06:11 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 24,300
Lol, OK. God forbid we should ever ask someone to rise above himself and his training.

Last edited by JohnT; 11-05-2019 at 06:12 PM.
  #12145  
Old 11-05-2019, 06:18 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 14,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
Lol, OK. God forbid we should ever ask someone to rise above himself and his training.
Honestly, if you really think about, I think the idea of people at the highest level of the FBI deciding to be that loose cannon who breaks the rules to get the bad guy is kind of unnerving. As convenient as it is when he breaks the rules to get the guy you hate, that's not really the sort of mindset I want somebody running a covert organization to have.

And honestly, if you want to blame somebody for his speech to congress not having the desired effect, blame congress. If I'm correct about the effects Mueller had hoped his report would have, Trump would have been impeached by the next afternoon.
  #12146  
Old 11-05-2019, 06:21 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 24,300
I am talking about a man at the end of his career making an assertive statement as to whether the President is or is not a criminal, and frankly, as an American citizen, I am not OK that the man punted on that question. Just so we have this clear.

This isn't a game, Begbert. We're not playing Diplomacy here, and people who are still acting like the rules matter are, as noted above, getting their asses kicked by those who don't.

It is evident from the timeline that everyone, even the Administration, expected more from Mueller. Why you are acting shocked, SHOCKED! that people are demanding that he should have done more when even his opponents expected more is, frankly, beyond me. But I'll concede the point - thanks to the honorable and unflappable Robert Mueller, the norms that were preserved to allow a criminal into the White House are still in place. Whew! The Republic still stands!

Last edited by JohnT; 11-05-2019 at 06:24 PM.
  #12147  
Old 11-05-2019, 06:37 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 14,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
I am talking about a man at the end of his career making an assertive statement as to whether the President is or is not a criminal, and frankly, as an American citizen, I am not OK that the man punted on that question. Just so we have this clear.

This isn't a game, Begbert. We're not playing Diplomacy here, and people who are still acting like the rules matter are, as noted above, getting their asses kicked by those who don't.
Ah yes, we should abandon rules and laws. That's a great plan and in no way could possibly backfire.


Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
It is evident from the timeline that everyone, even the Administration, expected more from Mueller. Why you are acting shocked, SHOCKED! that people are demanding that he should have done more when even his opponents expected more is, frankly, beyond me. But I'll concede the point - thanks to the honorable and unflappable Robert Mueller, the norms that were preserved to allow a criminal into the White House are still in place. Whew! The Republic still stands!
If you seriously think that Robert Mueller could have brought down the republic all by his lonesome in the face of a congress complicit with Trump's wrongdoing, then you don't think he's honorable and unflappable, you think he's the unholy union of John McClane and God.
  #12148  
Old 11-05-2019, 07:19 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,783
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
Ah yes, we should abandon rules and laws. That's a great plan and in no way could possibly backfire.


If you seriously think that Robert Mueller could have brought down the republic all by his lonesome in the face of a congress complicit with Trump's wrongdoing, then you don't think he's honorable and unflappable, you think he's the unholy union of John McClane and God.
What a straw man that is.

If one person in a system can't change it by themselves, then it isn't important that he actually do his job in that system?

Did you ever watch a football game?

Last edited by drad dog; 11-05-2019 at 07:20 PM.
  #12149  
Old 11-05-2019, 07:23 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 24,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
Ah yes, we should abandon rules and laws. That's a great plan and in no way could possibly backfire.


If you seriously think that Robert Mueller could have brought down the republic all by his lonesome in the face of a congress complicit with Trump's wrongdoing, then you don't think he's honorable and unflappable, you think he's the unholy union of John McClane and God.
(I think you made the opposite point that you wanted to make with that last, as that is not a point I was arguing. I was arguing he could have been more effective in saving the Republic, not "bringing it down".)

With that being said, here is my rebuttal:

"My God, Senator, have you no sense of decency?!? At long last have you no sense of decency?" (From memory, sorry)

Last edited by JohnT; 11-05-2019 at 07:25 PM.
  #12150  
Old 11-05-2019, 07:41 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 14,019
If you think that obstructionist senators would even blink at the accusation of having no dignity, I have a senator to sell you (they're cheap).

I get it, you're unhappy that Mueller's report doesn't appear to have changed anything. And because he wasn't absurdly theatrical, you think that if he had been absurdly theatrical the trumpists would have arisen as one to cry out for Trump's arrest, and/or the congressmen would have been inspired to suddenly realize no shit, they're evil, and Trump would have panicked in terror and surrendered himself with a full confession.

Or something. You think that something would have happened to make things super-much better, had Mueller lost his cool, or started saying out loud what everybody's already been saying out loud, or started shooting a gun into the ceiling, or who knows, just not what he actually did.

But that's just you guessing. That's you taking an unknown series of behaviors that you didn't see happening and guessing what would happen if it had played out that way instead.

I'm looking at the same set of possible behaviors and guessing that fuck all would be different. Seriously, you think that congress doesn't know Trump's a criminal? You think that his followers aren't divided between people who don't believe the news, and those who don't care? God, you're not just an optimist, you're delusional.

I don't know what possible futures Mueller was seeing. It's entirely possible that with his vast stores of intel, he already knew nothing would happen - that congress wouldn't turn on Trump because they're all complicit and compromised. He's also not an idiot - he's very aware of the sway that alternative news has on the populace. Maybe he walked into it knowing that his information would be left on the table.

At which point, what is there to do? Do his job, put it on the table, and not make an ass out of himself in the process.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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 Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:27 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017