Mueller Investigation pt 6

[Paul2]

Barr: "If the president is being falsely accused, which the evidence now suggests that the accusations against him were false, and he knew they were false, and he felt that this investigation was unfair, propelled by his political opponents, and was hampering his ability to govern, that is not a corrupt motive for replacing an independent counsel."

Which accusations, the ones of conspiracy with the Russians, or the ones about obstruction of justice? Mueller laid out chapter and verse about how Trump obstructed justice multiple times.

Also, it might be different if the accusation was something as plain as, say, whether you shot someone on 5th avenue in broad daylight. Then, the subject of the investigation knows to a certainty if they are being falsely accused. But given different interpretations about what is obstruction of justice, you can't have the subject of the investigation deciding for themselves whether they committed a crime or not and have that decision be determinative or have an effect on how the investigation proceeds, if only for the obvious risk of the self-serving tendency to decide that one did not commit a crime.

 

[Cabbage]

I was anti the GOP establishment before I was anti Hillary. Giving them the finger was a once in a lifetime opportunity. But if I thought for a moment that our institutions could not handle Donald Trump, I would never have voted for him. I consider the past two+ years a clear vindication of my assessment. 5/7 perfect score, would vote again.

5/7 is perfect??? That just reinforces what I've already concluded about your judgment.

I see it as more of a question about our institutions in general, than about specific candidates. A significant property of our system of government is that it's designed to keep everyone who works in the government in check. Every president is a risk, and the risk of every presidency is mitigated by the system of government that we have instituted. Trump no more so than any of his predecessors. Is that enough? I think so, and I think events have borne me out on this.

I strongly disagree. I don't think any president (not in my lifetime, at least) has tested the bounds of the office of the presidency like Trump has. It's not at all sufficient to say "every president is a risk"...some are significantly riskier than others.

 

[dudalb]

I see it as more of a question about our institutions in general, than about specific candidates. A significant property of our system of government is that it's designed to keep everyone who works in the government in check. Every president is a risk, and the risk of every presidency is mitigated by the system of government that we have instituted. Trump no more so than any of his predecessors. Is that enough? I think so, and I think events have borne me out on this.

This is just plain wrong.

 

[Paul2]

And here's the problem: the Trump clique can cock-block the Democrats until the cows come home. The US political system simply has no recourse for a total stonewall by a President of the same party of the Senate (mainly because originally the Senate was not elected).

Except for the Supreme Court! Hooray, SCOTUS! Oh, wait a minute . . . .

ETA: I mean, that stonewalling can be made into a legal issue, which will be decided in the courts, ultimately the SCOTUS. If only the Senate wasn’t capable of manipulating the membership of the SCOTUS.

 

[theprestige]

5/7 is perfect??? That just reinforces what I've already concluded about your judgment.

Personal joke. It's a meme elsewhere. Maybe your conclusions about my judgement are mistaken.

I strongly disagree. I don't think any president (not in my lifetime, at least) has tested the bounds of the office of the presidency like Trump has. It's not at all sufficient to say "every president is a risk"...some are significantly riskier than others.

Sure. There's always the possibility. But every time we examine specific risks that are supposedly unique to Trump, they seem to either be special pleading, or not particularly risky, or both. Anyway, I'm not trying to convince you Trump is okay. I'm just telling you how I see it.

 

[theprestige]

This is just plain wrong.

It's a subjective value judgement. I'm not sure how that can be "just plain wrong". But I do appreciate you actually quoting my post and replying directly to it. Do you want to continue the discussion?

 

[theprestige]

And here's the problem: the Trump clique can cock-block the Democrats until the cows come home. The US political system simply has no recourse for a total stonewall by a President of the same party of the Senate (mainly because originally the Senate was not elected).

The US political system actually has a substantial and obvious recourse for such a thing. A recourse that has stood the nation in good stead since its founding, and shows no sign of flagging now.

 

[Belz...]

Except for the Supreme Court! Hooray, SCOTUS! Oh, wait a minute . . . .

ETA: I mean, that stonewalling can be made into a legal issue, which will be decided in the courts, ultimately the SCOTUS. If only the Senate wasn’t capable of manipulating the membership of the SCOTUS.

Not only that, but what if the President ignores the court? Someone has to have the balls to remove the President.

The US political system actually has a substantial and obvious recourse for such a thing.

Re-read my post. If the Senate sides with the president, what recourse do you think you have?

 

[Beelzebuddy]

I'm just telling you how I see it.

Then you shouldn't be surprised when others do as well. For all that you say you're not a Trump supporter, I've only ever seen you make excuses for his behavior.

 

[Aridas]

It varies from point to point. I didn't feel like arguing each point in detail, and this isn't really the thread for it anyway. Sometimes when there's a thread on a specific point, I might chime in with what I think and why. But since the replies usually turn into the kind of ****-show that smartcooky posted, I often lack the motivation to invest that much effort.

Am I recalling correctly when I say that I think that your stance around the time of the 2016 elections was that you really didn't want either Hillary or Trump, but that you expected that Hillary would cause establishment corruption to become much more profound and entrenched than Trump? Trump, on the other hand, would be incompetently corrupt and only do superficial damage?

 

[theprestige]

Re-read my post. If the Senate sides with the president, what recourse do you think you have?

I read your post the first time. If the Senate sides with the president, you can elect a different president, or elect different senators, or both.

The whole point of instituting a democratic system of government is to put this ultimate recourse directly in the hands of the governed (where it arguably belongs anyway). We've instituted such a government, and aside from a bit of unpleasantness in the mid-1800s, have enjoyed a remarkable string of peaceful and timely regime changes as a result. And right now it looks like we're on track to continue that string.

On the other hand, it's true that we don't have a lot of recourses to force an undemocratic solution on a recalcitrant body of elected representatives. But I think that in general it's better for democracies not to include such recourses.

I'm sure even Canada draws the line somewhere, and ultimately puts the decision in the hands of the voters.

 

[theprestige]

Am I recalling correctly when I say that I think that your stance around the time of the 2016 elections was that you really didn't want either Hillary or Trump, but that you expected that Hillary would cause establishment corruption to become much more profound and entrenched than Trump? Trump, on the other hand, would be incompetently corrupt and only do superficial damage?

Close enough. I figured it would be more of a continuation of an already well-entrenched institution of corruption, rather than a substantial deepening of that trench (even I don't think Hillary is *that* scary!), but it's close enough that I see no need to quibble.

ETA: And obviously it's a complex question. There were other factors as well, but that was one of them, or close enough.

 

[Ziggurat]

Re-read my post. If the Senate sides with the president, what recourse do you think you have?

Elections. That answer was so obvious, I'm surprised you needed to ask.

 

[Venom]

Sure. There's always the possibility. But every time we examine specific risks that are supposedly unique to Trump, they seem to either be special pleading, or not particularly risky, or both. Anyway, I'm not trying to convince you Trump is okay. I'm just telling you how I see it.

This isn't some game. What do you make of the possible effect of Trump's emboldening racists and the so-called non-PC bigots on the psychological health of the country? The risk of further entrenchment on both sides due to a great divider like Trump is real and it's something you seem to just casually dismiss.

I don't want the bar set this low for a president.

 

[Lurch]

Elections. That answer was so obvious, I'm surprised you needed to ask.

The problem with the US system is that it can takes years to kick out a corrupt administration. In Canada and the the UK, for example, the opposition can at least call a vote of no confidence and thereby have a chance at immediately instituting a new round of elections. And with more than two parties involved, there can be more flexible coalitions; the two-party system is a recipe for gridlock when partisanship is entrenched.

 

[Ziggurat]

The problem with the US system is that it can takes years to kick out a corrupt administration. In Canada and the the UK, for example, the opposition can at least call a vote of no confidence and thereby have a chance at immediately instituting a new round of elections. And with more than two parties involved, there can be more flexible coalitions; the two-party system is a recipe for gridlock when partisanship is entrenched.

There are advantages and disadvantages to any political system. And sometimes gridlock is a feature, not a bug.

 

[Belz...]

I read your post the first time. If the Senate sides with the president, you can elect a different president, or elect different senators, or both.

Elections. That answer was so obvious, I'm surprised you needed to ask.

We're talking between elections, here, obviously. There's no need to deal with a president who's been voted out.

 

[Ziggurat]

We're talking between elections, here, obviously. There's no need to deal with a president who's been voted out.

And you don't need to vote out a president who has already been voted out either. Between elections, you prepare for the next election.

 

[Belz...]

And you don't need to vote out a president who has already been voted out either. Between elections, you prepare for the next election.

The question is how do you deal with a president who ignores the law and damages the country, while he's in office. Impeachment is usually the answer, though it's a rare process, and if the Senate is aligned with the president against the law, there is nothing that can be done until election day.

 

[jimbob]

Elections. That answer was so obvious, I'm surprised you needed to ask.

The problem with the US system is that it can takes years to kick out a corrupt administration. In Canada and the the UK, for example, the opposition can at least call a vote of no confidence and thereby have a chance at immediately instituting a new round of elections. And with more than two parties involved, there can be more flexible coalitions; the two-party system is a recipe for gridlock when partisanship is entrenched.

We're talking between elections, here, obviously. There's no need to deal with a president who's been voted out.

There is also the massive disenfranchisement of large sections of the populace. California has a population of nearly 40-million and elects two senators, Wyoming has a population of nearly 600-thousand and elects two senators. Washington DC has a population greater than Wyoming or Vermont, and elects no senators.

Why should a voter in Wyoming have their vote worth sixty times that of a voter in California when it comes to selecting who might act as a check on the President?

Why should someone in Washington DC have no vote in this at all?

Then you get into the effects of gerrymandering in state elections which mean that impediments to voting can be targeted against certain people likely to vote against the ruling party, even if they have lost the popular vote.


Electoral systems are all imperfect, but there are levels of imperfection, and the US has some very bad examples. I've just voted in my local elections, which involved a ten minute walk each way, and waiting less than a minute in the polling station. There were other people voting at the same time but that has been my experience of voting in every election I can remember, in both safe Labour and Tory seats, and in a marginal. In each case, the polling station was open from 7am to 10pm, and served no more than a couple of thousand people. There were no voting machines to hack, just a pencil and a ballot paper.