Mueller Investigation pt 6

[The Great Zaganza]

I agree. But the problem is, there are a sizable number of Americans -- not a majority to be sure, but a sizable number -- who give their political leanings precedent over the well-being of the United States.

funny thing is: evidence gathered during counter-intelligence operations is usually not useful in any criminal sense. Trump supporters should count their blessings that the FBI didn't start their investigation with the goal of sending people to prison, but only worked to protect National Security.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

But that's from a Trump supporter. That has no value.

Sure, quoting sources that were taken from CNN and Wapo.
I'm not certain those media outlets are Right Wing?

Anyway, the facts are facts regardless who found them or who tries to bury them. You'll need to put on your skeptic hat every now and then of course.

I realize you may not have received the outcome you were hoping for, however denying facts is never a wise course of action.

Chris B.

 

[theprestige]

I agree. But the problem is, there are a sizable number of Americans -- not a majority to be sure, but a sizable number -- who give their political leanings precedent over the well-being of the United States.

Some of these Americans even work for the FBI.

 

[theprestige]

Thank you for the correction, even so. I think I recall that being something that you repeated a few times here, either way, though, and it also happens to somewhat handily address some of the lines of questioning that seem to have been posed to you, in my opinion.



Hmm? For the former, he's really not more bigoted or racist than a sizable chunk of the population. A sizable chunk that just happens to tend to vote Republican.

To be clear: A sizeable chunk of the population is bigots who just happen to vote Democrat, too.

 

[Paul2]

You feel Barr should have released the report and skipped the summary?

Do you mean Barr's summary, or the summaries that Mueller prepared and that Barr skipped?

Or do you feel Barr's summary of the report is accurate from a legal standpoint but lacking the juicy political details that would play well for Democrats and ease their disappointment with the findings? Hint, Barr's job description does not imply the latter. He's there to make a legal determination.

The whole point of the special prosecutor statute is to promote the public trust in the findings of the prosecutor by not having the AG, who is a political appointee, decide on whether to prosecute or not. Otherwise, why not just have some regular prosecutor in the DOJ do the investigation and the AG is ultimately in charge, will make a decision on prosecution, etc. This is absolutely true when the president - who appointed the AG - is one of the subjects of the investigation.

 

[theprestige]

I can't help myself, I gotta post this little summary of my recent part of the debate:

Me: Trump is bad.
theprestige: He's not uniquely bad.
Me: I didn't say he's uniquely bad.
theprestige: But if he isn't uniquely bad why are you even complaining?*
Me: All right then. Here's two unique things.
theprestige: (silence)

*This was the turn that so surprised me I feel I should now document it. Otherwise, I doubt people will believe me:

Wow. I take a break for a couple hours, and you're already doing victory laps. Try not to throw your shoulder out, patting yourself on the back so hard.

Long story short: Your "unique" things don't seem that unique to me. I think Obama's use of his war powers authority is exactly congruent to Trump's use of his emergency powers authority, in the context of this discussion. You may even believe that Trump's act was somehow unprecedented, but to me it just looks like special pleading.

We're probably not going to agree on this, and that's fine. I doubt either of us is going to have anything new to say, so I probably won't bother going round the circle yet again. Feel free to post the last word, if that's the kind of thing that makes you happy.

 

[theprestige]

Nah.

The Big Dog and logger were on another level of stuff.

Thank you for the vote of confidence. But to some people, anyone who didn't vote Hillary is a literal Nazi.

 

[Belz...]

To be clear: A sizeable chunk of the population is bigots who just happen to vote Democrat, too.

And?

 

[theprestige]

...I'm sorry, what?



A similarily-good question. It does, however, not answer mine.

It's an analogy. Neither question has a good answer. If you had a solution, you'd be offering it, instead of asking pointless questions like some ersatz Socrates.

If they are aligned, then their powers are at each other's disposal, which was my point.

So? Such alignments are bound to happen in a democracy from time to time. That's not actually a problem. Or rather, it's a problem for which the proper recourse is democratic elections. Which we have.

Then the president is above the law. Not above impeachment, but above the law.

So is Congress. So is the Supreme Court. These branches of government sit at the top of the law.

 

[Belz...]

It's an analogy.

Maybe, but I don't get it.

If you had a solution, you'd be offering it, instead of asking pointless questions like some ersatz Socrates.

I don't think it's pointless, but that it does point to a potential problem with our respective political systems. If the election's a year out, how can the electorate deal with a rogue President if the Senate is allied with him? I'm not sure there's an answer right now, though a popular vote of no-confidence in the government a could be a solution.

And by the way, just because you don't see, or don't want to see, my point of view doesn't mean my questions or points aren't genuine.

So? Such alignments are bound to happen in a democracy from time to time. That's not actually a problem.

Those two sentences are unrelated. Something can be bound to happen _and_ be a problem. Like meteors, for instance.

So is the Senate. So is the Supreme Court. These branches of government sit at the top of the law.

That doesn't mean they should be above the law.

 

[theprestige]

And?

And therefore singling out Trump or Republicans for their bigotry is special pleading. Just like many of the complaints about Trump's especial danger are special pleading.

 

[Belz...]

And therefore singling out Trump or Republicans for their bigotry is special pleading.

That's not what special pleading is.

The voters are not currently running the government, so some of them being bigoted is nowhere near as problematic as a bigoted government.

 

[theprestige]

Maybe, but I don't get it.

Yep. Nobody ever does. Even when the analogy is valid, people still choose not to understand.

I don't think it's pointless, but that it does point to a potential problem with our respective political systems. If the election's a year out, how can the electorate deal with a rogue President if the Senate is allied with him? I'm not sure there's an answer right now, though a popular vote of no-confidence in the government a could be a solution.

Assuming that Congress agrees to have one, and assuming the President agrees to abide by the results.

Those two sentences are unrelated. Something can be bound to happen _and_ be a problem. Like meteors, for instance.

Sure, but systems of human government aren't really analogous to naturally occurring phenomena.

That doesn't mean they should be above the law.

I'm not sure "above the law" is a meaningful way to describe the roles of the three branches of government.

 

[Belz...]

Yep. Nobody ever does. Even when the analogy is valid, people still choose not to understand.

No, I have no idea what you were saying. I can't make heads or tails of it.

Assuming that Congress agrees to have one, and assuming the President agrees to abide by the results.

No, I mean if you had those by law every year or so. The point is to allow the population to remove a rogue government.

As far as the President abiding by the results, what if the president refuses the results of the election?

Sure, but systems of human government aren't really analogous to naturally occurring phenomena.

That is totally irrelevant to what I said.

I'm not sure "above the law" is a meaningful way to describe the roles of the three branches of government.

No, and that's not what I said. What I said is that they aren't above the law. However, it seems that the president is pretty much immune from consequences at present.

 

[theprestige]

That's not what special pleading is.

The voters are not currently running the government, so some of them being bigoted is nowhere near as problematic as a bigoted government.

We get a bigoted government no matter which voters win at the polls, and no matter which party is running it. Calling out this administration as especially bigoted is special pleading.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Do you mean Barr's summary, or the summaries that Mueller prepared and that Barr skipped?
The whole point of the special prosecutor statute is to promote the public trust in the findings of the prosecutor by not having the AG, who is a political appointee, decide on whether to prosecute or not. Otherwise, why not just have some regular prosecutor in the DOJ do the investigation and the AG is ultimately in charge, will make a decision on prosecution, etc. This is absolutely true when the president - who appointed the AG - is one of the subjects of the investigation.

Mueller didn't charge the President with a crime. Unless I've missed something in the last few minutes. Does that mean Mueller did not do his job? Or does it mean Mueller did his job but did not attain the outcome the other sides were hoping for.

Barr released the report. If Congress finds there is evidence to Impeach they should do so without delay. They won't, because the evidence is not there.

Chris B.

 

[Belz...]

We get a bigoted government no matter which voters win at the polls, and no matter which party is running it.

Evidence?

Calling out this administration as especially bigoted is special pleading.

That doesn't follow from your first sentence. They could both be true.

 

[theprestige]

No, I have no idea what you were saying. I can't make heads or tails of it.

My apologies. You'd quoted several of my posts in one reply, but hadn't linked all of them. I lost track of which parts I was responding to.

That was more of a metaphor. Trump tries to get something done via executive order, it goes to the courts, sometimes it gets upheld, sometimes it gets upheld in modified form, and sometimes it gets slapped down. And what does Trump do? He just carries on presidentin'. If his EO is upheld, he executes on it under the law. And if his EO is slapped down, he gives it up under the law, or seeks an acceptable modification under the law.

Like a kid running up to the playground fence, only to bounce off it and go back to running around the playground.

Compare to, say, Adolf Hitler, who when he got to the limits of the law, cut through the fence, walked outside, took off, and nuked the entire playground from orbit. Because that's what aspiring totalitarian madmen actually do. Trump doesn't want to be dictator, he just wants to be president. Sure, he's got some misconceptions about the extent of presidential authority, which I blame on the American education system. And every time he's bumped up against the real limits, he's recoiled, rather than pushing through. And in the few areas where the President actually has very broad and dangerous limits - nuclear launch authority, for example - Trump has not approached or bumped against those limits.

You look at his deeds, not his words, and you see a president that's a little more obviously wrongheaded in some ways, and a little more to the right than his predecessor, but still well within the mainstream of presidential policy going back at least a dozen administrations.

No, I mean if you had those by law every year or so. The point is to allow the population to remove a rogue government.

We already have periodic elections. All you're saying here is that we should shorten the period. As if replacing the government every other year due to popular outcry is better than than replacing it every four years due to popular outcry.

 

[Cabbage]

Wow. I take a break for a couple hours, and you're already doing victory laps. Try not to throw your shoulder out, patting yourself on the back so hard.

Long story short: Your "unique" things don't seem that unique to me. I think Obama's use of his war powers authority is exactly congruent to Trump's use of his emergency powers authority, in the context of this discussion. You may even believe that Trump's act was somehow unprecedented, but to me it just looks like special pleading.

We're probably not going to agree on this, and that's fine. I doubt either of us is going to have anything new to say, so I probably won't bother going round the circle yet again. Feel free to post the last word, if that's the kind of thing that makes you happy.

You would have been better off simply remaining silent, this post didn't contain anything new that I haven't already addressed.

It's cute how you always fall back on "special pleading" as a last resort, however.

 

[Cabbage]

Thank you for the vote of confidence. But to some people, anyone who didn't vote Hillary is a literal Nazi.

Special Pleading