Mueller Investigation pt5

Status
Not open for further replies.
BobTheCoward said:
It is work product of the executive branch. A executive power is vested in the president. Not getting final edit seems weird.
Click to expand...

But executive oversight and impeachment powers are vested in the House. If the subject of the report is the executive branch, then the House at least is entitled to see the original report, not just the parts the executive branch approves. They can subpoena the original report or Mueller's testimony about it, or both. The FBI and DoJ exist to serve the people's interests, not the president's; their work products belong to us.
 
WilliamSeger said:
But executive oversight and impeachment powers are vested in the House. If the subject of the report is the executive branch, then the House at least is entitled to see the original report, not just the parts the executive branch approves. They can subpoena the original report or Mueller's testimony about it, or both. The FBI and DoJ exist to serve the people's interests, not the president's; their work products belong to us.
Click to expand...

The DoJ, as wielders of executive power, have no independent source of executive power to make a determination of what is in the public interest that conflicts with the president's determination of the public interest.
 
Norman Alexander said:
So the "WAR ON DRUGS!! (tm)" was...what..?. An intervention?
Click to expand...

"The cases establish that war is a course of hostility engaged in by entities that have at least significant attributes of sovereignty. Under international law war is waged by states or state-like entities.... (W)ar (is) a contention between two or more States through their armed forces."
- Duhaime's Law Dictionary​

"DRUGS" is not a sovereign state or a state-like entity... nor is "TERRORISM"
 
smartcooky said:
"The cases establish that war is a course of hostility engaged in by entities that have at least significant attributes of sovereignty. Under international law war is waged by states or state-like entities.... (W)ar (is) a contention between two or more States through their armed forces."
- Duhaime's Law Dictionary​

"DRUGS" is not a sovereign state or a state-like entity... nor is "TERRORISM"
Click to expand...
I agree, but it's not needed to go that far because the original claim holds. Despite the political labeling, Congress declared war on neither drugs nor terror.
 
Nothing in the Constitution prevents the government from using a metaphor when talking about dealing with an issue.

One could (and I would agree) argue that the "War on X" metaphor has been... overused but let's not pretend that the distinction between a declared war on a foreign power and a metaphorical "War against something" has to be spelled out to appease the pedants.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Indeed. And if you're dissatisfied with the news stories being posted here, you are free to post whatever news stories you want from whatever sources you want.
Click to expand...

Why the antagonism? I've asked if it would be possible to get those very same news from not 280 character snippets but full articles on the topic? Was that an unreasonable request, especially on a discussion forum?
 
GZljvpj.jpg


Reminder: The War on Drugs was initiated as a political tool to criminalise Richard Nixon's enemies:

“You want to know what this was really all about?” he asked with the bluntness of a man who, after public disgrace and a stretch in federal prison, had little left to protect. “The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”
Click to expand...
 
Stacko said:
Click to expand...

I can see three possible reasons for this

1 Barr is so steadfast in his opposition to the Mueller report being released, that Rosenstein feels he needs to stick around to add to the voices calling for its release.

2. Rosenstein wants to see what the report contains so that, in the event that Barr will not release the report, he (Rosenstein) will be in a better, more informed position to testify when he is inevitably brought before the House.

3. Barr is realising that the report is going to be serious and devastating to the President, and has asked Rosenstein to stay because he now knows he needs an experienced deputy who has been fully read-on on Mueller's investigation from the get-go.

Anyone willing to give odds on Stubby McBonespurs firing Rosenstein in the next few weeks?
 
Belz... said:
Why the antagonism? I've asked if it would be possible to get those very same news from not 280 character snippets but full articles on the topic? Was that an unreasonable request, especially on a discussion forum?
Click to expand...

Seth Abramson's tweets read like an article anyway (the twitter thread referenced is 30 tweets long (~4200 characters long, so hardly a snippet) and Twitter appears to be the media he chooses to use.

I appreciate SB's posting of these very interesting twitter threads, because I don't have a twitter so otherwise might not have them brought to my attention.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
I can see three possible reasons for this

1 Barr is so steadfast in his opposition to the Mueller report being released, that Rosenstein feels he needs to stick around to add to the voices calling for its release.

2. Rosenstein wants to see what the report contains so that, in the event that Barr will not release the report, he (Rosenstein) will be in a better, more informed position to testify when he is inevitably brought before the House.

3. Barr is realising that the report is going to be serious and devastating to the President, and has asked Rosenstein to stay because he now knows he needs an experienced deputy who has been fully read-on on Mueller's investigation from the get-go.

Anyone willing to give odds on Stubby McBonespurs firing Rosenstein in the next few weeks?
Click to expand...

I will bet the field.
 
smartcooky said:
Seth Abramson's tweets read like an article anyway (the twitter thread referenced is 30 tweets long (~4200 characters long, so hardly a snippet) and Twitter appears to be the media he chooses to use.

I appreciate SB's posting of these very interesting twitter threads, because I don't have a twitter so otherwise might not have them brought to my attention.
Click to expand...

In Abramson's case it's inevitable, and I do appreciate Squeegee posting them. But regardless I'd like to sink my teeth in more substantial things than tweets if possible.
 
Belz... said:
Why the antagonism? I've asked if it would be possible to get those very same news from not 280 character snippets but full articles on the topic? Was that an unreasonable request, especially on a discussion forum?
Click to expand...

I'm not being antagonistic. I'm actually making exactly the same request of you that you've made of other people. In fact, less so, given that rather than whining that other people's contributions to the thread aren't up to your standards, I'm pointing out that you're free to make whatever contributions to the thread you want. In fact, everybody is free to make whatever contributions to the thread they want.

I'll also point out that if you don't feel the news being posted in this thread is up to your standards, then you're free to get your news from alternate sources.
 
https://twitter.com/bradheath/status/1107991154602246144

Pretty strong suggestion in newly unsealed Michael Cohen warrant docs that the hush money investigation is still active.
Click to expand...

That's an entire thread, with relevant info embedded in each tweet.

https://twitter.com/harrylitman/status/1108010371183333377

a lot of boilerplate plus some nuggets (and multiple redactions) in the 269-page Cohen warrant application.But basically shows FBI went looking for what they found:evidence of bank fraud and campaign finance violations. Looking forward to discussing with @craigmelvin at 11 am ET.
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/AshaRangappa_/status/1108011134379020288

Also it would be nice if someone asked Trump or Fruity G whether “stormtrooper raids” normally include a 269-page affidavit providing ample probable cause that’s signed off by a federal judge
Click to expand...
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
I'm not being antagonistic. I'm actually making exactly the same request of you that you've made of other people. In fact, less so, given that rather than whining that other people's contributions to the thread aren't up to your standards, I'm pointing out that you're free to make whatever contributions to the thread you want.
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with standards, but rather with helping discussion by providing actual news rather than snippets. I'm not refering to Abramson but to other Twitter links hiherto provided.

Again, it doesn't sound unreasonable to me.
 
Belz... said:
It has nothing to do with standards, but rather with helping discussion by providing actual news rather than snippets.
Click to expand...

Feel free to provide whatever news sources you want.

Again, it doesn't sound unreasonable to me.
Click to expand...

Nor does saying that you're free to post whatever news sources you want, or to get your news from wherever you want sound unreasonable to me.

You're free to post whatever you want, and everybody else is free to post what they want. Can you explain how that's unreasonable?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom