may be rude

i worry about people continuing down a path because they don't want to admit they were wrong. with large entities it causes big problems. imagine a dystopia brought by fox not wanting to correct course. we need to invite others to move closer by discussing facts that can be appreciated by anyone. some facts can be brought up in mixed company, without having a partisan charge, that speak to public issues. or, in conversations where it feels hostile, you can just ask innocent questions for the sake of demonstrating a receptive attitude, and to help people flesh out their own thoughts. if it were easy then it would be done. unfortunately, the task at hand is bridging the divide. the individual experience of inconvenience and embarrassment in admitting to being wrong, accumulated en masse, is the glue holding the artifice together. collectively defusing that petty and unneeded human tendency is the way to shift to a more logical state of discussion. this weird challenge of psychology is what we will fail to adapt to, resulting in annihilation of the planet.

it is very serious. if it were obama, the republicans would swiftly impeach. even in this instance i am wondering if republican senators will want to so publicly shield this dude for something as constitutionally serious as obstruction of justice.

cool to see harris came out and backed warren up on impeachment.

congress is having mcgahn, barr, and mueller publicly testify in the next month.

i like when people say that trump tried to shut down the investigation because he was innocent.

can you link the thread?

ol

the president should not be allowed to obstruct justice. imagine if they see that the democrats gave them a pass. they're off and running, and any future motions for impeachment on the grounds of obstruction are weakened. what i'm seeing from Congress people on the left is that they don't even want to impeach. that just gears up the right, which makes the democrat prospects in 2020 worse. they don't want to but it's this thing where they should, because it's like if they don't do this then what are they there for? this is one of the most important purposes Congress serves. it offends the senses of any serious american to think about permitting a rampaging executive to disassemble it's subjection to justice and checks. it should feel disgusting to any congress person to consider declining the role of enacting the check that was intended by the founders to prevent deterioration into more authoritarian forms of government.

Congressman Nadler, Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, the committee that would start impeachment proceedings part 2 part 3 part 4

mueller handed off 10 cases and referred 14 cases. there is also an FBI counter-intelligence investigation into trump/russia that coordinated with mueller but is independent and ongoing. mueller's conspiracy investigation was criminal only. it's not unlikely we will see ongoing developments in regard to the subject of Volume I. susan hennessey makes this point about Volume I: "The only element that was missing was the technical meeting of the minds, the actual agreement necessary for conspiracy. And so the lack of that element, which of course is significant whenever you're thinking about criminal charging decisions, actually I think it masks a lot of the profoundly disturbing underlying conduct." from The Lawfare Podcast's What to Make of the Mueller Report episode

barr is a fishy dude. in his mar 24 letter summarizing the principle findings of the mueller report, he says that an underlying crime is needed for an obstruction case. that is flatly untrue and it is strikingly odd to professionals in the legal arena that he would voice something so entirely off-base. an obstruction case requires 3 things: an obstructive act a nexus between the obstructive act and an official proceeding a corrupt intent why was he trying to mislead the american people in such an incredibly high-profile and consequential public statement? stuff like this makes him look like a trumper to me: from wapo he almost certainly got nominated because of the memo written to rosenstein about how messed up the mueller investigation was. he wrote that to rosenstein june 8, 2018, while barr was a private counsel to a firm in chicago. barr's march 24 letter summarizing the mueller report principle findings stated that mueller's decision not to make a judgement means the AG gets to. but the mueller report states that the decision not to make a judgement was based on the OLC opinion - which applies to the entire DOJ. in that letter, barr omitted that the mueller report suggests that an obstruction case on a president should be handled by congress. in barr's apr 18 press conference - 2 hours ahead of the mueller report release - he again presented misleading language about the special counsel's decision not to make a judgement. he was asked directly if that decision was the result of the OLC opinion, and he responded with a misleading answer implying that the answer was no. in reality, the report explicitly states that the answer is yes. from the transcript of the apr 18 press conference: from the mueller report:

wow. jurecic is great.

that's explicitly stated in the report. the intro to the obstruction volume (Volume II) says the part about the authority to prosecute. in a couple other places the report mentions that congress should handle these kinds of cases. i quoted them in the previous page of this thread. this is the entire conclusion to Volume II: is he suggesting that they would prosecute? mueller would be able to decline prosecuton - there's only an issue if he wants to prosecute. that sentence specifies: while knowing the evidence. why was he vague if he thought obstruction was established? mueller explains in the intro to Volume II. it would be unfair for a prosecutor to say they believed a person to have committed a crime if they were unable to prosecute. it deprives the accused of the official channels to clear their name. so mueller couldn't explicitly say that the case looks solid to him. but there is that one, stand-out, cryptic sentence sitting there in that 5 sentence conclusion.

very honest i'm trying to actually discuss these things with some amount of general respect and seriousness because I don't have anything in the world against any of you (well, maybe goDel is a dingbat sometimes.... ) but really, don't ask me stupid questions. it's not constructive. Right. So why are you downplaying Mueller preparing an obstruction case for Congress?

auxien, do you think the president should be allowed to commit obstruction of justice?

where does it say middling at best? Mueller says there's evidence for obstruction, but some evidence doesn't equal a conviction in a 'traditional prosecutorial judgment' no, the report does not say that. it says they decided not to make the decision because of the OLC opinion. it also says that they wouldn't say they thought he committed a crime even if they thought it were true. that's what i laid out for you above, in post 16002, which had quotes mostly from the intro to Volume II. I'll just put the whole intro to Volume II here (bold added by me):

where does it state this pls? closest Mueller gets is which isn't worthless, but most fucking definitely isn't 'boy if I could lock Trump up right now I sure as sam heck damned would boyo!' now look at this. from the conclusion of Volume II: The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. that quote is striking. prosecutors are allowed to decline to prosecute a sitting president. mueller says that the evidence causes a problem in his ability to make a traditional prosecutorial judgement. that's why i said "mueller said he only didn't indict because the DOJ isn't supposed to." I'm seeing the same stuff y'all are, just not interpreting it through these skewed lenses: 'difficult issues that would need to be resolved' is most definitely not 'I would totally prosecute this guy for the evidence laid out with a rock solid case.' the obstruction case doesn't 'look pretty good' from what I'm reading/seeing/hearing, Mueller himself says (^in the quote above) it's only middling at best, so maybe it could be the basis if there's MORE stuff found...which is possible, but not part of this report. where does it say middling at best?

it goes against your 'this [Mueller report] is big' because the Mueller report has given us next to nothing we didn't already know. we know demonstrably almost nothing compared to yesterday, if i'm wrong please point out where because the 'new' stuff I've seen isn't important or isn't really new. i was saying it's big because the obstruction case looks pretty good and mueller got it completed and got it to congress. also, it seems like there is a lot of intersting stuff in there. where does it state this pls? closest Mueller gets is which isn't worthless, but most fucking definitely isn't 'boy if I could lock Trump up right now I sure as sam heck damned would boyo!' here is where he links the decision not to consider prosecution with the OLC opinion: First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that "the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions" in violation of " the constitutional separation of powers.'" mueller says he couldn't say trump committed obstruction of justice even if he knew it to be true: Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in ajudgment that the President committed crimes. The threshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person's conduct "constitutes a federal offense." U.S. Dep 't of Justice, Justice Manual § 9-27.220 (2018) (Justice Manual). Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges can be brought. we know that they can't say trump did it. but they go out of their way to say they're not saying he didn't do it: Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President' s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. now look at this. from the conclusion of Volume II: The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. that quote is striking. prosecutors are allowed to decline to prosecute a sitting president. mueller says that the evidence causes a problem in his ability to make a traditional prosecutorial judgement. that's why i said "mueller said he only didn't indict because the DOJ isn't supposed to." also interesting: mueller suggests in a few places that congress is an appropriate body to handle this kind of investigation: The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President's corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law. and With respect to whether the President can be found to have obstructed justice by exercising his powers under Article II of the Constitution, we concluded that Congress has the authority to prohibit a President's corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice.

where the president committed a ton of obstruction of justice. mueller said he's only not prosecuting because of the OLC opinion establishing the DOJ guideline to not indict a president. the report's packed with damning evidence. the Dems have what they need to impeach. they will now decide if they want to take the political risk. they're worried about the propaganda machine will hurt them in 2020 if they impeach trump in the house but the senate does not convict. honestly, i think they should do it anyway. let the republicans vote no and where it. he did the bulk of the obstruction in public, the report sheds light on little, if anything, new. damning evidence? of what? trump's an idiot and manafort is a snake? common knowledge, little if any 'new evidence' much less DAMNING new evidence Dems can impeach if they want, but unless there's more in the redactions (unlikely) or something comes from SDNY in the future, they'd be stupid to impeach. Pelosi isn't an idiot. the report is not big. stuff that Mueller sent to SDNY/etc? that may be big, but we don't know about it yet. the fact that a number of the things occurred in the open does not make it any less evidence of obstruction of justice. the mueller report lays out obstruction of justice. mueller said he only didn't indict because the DOJ isn't supposed to. Congress is supposed to impeach. we suspected but didn't know that this would come. now it has been delivered, and it looks solid. there was an election 6 months ago. you can hardly get further from an election. the left has facts on their side. they need to get better at using them.

where maddow the president committed a ton of obstruction of justice. mueller said he's only not prosecuting because of the OLC opinion establishing the DOJ guideline to not indict a president. he packaged up the evidence in the report. the Dems have what they need to impeach. they will now decide if they want to take the political risk. they're worried the propaganda machine will hurt them if they do, and the Republicans in the Senate would prevent removal, anyway. honestly, i think they should do it. let the Republicans vote no. imagine the vibe if the dems let trump and the Repubs get away with this. it's like going to the dark-side.

so, this is big

Its out. Searchable version - https://www.lawfareblog.com/document-mueller-report

yeah. good watch.

great time. i think we were spoiled by a pretty unique and awesome set. cool to hear what seemed like generative stuff. also really enjoyed abundance, which was different. there was a lot of stuff that seemed like unheard aphex. industrial, heavy, percussive, weird, ww3. thanks to all.