Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

This is interesting:



TPM

Right, which is why Barr’s summary really should be disqualifying of him as AG.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

On conspiracy, Trump is found not to have engaged in a criminal conspiracy.

No, the investigation did not find enough evidence to prove conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt. It reached that result with no access to the foreign witnesses, no testimony from the president and no cooperation from the most likely actual participant (Manafort) and the one person who we know worked directly with a Russian intelligence asset.

Also, what you said here is no different from “exonerate.”

On obstruction, Trump has been found to have engaged in acts which could support claims of obstruction but at this time do not warrant or merit prosecution under reasonable prosecutorial discretion.

No, that’s not right either. Can you read? OLC policy precludes prosecution. Given that, and thamks to post-Star special counsel rules that prohibit a referral for impeachment, Mueller did all he could actually do: present the evidence of obstruction.

ETA: I think the correct read is that Mueller would have referred obstruction to the House for impeachment if he was allowed to.

That’s inartful, but the only way to phrase Mueller’s findings and Barr’s application of them

Nope, Barr simply ignored what Mueller actually said about obstruction and substituted his own judgment.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

No, the investigation did not find enough evidence to prove conspiracy with the Russian government beyond a reasonable doubt.

Fixed that for you.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

Right, which is why Barr’s summary really should be disqualifying of him as AG.

Why? If the report is detailed enough to let you disagree, what difference does it make?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

No, the investigation did not find enough evidence to prove conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt. It reached that result with no access to the foreign witnesses, no testimony from the president and no cooperation from the most likely actual participant (Manafort) and the one person who we know worked directly with a Russian intelligence asset.

Also, what you said here is no different from “exonerate.”



No, that’s not right either. Can you read? OLC policy precludes prosecution. Given that, and thamks to post-Star special counsel rules that prohibit a referral for impeachment, Mueller did all he could actually do: present the evidence of obstruction.

ETA: I think the correct read is that Mueller would have referred obstruction to the House for impeachment if he was allowed to.



Nope, Barr simply ignored what Mueller actually said about obstruction and substituted his own judgment.

If an investigation of this unprecedented breadth fails to result in evidence adequate to sustain a charge, it might as well be an exoneration. This isn’t a local DA coming up short.

It’s also quite funny that when I said weeks ago that Manafort may have the goods, Ty told me I was nuts. Now here you are making the same argument I had made.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Fixed that for you.

This argument is silly. They clearly looked at all people affiliated with the Russian govt and all people affiliated with the Trump campaign. It says so plainly in the report, and it’s frivolous to assert otherwise. Adder and you have made solid arguments on other bases. Drop this one. It undercuts your better points.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Why does that make sense? I can see worrying about an investigation where someone with political power uses that power to influence an investigation. But in a case like this one, where Mueller worked for the President, not Congress, why should it matter what the other political party says? Mueller doesn't work for them.

A couple of days ago, you were bending over backwards to explain how Barr, a political appointee of Trump's, could be trusted to be fair as he explained to the public how Mueller had exonerated Trump. That was the AG, for whom Mueller worked. You had no concerns about Barr's politics. But today, you are concerned about political influence that even a single member of Congress in the minority might have by making a public statement.

Either you feel Trump needs more sympathy than he is getting from this board, or you are so worried about prosecutorial power that you are fine when politics discourages prosecution, just because, but don't want to see it go the other way.

It's like it has escaped your notice that DAs in this country are political actors who run on their record to get to office.

Your euphemism "leeway" is another way of saying that you are OK if the President breaks the law, if he is being criticized. You just don't want to acknowledge that.

It matters because when a party politicizes an investigation, as the Democrats did here, it puts a President in a heads you lose, tails I win corner. He’s forced to fight the investigation which the other party can then claim is obstruction... All the while that party hyperbolizes about what the investigation will bring forth. It forces what the party sensationalizing the investigation can later label a cover-up, while the underlying investigation comes up with inadequate evidence to even find a criminally chargeable conspiracy.

I said I think Bill Clinton was licensed to lie where he did. I do not believe a political investigation is valid. Bill was above the law where the law was perverted by politicians to wrongly attack him. Trump is more complex. This investigation was valid and was later wrongly used by Democrats as a political device. His leeway, unlike Clinton’s, is limited. Also, to the extent he wrongly used an investigation of Hillary as a sword against her, his suffering the same fate seems equitable. I have a hard time putting him above the law in a limited sense as I did in the case of Bill. But my judgment there is immaterial. I’m just offering what I think resembles Barr’s rationale.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

If an investigation of this unprecedented breadth fails to result in evidence adequate to sustain a charge, it might as well be an exoneration.

I mean, as long as you ignore all the evidence, I suppose.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Some questions for Attorney General Barr.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

I mean, as long as you ignore all the evidence, I suppose.

We're talking about conspiracy. On conspiracy, Mueller stated, unequivocally, he did not have adequate evidence to charge anyone in the Trump campaign or anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign with having engaged in a criminal conspiracy with the Russian govt or anyone afilliated with the Russian govt.

No one is ignoring evidence. Mueller is saying he could not find adequate evidence. Are you suggesting Mueller himself is ignoring evidence? That there is enough to charge a criminal conspiracy and Mueller just ignored it?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

We're talking about conspiracy. On conspiracy, Mueller stated, unequivocally, he did not have adequate evidence to charge anyone in the Trump campaign or anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign with having engaged in a criminal conspiracy with the Russian govt or anyone afilliated with the Russian govt.

No one is ignoring evidence. Mueller is saying he could not find adequate evidence. Are you suggesting Mueller himself is ignoring evidence? That there is enough to charge a criminal conspiracy and Mueller just ignored it?

I'm saying that the evidence shows that Trump personally, as well as other members of his campaign, asked for, knew about and accepted help from the Russian government and did nothing to prevent it (any other campaign would have been reporting the Russian contacts to the FBI). That's not exoneration. At most, that's got really lucky they couldn't be charged.

I'm also saying that Mueller did not have access to any Russian witnesses (nor Assange) and the two most likely Trump participants - Stone and Manafort - did not cooperate. It safe to assume they know things that might have aided the prosecution.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Adder

I mean, as long as you ignore all the evidence, I suppose.

This is the dumbest ongoing conversation possibly ever on this board.

The levels of ridiculous justifications and dismissals Sebby is going through ("The law is too broad, so it doesn't matter that you can prove Trump broke it" or "He's not smart, so why are we treating him like a criminal genius" or "Excuse his criminal behavior because it's just a reaction to a legitimate investigation which yielded numerous convictions of people who were integral to the Administration or the campaign") is so fucking ridiculous that I'm not sure why anyone here (including me) still engages.

What's the point?

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

This is the dumbest ongoing conversation possibly ever on this board.

The levels of ridiculous justifications and dismissals Sebby is going through ("The law is too broad, so it doesn't matter that you can prove Trump broke it" or "He's not smart, so why are we treating him like a criminal genius" or "Excuse his criminal behavior because it's just a reaction to a legitimate investigation which yielded numerous convictions of people who were integral to the Administration or the campaign") is so fucking ridiculous that I'm not sure why anyone here (including me) still engages.

What's the point?

TM

It is dumb. A number of people here wish to relitigate conspiracy.

Mueller found there was not adequate evidence on conspiracy. Period.

You know what you've got when you can't adduce adequate evidence to sustain a charge? Nothing. You have nothing.

On obstruction, there's something. Politically, Congress can do as it will. And one can argue that criminal charges are warranted. But on conspiracy, unless some smoking gun evidence which Mueller overlooked should arise, which is highly unlikely, The Story is Over.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

I'm saying that the evidence shows that Trump personally, as well as other members of his campaign, asked for, knew about and accepted help from the Russian government and did nothing to prevent it (any other campaign would have been reporting the Russian contacts to the FBI). That's not exoneration. At most, that's got really lucky they couldn't be charged.

I'm also saying that Mueller did not have access to any Russian witnesses (nor Assange) and the two most likely Trump participants - Stone and Manafort - did not cooperate. It safe to assume they know things that might have aided the prosecution.

I am running for Congress. Russians, acting in concert with Wikileaks, start leaking all sorts of nasty shit about my opponent. I decide to take a political risk and welcome this, even encourage more of it. But I do not directly coordinate with the Russians. I simply receive info from them and use it to my advantage. I also telecast to these Russians that I understand they want me in office over my opponent. To get more info into the public sphere of the sort these Russians are peddling, I even state overtly that I want better relations with them, so they'll keep leaking such info through Wikileaks.

Is this "dancing from afar" a crime?

No. No it's not. And if it's not a crime, you've got nothing but finger wagging. "These people are immoral." Pay for a beer with that. The public doesn't care about this investigation as it relates to political charges. You think it cares at all about someone claiming it proved the Trump campaign is immoral or engaged in dirty tricks? You realize how low our public opinion of politicians is generally, apart from Trump. You also realize Trump is admittedly, openly amoral and immoral (it shifts situationally). Calling him an immoral politician is like pointing out the moon's existence.

Re Stone, Manafort, and Assange, I'll say it again: If you cannot adduce info adequate to charge, you have nothing. Mueller had 22 months. He had thousands of subpoenas, hundreds of interviews, and he couldn't come up with adequate evidence of a crime in re the conspiracy. Now you say it all would have been different if only they'd had cracked Stone, Manafort, and Assange? Please. Mueller came up snake eyes on conspiracy, as I always figured he would. But congrats -- you've got the dumb bastard in jeopardy on obstruction. Run with that angle. It's the only one you have.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

This is the dumbest ongoing conversation possibly ever on this board.

The levels of ridiculous justifications and dismissals Sebby is going through ("The law is too broad, so it doesn't matter that you can prove Trump broke it" or "He's not smart, so why are we treating him like a criminal genius" or "Excuse his criminal behavior because it's just a reaction to a legitimate investigation which yielded numerous convictions of people who were integral to the Administration or the campaign") is so fucking ridiculous that I'm not sure why anyone here (including me) still engages.

What's the point?

TM

Yep.