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

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

You're more a suburban garden gnome.

You peoples need tinfoil hats ... ha ha! Good one by me!

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

He's fucking President. His adult children are fucking advisors the President. As a candidate, he had an army of top lawyers and experienced advisors available to him. As President, he has the entire DOJ ready to serve.

And folks want to let him off because he didn't understand the law he swore to uphold?

WTF?

I surmise this is a bit like the Bill Clinton perjury thing. When an investigation is political, and this investigation became quite political, politics comes into it. Politics involves messaging, spinning, using all sorts of thuggish devices to defend against and attack opponents.

Congress and the American people gave Clinton a pass for perjury because, well, the investigation was unfair. It was political. Is Trump's situation 1:1 analogous? No. There was a lot more than politics involved here at the start. But Trump's political enemies seized on the investigation and used it for political ends. So he fought back politically, and through the powers of his office. The problem for him was these efforts could also be construed as obstruction of a criminal investigation.

Trump and Clinton were both fighting with one hand tied behind their back. That's what always happens when politics and investigations are mixed. The attackers use the investigation as a sword and a shield, and the target has no way to defend that doesn't risk making him look like he's engaged in a cover-up. Trump's behavior is far more egregious than Clinton's lie (I wouldn't have even disbarred Clinton), but I think at some level, Barr and even Mueller recognized that for Trump to fight politically against Democrats who were hiding behind and weaponizing Mueller, he had to also attack Mueller and stymie the investigation. Thus, the standard for what constitutes obstruction was relaxed in regard to Trump, in much the same way Congress and the American people rejected the impeachment of Clinton for his "perjury." An investigation that becomes political loses its credibility. (In that regard, Mueller was hobbled from the start.)

If the Democrats had not weaponized the Mueller investigation, we might not be seeing this outcome. I understand why they did it. But if one wants to apportion blame for Trump's escaping here, Adam Schiff owns a nice chunk of it. Along with many other Democrats.

Notice Pelosi isn't front and center on the Mueller thing. She's smart. She's letting this blow up in other representatives' faces.

ETA: The Democrats should be very wary about moving to impeach. The people, as the Times article I cited notes, don't care about Russiagate. An impeachment, which will fail, would be a political disaster. It would also give Trump a huge issue to ride into 2020. All the Ds have to do to win in 2020 is bring back a piece or two of the Blue Wall or Florida. That should be their focus.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

You're more a suburban garden gnome.

This is good. Gold star for you.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

You peoples need tinfoil hats ... ha ha! Good one by me!

Back in the day, we'd have a sebby sock with that avatar by now.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

verbal diarrhea

more verbal diarrhea

So you're saying the Mueller report doesn't exonerate him?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Read the paragraph in its entirety. The line where he explains why he’s fucked is curiously omitted in the press.

Has the press been hanging with Barr too much lately?

ETA: It’s the last paragraph on P. 78 of the report. Focus on the sentence quoting Trump saying he is fucked because he won’t be able to get anything done in his presidency. That’s omitted obviously because it cuts against the narrative he was worried about criminal acts or conspiracies being uncovered.

You choose to talk about the press instead of Trump. Sometimes I choose to talk about you instead of the press.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Don’t miss my point.

You missed mine.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

Dude, if he attempted to obstruct, he had the requisite intent and thus did obstruct.

This is interesting:

What [Mueller] said is technical and admittedly somewhat elliptical. But the gist of what he said is this: He agreed with the longtime OLC guidance that a President should not/cannot be indicted in office. He further argued that since the President cannot be indicted in office it is unfair to accuse him of a crime. Why would it be unfair? When someone is indicted for a crime they have the opportunity to defend and vindicate themselves in a judicial process. If Mueller were to accuse the President of a crime without indicting him, the President would have no such recourse, no judicial process in which he could defend or vindicate himself.

Set aside whether you agree with that analysis. The key point is that Mueller accepted the OLC no-indictment reasoning and found a corollary to that reasoning: that he could not accuse him of a crime at all. “Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgement when no charges can be brought.” He then said explicitly that even though he would not accuse the President of a crime he would rule out a crime if the evidence warranted it. But it didn’t warrant it. “Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment.”

By implication, reading the totality of the document, it’s pretty clear the Special Counsel did believe he did commit a crime. That is borne out in the discussion of the 10 instances of obstructive behavior. Implications of course are not definitive statements. Different people can draw different implications. But the document is crystal clear on this point: nowhere does Mueller say he did not find sufficient evidence to say Trump committed obstruction. He very specifically said that OLC guidance and the Special Counsel’s Office own legal analysis barred him from rendering judgment at all.

TPM

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

There was a lot more than politics involved here at the start. But Trump's political enemies seized on the investigation and used it for political ends. So he fought back politically, and through the powers of his office. The problem for him was these efforts could also be construed as obstruction of a criminal investigation.

There was a legitimate investigation run by (Republican) James Comey, (Republican) Robert Mueller and (Republican) Rod Rosenstein. It revealed a lot of criminal conduct by people other than the President. Trump obstructed that investigation.

Any investigation of a President is going to be "political" because people do not want their government to be corrupt or do illegal things. You seem to think that a President who calls an investigation "political" is justified in breaking the law to obstruct it. That's loony tunes. Do you really think that? If not, why not?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

So you're saying the Mueller report doesn't exonerate him?

Exonerated is the wrong word. I don’t know why that and collusion are even used. On conspiracy, Trump is found not to have engaged in a criminal conspiracy. 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.

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

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

There was a legitimate investigation run by (Republican) James Comey, (Republican) Robert Mueller and (Republican) Rod Rosenstein. It revealed a lot of criminal conduct by people other than the President. Trump obstructed that investigation.

Any investigation of a President is going to be "political" because people do not want their government to be corrupt or do illegal things. You seem to think that a President who calls an investigation "political" is justified in breaking the law to obstruct it. That's loony tunes. Do you really think that? If not, why not?

When your opponents use a valid investigation as a political sword, you get leeway in terms of allowable responsive actions. This lesson may serve to deter the parties from politicizing investigations in the future. Call it the Barr Doctrine: He who makes an investigation a political sword gifts the target enhanced powers to rebut and the benefit of the doubt in re all allegations of obstruction.

As an aside, apart from Trump, I think obstruction is an oft abused charge. The deck is already stacked brutally enough in the govt’s favor. A defendant must also worry he’s going too far in trying to save his ass?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

This is interesting:

TPM

The fed crim code can be used to indict almost anyone if a prosecutor really wants to nail the person. It’s a truly problematic mess that confers far too much power to law enforcement.

So whether Trump can be indicted is a mindless question. Yes. You can technically charge him based on any one of the 11 instances Mueller cited. But can you convict? And should you charge a dumb person for trying to squirm out of an investigation, even if he’s the President? Maybe. Or maybe not.

I guarantee if we decided to apply the crim code in its entirety to the last five presidents, we could find some technical charge on which to indict. The crim code is in desperate need of a diet. It’s about 50-66% larger than it ought to be.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

When your opponents use a valid investigation as a political sword, you get leeway in terms of allowable responsive actions.

What has to be true for a President whose Administration is being investigation to not "get leeway" in your view to break the law?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

What has to be true for a President whose Administration is being investigation to not "get leeway" in your view to break the law?

If the opposing party is not talking up the investigation for benefit, hyperbolizing its likely outcome, and referencing it constantly to denigrate him politically, a President has no need for leeway to protect himself.

Once an investigation is initiated, a gag order should be imposed on all members of the House and Senate and their staff regarding the investigation. And they may not conduct concurrent investigations of the same issues. They must all shut up, entirely, until the investigation is concluded.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

If the opposing party is not talking up the investigation for benefit, hyperbolizing its likely outcome, and referencing it constantly to denigrate him politically, a President has no need for leeway to protect himself.

Once an investigation is initiated, a gag order should be imposed on all members of the House and Senate and their staff regarding the investigation. And they may not conduct concurrent investigations of the same issues. They must all shut up, entirely, until the investigation is concluded.

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.