Trump v Vance

[SectionC3]

On 5/10/2020 at 8:46 AM, Tiberius said:

No, you guys are the ones discrediting the media and promoting the lies of Trump. Your leader is a pathological liar. You people are unbelievable. 

 

Now Trump is trying to get the Supreme Court to rule he is above the law, and you guys hope they do it. 

 

 

 

The thumbnail sketch of this one (from what little I understand) is that Trump is trying to extend the concept of presidential immunity to a third-party accounting firm to defeat a subpoena served not on Trump, but on that firm.  We're talking about a leap from a "no indictment" rule with respect to a sitting president to a "no subpoena" rule with respect to a sitting president to a "no subpoena upon a third party that may somehow affect a sitting president" rule.  Bottom line: the prez wants to be above the law, and the rule of law crowd is completely cool with him getting his way. 

[Rob's House]

1 minute ago, SectionC3 said:

 

The thumbnail sketch of this one (from what little I understand) is that Trump is trying to extend the concept of presidential immunity to a third-party accounting firm to defeat a subpoena served not on Trump, but on that firm.  We're talking about a leap from a "no indictment" rule with respect to a sitting president to a "no subpoena" rule with respect to a sitting president to a "no subpoena upon a third party that may somehow affect a sitting president" rule.  Bottom line: the prez wants to be above the law, and the rule of law crowd is completely cool with him getting his way. 

 

Assuming for a second there was some legitimate reason for investigating anything about President Trump, you can thank your fellow leftists for the deaf ear your complaints fall upon.

 

You can only cry wolf so many times before people tune you out.

[SectionC3]

Just now, Rob's House said:

 

Assuming for a second there was some legitimate reason for investigating anything about President Trump, you can thank your fellow leftists for the deaf ear your complaints fall upon.

 

You can only cry wolf so many times before people tune you out.

 

You are principled believer in the rule of law.  I can tell. 

[Koko78]

18 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

Obstruction of justice was a hoax?

 

A terribly unfunny one.

[SectionC3]

2 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

A terribly unfunny one.

 

You obviously did not read the Mueller report.

[Koko78]

13 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

You obviously did not read the Mueller report.

 

[SectionC3]

5 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

 

Then surely you know the the report concludes with this paragraph:

 

Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct. 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. At the same time, 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, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

[Koko78]

3 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

Then surely you know the the report concludes with this paragraph:

 

Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct. 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. At the same time, 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, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

 

Ah right, the old 'we can't exonerate him, therefore he's guilty' bullcrap.

 

You're either being disingenuous, once again, or you're just a ***** idiot. I'm not sure which is worse.

[B-Man]

8 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

Then surely you know the the report concludes with this paragraph:

 

Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct. 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.

At the same time, 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, we are unable to reach that judgment.

 

Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

 

 

 

That is not how it works.

 

That is evidence of how a BIASED report concludes.

[Chef Jim]

6 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

Then surely you know the the report concludes with this paragraph:

 

Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct. 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. At the same time, 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, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

The wishy-washiest things I’ve ever read. That last sentence is pure comedy. It essentially says “we have no clue what we are doing”  

 

Like when I have a client who gives me

a solid maybe. “Come back when you have a solid yes or no.  In the meantime good luck!” 

 

 

[SectionC3]

Just now, Koko78 said:

 

Ah right, the old 'we can't exonerate him, therefore he's guilty' bullcrap.

 

You're either being disingenuous, once again, or you're just a ***** idiot. I'm not sure which is worse.

 

I didn't say Trump is guilty.  I merely pointed out that the DOJ has reserved judgment on the issue whether Trump obstructed justice.  Mueller could have said that there was legally insufficient evidence to support an obstruction charge.  But he didn't.  And he specifically noted that he did not "exonerate" the president.  

 

The fact that the Mueller report doesn't say what you would like it to say doesn't make me (or Mueller, or anyone else, for that matter) "disingenuous" or a "***** idiot."

 

 

1 minute ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

That is not how it works.

 

That is evidence of how a BIASED report concludes.

 

What is your experience in matters of this nature?

[SectionC3]

1 minute ago, Chef Jim said:

The wishy-washiest things I’ve ever read. That last sentence is pure comedy. It essentially says “we have no clue what we are doing”  

 

Like when I have a client who gives me

a solid maybe. “Come back when you have a solid yes or no.  In the meantime good luck!” 

 

 

 

Fake logic, bro.  In point of fact, your statement reflects that you don't know what you're talking about and that you're well out of your depth.  Mueller indicated that, for reasons unrelated to his criminal liability, the president could not be charged at this juncture.  Mueller specifically declined to say that, based on his review of the evidence, the president should not be charged.  The president still may be held liable for such criminal conduct once DOJ policy permits his indictment.  

[Koko78]

3 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

I didn't say Trump is guilty.  I merely pointed out that the DOJ has reserved judgment on the issue whether Trump obstructed justice.  Mueller could have said that there was legally insufficient evidence to support an obstruction charge.  But he didn't.  And he specifically noted that he did not "exonerate" the president. 

 

Barr did.

 

Mueller's job was never to "exonerate" anyone. In fact, Mueller violated the terms of his appointment by refusing to make a decision and to explain that decision.

[SectionC3]

Just now, Koko78 said:

 

Barr did.

 

Mueller's job was never to "exonerate" anyone. In fact, Mueller violated the terms of his appointment by refusing to make a decision and to explain that decision.

 

No, Barr didn't exonerate the president.  And no, Mueller didn't violate the terms of his appointment.  In point of fact Mueller believed that he lacked legal authority to charge a sitting president, which is why the report left open the question whether a criminal action against Trump with respect to this conduct should be pursued once Trump leaves that office. 

[Chef Jim]

6 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

Fake logic, bro.  In point of fact, your statement reflects that you don't know what you're talking about and that you're well out of your depth.  Mueller indicated that, for reasons unrelated to his criminal liability, the president could not be charged at this juncture.  Mueller specifically declined to say that, based on his review of the evidence, the president should not be charged.  The president still may be held liable for such criminal conduct once DOJ policy permits his indictment.  

So explain to me what this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, mean?

[SectionC3]

8 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

So explain to me what this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, mean?

 

Two points.  First, you've taken the sentence fragment completely out of context.  Second, you have received your explanation.  DOJ policy precluded Mueller from indicting a sitting president.  Consistent with that policy, Mueller refused to say (that is, to conclude) that the President committed a crime.  Mueller did have the latitude to say that the facts showed that the President did not commit a crime.  As noted in the part of the sentence that you (intentionally) omitted, Mueller declined to conclude as much.  

 

It's surprising that you -- someone who normally is fairly level-headed -- would ascribe to such logic.  What was the result of Part I of the Mueller report?  Insufficient evidence with respect to collusion.  Mueller said it in these words: 

 

"Further, the evidence was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election."

 

So why wouldn't Mueller say the same thing with respect to obstruction in Part II of the report?  He easily could have said "the evidence was not sufficient to charge [Trump] with any crime related to obstruction of justice."  But he didn't.  And that, sir, when coupled with the conclusion to Part II, is a pretty big clue as to what special counsel really thought of the obstruction part of the investigation. 

[Chef Jim]

4 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

Two points.  First, you've taken the sentence fragment completely out of context.  Second, you have received your explanation.  DOJ policy precluded Mueller from indicting a sitting president.  Consistent with that policy, Mueller refused to say (that is, to conclude) that the President committed a crime.  Mueller did have the latitude to say that the facts showed that the President did not commit a crime.  As noted in the part of the sentence that you (intentionally) omitted, Mueller declined to conclude as much.  

 

It's surprising that you -- someone who normally is fairly level-headed -- would ascribe to such logic.  What was the result of Part I of the Mueller report?  Insufficient evidence with respect to collusion.  Mueller said it in these words: 

 

"Further, the evidence was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election."

 

So why wouldn't Mueller say the same thing with respect to obstruction in Part II of the report?  He easily could have said "the evidence was not sufficient to charge [Trump] with any crime related to obstruction of justice."  But he didn't.  And that, sir, when coupled with the conclusion to Part II, is a pretty big clue as to what special counsel really thought of the obstruction part of the investigation. 

 

I understand most of this however here is were my logical mind comes in to play. Why the inference?  Why the pretty big clue as you put it?  Why the semantic tap dance?  I get this as a big maybe....maybe not. Seems pretty ball-less to me. 

[SectionC3]

7 hours ago, Chef Jim said:

 

I understand most of this however here is were my logical mind comes in to play. Why the inference?  Why the pretty big clue as you put it?  Why the semantic tap dance?  I get this as a big maybe....maybe not. Seems pretty ball-less to me. 

 

Because Mueller couldn't say the president committed a crime.  Given your deep understanding of such processes I'm sure you get that.  It's not Mueller's job to say whether the president committed a crime.  That's for a trier of fact.  It is Mueller's job to present cases in which there is legally sufficient evidence of a crime to a grand jury.  Mueller wouldn't even have the conversation with respect to collusion/conspiracy given his inability to marshal legally sufficient evidence of a crime with respect to that issue.  He could have reached the same conclusion with respect to obstruction, but refused to do so based on the quantum of the proof.  Instead he took the next step, saying that this might be a case appropriate for grand jury review ("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, we are unable to reach that judgment") but that it couldn't reach that point because of DOJ guidelines precluding the indictment of a sitting president.  All of the Trump apologists want to delude themselves into thinking that there's "nothing" there, but a straight, clean, pristine, and universally respected career prosecutor concluded otherwise.  

[Foxx]

ah yes... the old guilty till proven innocent slant. in a liberal hellhole that logic might seem valid, thankfully this is the United States of America where you are innocent until proven guilty. much to the dismay of feelz and their desired narrative everywhere.

[Tiberius]

3 minutes ago, Foxx said:

ah yes... the old guilty till proven innocent slant. in a liberal hellhole that logic might seem valid, thankfully this is the United States of America where you are innocent until proven guilty. much to the dismay of feelz and their desired narrative everywhere.

You have to admit though, it’s not us liberals that are literally trying to turn Trump into a person bounded by no laws, no rules no checks. You guys are literally trying to make him a dictator. His lawyers seriousLy argued he can murder and not be stopped, and can keep on murderering and no one should be able to investigate. He admires Putin greatly. 

 

Boy, I wish I was exaggerating, but I’m not. We all know Trump has four votes on the court to turn him into an unaccountable executive, with an election on the horizon that he might be constitutionally protected from interfering in illegally.