Author Topic: The US Presidency 2019  (Read 72948 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Journeyman

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 555,615
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,180
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #400 on: May 27, 2019, 03:55:31 »
Trump has been able to replace some very liberal judges with conservatives. With Justice Roberts being able to side with the liberals more often than not if its a close vote and he is the decider it makes me uneasy. The Judges at all levels are supposed to be apolitical but the ones that are ruling against Trump were selected by Obama generally.
Saying that "Judges at all levels are supposed to be apolitical" shows that you know the correct words, but saying that Justice Roberts makes you "uneasy," demonstrates no actual belief in (or perhaps understanding of) that principle. 

Are the Justices ruling "against Trump," or deciding cases based on the arguments' merit?  Is Roberts somehow treasonous 'to the team' because, as a registered Republican appointed by GW Bush, he occasionally pens rulings that adhere to the Constitution and legal precedent rather than some Pavlovian adherence to Republican dogma? 

Agreeing with your worldview does not make them apolitical any more than being appointed by Obama automatically makes their judgements political.

Offline kkwd

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 85,432
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 520
I like beer.

Offline Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 115,140
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,452
Optio

Offline kkwd

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 85,432
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 520
I like beer.

Offline Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 115,140
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,452
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #404 on: May 27, 2019, 15:22:15 »
Are you sure, fake news is not a thing is it?

It is when it is a thing.  There is a difference between fake news and labelling all news as fake news when it suits or does not suit one's world view.

Trump is definitely a champion at alternative facts but that does not mean the other side is innocent either.
Optio

Offline Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 115,140
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,452
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #405 on: May 28, 2019, 14:19:36 »
Saying that "Judges at all levels are supposed to be apolitical" shows that you know the correct words, but saying that Justice Roberts makes you "uneasy," demonstrates no actual belief in (or perhaps understanding of) that principle. 

Are the Justices ruling "against Trump," or deciding cases based on the arguments' merit?  Is Roberts somehow treasonous 'to the team' because, as a registered Republican appointed by GW Bush, he occasionally pens rulings that adhere to the Constitution and legal precedent rather than some Pavlovian adherence to Republican dogma? 

Agreeing with your worldview does not make them apolitical any more than being appointed by Obama automatically makes their judgements political.

Apparently even with the appointment of "conservative" judges they are acting independently.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/scotus-decisions-refute-pre-conceived-expectations-of-conservative-rubber-stamp
Optio

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 110,830
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,854
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #406 on: May 28, 2019, 14:31:30 »
Todays rulings are going to make interesting viewing on Fox tonight.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/scotus-decisions-refute-pre-conceived-expectations-of-conservative-rubber-stamp

Supreme Court hands down varying decisions in hot-button abortion, transgender and border cases

Offline Baden Guy

    Full Member.

  • Question everything. Learn something. Answer nothing.
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 48,047
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,883
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #407 on: May 29, 2019, 12:19:43 »
Charging Donald Trump with crime wasn't an option, Robert Mueller says
Special counsel Robert Mueller said Wednesday charging the president of the United States with a crime in his investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election was not an option his office could consider, given existing Justice Department guidelines that a sitting president cannot be indicted.

In his first public comments since being assigned in May 2017, Mueller said on Wednesday "it would be unfair" to potentially accuse someone of a crime when the person couldn't stand trial to defend himself.

"Charging the president with a crime was … not an option we could consider," said Mueller. "We concluded that we would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime."
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/dc-mueller-statement-1.5153877


Offline QV

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 9,595
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 355
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #408 on: May 29, 2019, 18:02:04 »
Here's hoping John Durham and Bill Barr can get to the bottom of this.

For anyone interested, check out Victor Davis Hanson's points on all of this, or John Solomon of Judicial Watch...     

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 71,980
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,879
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #409 on: May 30, 2019, 19:50:29 »
“The Attorney General has previously stated that the Special Counsel repeatedly affirmed that he was not saying that, but for the OLC opinion, he would have found the President obstructed justice. The Special Counsel’s report and his statement today made clear that the office concluded it would not reach a determination — one way or the other — about whether the President committed a crime. There is no conflict between these statements," a joint statement from DOJ spokeswoman Kerri Kupec and Mueller spokesman Peter Carr said.

(from here)
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Offline Brihard

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 233,265
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,724
  • Non-Electric Pop-Up Target
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #410 on: May 31, 2019, 00:41:42 »
“The Attorney General has previously stated that the Special Counsel repeatedly affirmed that he was not saying that, but for the OLC opinion, he would have found the President obstructed justice. The Special Counsel’s report and his statement today made clear that the office concluded it would not reach a determination — one way or the other — about whether the President committed a crime. There is no conflict between these statements," a joint statement from DOJ spokeswoman Kerri Kupec and Mueller spokesman Peter Carr said.

(from here)

Also logically consistent with this:

'“If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so,” Mr. Mueller said'

He has not at any point said that the president clearly did not commit a crime. So logically, from that statement, he does not believe that the president 'clearly did not commit a crime'. That leaves a ton of room for ambiguity, but it's absolutely, unambiguously, NOT an exoneration.

The report found what it found, and due to the unique legal status of the president, there are courses of action that they could not take, so they stopped short of determining what they would have done 'but for' those factors. That's reasonable.

The report is not an indictment. It's also not an exoneration. It's potentially ammunition for the former in the hands of those who are able to indict, though I would be surprised if it went to that point.
Pacificsm is doctrine fostered by a delusional minority and by the media, which holds forth the proposition it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 71,980
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,879
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #411 on: May 31, 2019, 01:42:32 »
The suggestion that an investigation could make a meaningful determination of exoneration is widely shared and widely mistaken.  Investigators and prosecutors try to make cases for conviction, not exoneration.

As Alan Dershowitz points out:

"Remember that federal investigations by prosecutors, including special counsels, are by their very nature one-sided. They hear only evidence of guilt and not exculpatory evidence. Their witnesses are not subject to the adversarial process. There is no cross examination. The evidence is taken in secret behind the closed doors of a grand jury. For that very reason, prosecutors can only conclude whether there is sufficient evidence to commence a prosecution. They are not in a position to decide whether the subject of the investigation is guilty or is innocent of any crimes.

That determination of guilt or innocence requires a full adversarial trial with a zealous defense attorney, vigorous cross examination, exclusionary rules of evidence and other due process safeguards. Such safeguards were not present in this investigation, and so the suggestion by Mueller that Trump might well be guilty deserves no credence. His statement, so inconsistent with his long history, will be used to partisan advantage by Democrats, especially all those radicals who are seeking impeachment."

It's possible that an investigation might uncover evidence that conclusively supports exoneration, but the absence of evidence for exoneration in a prosecutor's case is not sufficient to determine that exoneration either is or is not due to the accused.  "If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so" only tells us the prosecutor's attempt to make his case, while failing, did not also produce a clear case for the defence.  If investigators/prosecutors in the course of things were routinely able to reliably prosecute or exonerate - and bound by law to do so - I suppose we wouldn't need defenders.

Just to be clear, there is no "but for" with respect to findings (eg. a finding that a crime was committed).  The "but for" (OLC opinion) applies to taking a president to court.  There's no conflict between the statements because Mueller's claim is that he failed to make a finding that supported a prosecution, not that he was prevented by law or policy from making such a finding.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Online mariomike

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 512,955
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,556
    • The job.

Offline Brihard

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 233,265
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,724
  • Non-Electric Pop-Up Target
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #413 on: May 31, 2019, 10:23:12 »
The suggestion that an investigation could make a meaningful determination of exoneration is widely shared and widely mistaken.  Investigators and prosecutors try to make cases for conviction, not exoneration.

As Alan Dershowitz points out:

"Remember that federal investigations by prosecutors, including special counsels, are by their very nature one-sided. They hear only evidence of guilt and not exculpatory evidence. Their witnesses are not subject to the adversarial process. There is no cross examination. The evidence is taken in secret behind the closed doors of a grand jury. For that very reason, prosecutors can only conclude whether there is sufficient evidence to commence a prosecution. They are not in a position to decide whether the subject of the investigation is guilty or is innocent of any crimes.

That determination of guilt or innocence requires a full adversarial trial with a zealous defense attorney, vigorous cross examination, exclusionary rules of evidence and other due process safeguards. Such safeguards were not present in this investigation, and so the suggestion by Mueller that Trump might well be guilty deserves no credence. His statement, so inconsistent with his long history, will be used to partisan advantage by Democrats, especially all those radicals who are seeking impeachment."

It's possible that an investigation might uncover evidence that conclusively supports exoneration, but the absence of evidence for exoneration in a prosecutor's case is not sufficient to determine that exoneration either is or is not due to the accused.  "If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so" only tells us the prosecutor's attempt to make his case, while failing, did not also produce a clear case for the defence.  If investigators/prosecutors in the course of things were routinely able to reliably prosecute or exonerate - and bound by law to do so - I suppose we wouldn't need defenders.

Just to be clear, there is no "but for" with respect to findings (eg. a finding that a crime was committed).  The "but for" (OLC opinion) applies to taking a president to court.  There's no conflict between the statements because Mueller's claim is that he failed to make a finding that supported a prosecution, not that he was prevented by law or policy from making such a finding.

Yup, you’re bang on for all of that. Now someone needs to explain to Trump and his defenders that they similarly cannot claim exoneration on this report.
Pacificsm is doctrine fostered by a delusional minority and by the media, which holds forth the proposition it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Offline QV

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 9,595
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 355
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #414 on: May 31, 2019, 11:33:41 »
Words are important and Trump is not always precise, which hurts him.  But he can absolutely claim he did not commit a crime.  Nothing was stopping Mueller from reporting Trump did indeed commit these crimes but OLC prohibits the indictment, but he didn't do that.  Remember, the Special Counsel in the Clinton case did conclude Bill Clinton committed a crime.   

Where Mueller states: '“If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so,” is him saying he did not pursue an investigation to clear the president.  As Dershowitz testifies prosecutors don't do that.  Mueller's report speaks for the fact they found no crimes by Trump, and also very importantly, none of his associates committed obstruction or colluded with Russia either.  OLC doesn't prevent them indicting everyone around the president, and they didn't on the Russia/obstruction matter.  Case closed.

Trump is effectively innocent, and can proclaim it.  Unless you believe that the absence of evidence you are not a criminal means you just might be one.  (That's not directed at you Brihard).     

The hoopla about all of this is the political establishment fighting to remove the outsider before he wrecks their party via Barr, Durham, Harowitz, and Huber.  Former head of the NSA Admiral Mike Rogers, who testified in a FISA court hearing back in 2017, will be a key player also.             



     

Offline Brihard

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 233,265
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,724
  • Non-Electric Pop-Up Target
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #415 on: May 31, 2019, 11:53:56 »
Mm hm. He is entitled to the presumption of innocence in criminal matters just like anyone else. Until and unless proven guilty of something, he is innocent.
Pacificsm is doctrine fostered by a delusional minority and by the media, which holds forth the proposition it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Offline Fishbone Jones

    MSC -6945.

  • "Some people will only like you if you fit inside their box. Don't be afraid to shove that box up their ass."
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 280,347
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,672
    • Army.ca
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #416 on: May 31, 2019, 11:57:46 »
Perhaps Mueller is worried that if Trump gets his way, the Uranium One debacle will end up in court with all the players involved, including him.

So, is he still trying to get Trump in dutch? Hoping if they keep up the narrative, they won't get to that investigation?

His job wasn't to exonerate Trump, it was to get evidence enough for the democrats to impeach him.

He failed miserably. Now all he can do is sit and wait for the dems to come up with something else or wait for a call from the Senate Intelligence Committee into his role with the previous government.

Innocent until proven guilty is a US maxim and a pillar of their judicial system.

Trump could not be found guilty.

The gut feeling of Mueller doesn't count.
Corruption in politics doesn't scare me.
What scares me is how comfortable people are doing nothing about it.

Offline Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 115,140
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,452
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #417 on: May 31, 2019, 12:19:46 »
Yup, you’re bang on for all of that. Now someone needs to explain to Trump and his defenders that they similarly cannot claim exoneration on this report.

This ^

Although I doubt any of them are willing to listen.  No more so than those on the other side of this.

Polarization at work.
Optio

Offline QV

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 9,595
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 355
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #418 on: May 31, 2019, 13:03:14 »
One side says Trump is innocent, the other says Trump is a Russian asset and/or committed crimes in relation to that investigation. 

The fact remains that one side is correct.  Trump is innocent. 

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 202,980
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,403
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #419 on: May 31, 2019, 18:51:15 »
One side says Trump is innocent, the other says Trump is a Russian asset and/or committed crimes in relation to that investigation. 

The fact remains that one side is correct.  Trump is innocent.



 ;D
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline JesseWZ

  • Directing Staff
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 44,570
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 563
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #420 on: May 31, 2019, 19:37:08 »
Schroedingers Mueller Report.
I will be seen and not heard... I will be seen and not heard... I will be seen and not heard...

Offline quadrapiper

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 10,895
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 321
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #421 on: May 31, 2019, 22:19:21 »
The fact remains that one side is correct.  Trump is innocent.
There are undoubtedly crimes the fellow hasn't committed, or commissioned; however, innocent, as a general descriptor, is not even remotely applicable.

As for the election campaign, it seems reasonable to flag it as being something of a grab-bag of white collar crimes, questionable contacts and influences, and general sleaze. Nothing about any of the adult Trumps suggests that, offered advantage by a foreign power, they wouldn't seize that advantage.

Offline Fishbone Jones

    MSC -6945.

  • "Some people will only like you if you fit inside their box. Don't be afraid to shove that box up their ass."
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 280,347
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,672
    • Army.ca
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #422 on: May 31, 2019, 22:53:48 »
There are undoubtedly crimes the fellow hasn't committed, or commissioned; however, innocent, as a general descriptor, is not even remotely applicable.

As for the election campaign, it seems reasonable to flag it as being something of a grab-bag of white collar crimes, questionable contacts and influences, and general sleaze. Nothing about any of the adult Trumps suggests that, offered advantage by a foreign power, they wouldn't seize that advantage.

Pure speculation and biased at that.
Corruption in politics doesn't scare me.
What scares me is how comfortable people are doing nothing about it.

Offline Bruce Monkhouse

    Is a pinball wizard.

  • Lab Experiment #13
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 252,980
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,997
  • WHERE IS MY BATON?
    • http://www.canadianbands.com./home.html
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #423 on: May 31, 2019, 23:56:03 »
There are undoubtedly crimes the fellow hasn't committed, or commissioned; however, innocent, as a general descriptor, is not even remotely applicable.

As for the election campaign, it seems reasonable to flag it as being something of a grab-bag of white collar crimes, questionable contacts and influences, and general sleaze. Nothing about any of the adult Trumps suggests that, offered advantage by a foreign power, they wouldn't seize that advantage.

Sorry about my now deleted drive-by post.....wasn't worthy of what I expect from myself.
Bruce
IF YOU REALLY ENJOY THIS SITE AND WISH TO CONTINUE,THEN PLEASE WIGGLE UP TO THE BAR AND BUY A SUBSCRIPTION OR SOME SWAG FROM THE MILNET.CA STORE OR IF YOU WISH TO ADVERTISE PLEASE SEND MIKE SOME DETAILS.

Everybody has a game plan until they get punched in the mouth.

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 71,980
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,879
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #424 on: June 01, 2019, 11:54:35 »
>As for the election campaign, it seems reasonable to flag it as being something of a grab-bag of white collar crimes, questionable contacts and influences, and general sleaze. Nothing about any of the adult Trumps suggests that, offered advantage by a foreign power, they wouldn't seize that advantage.

Whose name do you think you could substitute for "adult Trumps" and not have that statement be true?  It's evergreen.

I agree with the commentators who assert the counterintelligence investigation had to happen if there was a suspicion that Americans were conspiring with foreigners (Russians) to meddle in an election.  Near the top of the list of "institutions of democracy" that must be protected [is] a free and fair election.

For the same reason, I agree an internal administration investigation must also happen to reassure Americans that no-one abused pretexts for and methods of the CI investigation to put their thumb on the scale.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.