The Mueller Report thread

[Dill]

(04-22-2019, 01:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Honesty time: How many have read the complete report?

Full confession-- I have only read pp. 1-14 (on the legal framework for assessing obstruction) and pages 90-128 on efforts to obstruct the Special Counsel of Vol. II.    I am currently reading the concluding rationale on the Special Counsels power and duty to investigate the Executive, starting with the Supreme Court's balancing test on the separation of powers and its effect on obstruction statutes, etc. 171-81.

My impression so far is that Rachel Maddow got it right and Barr got it wrong.

Hope partial reading is not partial honesty.  

[Dill]

(04-22-2019, 02:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote:
As I thought you are unable to show me where I have taken one expert's opinion over another. Yes, I accept the DOJ's findings. Didn't he actually says Trump could not say yes or no to obstruction by Trump? I did read his report (does that count?) Now it's up to congress to determine if they accept the findings and it seems they did as they wanted to know more about possible obstruction.

Please share with me what insight you gained from reading the full report. Then maybe we can see if someone were being lazy or prioritized the implicit cost of their time and efforts. 

Only in PnR can being called lazy not be considered a slur. But of course it does matter who is doing the slurring. Can we at least agree that the reply was more and the person posting it than the subject at hand? I've heard we're not big fans of that, but of course with given earlier disclaimer.

The "DOJ's Findings"?  Are you refering to Barr's letter--not the Mueller Report?? Since you have made such a show of not reading the actual report, I am assuming the former.  And since you are representing Barr's position, not Mueller's, you are indeed taking "one expert's opinion over another"--the short, easy-to-read opinion that exonerates Trump.

Barr's "summary" claims the SC Report "identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Departments principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of-justice offense."

The insight I gained from the sections of Vol II I have so far read is that the Special Counsel was

1) definitely NOT saying he and his office could exonerate Trump of obstruction. That is the very last line of his conclusion on page 182,

2) and definitely WAS saying that the president's status as president complicates the process of charging him.  So long as it is the DOJ's view that a sitting president should not be indicted, then the SC would be out of line doing so--but NOT because the president had not committed obstruction.

3) And the SC further DOCUMENTS repeated attempts on Trump's part to interfere with the investigation--to shut it down, to restrict its scope, to fire people running it, to replace people who respected law and procedure with people less likely to.  Trump repeatedly REJECTED lessons on rule of law.  He was not "set straight by counsel"; his underlings refused to carry out his orders. There was no change of mind on Trump's part, only efforts to resist Trump's illegal orders from underlings within the DOJ. (From this I also learned that all the points Hollo made to you in post #542 were valid--and instead of checking or disputing them straight up, you set about arguing why one need not do the work of looking at primary documents, which would settle who was right.)

4) The MSM seems to have laid Mueller's legal argument very clearly, where Barr and Fox have not.  So I get corroboration by reading the actual Report. 

You, on the other hand, "prioritizing time and costs," find yourself unreflexively repeating Barr (and defending Trump--yet again), and complaining of "slurs" and "personal attacks" when you are tagged "lazy" and "biased."

LOL Where else is it a slur to call someone "lazy" for being lazy?--i.e., "prioritizing time and costs" by letting the President's man read/think for you?

  

[Belsnickel]

(04-22-2019, 04:15 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I'd like to say I called this on here even before the election, in a thread about Hillary being more dangerous than Trump.

10-17-2016
Me:

I will say something similar to what I did when the anonymous WH staffer opinion piece came out: that's not how this works. POTUS is supposed to be checked by Congress. Bureaucrats, the ones doing the checking in this instance, are unelected. They are there to carry out the policies of the elected officials. They do that, or they resign. The democracy is at risk when unelected bureaucrats are not carrying out the directives of elected officials. People talk about the "deep state" and the undermining of Trump. The staffers that refused to carry out his orders and stayed in office while doing so are an actual example of that. These people that protected Trump by not carrying out orders that would have gotten him in hot water are the people actually undermining his presidency, not some vast left-wing conspiracy.

The phrase "it gets worse before it gets better" is what we need to think about here. Not only is what has happened/is happening undemocratic and counter to how our government is supposed to function, it means people aren't going to learn from this mistake. They aren't going to fully come to grasp why electing a pompous, inexperienced, habitual liar and cheat to the office of POTUS is as bad as it is. If Trump were allowed to fail as hard as his actions should have caused him to, we may have very well seen a turning point in the type of politicians that went up for office. I fear that we are just going to continue down this same path, though. Continuing the divisive nature of our politics rather than coming together to realize just how spectacularly bad this situation is.

[jj22]

(04-22-2019, 01:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Honesty time: How many have read the complete report?

I stopped on page 100 and didn't get to it this weekend, but still plan on finishing it. I wish more people would read (try) it.  But not the easiest read. Definitely not wrote for the everyday American.

As for who to believe. Even Barr refused to say Trump was cleared of obstruction. Those pointing to the "no obstruction" must be listening to Hannity and Rush. Them and Trump are pretty much the only one's still pointing to that lie. As more and more people get through the report, Mueller made it clear that was up to congress to decide as he laid out the details.

At the end of the day if you don't read and take out the time to seek facts/answers for yourself, you'll believe whoever tells you what you want to hear. And that unfortunately is how politicians get away with what they do.

[GMDino]

(04-22-2019, 05:31 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I will say something similar to what I did when the anonymous WH staffer opinion piece came out: that's not how this works. POTUS is supposed to be checked by Congress. Bureaucrats, the ones doing the checking in this instance, are unelected. They are there to carry out the policies of the elected officials. They do that, or they resign. The democracy is at risk when unelected bureaucrats are not carrying out the directives of elected officials. People talk about the "deep state" and the undermining of Trump. The staffers that refused to carry out his orders and stayed in office while doing so are an actual example of that. These people that protected Trump by not carrying out orders that would have gotten him in hot water are the people actually undermining his presidency, not some vast left-wing conspiracy.

The phrase "it gets worse before it gets better" is what we need to think about here. Not only is what has happened/is happening undemocratic and counter to how our government is supposed to function, it means people aren't going to learn from this mistake. They aren't going to fully come to grasp why electing a pompous, inexperienced, habitual liar and cheat to the office of POTUS is as bad as it is. If Trump were allowed to fail as hard as his actions should have caused him to, we may have very well seen a turning point in the type of politicians that went up for office. I fear that we are just going to continue down this same path, though. Continuing the divisive nature of our politics rather than coming together to realize just how spectacularly bad this situation is.

Impeachment then?

At least the attempt?

[Dill]

(04-22-2019, 05:31 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The phrase "it gets worse before it gets better" is what we need to think about here. Not only is what has happened/is happening undemocratic and counter to how our government is supposed to function, it means people aren't going to learn from this mistake. They aren't going to fully come to grasp why electing a pompous, inexperienced, habitual liar and cheat to the office of POTUS is as bad as it is. If Trump were allowed to fail as hard as his actions should have caused him to, we may have very well seen a turning point in the type of politicians that went up for office. I fear that we are just going to continue down this same path, though. Continuing the divisive nature of our politics rather than coming together to realize just how spectacularly bad this situation is.

Ha ha, love this. It keeps the "deep state" charge while reversing its tenor.


There may be two problems with allowing presidents to "fail," though.

1) economic/military disaster

2) the people who need to learn from their mistake don't.  The failure just throws up another "Tea Party" angrier and more misguided than before, and more amenable to the next demagogue.  And it may be that the demogogue's learn more from Trump-style failure than voters.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(04-22-2019, 05:31 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I will say something similar to what I did when the anonymous WH staffer opinion piece came out: that's not how this works. POTUS is supposed to be checked by Congress. Bureaucrats, the ones doing the checking in this instance, are unelected. They are there to carry out the policies of the elected officials. They do that, or they resign. The democracy is at risk when unelected bureaucrats are not carrying out the directives of elected officials. People talk about the "deep state" and the undermining of Trump. The staffers that refused to carry out his orders and stayed in office while doing so are an actual example of that. These people that protected Trump by not carrying out orders that would have gotten him in hot water are the people actually undermining his presidency, not some vast left-wing conspiracy.

The phrase "it gets worse before it gets better" is what we need to think about here. Not only is what has happened/is happening undemocratic and counter to how our government is supposed to function, it means people aren't going to learn from this mistake. They aren't going to fully come to grasp why electing a pompous, inexperienced, habitual liar and cheat to the office of POTUS is as bad as it is. If Trump were allowed to fail as hard as his actions should have caused him to, we may have very well seen a turning point in the type of politicians that went up for office. I fear that we are just going to continue down this same path, though. Continuing the divisive nature of our politics rather than coming together to realize just how spectacularly bad this situation is.

Not if the policy is illegal. Just like you're not allowed to hide behind an order that you knew was illegal in the military. We made that determination '45-'46 in Nuremberg.

That said, you should tell them then and there that you can't do that BECAUSE it is illegal (that's where the folks around Trump did bad), but just because you're not an elected official, doesn't mean that you should follow the illegal commands of an elected official or resign.

[Dill]

(04-22-2019, 05:46 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Not if the policy is illegal. Just like you're not allowed to hide behind an order that you knew was illegal in the military. We made that determination '45-'46 in Nuremberg.

That said, you should tell them then and there that you can't do that BECAUSE it is illegal (that's where the folks around Trump did bad), but just because you're not an elected official, doesn't mean that you should follow the illegal commands of an elected official or resign.

Apparently a lot of people explained to Trump that his actions were illegal, and they explained REPEATEDLY why Sessions had to recuse himself, and Trump was not buying it.

Lewandoski and McGahn apparently refused to follow illegal orders, which Trump never rescinded.

We are in this pickle now 1) because we have a president who ignores the law and what to replace truth-tellers and loyalists to the Constitution with people who will do his bidding. And 2) his base continues to support that behavior.

[Belsnickel]

(04-22-2019, 05:46 PM)Dill Wrote: Ha ha, love this. It keeps the "deep state" charge while reversing its tenor.


There may be two problems with allowing presidents to "fail," though.

1) economic/military disaster

2) the people who need to learn from their mistake don't.  The failure just throws up another "Tea Party" angrier and more misguided than before, and more amenable to the next demagogue.  And it may be that the demogogue's learn more from Trump-style failure than voters.

So be it. Like I said, it may need to get worse before it gets better.

(04-22-2019, 05:46 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Not if the policy is illegal. Just like you're not allowed to hide behind an order that you knew was illegal in the military. We made that determination '45-'46 in Nuremberg.

That said, you should tell them then and there that you can't do that BECAUSE it is illegal (that's where the folks around Trump did bad), but just because you're not an elected official, doesn't mean that you should follow the illegal commands of an elected official or resign.

We're of the same mind. When I say "do it or resign" there is an implied step of "tell them no and then if they push harder..." I understand what you are saying, but it is still not the job of an unelected bureaucrat to check the elected official. They can advise, they can suggest, but if they are given an order it should be carried out or they should not be in that role if they can't. They should be whistleblowing to Congress the whole way out the door, but it's Congress' job to provide that oversight.

[*bfine32*]

(04-22-2019, 05:29 PM)Dill Wrote: The "DOJ's Findings"?  Are you refering to Barr's letter--not the Mueller Report?? Since you have made such a show of not reading the actual report, I am assuming the former.  And since you are representing Barr's position, not Mueller's, you are indeed taking "one expert's opinion over another"--the short, easy-to-read opinion that exonerates Trump.

Barr's "summary" claims the SC Report "identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Departments principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of-justice offense."

The insight I gained from the sections of Vol II I have so far read is that the Special Counsel was

1) definitely NOT saying he and his office could exonerate Trump of obstruction. That is the very last line of his conclusion on page 182,

2) and definitely WAS saying that the president's status as president complicates the process of charging him.  So long as it is the DOJ's view that a sitting president should not be indicted, then the SC would be out of line doing so--but NOT because the president had not committed obstruction.

3) And the SC further DOCUMENTS repeated attempts on Trump's part to interfere with the investigation--to shut it down, to restrict its scope, to fire people running it, to replace people who respected law and procedure with people less likely to.  Trump repeatedly REJECTED lessons on rule of law.  He was not "set straight by counsel"; his underlings refused to carry out his orders. There was no change of mind on Trump's part, only efforts to resist Trump's illegal orders from underlings within the DOJ. (From this I also learned that all the points Hollo made to you in post #542 were valid--and instead of checking or disputing them straight up, you set about arguing why one need not do the work of looking at primary documents, which would settle who was right.)

4) The MSM seems to have laid Mueller's legal argument very clearly, where Barr and Fox have not.  So I get corroboration by reading the actual Report. 

You, on the other hand, "prioritizing time and costs," find yourself unreflexively repeating Barr (and defending Trump--yet again), and complaining of "slurs" and "personal attacks" when you are tagged "lazy" and "biased."

LOL Where else is it a slur to call someone "lazy" for being lazy?--i.e., "prioritizing time and costs" by letting the President's man read/think for you?

  

Barr is the AG; it's his job to report, not Mueller's. Unfortunately we only have 1 AG,so I gotta go with that one. I don't know why you're trying so hard to make me appear lazy and only taking one side, but I'm sure you have your reasons. I will not call anyone that doesn't read this report lazy and FU for considering someone lazy for choosing not to do so. 

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(04-22-2019, 05:59 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So be it. Like I said, it may need to get worse before it gets better.


We're of the same mind. When I say "do it or resign" there is an implied step of "tell them no and then if they push harder..." I understand what you are saying, but it is still not the job of an unelected bureaucrat to check the elected official. They can advise, they can suggest, but if they are given an order it should be carried out or they should not be in that role if they can't. They should be whistleblowing to Congress the whole way out the door, but it's Congress' job to provide that oversight.

And see, here is where I strongly disagree. If it was just an opinion or legal policy that they were checking, then you are 100% correct that it's not their job to check that. If it is an illegal order, though, it is their DUTY to not do it. Just like it is everyone's duty to not follow illegal orders. If a police officer tells you you to steal something, it's your duty to not comply. If an officer tells you to shoot an unarmed civilian overseas, it is your duty to not comply. As long as you are doing your job, you don't and shouldn't leave it just because you refuse to break the law. That would be quitting your job because you are good at it.

Your choice to not break the law might get you fired by the law breaker, but you don't quit. That's the same thing as standing by and letting it happen while you watch because it is unlikely that the next person hired will have the moral compass and determination to point out that the order was illegal.

You can both keep your job AND refuse to break the law. (Assuming that the person doesn't fire you.) The person might not even necessarily know their order was illegal.

Otherwise with your path, every single person of integrity in government would be quitting after a single refusal to break the law. How in the world does that provide any kind of sustainable integrity in the government?


- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Say you're the CIA Director. You have been in office for 2 Presidencies, and serving in lower capacities for another 4. President #2 asks you to drone strike a bus full of US citizen orphans because the driver is a known terrorist. You say you can't do that, because it's illegal and morally wrong. Why in the world should you just up and quit your job? You have been around long before the President, and you'll be around long after the President. Why quit your job because you have integrity? Isn't that EXACTLY what we need?

[Dill]

(04-22-2019, 06:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I don't know why you're trying so hard to make me appear lazy and only taking one side, but I'm sure you have your reasons. I will not call anyone that doesn't read this report lazy and FU for considering someone lazy for choosing not to do so. 

Indeed I do have my reasons--the primary one being that you were avoiding the extra work of checking the Mueller report for yourself.  Why do you keep acting as if your decision NOT TO DO THIS EXTRA WORK--your own action--has not called forth charges of laziness?  Remember what I said about the DISJUNCTURE between behavior and judgement about behavior?  Trump world lives on that.

I wouldn't call any Joe citizen who decides not to read the report "lazy." 

But if one steps forward defending a biased and incomplete narrative put out by the President's man, and then spends all his energy arguing that fact checking and reading primary sources make no difference, then I have to side with Dino and others. That is lazy and biased behavior.

All the energy you now expend arguing against informing yourself and defending yourself from "slurs," would be much better spent trying to actually understand Mueller's legal argument.

As I have said many times in the past--defending Trump leads his defenders into all manner of compromise with principle.

[fredtoast]

(04-22-2019, 06:21 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Otherwise with your path, every single person of integrity in government would be quitting after a single refusal to break the law. How in the world does that provide any kind of sustainable integrity in the government?

Allowing unelected bureaucrats to make policy decisions contrary to the position of the elected officials destroys the integrity of a democracy.

The whole point of having elected officials is to make them responsible to the constituents.  We can vote them out if we don't like their decisions.  But we have no control over the appointed bureaucrats.


 

[Dill]

(04-22-2019, 06:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Barr is the AG; it's his job to report, not Mueller's. Unfortunately we only have 1 AG,so I gotta go with that one.

Whoa!  Where does it say it was Barr's job to report on the report--and especially to decide whether Trump can be charged or not?

It is precisely because no one has "gotta go with that one"--because there IS another source of legal authority--that the controversy continues. 

There is a Constitutional question open right now as to who is supposed to decide whether Trump obstructed or not. And it looks to favor Congress at the moment precisely because of limits on the DOJ. 

That's what I learned by doing the extra work, and not accepting the intervention on Trump's behalf by a man who auditioned for AG by publishing an opinion limiting the scope of the Russia investigation. 

I didn't have to go with that one, and neither do you.

[Bengalzona]

(04-22-2019, 05:59 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Like I said, it may need to get worse before it gets better.

I don't think so. I think that "getting worse" means authoritarian state at this point, perhaps the worst the world has ever seen.

[fredtoast]

(04-22-2019, 06:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Barr is the AG; it's his job to report, not Mueller's. Unfortunately we only have 1 AG,so I gotta go with that one.

No you don't.  You could do like this guy suggested

(03-24-2019, 09:32 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It's why I don't think it should be made public, but someone determined by the Dems (because they don't trust the AG) to be impartial should be able to look at it. 

Or you could just open up and swallow whatever the echo chamber tells you to believe.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(04-22-2019, 06:21 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: If it was just an opinion or legal policy that they were checking, then you are 100% correct that it's not their job to check that. If it is an illegal order, though, it is their DUTY to not do it. Just like it is everyone's duty to not follow illegal orders.

(04-22-2019, 06:36 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Allowing unelected bureaucrats to make policy decisions contrary to the position of the elected officials destroys the integrity of a democracy.

The whole point of having elected officials is to make them responsible to the constituents.  We can vote them out if we don't like their decisions.  But we have no control over the appointed bureaucrats.


 

As I specifically said, it's not their job to make policy decisions, but it is their job to not follow illegal orders.

As always Fred, excellent reading comprehension before commenting on someone's post. Thanks for the contribution and have a good one.

[Belsnickel]

(04-22-2019, 07:03 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: As I specifically said, it's not their job to make policy decisions, but it is their job to not follow illegal orders.

As always Fred, excellent reading comprehension before commenting on someone's post. Thanks for the contribution and have a good one.

I think what you're missing, though, is that when you are a staffer in the government like that, your action or inaction is policy creation. People don't think of it that way because it's not the formal policymaking process, but it is absolutely policy. When the POTUS gives a directive or an order, that is a creation of policy. By not carrying out that order, the bureaucrat has made a policy decision to not follow the policy of the POTUS. You have the unelected overruling the elected, and that is threatening to democracy.

As I said, if they find they can't carry out the orders, they should resign and whistleblow to Congress all the way out the door.

[*bfine32*]

(04-22-2019, 06:40 PM)Dill Wrote: Whoa!  Where does it say it was Barr's job to report on the report--and especially to decide whether Trump can be charged or not?

It is precisely because no one has "gotta go with that one"--because there IS another source of legal authority--that the controversy continues. 

There is a Constitutional question open right now as to who is supposed to decide whether Trump obstructed or not. And it looks to favor Congress at the moment precisely because of limits on the DOJ. 

That's what I learned by doing the extra work, and not accepting the intervention on Trump's behalf by a man who auditioned for AG by publishing an opinion limiting the scope of the Russia investigation. 

I didn't have to go with that one, and neither do you.

All of this to say we agree that it's Congress' role to act if anything is untoward. But yeah,kudos for the extra work. Who knows maybe they'll call you to testify if there's ever an impeachment hearing. 

The Left is so hurt about the report that all that's left (cool pun) is to strike out. It speaks volumes about them. The citizen police in this thread are absolutely hilarious. The Left in Congress state they don't have enough in this report and demand an un-redacted, but folks in Bengal Message Board PnR forum can pat themselves on the back for doing the "extra work" and slur those that did not. Maybe you "extra workers" could get t-shirts or something.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(04-22-2019, 09:17 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think what you're missing, though, is that when you are a staffer in the government like that, your action or inaction is policy creation. People don't think of it that way because it's not the formal policymaking process, but it is absolutely policy. When the POTUS gives a directive or an order, that is a creation of policy. By not carrying out that order, the bureaucrat has made a policy decision to not follow the policy of the POTUS. You have the unelected overruling the elected, and that is threatening to democracy.

As I said, if they find they can't carry out the orders, they should resign and whistleblow to Congress all the way out the door.

No, US law has made that policy decision, not the staffer. You cannot knowingly do something illegal just because an elected official asks you to.

Trump: "I want you to obstruct the investigation."
Staffer: "Respectfully, I am not allowed do that. It is illegal to obstruct the investigation."
Trump: "You are threatening democracy."

Does it feel any more ridiculous of a point if I put Trump's name on the text? Because that is what you are arguing.