https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckra...el-iphone-docs
House Intel committee getting Lev Parnas' phone and other documents. Wonder what's in them.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckra...el-iphone-docs
House Intel committee getting Lev Parnas' phone and other documents. Wonder what's in them.
Yeah. You're lying.
Mueller explicitly stated, in the report itself, that he was not able to even consider the possibility of charges against Trump because of that very DOJ policy you're disputing.
There's no way you're unaware of this fact. You're deliberately pushing disinformation propaganda.
First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that “the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions” in violation of “the constitutional separation of powers.” Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations, see 28 U.S.C. § 515; 28 C.F.R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC’s legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction. And apart from OLC’s constitutional view, we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President’s capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.
Second, while the OLC opinion concludes that a sitting President may not be prosecuted, it recognizes that a criminal investigation during the President’s term is permissible. The OLC opinion also recognizes that a President does not have immunity after he leaves office. And if individuals other than the President committed an obstruction offense, they may be prosecuted at this time. Given those considerations, the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system, we conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available.
Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. The threshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person’s conduct “constitutes a federal offense.” U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Justice Manual § 9-27.220 (2018) (Justice Manual). Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In contrast, a prosecutor’s judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought, affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator.
The concerns about the fairness of such a determination would be heightened in the case of a sitting President, where a federal prosecutor’s accusation of a crime, even in an internal report, could carry consequences that extend beyond the realm of criminal justice. OLC noted similar concerns about sealed indictments. Even if an indictment were sealed during the President’s term, OLC reasoned, “it would be very difficult to preserve [an indictment’s] secrecy,” and if an indictment became public, “[t]he stigma and opprobrium” could imperil the President’s ability to govern.” Although a prosecutor’s internal report would not represent a formal public accusation akin to an indictment, the possibility of the report’s public disclosure and the absence of a neutral adjudicatory forum to review its findings counseled against potentially determining “that the person’s conduct constitutes a federal offense.” Justice Manual § 9-27.220.
Fourth, 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, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.
Some emphases added. All from the Introduction to Volume II of the Mueller Report; I trimmed out the references for readability but they're all in the source; https://www.justice.gov/storage/report_volume2.pdf
Last edited by Endus; 2020-01-03 at 06:40 PM.
Interesting and dangerously casual quote from that article:
Parnas had spent the past two years with Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani, helping the former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York make contacts in Ukraine in a bid to generate political information helpful to President Trump.
If he's so desperate to use them there must be something very valuable in there, since that's the only way he'd be able to get some form of concession that he could use to benefit himself. I don't see him offering anything up out of the goodness of his heart.
On a less serious note, someone sent me this today:
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile...federal-court/
Trump's DoJ has taken an interesting new position: The Judicial branch has no role in resolving disputes between the Executive and Legislative branches.
Which is odd, since that's in-part why it was created as a co-equal branch to deal with issues between the two.
Trump's thoroughly partisan and politicized DoJ continues to de-facto argue for blanket immunity that functionally grants the president near emperor status.
I'm afraid that Barr and company (all those not in the DoJ) would only paraphrase; They've made their decision; now let see them try to enforce it
It’s neither, but I’m really not here to state into the Nietzsheab abyss of the Internet left, that quotes and cites things that don’t mean or say what they think, and have subject matter expertise in absolutely nothing. I’m here for (figuratively speaking) the ratio. And the schadenfreude if I’m being honest. I get tickled to no end watching Pelosi sit on articles she never wanted to pursue because of the political damage this might do trying to win the Twitter vote, all while pretending she has leverage on the Senate, which is under no pressure whatsoever to indulge her.
Infracted - Trolling
Last edited by Jester Joe; 2020-01-03 at 09:23 PM.
“You're not to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it.”― Malcolm X
I watch them fight and die in the name of freedom. They speak of liberty and justice, but for whom? -Ratonhnhaké:ton (Connor Kenway)
Warning : Above post may contain snark and/or sarcasm. Try reparsing with the /s argument before replying.
What the world has learned is that America is never more than one election away from losing its goddamned mindMe on Elite : Dangerous | My WoW charactersOriginally Posted by Howard Tayler
So what are we supposed to say when someone tries to drown us in a river of bullshit? I'd like to know what the mods deem to be an acceptable response.
Last edited by Citizen T; 2020-01-04 at 11:01 PM. Reason: Infracted for forbidden topics
/s
@Thwart
If they are lying, then you have to say they are lying. Otherwise, how else do you say they go about it?
Because, if something is factually untrue, then it is, by definition a lie. Whether the other person actually believes it or not.
So what do you say that can be done about something when another person lies? Because pretending it isn't a lie makes things worse.
Since we can't call out Trolls and Bad Faith posters and the Ignore function doesn't actually ignore it. Add
"mmo-champion.com##li.postbitignored"
to your ublock or adblock filter to actually ignore ignored posters. Now just need a way to ignore responses to them as well.
When I was a mod, I pushed for moderation to take a more forward stance on obviously dishonest stuff, at one point. It would still have been held to the same group consensus standard as any infraction, so not just one mod on a crusade. It didn't find a lot of support; the counter-argument was that they expected users to point out that kind of thing, and it shouldn't be mod-actionable. Which I understand; I'm not saying I was Right and the mod team's position is Wrong, here, at all.
Okay, fine. Fair enough. But that means users need to be able to call out liars as liars. If the mods want users to quiet down about this stuff, they need to pick up that slack with infractions. Otherwise, we users need to be able to call out dishonesty when we see it. If we can't, then the rules are set up to protect liars and manipulators, and prevent the community from exposing them and calling them out for their poor conduct. If you expect the community to regulate itself in this, you need to let the community do so, not step on their necks when they try. Without that, the community isn't allowed to self-regulate, and the mod team is protecting the bad faith posters from the rest of the community, without taking action against those bad faith posters themselves.
That's not tenable.
Last edited by Endus; 2020-01-04 at 01:24 AM.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/03/u....co/O0KYbpZUWc
So, what are they hiding?The Trump administration disclosed on Friday that there were 20 emails between a top aide to President Trump’s acting chief of staff and a colleague at the White House’s Office of Management and Budget discussing the freeze of a congressionally mandated military aid package for Ukraine.
But in response to a court order that it swiftly process those pages in response to a Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, lawsuit filed by The New York Times, the Office of Management and Budget delivered a terse letter saying it would not turn over any of the 40 pages of emails — not even with redactions.
“All 20 documents are being withheld in full,” wrote Dionne Hardy, the office’s Freedom of Information Act officer.
The Times’s information act request sought email messages between Robert Blair, a top aide to Mr. Trump’s acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, and Michael Duffey, an official in the White House’s Office of Management and Budget who was in charge of handling the process for releasing $391 million in weapons and security assistance Congress had appropriated to help Ukraine resist Russian aggression.
In her letter, Ms. Hardy cited exemptions to the Freedom of Information Act for correspondence involving the president’s staff and internal policy deliberations, suggesting that the disclosure of this material would “inhibit the frank and candid exchange of views that is necessary for effective government decision-making.”
@Thwart Your skin is just as thin as trumps. No wonder you support him so much.
9