Postmortem on Mueller

[Birdjaguar]

Jerry Nadler said tonight that the issue over Mueller testifying is that Mueller wants it private with transcripts made public and Nadler wants it public.

 

[Berzerker]

I'm sorry this is a pathetic excuse for an analogy and for principles.

What analogy would you prefer? What has Trump done to compare with starting wars?

 

[Birdjaguar]

What analogy would you prefer? What has Trump done to break the law with starting wars?

FTFY!

 

[Estebonrober]

What analogy would you prefer? What has Trump done to compare with starting wars?

I'm not able to hold past presidents accountable for their misdeeds, nor am I near as certain about many of them as you seem to be, therefore I can only focus on the present and moving forward. In this regard one of the fundamental issues of our time seems to be the lack of accountability or equality under the law. It seems to me that first and foremost those responsible for upholding the law should be accountable to it, for if this premise is not fundamental than this is just an exercise in raw power be it military or political and then anything goes as long as I have the votes or the guns or both. Western thought despises both of those realities supposedly so again it comes back to fundamentals of governance.

Also Trump seems to either be acting as an agent of foreign powers or to be so corrupt as to make no difference. Russian sanction blocking and Saudi nuclear deals and war mongering as case in points. Also he is directly profitting from his position as president something that seems to be unconstitutional and logically should be since it leads to aberrations in motivation for the office. Finally he has systematically and continues to obstruct any oversight over his branch of government by the legislative branch and generally hold the judicial branch in contempt when it rules against him.

Bush might have lied us into Iraq, certainly his intelligence fudged up enough intel to make little difference. I see no bearing on the current politics except you seem to think it should be a block on holding current administration accountable for. . .what? Anything?

So there is no analogy that will work because its a dumb whataboutism.

 

[onejayhawk]

I don't understand what the house is trying to do with impeachment. They will never convict, they'd need like 20 republicans in the senate to flip. It seems extremely doubtful the trial would uncover enough stuff not already known to cause that, and the public has already shown something around 40% will approve of trump no matter what. To me impeachment seems only like it could backfire on dems, with their approval numbers dropping more for an unsuccessful trial.

I think it's fairly simple--they ran out of ideas. Everything was bet on Mueller and he crapped out.

There has been a game plan that could bring down just about any Republican worth the effort, with the notable exception of Ronald Reagan. For example, take the coverage of Katrina. President took the blame which rightfully should have fallen on the Mayor and Governor. RR was extremely charismatic and was an old political hand. Trump was seen as personally unappealing and he was a newbie. They figured he would be easy. They threw the whole playbook at Trump before he could even settle in. The biggest gun was a special counsel and they rolled that out in the first four months. Now, they have tried everything and Trump's approval hit a two year high. They are using the only thing they have left, control of the House committees, to harass the administration.

I would hate to be in Pelosi's shoes. She knows they cannot afford to impeach the President but her people will not let her drop it. More than that, Barr's initiatives may be frightening some of the powerful off screen forces. It was obvious all along that Mueller's people were tipping the media, for example. Each time that occurred is a felony. Even the media will have trouble using absence of malice as the standard. Anyone else getting a tip is in deep water. Barr is the bizarrest of creatures--a federal prosecutor that will indict without regard to party or power base.

Jerry Nadler said tonight that the issue over Mueller testifying is that Mueller wants it private with transcripts made public and Nadler wants it public.

No one in the know wants Mueller to testify. The Republicans because he's a distraction. The Democrats because he has nothing useful left. Even Mueller doesn't want to testify. He can't tell them what they want to hear.

J

 

[Berzerker]

FTFY!

What law did he break that compares with starting wars?

I'm not able to hold past presidents accountable for their misdeeds, nor am I near as certain about many of them as you seem to be, therefore I can only focus on the present and moving forward. In this regard one of the fundamental issues of our time seems to be the lack of accountability or equality under the law. It seems to me that first and foremost those responsible for upholding the law should be accountable to it, for if this premise is not fundamental than this is just an exercise in raw power be it military or political and then anything goes as long as I have the votes or the guns or both. Western thought despises both of those realities supposedly so again it comes back to fundamentals of governance.

Also Trump seems to either be acting as an agent of foreign powers or to be so corrupt as to make no difference. Russian sanction blocking and Saudi nuclear deals and war mongering as case in points. Also he is directly profitting from his position as president something that seems to be unconstitutional and logically should be since it leads to aberrations in motivation for the office. Finally he has systematically and continues to obstruct any oversight over his branch of government by the legislative branch and generally hold the judicial branch in contempt when it rules against him.

Bush might have lied us into Iraq, certainly his intelligence fudged up enough intel to make little difference. I see no bearing on the current politics except you seem to think it should be a block on holding current administration accountable for. . .what? Anything?

So there is no analogy that will work because its a dumb whataboutism.

Equality under the law requires 'dumb whataboutism'. You speak of principle and the rule of law, did you call for the impeachment of Bush and Obama for starting all those wars? Did you hold them accountable? Dont blame the intelligence for Iraq, thats what Bush did.

 

[Estebonrober]

What law did he break that compares with starting wars?



Equality under the law requires 'dumb whataboutism'. You speak of principle and the rule of law, did you call for the impeachment of Bush and Obama for starting all those wars? Did you hold them accountable? Dont blame the intelligence for Iraq, thats what Bush did.

No it requires action on the present. I can’t go back in time. Not yet anyways.

 

[Birdjaguar]

What law did he break that compares with starting wars?

How do you argue principle/rule of law for punishing a jaywalker while ignoring murderers?

You can argue that rule of law is important because it is a foundation principle for the country. Starting wars falls into a whole different category of governance. In addition, laws operate at different jurisdictional levels. City ordinances (like jaywalking) are not the same as ignoring a fully executed law passed by both houses and signed by the President. Adhering to the laws that govern the nation is important. Starting wars may be good or bad and is mostly a squabble between presidents and Congress who each have claims on the power to do so. And then you have to wrestle with the definition of what exactly is a war. That has never been clear.

That is why I took issue with your post.

 

[Berzerker]

No it requires action on the present. I can’t go back in time. Not yet anyways.

If a murderer was given probation yesterday and a murderer was given the death penalty today, were they treated equally under the law? Wouldn't today's murderer point to yesterday's to argue for probation too? Would you tell them thats dumb whataboutism?

 

[Estebonrober]

If a murderer was given probation yesterday and a murderer was given the death penalty today, were they treated equally under the law? Wouldn't today's murderer point to yesterday's to argue for probation too? Would you tell them thats dumb whataboutism?

Again this isn't a relevant analogy. I'm beginning to suspect you are just bad at analogies. It would be more like if the previous guy got off without even getting charged for murder because the DA couldn't get enough evidence to convict while prosecuting this guy because he had a bloody knife in his hand with a body at his feet when he was found.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Jerry Nadler said tonight that the issue over Mueller testifying is that Mueller wants it private with transcripts made public and Nadler wants it public.

Mueller keeps trying to position himself as above the partisan fray when in reality his attempts at being 'even handed' or whatever play right into Trump's obstruction MO. Mueller knows the hearing will turn into a ****show and he should let it. He probably thinks the transcripts will have all the impact of a hearing without the partisan rancor but he's wrong. No matter what he does, the GOP will turn the testimony into a farce, might as well let it play out in public for all to see.

I'm not able to hold past presidents accountable for their misdeeds, nor am I near as certain about many of them as you seem to be, therefore I can only focus on the present and moving forward. In this regard one of the fundamental issues of our time seems to be the lack of accountability or equality under the law. It seems to me that first and foremost those responsible for upholding the law should be accountable to it, for if this premise is not fundamental than this is just an exercise in raw power be it military or political and then anything goes as long as I have the votes or the guns or both. Western thought despises both of those realities supposedly so again it comes back to fundamentals of governance.

Also Trump seems to either be acting as an agent of foreign powers or to be so corrupt as to make no difference. Russian sanction blocking and Saudi nuclear deals and war mongering as case in points. Also he is directly profitting from his position as president something that seems to be unconstitutional and logically should be since it leads to aberrations in motivation for the office. Finally he has systematically and continues to obstruct any oversight over his branch of government by the legislative branch and generally hold the judicial branch in contempt when it rules against him.

Bush might have lied us into Iraq, certainly his intelligence fudged up enough intel to make little difference. I see no bearing on the current politics except you seem to think it should be a block on holding current administration accountable for. . .what? Anything?

So there is no analogy that will work because its a dumb whataboutism.

Speaking of Saudi deals - allegedly Trump is considering an emergency declaration to allow him to send a shipment of weapons to the Saudis without Congressional approval.

The first thing that needs to happen if the GOP ever get removed from power is to rescind the emergency declaration powers or otherwise heavily restrict them so they only apply to real emergencies.

 

[Lexicus]

who each have claims on the power to do so.

The Constitution is quite clear on the question. The fact that this is even an argument shows we're in trouble.

 

[Berzerker]

Again this isn't a relevant analogy. I'm beginning to suspect you are just bad at analogies. It would be more like if the previous guy got off without even getting charged for murder because the DA couldn't get enough evidence to convict while prosecuting this guy because he had a bloody knife in his hand with a body at his feet when he was found.

So Trump is the murderer and not the Presidents who started all those wars?

Btw, Christopher Steele was held up to be a heroic MI6 superspy by the Democrat's media and he is being sued for his "never been disproven" dossier. Page should sue him too, and the media that propagated the smear campaign and the FBI for violating his rights. Steele's defense is the gossip he compiled wasn't meant to be published, but he's the one who was sharing it with the media and authorities to ensure a Trump loss.

This Steele dude endangered his sources, right? If you were one of the people telling Steele about Trump's connections to Putin and oligarchs wouldn't you be a bit concerned your information might expose you? Well, not if that was also part of the plan to interfere in our election. They knew Clinton wanted dirt on Trump so they fed her too.

The point I'm getting at is the 2 parties are not in the habit of prosecuting each other, much less themselves, for the crimes of Presidents. We let them get away with murder on massive scales in wars we start or join but we impeached Nixon and Clinton for covering up a burglary and lying under oath in a sexual harassment lawsuit. Actually impeaching Trump fits the pattern, we dont mind you killing all those people but by God dont do something illegal.

 

[Estebonrober]

So Trump is the murderer and not the Presidents who started all those wars?

Btw, Christopher Steele was held up to be a heroic MI6 superspy by the Democrat's media and he is being sued for his "never been disproven" dossier. Page should sue him too, and the media that propagated the smear campaign and the FBI for violating his rights. Steele's defense is the gossip he compiled wasn't meant to be published, but he's the one who was sharing it with the media and authorities to ensure a Trump loss.

This Steele dude endangered his sources, right? If you were one of the people telling Steele about Trump's connections to Putin and oligarchs wouldn't you be a bit concerned your information might expose you? Well, not if that was also part of the plan to interfere in our election. They knew Clinton wanted dirt on Trump so they fed her too.

The point I'm getting at is the 2 parties are not in the habit of prosecuting each other, much less themselves, for the crimes of Presidents. We let them get away with murder on massive scales in wars we start or join but we impeached Nixon and Clinton for covering up a burglary and lying under oath in a sexual harassment lawsuit. Actually impeaching Trump fits the pattern, we dont mind you killing all those people but by God dont do something illegal.

Now you are changing the nature of your analogy because the analogy is so bad to start with you’ve left yourself little choice. Just stop already.

Also Steele was hired by a Republican group though right? Who is actually suing him btw? This is news to me. I’d love to see that fought out in civil court.

 

[Berzerker]

Here was my analogy

"If a murderer was given probation yesterday and a murderer was given the death penalty today, were they treated equally under the law? Wouldn't today's murderer point to yesterday's to argue for probation too? Would you tell them thats "dumb whataboutism?"

and here's what you said:

"It would be more like if the previous guy got off without even getting charged for murder because the DA couldn't get enough evidence to convict while prosecuting this guy because he had a bloody knife in his hand with a body at his feet when he was found."

My analogy assumes both are murderers and deserve equal treatment under the law. The flaw with my analogy is Trump hasn't done anything to equate with the crimes of his predecessors. He'd have to invade Iran to join that list of war criminals.

Also Steele was hired by a Republican group though right? Who is actually suing him btw? This is news to me. I’d love to see that fought out in civil court.

No, he was hired by Clinton's campaign. During the primary season a Republican (Rubio?) hired Fusion to get dirt on Trump. That effort ended as Trump won the nomination. Clinton and the DNC (via a NYC law firm) took over and Steele was hired by Fusion to get dirt in Russia. A Russian is suing him.

I'd like to know if Clinton told Steele to go ahead and publish the dossier and give it to the FBI. Its funny how these two cases mirror each other, Trump asks Russia to publish DNC emails and Clinton asks Steele to publish the dossier. The difference is the emails were actual evidence of corruption and the dossier was largely gossip or purchased gossip.

 

[metalhead]

What law did he break that compares with starting wars?

You don't think arming the opposition to Maduro in Venezuela counts as "starting a war?"

 

[Berzerker]

He's arming Ukraine and a bunch of people too, so what? We didn't invade Venezuela, thats starting a war. Please do not compare Maduro to Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria.

 

[Estebonrober]

Here was my analogy

"If a murderer was given probation yesterday and a murderer was given the death penalty today, were they treated equally under the law? Wouldn't today's murderer point to yesterday's to argue for probation too? Would you tell them thats "dumb whataboutism?"

and here's what you said:

"It would be more like if the previous guy got off without even getting charged for murder because the DA couldn't get enough evidence to convict while prosecuting this guy because he had a bloody knife in his hand with a body at his feet when he was found."

My analogy assumes both are murderers and deserve equal treatment under the law. The flaw with my analogy is Trump hasn't done anything to equate with the crimes of his predecessors. He'd have to invade Iran to join that list of war criminals.



No, he was hired by Clinton's campaign. During the primary season a Republican (Rubio?) hired Fusion to get dirt on Trump. That effort ended as Trump won the nomination. Clinton and the DNC (via a NYC law firm) took over and Steele was hired by Fusion to get dirt in Russia. A Russian is suing him.

I'd like to know if Clinton told Steele to go ahead and publish the dossier and give it to the FBI. Its funny how these two cases mirror each other, Trump asks Russia to publish DNC emails and Clinton asks Steele to publish the dossier. The difference is the emails were actual evidence of corruption and the dossier was largely gossip or purchased gossip.

I would very much love to see that lawsuit move forward.

 

[metalhead]

He's arming Ukraine and a bunch of people too, so what? We didn't invade Venezuela, thats starting a war. Please do not compare Maduro to Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria.

How did the U.S. start a war in either Syria or Libya then? We invaded neither country.

 

[Berzerker]

We attacked them and we still have troops in Syria

I'm reading the redacted FISA application on Page. Who is source #1? It sure looks like its Steele and his dossier.