[D'rek]

Save the memes for the Inn, please.

[Slow Ben]

Today is going to be a clusterfuck.


I'm gonna go out on a limb and predict we still don't learn anything today other than more bs.

[Aptorian]

Okay at the end of the speech Barr stated that certain Congress people will get a mostly unredacted report. So that's something.

What's the over under on that getting leaked?

I wonder if this also means that they can get access to Mueller's evidence and testimonies that went into the conclusions.

[Slow Ben]

My 2 favorite comments so far.
We do not have an attorney general. We have 2 white house spokespersons.

William Barr just made Sarah Sanders look like a factician.

[QuickTidal]

Report (with redacted bits)

https://www.cnn.com/...-pdf/index.html

Also, the tidbits CNN has been pulling point HARD at Trump repeatedly trying to obstruct...

[amphibian]

 Aptorian, on 15 April 2019 - 04:09 PM, said:

Is that what you think Nico is?

He is an extreme libertarian who is worried about end of nation state geopolitics and pops up here to enthusiastically cheer for fascist, racist policies as "good business" and called us Malazan forum people sub-human trash.

He has told us for years who he is and if you haven't picked up on this by now, then you don't really come from a place where you can question other people's evaluations of him.

[Aptorian]

Eh, was drunk when he made that comment, he probably meant to type "I love you". The letters are right next to each other.

[Tiste Simeon]

 Aptorian, on 18 April 2019 - 05:23 PM, said:

Eh, was drunk when he made that comment, he probably meant to type "I love you". The letters are right next to each other.

Hey that kind of excuse gets people elected to the supreme court despite being sexual predators so it might work.

[worry]

What I'm getting so far is:

The report was inconclusive (genuinely, not a euphemism) on whether direct 'collusion' between DJT and Russia occurred.

Trump campaign, including the man himself, were without a doubt whole hog in cahoots with WikiLeaks, but that wasn't necessarily illegal because WL weren't the hackers who stole the information.

Trump & co. were, without a doubt, hostile to the investigation and almost certainly consistently attempted to obstruct justice, though Mueller and team believed the only proper legal remedy for that is through Congress (ie impeachment), rather than a more mundane form of indictment.

AG Barr was brought in by this White House specifically to be a buffer for that. He is, as per his mandate from the president he's loyal to rather than the Constitution, behaving more like a defense attorney than the Attorney General.


Am I mistaken about any of that?

[HoosierDaddy]

No, sounds broad strokes on point, Worry.

Bill Barr is a disgrace for his political theatrics.

[Obdigore]

 worry, on 18 April 2019 - 06:08 PM, said:

The report was inconclusive (genuinely, not a euphemism) on whether direct 'collusion' between DJT and Russia occurred.

I would disagree about this. It looks like the DJT campaign was expecting things from Russia, and received some of them and not others. However, it appears that Mueller believes it is Congress' responsibility to bring charges against a president, not the DOJ's.

[amphibian]

 Aptorian, on 18 April 2019 - 05:23 PM, said:

Eh, was drunk when he made that comment, he probably meant to type "I love you". The letters are right next to each other.

I would like it if you engaged with the remainder of my post and the facts there.

[Tiste Simeon]

 Obdigore, on 18 April 2019 - 07:14 PM, said:

 worry, on 18 April 2019 - 06:08 PM, said:

The report was inconclusive (genuinely, not a euphemism) on whether direct 'collusion' between DJT and Russia occurred.

I would disagree about this. It looks like the DJT campaign was expecting things from Russia, and received some of them and not others. However, it appears that Mueller believes it is Congress' responsibility to bring charges against a president, not the DOJ's.

Yeah exactly. It's "This is definitely here, we just can't deal within our current parameters but Congress definitely can..."

Sadly that means it's not going anywhere because if Congress did the right thing we'd never have been in this mess.

[worry]

 Obdigore, on 18 April 2019 - 07:14 PM, said:

 worry, on 18 April 2019 - 06:08 PM, said:

The report was inconclusive (genuinely, not a euphemism) on whether direct 'collusion' between DJT and Russia occurred.

I would disagree about this. It looks like the DJT campaign was expecting things from Russia, and received some of them and not others. However, it appears that Mueller believes it is Congress' responsibility to bring charges against a president, not the DOJ's.

Interesting point. I imagine the legal intricacies about this are above my head though, and some concerns might rest on the provability of who knew what when?


One question I have, generally speaking, maybe more on the obstruction side, is: isn't attempting to commit a crime itself a crime? E.g. attempted murder, attempted grand larceny, etc.




So like, isn't this pretty conclusive language that the president committed crimes, even if they were corollary to the ones he was trying to commit?

This post has been edited by worry: 18 April 2019 - 08:21 PM

[Aptorian]

 amphibian, on 18 April 2019 - 07:29 PM, said:

 Aptorian, on 18 April 2019 - 05:23 PM, said:

Eh, was drunk when he made that comment, he probably meant to type "I love you". The letters are right next to each other.

I would like it if you engaged with the remainder of my post and the facts there.

 amphibian, on 18 April 2019 - 04:52 PM, said:

 Aptorian, on 15 April 2019 - 04:09 PM, said:

Is that what you think Nico is?

He is an extreme libertarian who is worried about end of nation state geopolitics and pops up here to enthusiastically cheer for fascist, racist policies as "good business" and called us Malazan forum people sub-human trash.

He has told us for years who he is and if you haven't picked up on this by now, then you don't really come from a place where you can question other people's evaluations of him.

I'm not sure what Nico is but neither am I sure he knows what he is.

If you've paid attention to his posting history you'll have noticed that he seems to vacilate, from an extreme to normalcy in a matter of days. From a doomsday prepper, to teabagger, to anti-corporation, now he's posting Breitbart garbage and simultaneously posting religious nonsense in the happy thread. And other times he just posts normal person stuff.

Dudes gone off several ideological cliffs in short time.

Nico seems to either be a master level troll or a deeply confused person with little to no ability to analyse sources. There's a reason why people have suspected he was a forum alt for ages. Personally I think Nico is more benign than this, when he has the energy for it, I think he likes to post his articles and viewpoints in here because it pushes your buttons.

I've said this numerous times now, in this very thread, if Nico really has gone full trumptard, you shouldn't shun him and you shouldn't judge him. You should study him.

This forum is more or less a clean room. It's a safe space for debate. You can poke and prod him and try to figure out what makes him tick because there's millions of Nico's in America that don't think or act the way you want them to.

Personally I find him fascinating. Sometimes he pisses me off but he's very entertaining to follow.

This post has been edited by Aptorian: 18 April 2019 - 08:31 PM

[Tiste Simeon]

 worry, on 18 April 2019 - 08:20 PM, said:

 Obdigore, on 18 April 2019 - 07:14 PM, said:

 worry, on 18 April 2019 - 06:08 PM, said:

The report was inconclusive (genuinely, not a euphemism) on whether direct 'collusion' between DJT and Russia occurred.

I would disagree about this. It looks like the DJT campaign was expecting things from Russia, and received some of them and not others. However, it appears that Mueller believes it is Congress' responsibility to bring charges against a president, not the DOJ's.

One question I have, generally speaking, maybe more on the obstruction side, is: isn't attempting to commit a crime itself a crime? E.g. attempted murder, attempted grand larceny, etc.

Yes attempt is as good as, at least in British law. And the sentencing rules are that you can be done with the same severity as if you'd actually done the crime. Which means in America rich white people get away with it anyway...

The problem lies in proving that you had gone past all acts that are what we refer to as merely preparatory. So if you tell someone "I'm going to kill you" but make no moves, that isn't attempt murder. Heck, if you say that and punch someone you're more likely to get an assault and threat to kill charge. But if you've gone past the stage of "merely preparatory" you've done everything but the actual complete offence.

E.g. you're smashing someone repeatedly in the head with a bat and the only reason you don't get a murder charge is that the person survives. Or if you've grabbed a girl in the park, have her and your pants down but are interrupted, it's an attempt rape even if you never actually touched her genitals with any of your body parts etc.

It's obviously a lot more shades of grey then that but as a basic rule it fits the job. Lawyers argue about it a lot in order to effect sentencing and there's tons of case law that is it the for study (I read quite a lot of it at work because it obviously effects how we charge people...)

As for whether it applies here I'd say it should do. Whether it will, well all know how uncommitted to actual truth the Republicans and the White House are...

[HoosierDaddy]

In America that language is "substantial steps."

[worry]

Yah, I think it's clear the GOP -- down to its voters -- will absolve anything for power.


But don't discount how useless establishment Dems can be. I mean...



This is the Dem House Majority Leader, on par or second in power to Speaker Pelosi. Even setting aside whether impeachment is a good or bad tack, how does this statement show leadership in opposition to Trump/the GOP/corruption/any of it? Does it say anything? It's the opposite of rhetoric. A black hole. These idiots, even after '18 elections, think the Dem candidate will be running against Russia and not Donald Trump and the GOP machine.

[D'rek]

 Aptorian, on 18 April 2019 - 08:29 PM, said:

 amphibian, on 18 April 2019 - 07:29 PM, said:

 Aptorian, on 18 April 2019 - 05:23 PM, said:

Eh, was drunk when he made that comment, he probably meant to type "I love you". The letters are right next to each other.

I would like it if you engaged with the remainder of my post and the facts there.

 amphibian, on 18 April 2019 - 04:52 PM, said:

 Aptorian, on 15 April 2019 - 04:09 PM, said:

Is that what you think Nico is?

He is an extreme libertarian who is worried about end of nation state geopolitics and pops up here to enthusiastically cheer for fascist, racist policies as "good business" and called us Malazan forum people sub-human trash.

He has told us for years who he is and if you haven't picked up on this by now, then you don't really come from a place where you can question other people's evaluations of him.

I'm not sure what Nico is but neither am I sure he knows what he is.

If you've paid attention to his posting history you'll have noticed that he seems to vacilate, from an extreme to normalcy in a matter of days. From a doomsday prepper, to teabagger, to anti-corporation, now he's posting Breitbart garbage and simultaneously posting religious nonsense in the happy thread. And other times he just posts normal person stuff.

Dudes gone off several ideological cliffs in short time.

Nico seems to either be a master level troll or a deeply confused person with little to no ability to analyse sources. There's a reason why people have suspected he was a forum alt for ages. Personally I think Nico is more benign than this, when he has the energy for it, I think he likes to post his articles and viewpoints in here because it pushes your buttons.

I've said this numerous times now, in this very thread, if Nico really has gone full trumptard, you shouldn't shun him and you shouldn't judge him. You should study him.

This forum is more or less a clean room. It's a safe space for debate. You can poke and prod him and try to figure out what makes him tick because there's millions of Nico's in America that don't think or act the way you want them to.

Personally I find him fascinating. Sometimes he pisses me off but he's very entertaining to follow.

And not, as far as I can recall, ever expressed racist or homophobic sentiments? (Which were part of Obdigore's original comment on the matter)

[D'rek]

Question for the legal-knowledgeable USA folks -- so the report basically says Trump tried to substantially undermine the investigation, but failed. Is "attempted but failed" in this case treatable as a real crime, in the same way that "attempted but failed" murder is still very much a crime? Or is this sort of political crime different from that?