US Politics May 2019: " If I was burned at the stake, I would ask for a mirror"

Schumer doesn't get a lot of things it's true

honest Q: how many voters fit into the category that pelosi is accommodating (people who won't accept impeachment unless trump is given another 10-100 weeks of second chances to stop acting like a guilty man)?

JCLC I hope u know the "full communism"/AOC wing is, like, five people

The odds are she's made up her mind that this turd is a menace but is waiting for Trump to keep stepping on the rakes she lays in public. She's a vote counter. It's possible she doesn't have the numbers (yet) beyond the progressive wing to start proceedings.

honest Q: how many voters fit into the category that pelosi is accommodating (people who won't accept impeachment unless trump is given another 10-100 weeks of second chances to stop acting like a guilty man)?

― these are not all of the possible side effects (Karl Malone), Thursday, May 23, 2019

I suspect she's thinking of their reps more than the voters

She's a vote counter. It's possible she doesn't have the numbers (yet) beyond the progressive wing to start proceedings.

yeah, i think this is right. and don't get me wrong, i can understand why she's pumping the brakes on impeachment until she at least has full support in her party.

but i have trouble imagining how trump can possibly be more obviously guilty than he already is. he has stepped on every single rake, so many times.

someone please post a sideshow bob image

A friend last weekend posited a third option: a Senate trial won't begin until the House finishes impeachment proceedings, which can take as long as the House wants, possibly until November 2020?

"I was extremely calm yesterday" for June pol thread title

meanwhile, political journalists on twitter are always mentioning how infrequently the topic of impeachment comes up at democratic campaign events. or maybe it's just david weigel making that point over and over again. but i have no reason to distrust him on that. Pelosi is waiting on the the Reps. to force her hand on impeachment, and the Reps. are apparently waiting for the people to force their hand, and the people are fucking exhausted over the whole thing and most of us are depressed and just want to retire and have health care without going broke

But, yeah, Pelosi can't be seen as leading the charge towards impeachment. She has to create the impression that events pull her, "reluctantly," beyond her control.

Also, I do think she hasn't got the votes in the House (yet). No pundit has floated this possibility.

the people are fucking exhausted over the whole thing and most of us are depressed and just want to retire and have health care without going broke

Gonna blast DJ Khaled by the pool tomorrow! Join me.

multi-xps

I suppose that constitutes a 'middle road' approach, in that it is perfectly evident that not one Republican senator has showed the slightest inclination to vote to convict Trump on any articles drawn up by the House. The only good alternative is to let Trump convict himself in the eyes of voters through his public, highly visible actions. His throwing a tantrum instead of negotiating an infrastructure bill will certainly increase his popularity.

But some kind of well-crafted Articles of Impeachment need to be brought to a vote in the House before January, imo. By January 1, we will be too deep into the campaign for it to sit well with voters.

Schumer doesn't get it.

Sometimes I wonder how Pelosi manages to share a podium with that spineless, glad-handing imbecile without shoving a pen through his neck.

The only good alternative is to let Trump convict himself in the eyes of voters through his public, highly visible actions

i think it was around the 84th time he convicted himself through his public, highly visible actions that i completely lost my shit

around the 84th time he convicted himself through his public, highly visible actions that i completely lost my shit

He convicts himself every day of incompetence and inability, but since Mueller screwed the pooch by not making a clear declaration of obstruction of justice, which was a prima facie case in terms of evidence, Trump and Barr have been able to erase or efface that conclusion in the public mind sufficiently that Pelosi and the House democrats now need to rebuild and rehabilitate that case. Certainly, Trump is helping them by refusing to honor subpoenas, but it is not a done deal, yet. The US public can be slow on the uptake.

It's practically our superpower.

1) i am prohibited by DOJ policy to say that 2 + 2 = 4.
2) there were 2 objects in the pile
3) 2 more objects were added to the pile
4) in general, 2 + 2 = 4
5) here is the abundant evidence, most of it in the public record, that 2 and 2 were added together to make 4 objects in the pile
6) once again, i am not allowed to say that there are now 4 objects in the pile. but just saying, there were 2, then 2 more were added, and 2 + 2 = 4, so...yeah. god bless america.
7)...

THERE ARE NO OBJECTS IN THE PILE IS WHAT THEY REPORT SAID, many people are saying, print this shit up at FedEx and make a wordboard to glue to my talky trapezoid with the microphone on it

8) we need to wait until the american public agrees that 2+2 = 4

Karl, you like Campari? I'm mixing Negronis at 5.

:D

i would truly take you up on that if i was near!

i'm actually not in a rage right now, i'm just procrastinating at work (please don't tell my boss)

Fuck robert mueller

maybe at 24

I’d have more respect for him if he just concluded that he didn’t want to bring obstruction charges due to the lack of an underlying crime. Kicking the conclusion to Baer was ridiculous.

9) Does 2+2=4? It sure looks like it. But 40% of the public thinks it equals 3. Perhaps we can compromise at 3.75. Or maybe 3.5.

Mueller, according to people familiar with the matter, would like for any discussions beyond the public contents of his report to be conducted in private. Democrats want to press Mueller in a nationally televised hearing about a host of issues, including whether he thought President Trump could or should be charged with obstruction if he were not the president, and whether Mueller agreed with Attorney General William P. Barr’s handling of the investigation’s findings.

What a loser

1) i am prohibited by DOJ policy to say that 2 + 2 = 4.

Um, not really. DOJ policy prevented Mueller in his capacity as a prosecutor from indicting Trump, but how he worded his conclusions was in his control. He deliberately chose not to state something like this:

All the evidence cited herein compels me to conclude that Donald J. Trump clearly and repeatedly attempted to obstruct justice. According to DOJ policy, based on constitutional law, he cannot be indicted for these unlawful activities; the only constitutionally acceptable remedy lies in the hands of Congress, should they choose to use their impeachment powers.

I don’t expect anything more than what’s in the report but he needs to explain the reasoning behind his conclusions in a more transparent forum.

Yeah exactly aimless. He needs to exolain why he didn’t recommend that.

Is it doj policy or prosecutorial discretion due to a lack of underlying crime

DOJ policy prohibits impugning an unindicted investigative target. And since DOJ policy says you can't indict a sitting president...

Mueller put the evidence of obstruction in the report, but that policy prevented him from stating the obvious. Which laid the groundwork for Barr's hackery.

He wrote that they did not come to a finding on obstruction because there would be no way for Trump to disprove the accusation as he was unindictable--so it would be unfair

Which is just a restatement of the logic underlying the DOJ policy.

It’s true, poor thing

I think he should have said it and taken his chances.

I agree with this policy of not impugning people you’re not going to indict in general. But this case is ridiculous. The only reason he can’t be indicted is because of his office—there is a public interest dimension to this.

Why is mueller acting like an algorithm?

Um, not really. DOJ policy prevented Mueller in his capacity as a prosecutor from indicting Trump, but how he worded his conclusions was in his control.

DOJ policy (according to Mueller's interpretation, at least) prevented not only from indicting him, but also from coming to the conclusion that he committed crimes.

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.

so no, he could not have worded a statement like you suggested, that he "clearly and repeatedly attempted to obstruct justice", because that would be a crime, and they had already determined to use an approach that could potentially come to that conclusion. instead, he used the ambiguous language which was enough to confuse most of the american public because it takes longer than 5 seconds to read: "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."

in other words, mueller is a big fucking asshole, but not for the reasons that you suggest

xposts

This is like Kafka

we determined not to apply an approach

that 'we determined' strongly implies that an alternate approach was possible

possible but maybe illegal

but he should have been brave and gone for it. or else allowed someone else to be special prosecutor.

Not illegal -- contrary to DOJ guidelines.

this is why we used to have independent prosecutors

makes u think

What if Pelosi is trying to goad Trump into doing lots of dumb, unpopular shit by claiming he's trying to goad her into impeachment?

— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) May 23, 2019

don't goad a goader

what if trump is trying to goad pelosi into thinking she can try to goad trump into doing lots of dumb unpopular shit by claiming he's trying to goad her into impeachment?

https://i.imgur.com/Rddoux5.jpg

Oh man can you even imagine if Donald Trump wound up haplessly doing dumb unpopular shit, what a crazy mixed-up world that would be

I can already see a stadium full of people chanting "DUMB UNPOPULAR SHIT! DUMB UNPOPULAR SHIT!"