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

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!"

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/05/pelosi-move-impeach-trump-premature-divisive-190523154608666.html

"I do think impeachment is a very divisive place to go"

oh piss off

you know what else is divisive? losing the Electoral College again

yeah but you can just have the loser make a speech about the genius of the founding fathers

Here is a 7+ minute video, from ABC, of Trump calling on multiple senior aides to defend him and vouch for his 'calm' demeanor in the infrastructure meeting with Democrats after Nancy Pelosi said that he'd had a temper tantrum. pic.twitter.com/iiLcrjnTe4

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) May 23, 2019

so pathetic

the bootlicking is nauseating

never trust a room full of white people.

unless you walk in a room and it's Fleetwood Mac standing there

they don't even trust each other

where is my Negroni btw ?

it's almost 5 ffs

shaker's out

the bootlicking is nauseating

come carne asada, let's get's serious. they use horsehair shine brushes

An early look at next week's cover, "The Shining," by Barry Blitt. https://t.co/KVWteOZfAX pic.twitter.com/FsevJqnTq9

— The New Yorker (@NewYorker) May 23, 2019

I’m surprised they can live with themselves. Always surprised.

hilarious how clueless DT is re: how his behavior esp the whining and doth protesting too much comes off. like dude, thanks for letting us know that Pelosi really got under your skin. thanks for letting us know you're scared shitless about the "whole Russia thing".

If you’re blessed at birth by a demon to never suffer lasting consequences for any of your actions I’d imagine it’s hard to learn anything

The panicked perpetuation of white supremacy by any means (up to and including the eager debasement of an identity which one's actions are hypothetically intended to preserve but which will in sad reality remain forever compromised by unresolved daddy issues) is a helluva drug.

"It's a good time to be a farmer, we're going to make sure of that," President Trump says, announcing $16 billion in aid to farmers as the trade war with China continues https://t.co/oCbHCg9U2B pic.twitter.com/siPweyokoP

— CNN Business (@CNNBusiness) May 23, 2019

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

He is extremely calm. Just presidenting as he always does.

A few quick thoughts about the Assange indictment—this is a worst-case, nightmare, mayday scenario for First Amendment enthusiasts 1/

— Hannah Bloch-Wehba (@HBWHBWHBW) May 23, 2019

Gonna blast DJ Khaled by the pool

D'USSE'

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/may/24/facebook-leaves-fake-nancy-pelosi-video-on-site

this is the same fucked up shit they pulled with HRC and it's fucking disgusting and the organge shit hole is playing it up too.

Zuckerberg is fucking noxious garbage.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/another-attack-trump-tweets-video-pelosi-tripping-over-words-n1009551

this shit right here is fucking pissing me the hell off .