Mid-air Collusion (Mueller Thread v. 19)

[waiguoren]

I don't know you well but you do seem to be far right.

I disagree with this characterization, and I don't see its relevance to this conversation.

I don't know if you're a big Trump supporter or not.

I'm not, and I don't see the relevance to this conversation.

The available evidence is clearly enough to warrant an investigation.

You're dodging the fundamental question: what specific circumstances justify the appointment of special counsel? Were you a fan of the Starr investigation, for example? I opposed it.

Mueller is a patriot though and he should be given the appropriate amount of respect.

Point me to where I "disrespected" Mueller. I specifically noted he seems like a thorough guy and I await his final report. I'm saying that the anti-Trump partisans in our country haven't put enough thought the issues of the proper circumstances for appointment of special counsel nor to the proper purview of these investigations beyond "if he's my political enemy, he should be fully investigated, anal probes and all."

 

[LangfordBarrow]

I disagree with this characterization, and I don't see its relevance to this conversation.



I'm not, and I don't see the relevance to this conversation.



You're dodging the fundamental question: what specific circumstances justify the appointment of special counsel? Were you a fan of the Starr investigation, for example? I opposed it.



Point me to where I "disrespected" Mueller. I specifically noted he seems like a thorough guy and I await his final report. I'm saying that the anti-Trump partisans in our country haven't put enough thought the issues of the proper circumstances for appointment of special counsel nor to the proper purview of these investigations beyond "if he's my political enemy, he should be fully investigated, anal probes and all."

You just seem to be a debater. You want to break things down to bullet points but it's more complicated than that. Listen. Trump may have broken the law. There's an ongoing investigation and within a year or two we should have a report. Let's see what it contains but if you want to push an agenda in the meantime go right ahead.

 

[waiguoren]

You just seem to be a debater. You want to break things down to bullet points but it's more complicated than that. Listen. Trump may have broken the law. There's an ongoing investigation and within a year or two we should have a report. Let's see what it contains but if you want to push an agenda in the meantime go right ahead.

You're dodging the fundamental question: what specific circumstances justify the appointment of special counsel? Were you a fan of the Starr investigation, for example? I opposed it.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

You're dodging the fundamental question: what specific circumstances justify the appointment of special counsel? Were you a fan of the Starr investigation, for example? I opposed it.

I oppose your bringing another investigation into this conversation. Clearly there is enough evidence to investigate and try this case if facts lead to that conclusion. Whataboutisms aren't necessary.

 

[Limbo Pete]

You just seem to be a debater.

 

[Ophydian]

Special counsel investigations are supposed to investigate criminal wrongdoing. There was no publicly available evidence that Trump or his campaign had engaged in any kind of criminal wrongdoing with regard to cooperation with Russia. Firing Comey was well within Trump's power and does not constitute obstruction of justice.

A nonpartisan commission to investigate foreign interference (by any country aiding/harming any candidate) in the 2016 election would have been preferable. If Mueller doesn't find crimes related to Russia-Trump links, he will be seen having failed. Thus Mueller will feel pressure to drag this thing out as long as possible and to use tough tactics to "squeeze" witnesses like Papadopolous in an attempt to make them sing. The problem is that these people often "compose" to relieve the pressure on them. The prosecutor ends up abusing his powers and wasting taxpayer money in exchange for bad information.

Mueller seems to be a thorough guy, and I await his final report. Afterward, I hope to see bipartisan reform of the special counsel process. I do recognize this is something of a pipe dream in today's hyper-partisan climate.

Who initiated the Special Counsel investigation? Last I remember Republicans own all forms of government, either the House or the Senate could had stop the investigation from going forward but silly Trump had to open his mouth.

 

[waiguoren]

Clearly there is enough evidence to investigate and try this case if facts lead to that conclusion.

You're dodging the fundamental question: what specific circumstances justify the appointment of special counsel?

If it's clear to LangfordBarrow than a special counsel should be appointed? Should we also make foreign policy and tax policy this way?

The West has traditionally been strong in large part because it did a better job of adhering to rules/structure than other regions. It seems like you're happy to throw away procedure in favor of going after your political opponents based on feelings.

 

[computer fogie]

None of us know the details of what evidence Mueller is acting on, or where the investigation is going to end up. But Trump could not act more like a guilty person, from everything he says. That's not evidence of any kind, but it is a strong indicator. Anybody, in any circumstance, who acts like he does regarding an investigation involving himself, would be seen by any unbiased person as giving off strong signals of guilt.

Several top Republicans did say that there was good reason to continue Mueller's investigation, after seeing what was presented to them in private. We have no idea what they saw, but it must have been pretty convincing.

We can argue all year long about it, but we will all have to wait and see where it leads. Until then, it's all speculation on our part.

 

[waiguoren]

Who initiated the Special Counsel investigation? Last I remember Republicans own all forms of government, either the House or the Senate could had stop the investigation from going forward but silly Trump had to open his mouth.

This is irrelevant. There is no need to get tribal about this. Political parties aren't a fundamental part of our system of government. Neither is the Office of Special Counsel. You're not going deep enough. What are the specific circumstances that justify appointment of a special counsel? Should Eric Holder have been able to appoint a special counsel to investigate President Obama for any reason whatsoever?

Our adherence to rules and procedures makes us strong. There should be specific rules about the circumstances in which appointment is acceptable. The idea that the AG should have this power alone and that this power should be unlimited doesn't mesh with the principles of limited government our system used to be based upon.

 

[waiguoren]

None of us know the details of what evidence Mueller is acting on, or where the investigation is going to end up. But Trump could not act more like a guilty person, from everything he says. That's not evidence of any kind, but it is a strong indicator. Anybody, in any circumstance, who acts like he does regarding an investigation involving himself, would be seen by any unbiased person as giving off strong signals of guilt.

We can argue all year long about it, but we will all have to wait and see where it leads. Until then, it's all speculation on our part. Several top Republicans did say that there was good reason to continue Mueller's investigation, after seeing what was presented to them in private. We have no idea what they saw, but it must have been pretty convincing.

The investigation should be completed. That doesn't mean it should have begun in the first place.

Upon conclusion of the investigation, the public should be made aware of the specific origins of the investigation: what specific facts/events prompted Rosenstein to appoint Mueller, and would those same facts/events trigger an investigation of any other president?

If this does happen, I predict that most independents will find that the investigation was begun illegitimately. Ideally, this would trigger a national debate about the limits of special counsel, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

 

[waiguoren]

Dershowitz: Why a Trump-Mueller interview won't happen

 

[LangfordBarrow]

You're dodging the fundamental question: what specific circumstances justify the appointment of special counsel?

If it's clear to LangfordBarrow than a special counsel should be appointed? Should we also make foreign policy and tax policy this way?

The West has traditionally been strong in large part because it did a better job of adhering to rules/structure than other regions. It seems like you're happy to throw away procedure in favor of going after your political opponents based on feelings.

Trump Tower meeting. Manafort ties to Russia. Flynn communications with Russia during Obama's administration.

 

[waiguoren]

Trump Tower meeting. Manafort ties to Russia. Flynn communications with Russia during Obama's administration.

You've proved my point. Your standard is, "I know it when I see it". A non-tyrannical system of government cannot function on that standard.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

This is irrelevant. There is no need to get tribal about this. Political parties aren't a fundamental part of our system of government. Neither is the Office of Special Counsel. You're not going deep enough. What are the specific circumstances that justify appointment of a special counsel? Should Eric Holder have been able to appoint a special counsel to investigate President Obama for any reason whatsoever?

Our adherence to rules and procedures makes us strong. There should be specific rules about the circumstances in which appointment is acceptable. The idea that the AG should have this power alone and that this power should be unlimited doesn't mesh with the principles of limited government our system used to be based upon.

You're the smartest guy in the room that just wants to play tic tac toe.

 

[waiguoren]

You're the smartest guy in the room that just wants to play tic tac toe.

Determining the proper delineation of political power is closer to chess than to tic-tac-toe.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Dershowitz: Why a Trump-Mueller interview won't happen

Dershowitz. Six months ago it was Sekulow. Look where that's at now. Actions speak louder than words, especially when they ring hollow, so let's wait and see what Mueller concludes.

 

[Witchhunt]

You just seem to be a debater. You want to break things down to bullet points but it's more complicated than that. Listen. Trump may have broken the law. There's an ongoing investigation and within a year or two we should have a report. Let's see what it contains but if you want to push an agenda in the meantime go right ahead.

lots of people "may" have brokenmthe law.. FFS

 

[LangfordBarrow]

You've proved my point. Your standard is, "I know it when I see it". A non-tyrannical system of government cannot function on that standard.

GTFO. The emails between Trump Jr and the Russian that promised dirt on Hillary that was GOVERNMENT provided isn't enough evidence? They actually had that meeting and lied about it's substance.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

lots of people "may" have brokenmthe law.. FFS

And they are investigated right? It's evidence that points to that person. You don't just randomly investigate people for some crime or another. Evidence leads to a direction and that is followed.

 

[waiguoren]

GTFO. The emails between Trump Jr and the Russian that promised dirt on Hillary that was GOVERNMENT provided isn't enough evidence? They actually had that meeting and lied about it's substance.

We aren't even having the same conversation at this point.

My question to you was: who gets to decide if it's "enough evidence"?

Since you have repeatedly refused to even attempt to answer, I'm assuming the answer is: whatever Langford Barrow deems "enough evidence" is enough evidence. No legal standard required, let's just shoot Langford Barrow a Sherdog PM every time we're not sure.

Imagine if we ran the rest of our government this way:

No need to have laws about when the death penalty is applicable, we'll just call up Langford Barrow and ask him if we should bust a cap in that guy's ass.

No need to have speed limits. After a fatal traffic accident, we'll send Langford Barrow a PM and ask him if the driver was going too fast for Barrow's taste.