|
Post by whemblycthulhu on Dec 11, 2020 11:29:27 GMT -5
The mere fact that House Democrats chose NOT to use the Mueller report during Impeachment should tell you a lot about the veracity of the Mueller report. That word, I do not think it means what you think it means? You're absolutely correct about the report in at least one respect. It asked and answered three questions - 1) Did Russia attempt to screw with our elections (yes, in a massive way) , 2) Did Trump/his campaign knowingly conspire with the Russians in this (No), and 3) did Trump obstruct justice by impeding investigations into 1 and 2 (no, he sort of half-heartedly tried at best). No one was actually happy with the report's conclusions - the Democrats didn't get the smoking gun they wanted, and the Republicans got a lot of egg on their faces after arguing Russia did nothing at all. The impeachment charges had nothing to do with the election, though, which I find a lot of people forgetting. It was regarding the Ukraine situation, and Trump's alleged abuse of power by threatening to put a freeze on the military aid we promised. So whether or not the Democrats had ulterior motives in impeachment, the Mueller report would have been useless at best (irrelevant to the charges) and actively harmful at worst (by exposing their sinister intent). Ultimately, shouldn't you be supporting the report's veracity, as it exonerated Trump from literal treason charges? "Veracity" means accuracy. In other words "Democrats chose NOT to use the Mueller report during Impeachment should tell you a lot about the accuracy of the Mueller report." You're right about #1 and #2, but the second volume of the report address #3 listed out several actions that could be construed as obstruction. That was literally tailored made to be used by Democrats impeachment efforts, which was why Democrats (and some GOPer) got Bill Barr's promise to make the report public during his confirmation hearing. I'm too lazy to check, but there was ONE action that I thought had merit, in which Trump threatened to sic prosecutors on Cohen's father-in-law (Cohen partly co-operated and took the full blame because his father-in-law could've been a target). I don't remember if it was one of the 10 or so events - or if it was a "passing reference", but that was appalling. The others stem from a novel interpretation advanced by the Mueller team, namely scumbag Andrew Weissman, that prosecutors, subordinate to POTUS, could ascertain a President's motive to be corrupt or not. The two major reasons why the Mueller team didn't pursue obstruction charges against the president was: a) The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), binding to all DOJ after the Nixon administration, states: "The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions." (although, it appears former Presidents *could* be charged once out of office) b) The Theory of the Unitary Executive branch Under the theory of the Unitary Executive (much to semipotentwalrus' dismay) the obstruction theory in Mueller's report really had no legs. What I'm talking about here, is that outside of provable things like bribery and suborning perjury, the rationale of a President's motive could be more than one thing and not corrupt - it's not for the POTUS' subordinate to ascertain that in a criminal investigation. Every. Administration. Advocates. For. The. Unitary Executive Theory. When. In. Office. Regardless. Of. Party. I'm not arguing that it should be so, but recognizing that's the reality, especially when both Congress and the Judiciary supports it. However, it's certainly under Congress' purview to determine whether a POTUS' motives is corrupt as the impeachment process is a political one, rather than criminal. The Ukraine impeachment was really a weak sauce ordeal...impeachment needed to be something so appalling, that the outrage would be bipartisan and would seem to get enough votes for removal in the Senate. This wasn't it chief. Now, had Democrats used the 2nd volume of the Mueller Report, which addressed the #3 question, who knows how that impeachment would've manifested. But, the fact that they didn't use it, should tell you that there wasn't anything "there, there" for Democrats to use against Trump and how the collusion narrative was nothing more than a means to neuter Trump.
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Dec 11, 2020 12:04:51 GMT -5
I have to say, following the Dakka thread on RiTides wanting to start another forum for politics hammerin on rule 1, then seeing a poster congratulating the mods while calling everyone involved "entitled snowflakes" being thanked by RiTides.
*looks at Dakka rule number 1* *looks at mod hammering civilty letting "entitled snowflakes" slide* *surprised pikachu face*
Great stuff.
I wonder why rule 1 is so important, but you can't go a couple of pages in geek media or 40k general/background discussion without seeing "SJW" flung about really makes me wonder if my views are so skewed on what has political or hostile under/overtones.
|
|
|
Post by semipotentwalrus on Dec 11, 2020 12:11:15 GMT -5
You really can't draw the conclusion that there's nothing there because nothing was found when multiple people went to jail for obstructing or lying (which, y'know, Mueller explicitly said) and the main reason they didn't go after Trump himself is a memo dating back to a President so corrupt that we still use "-gate" as a suffix for scandals.
And please don't counter with the whole "prosecutors don't exonerate people!" soundbite*. Either they don't, in which case the report is inconclusive about Trump's guilt, or they do, in which case the report is inconclusive about Trump's guilt.
*I know they don't. That's not the point.
|
|
|
Post by whemblycthulhu on Dec 11, 2020 12:11:37 GMT -5
Is "SJW" a pejorative term?
I've seen folks proudly label themselves as a SJW and others used it mockingly as a pejorative.
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Dec 11, 2020 12:17:11 GMT -5
SJW has become a bit of a proud label that people are wearing, but its certainly not bandied about with kindness on the internet. When someone calls you an SJW, its usually used in a pejorative manner for progressive people on the center-left.
|
|
|
Post by whemblycthulhu on Dec 11, 2020 12:21:11 GMT -5
You really can't draw the conclusion that there's nothing there because nothing was found when multiple people went to jail for obstructing or lying (which, y'know, Mueller explicitly said) and the main reason they didn't go after Trump himself is a memo dating back to a President so corrupt that we still use "-gate" as a suffix for scandals. And please don't counter with the whole "prosecutors don't exonerate people!" soundbite*. Either they don't, in which case the report is inconclusive about Trump's guilt, or they do, in which case the report is inconclusive about Trump's guilt. *I know they don't. That's not the point. Well... yeah you can draw conclusions wally, as it was the point of the report. How many US Citizens were charged with a crime to conspire with Russia to steal an election? ZERO.That is distinctly different than subjects during the investigation were charged with obstruction or unrelated old crimes. Those don't add any "weight" to the idea that there was a conspiracy to steal the elections between Russia and the campaign. In any event, Trump and his orbit are innocent of those specific allegations. We have a presumption of innocence in our criminal legal system. Now, that doesn't mean that CONGRESS couldn't take Mueller's report and try to may some hay with it... but, the mere fact that they didn't should tell you why.
|
|
|
Post by whemblycthulhu on Dec 11, 2020 12:22:59 GMT -5
SJW has become a bit of a proud label that people are wearing, but its certainly not bandied about with kindness on the internet. When someone calls you an SJW, its usually used in a pejorative manner for progressive people on the center-left. Huh... I thought it was used in every political spectrum. Your comment makes more sense then, as the Mods really should be tamping down those who use it as an invective in violation of Rule #1.
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Dec 11, 2020 12:34:32 GMT -5
In a gaming or geek media sense SJW is much more common in use. Technically it can be used against people on the right too, it just depends on your social outlook regarding representation of gender and race in public.
But its mainly used by people leaning more to the far and alt right. I can't really say I have heard its use much in 'mainstream'conservative outlets such as Fox. I'm not sure, but I don't think Trump for example has ever used it on Twitter as a buzzword. But Don Jr has, but his tweets lean much further right than even Trump, as in hinting about crusade rhetoric popular in the far right.
That's why I wonder if my view is that skewed (even from Europe), because I'm not sure if the mods have picked up on that, but after years it should be pretty clear.
|
|
|
Post by Least censored on the planet! on Dec 11, 2020 12:43:48 GMT -5
I would, however, argue that pointing out that someone is under suspicion of committing perjury arguably isn't character assassination because it is directly related to her credibility. If I'd tried to paint her as a crackhead that'd be unrelated and thus character assassination, but when the question is "is she credible? ", or more bluntly "is she lying?", a previous history of lying under oath is directly relevant to the line of inquiry. Lying under oath about one's educational background and lying under oath about rape seems two very, very different things to me. You, me both. I didn't support Trump in 2016 (I voted for 3rd party Ron Johnson). You did support Kavanaugh though. At the time, you told me that I was only against his nomination because he was a Republican, and I told you that no, rapists exist on every political side and we should always take accusations seriously. Yeah, that was my bad and I still feel bad about it. Don't feel bad: honest mistake is forgiven . You can feel about all the other stuff though .
|
|
|
Post by semipotentwalrus on Dec 11, 2020 12:47:42 GMT -5
Sure, but when the rest of the evidence is shaky as all fuck, being a perjurer does not help your case.
|
|
CommieCanUCK
Ye Olde King of OT
The poster formerly known as feeder
Posts: 979
|
Post by CommieCanUCK on Dec 11, 2020 12:54:44 GMT -5
'SJW' as a pejorative really illustrates how the deplorables are such fucked up people.
They literally can't understand wanting to make society better for someone who isn't them.
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Dec 11, 2020 12:58:27 GMT -5
'SJW' as a pejorative really illustrates how the deplorables are such fucked up people. They literally can't understand wanting to make society better for someone who isn't them. Hey man, you want women and non white people in your media and fiction, wtf is wrong with you? I wonder how much space is left on the edge of the Venn Diagram between Incel and using SJW as a slur...
|
|
|
Post by semipotentwalrus on Dec 11, 2020 13:21:25 GMT -5
You know, reading through my recently posted stuff I realize I come across as accusing Reade of lying about Biden, which indeed was not fair to do. I should've argued the other points instead of the possible perjury and mentioned the perjury as an additional aggravating circumstance, but I went for the lazy "self-admitted groper vs. potential perjurer" to compare the allegations against Trump to those against Biden. I should've done better.
In my defense, a perjurer will inevitably have a harder time being trusted by society. To tie two subjects together, perjury is acting in bad faith to such a degree that it is criminal. Just like how we can't trust that whembly has actually read the links he posts because of his previous history of bad faith, we really can't take the word of someone who's previously committed perjury. This doesn't mean we shouldn't investigate, of course, but I think it's unfair to Biden to continue referring to allegations that are both unsubstantiated and made by someone who appears to have a history of acting in bad faith for one reason or another.
EDIT: I realize I'm being the stereotypical establishment stooge, but Reade had her investigation. Biden even bent over backwards to help get the records from when she worked for him to clear himself. Dismissing someone just because they've committed perjury in the past is inexcusable; dismissing them after they've had their fair shot at proving their accusations is, in my mind, not.
|
|
|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Dec 11, 2020 14:40:45 GMT -5
I have to say, following the Dakka thread on RiTides wanting to start another forum for politics hammerin on rule 1, then seeing a poster congratulating the mods while calling everyone involved "entitled snowflakes" being thanked by RiTides. *looks at Dakka rule number 1* *looks at mod hammering civilty letting "entitled snowflakes" slide* *surprised pikachu face* Great stuff. I wonder why rule 1 is so important, but you can't go a couple of pages in geek media or 40k general/background discussion without seeing "SJW" flung about really makes me wonder if my views are so skewed on what has political or hostile under/overtones. I'm obviously guessing the new political forum will be just as much of a clusterfuck as dakkadakka's were.
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Dec 11, 2020 15:15:35 GMT -5
Same rules, same people, what could go wrong?
|
|