All-purpose news and politics thread: Two Steps Beyond!(Part II)

[PaulBullion]

Rep. Jerry Nadler tweets that "in light of the very concerning discrepancies and final decision making at the Justice Department following the Special Counsel report," the House Judiciary Committee will be calling AG William Barr to testify.

https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1109915131062947842

[GindyPosts]

Buttigieg seems to get people excited though.

True, but again; no Democrat holds political office in the state of Indiana, and only two congressmen from Indiana are Democrats; both of which are from Democratic strongholds (northwestern Indiana, which is essentially Chicagoland East, and Indianapolis and the donut counties surrounding it). I would like to see the Indiana Democratic Party rebuild itself and reinvent itself, but as long as people like John Zody are in charge, they will remain reactionary and marginalized. The worst part is that, during the Donnelly re-election, they made it clear they didn't want anyone voting for him that wasn't a moderate voter, because they assumed "the Democrats will vote for him anyway", even though Joe had voted more in line with Trump.

[GindyPosts]

It would be tough for any Democrat to beat an incumbent Republican Governor in Indiana. It's a state Romney won by ten points, and Trump won by almost 19. Holcomb also remains broadly popular.

https://morningconsult.com/2019/01/1...rnors-q4-2018/

This is due to Indiana always having been a conservative state. We're essentially the Deep South of the Midwest; the state everyone else aspires not to become in the region. People approve of Holcomb largely because he's one of those types of governors who stays out of the spotlight, meaning people don't have to spend as much time thinking about local politics, and can focus more time thinking about national politics (and what little knowledge they have of it).

I mostly want to see the state Democrats show up with a candidate who isn't a DINO (they can call them a "Blue Dog" or any other fancy name they want; Hoosiers are not going to vote for a Great Value Republican when they can vote for the name brand), and I just know that John Zody's scaredy ass is going to pick John Gregg, who's lost the last two elections, to run on the Democratic ticket a third time.

[GindyPosts]

makes sense. it's not a win or a loss for trump and his gaggle of goons.

So, in other words, Trump escapes through sheer incompetence.

Is this correct, or am I missing something?

[PaulBullion]

So, in other words, Trump escapes through sheer incompetence.

Is this correct, or am I missing something?

Well, also by hand-picking an AG who had made his loyalties clear months earlier.

[master of read]

So, in other words, Trump escapes through sheer incompetence.

Is this correct, or am I missing something?

from my understanding, while he didn;t knowing commit said crime, he's not squeaky clean either.

[numberthirty]

So, in other words, Trump escapes through sheer incompetence.

Is this correct, or am I missing something?

from my understanding, while he didn;t knowing commit said crime, he's not squeaky clean either.

Without having read anything in said report, one guy's take...

The guy at the head of the investigation is essentially "Joe By The Book". The only people they charged were people that they absolutely had a conviction on. Further up the ladder, I think that there wasn't "We Have A Conviction." evidence of crimes.

Since they had a pretty narrow scope, they left some of the other stuff to someone else to see if there was more of a case. Those investigations are still going on.

Seems about like I thought it would go. If there was anything like a criminal conspiracy with a foreign government that they thought they had a conviction on, what are the odds that some people would not have already been charged?

The guy at the head of this was never going to suggest charging anyone with some "Mickey Mouse" nonsense that wasn't going to stick.

[Gray Lensman]

Without having read anything, one guy's take...

The guy at the head of the investigation is essentially "Joe By The Book". The only people they charged were people that they absolutely had a conviction on. Further up the ladder, I think that there wasn't "We Have A Conviction." evidence of crimes.

Since they had a pretty narrow scope, they left some of the other stuff to someone else to see if there was more of a case. Those investigations are still going on.

Seems about like I thought it would go. If there was any thing like a criminal conspiracy with a foreign government that they thought they had a conviction on, what are the odds that some people would not have already been charged?

The guy at the head of this was never going to suggest charging anyone with some "Mickey Mouse" nonsense that wasn't going to stick.

The other thing is he was likely operating under the rule of 'Sitting Presidents can't be indicted'. Which is an opinion that I think of as bunk, but it is what the DoJ operates under.

[numberthirty]

The other thing is he was likely operating under the rule of 'Sitting Presidents can't be indicted'. Which is an opinion that I think of as bunk, but it is what the DoJ operates under.

There is that component.

That said, what are the odds that "Should Eventually Be Indicted..." wouldn't be in this guy's conclusion if he honestly believed he had a case he could get a conviction on?

While it's possible, it's not something that feels likely.

[Gray Lensman]

There is that component.

That said, what are the odds that "Should Eventually Be Indicted..." wouldn't be in this guy's conclusion if he honestly believed he had a case he could get a conviction on?

While it's possible, it's not something that feels likely.

If Trump is really guilty of something it is likely to be Obstruction. But it is difficult to prove something like that when the offending party has control over the courtroom required evidence.

[Mister Mets]

Buttigieg seems to get people excited though.

An Emerson poll has him in third place in Iowa, which is astounding for a small city mayor.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...-new-iowa-poll

Earlier, I wrote about potential tickets and Buttigieg is interesting is that he's so unlike previous nominees it's tough to determine who he'd be a good fit with. No one has been elected based on their stint as mayor of a mid-sized city, and he's the most major openly gay contender, but he is also an intellectual veteran. I doubt the Democrats want a ticket with white guys, but would they consider a ticket with a gay man sufficiently diverse? Would it be an odd dynamic if he picks a woman as a running mate? Are there potential exceptions (IE- picking a female veteran like Tammy Duckworth)?

[numberthirty]

If Trump is really guilty of something it is likely to be Obstruction. But it is difficult to prove something like that when the offending party has control over the courtroom required evidence.

Sure.

Doesn't have a slam dunk conviction, so the statement there was exactly what it was.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

If Trump is really guilty of something it is likely to be Obstruction. But it is difficult to prove something like that when the offending party has control over the courtroom required evidence.

According to Barr (and again consider the source), Mueller basically exonerated Trump on conspiracy (or popularly phrased, collusion) with Russia. Actually they said that they found no proof that the Trump campaign conspired with Russia.

The wrinkle in this basically was that Barr said that Mueller looked at possible obstruction and laid out a case both for and against it. Then he punted it to Barr to decide if he wanted to interpret it as something worth pursuing. Then Barr in his summary said that based off what he read, he did not find obstruction.

So on the big charge, they did clear Trump, on the obstruction charge they left it discretionary and the person who makes that decision is not going for it. So for all intents and purposes, the Mueller investigation basically let Trump off the hook and the only question is whether Congressional Democrats will try to find enough improper behavior in the report when/if it's released to maybe make an impeachment case. But the way this turned out, there's absolutely a zero percent chance any Republican will swayed to make it count for anything and I wouldn't be surprised if this made the Democrats gun shy.

Trump's team is declaring victory, literally every major news outlet from the big 3 (ABC/NBC/CBS) to CNN, MSNBC, etc are conceding that this was a great day for Trump. If you do not heavily follow politics and were one of the people who weren't all in on this case and were just waiting to see what happened, your first impression is pretty much everyone declaring this a big win for Trump.

The only real point his opposition has to hold onto right now is that Mueller found evidence for and against obstruction and didn't feel confident in making a reccomendation one way or the other. That's the grey area that's left over as it pertains to Mueller's Investigation.

At this point, there's so many other investigations on Trump, and I think he'll have hell once he is no longer President, especially on those Southern District of New York investigations. But this one hurts

[numberthirty]

The problem there is pretty simple.

If there isn't actual conspiracy and the entire drama production was about criminal conspiracy with a foreign government in a United States Presidential election, obstruction is what?

What you try to pin on the guy because you have zilch on the sole focus of the whole thing?

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

The problem there is pretty simple.

If there isn't actual conspiracy and the entire drama production was about criminal conspiracy with a foreign government in a United States Presidential election, obstruction is what?

What you try to pin on the guy because you have zilch on the sole focus of the whole thing?

You could maybe make the case that Trump obstructed and it prevented them from being able to find him guilty. Unfortunately, it sounds like they are pretty definitively saying that the Trump campaign didn't conspire or collude with Russia. So it goes back to, do you want to go after him for being a dick and trying to constantly undermine an investigation that ultimately cleared him of the primary charge?

Now maybe you do that if Mueller says something definitive and claims Trump committed text book obstruction multiple times, or Mueller says something to the effect of actions by Trump impeded the investigation to the point where he couldn't conclude anything because he was unable to explore every avenue. But that's not what I'm getting from Barr's memo nor what he is saying Mueller said. And Mueller didn't reccomend anything, which by proxy gave Barr the juridiction to make his own decision, which he did.

But yeah, you're overall train of thought is right. The main charge seems pretty black and white per Barr's memo and their is some greyness on obstruction that the AG won't pursue.

The only thing Congressional Democrats can hope for is that the report is released, they find something damning that they can point to as obstruction, it sways hearts and minds and they can get some sort of impeachment. But realistically without Mueller finding a conclusion on it, and Barr going after it, I really don't see any way it gets Republicans on board. And quite frankly, do you risk a situation where he got cleared of the thing that everyone's been pushing and the only thing that people really cared about to go after him for a lesser offense that still probably doesn't end with him out of office. And then do you risk taking a PR hit on it, and having a Bill Clinton situation where you just look petty and like you are trying to railroad him and then he gets a popularity boost.

Even that assumes the report is released right away.

Again, I thought this would be a lot greyer where Mueller would layout questionable actions by Trump but refrain from making a true conclusion, then we could pick apart the evidence and see how it falls in the court of public opinion. However, that's not really what it looks like happened here.