Mueller Missed The Crime

1,348 Views | 33 Replies | Last: 3 mo ago by dajo9
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This is a great article by Fordham law professor, Jed Shugerman, about how Robert Mueller misinterpreted the law and failed to make good on clear findings of illegality. I hope all the Dems in the upcoming Mueller testimony give this article a good read and review. Here is one key part of many:


Quote:

The DOJ's initial appointment explicitly tasked Mueller with investigating campaign "coordination," and it is not too much to ask that he get the law of "coordination" right. The report stated that "'coordination' does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law. We understood coordination to require an agreementtacit or express."

However, Congress purposely sought to prevent such narrow interpretations: in 2002, it passed a statute directing that campaign finance regulations "shall not require agreement or formal collaboration to establish coordination." The Federal Election Commission established the regulations for the implementation of the statute: "Coordinated means made in cooperation, consultation or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate," with no need to show any kind of agreement.

These legal errors by Mueller were probably due to the fact he "did not hire any legal experts with experience in campaign finance regulation". In short, Mueller, the Republican institutionalist, made many large blunders. He should be grilled on these items in Congress and the next Attorney General should file charges against the Trump team, where appropriate, based on the findings of the Mueller investigation.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/robert-mueller-missed-the-crime-trumps-campaign-coordinated-with-russia?ref=scroll
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
https://www.allsides.com/news-source/daily-beast-media-bias

Left leaning American news and opinion website focused on politics and pop culture.

I'm not going to read this because that takes me out of my bubble! I skipped over your quotes as I don't want to waste time out of my precious life! Not only would I have to read, but I could then spend even much more time fact checking it! What a waste.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
You missed the point of the previous discussion. Ann Coulter has a known history of lies and distortions. She also doesn't seem to have any particular expertise other than punditry.

Does Fordham law professor Jed Shugerman have a similar history, to your knowledge?
AunBear89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
!!!False equivalency klaxon!!!
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -- Benjamin Disraeli, popularized by Mark Twain
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AunBear89 said:

!!!False equivalency klaxon!!!
You realize the purpose of citing examples of hypocrisy doesn't inherently imply and equivalence exists between the two?

FACT: multiple posters rejoiced in dismissing content they did not read.

FACT: multiple posters used political affiliation as reasonable justification to dismiss their content

FACT: OP was from a partisan publication, thus using their own logic, it's reasonable to dismiss out of hand

The difference between the authors profession or reputation is tangential to the point being made. In principle, objecting to content one has not exposed themselves to is a dare I say TRUMPTARD move.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

FACT: multiple posters used political affiliation as reasonable justification to dismiss their content

Not a fact. It was the author's documented history of lying and distortion that was used as justification to avoid their new content.

You know, distortions like you just offered up here.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
In fairness, I won't touch any Breitbart article. Breitbart being a platform for the alt-right, according to Steve Bannon. No way will I support that with my clicks.
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I basically only read leftist media, much of it is trash and/or tainted by blind ideology. Know thy enemy.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

In fairness, I won't touch any Breitbart article. Breitbart being a platform for the alt-right, according to Steve Bannon. No way will I support that with my clicks.
Breitbart as an outlet also has a history of promoting lies and distortions.
Eastern Oregon Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

AunBear89 said:

!!!False equivalency klaxon!!!
You realize the purpose of citing examples of hypocrisy doesn't inherently imply and equivalence exists between the two?

FACT: multiple posters rejoiced in dismissing content they did not read.
Rejoicing must have a different definition in your timeline.
kelly09
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

dajo9 said:

In fairness, I won't touch any Breitbart article. Breitbart being a platform for the alt-right, according to Steve Bannon. No way will I support that with my clicks.
Breitbart as an outlet also has a history of promoting lies and distortions.
no it doesn't
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The Dems bashing Mueller in public would be a major mistake IMO. Everyone has moved on, and it looks like sour grapes. There is lot of bad stuff out there regarding Trump that it would seem much more fertile ground to investigate and have in front of the public.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

The Dems bashing Mueller in public would be a major mistake IMO. Everyone has moved on, and it looks like sour grapes. There is lot of bad stuff out there regarding Trump that it would seem much more fertile ground to investigate and have in front of the public.


I'm a strong believer in the law. I think it should be followed, particularly when America is under attack.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
kelly09 said:

sycasey said:

dajo9 said:

In fairness, I won't touch any Breitbart article. Breitbart being a platform for the alt-right, according to Steve Bannon. No way will I support that with my clicks.
Breitbart as an outlet also has a history of promoting lies and distortions.
no it doesn't

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/breitbart-fake-news-alex-marlow/

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/breitbart/
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
kelly09 said:

sycasey said:

dajo9 said:

In fairness, I won't touch any Breitbart article. Breitbart being a platform for the alt-right, according to Steve Bannon. No way will I support that with my clicks.
Breitbart as an outlet also has a history of promoting lies and distortions.
no it doesn't


Just as one notable example, Breitbart promoted the Seth Rich conspiracy theory which was seeded by the same Russian state actors who interfered in our election. So how does carrying Putin's water sit with a proud American like you?
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Should we also disregard anything AOC says without reading it? She lies and makes bold, exaggerated accusations.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
https://money.cnn.com/2017/12/08/media/cnn-correction-email-story/index.html
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
https://www-m.cnn.com/2017/06/23/politics/editors-note/index.html
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
https://edition-m.cnn.com/2017/12/08/politics/email-effort-give-trump-campaign-wikileaks-documents/index.html
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

Should we also disregard anything AOC says without reading it? She lies and makes bold, exaggerated accusations.


AOC is an elected official so her words have meaning. Accordingly, of course it's fair game to practice skepticism with respect to statements of elected officials, more so when they have a history of untruthful speech. No one should take what an official says as the gospel.

I don't really see what that has to do with people who choose not to provide business to serial and intentional purveyors of false stories like Breitbart, Zerohedge, Infowars, etc. AOC making false statements is still worth examining and discussing.

Comparing a politician to a fake news source really portrays a misunderstanding of the situation.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
https://www-m.cnn.com/2017/09/05/politics/trump-doj-wiretap/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Famp-dailycaller-com.cdn.ampproject.org%2Fv%2Fs%2Famp.dailycaller.com%2F2018%2F08%2F31%2Fcnn-list-bungled-reporting-fake-news%3Fusqp%3Dmq331AQCKAE%253D%26amp_js_v%3D0.1
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
You'll notice that these CNN articles are examples of the network noticing something that was not factual and correcting it. Breitbart tends to not do that.

A politician like AOC is not necessarily held to the same journalistic standards. Indeed, it's the role of the press to hold a politician to account for such statements.

But if you really want to get into whatabouting on that scale, then I don't think any Democrat can match Trump for lies and exaggerations.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
...
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Should we also disregard anything AOC says without reading it? She lies and makes bold, exaggerated accusations.


AOC is an elected official so her words have meaning. Accordingly, of course it's fair game to practice skepticism with respect to statements of elected officials, more so when they have a history of untruthful speech. No one should take what an official says as the gospel.

I don't really see what that has to do with people who choose not to provide business to serial and intentional purveyors of false stories like Breitbart, Zerohedge, Infowars, etc. AOC making false statements is still worth examining and discussing.

Comparing a politician to a fake news source really portrays a misunderstanding of the situation.



You do realize my initial post here attacks the daily beast and the response is, yeah, but the person quoted by the daily beast...

Thank you for helping to prove my point.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

You'll notice that these CNN articles are examples of the network noticing something that was not factual and correcting it. Breitbart tends to not do that.

A politician like AOC is not necessarily held to the same journalistic standards. Indeed, it's the role of the press to hold a politician to account for such statements.

But if you really want to get into whatabouting on that scale, then I don't think any Democrat can match Trump for lies and exaggerations.


Posting retractions is the clearest way to show CNN's biased reporting. They jump on stories from anonymous biased sources and then edit the article days or weeks later, which nobody reads, or puts a retractions in the editorial section, which nobody reads.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Should we also disregard anything AOC says without reading it? She lies and makes bold, exaggerated accusations.


AOC is an elected official so her words have meaning. Accordingly, of course it's fair game to practice skepticism with respect to statements of elected officials, more so when they have a history of untruthful speech. No one should take what an official says as the gospel.

I don't really see what that has to do with people who choose not to provide business to serial and intentional purveyors of false stories like Breitbart, Zerohedge, Infowars, etc. AOC making false statements is still worth examining and discussing.

Comparing a politician to a fake news source really portrays a misunderstanding of the situation.



You do realize my initial post here attacks the daily beast and the response is, yeah, but the person quoted by the daily beast...

Thank you for helping to prove my point.


Words have meaning dawg. I'm not criticizing your choice not to read the daily beast. I am criticizing your inapt comparison with statements from an elected official.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Should we also disregard anything AOC says without reading it? She lies and makes bold, exaggerated accusations.


AOC is an elected official so her words have meaning. Accordingly, of course it's fair game to practice skepticism with respect to statements of elected officials, more so when they have a history of untruthful speech. No one should take what an official says as the gospel.

I don't really see what that has to do with people who choose not to provide business to serial and intentional purveyors of false stories like Breitbart, Zerohedge, Infowars, etc. AOC making false statements is still worth examining and discussing.

Comparing a politician to a fake news source really portrays a misunderstanding of the situation.



You do realize my initial post here attacks the daily beast and the response is, yeah, but the person quoted by the daily beast...

Thank you for helping to prove my point.


Words have meaning dawg. I'm not criticizing your choice not to read the daily beast. I am criticizing your inapt comparison with statements from an elected official.


Thanks dawg!
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

The Dems bashing Mueller in public would be a major mistake IMO. Everyone has moved on, and it looks like sour grapes. There is lot of bad stuff out there regarding Trump that it would seem much more fertile ground to investigate and have in front of the public.


I'm a strong believer in the law. I think it should be followed, particularly when America is under attack.
Well that all sounds profound and highly naive. Law is a lot of things to a lot of people, usually based on their pre-conceived notions and biases. Just look at the post about what the federal law is supposed to be in the Epstein thread, where the guy just made up utter BS about the federal law on minor prostitution. Citing some law professor's interpretation of the law does not make what he says either correct or the law. What Congress does in the Mueller hearing is not law, it is politics.

The law, and criminal justice in particular (as a system) is made up of cops, courts, lawyers, legislators (when actually passing laws), an executive branch, regulators, etc., each with their own ideas and agendas of "justice" or what the "law" actually is or should be. They are political and arbitrary (even under the color of law) given elected and appointed officials and a dual system of government that seeks checks and balances. They operate in silos, and not cooperatively with each other. If I had a dollar for every time some law professor said what the law was only to be overturned by the courts, particularly a case before SCOTUS, I would be off in some palace in the Italian Lake District, discussing issues of importance with George and Amal.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

The Dems bashing Mueller in public would be a major mistake IMO. Everyone has moved on, and it looks like sour grapes. There is lot of bad stuff out there regarding Trump that it would seem much more fertile ground to investigate and have in front of the public.


I'm a strong believer in the law. I think it should be followed, particularly when America is under attack.
Well that all sounds profound and highly naive. Law is a lot of things to a lot of people, usually based on their pre-conceived notions and biases. Just look at the post about what the federal law is supposed to be in the Epstein thread, where the guy just made up utter BS about the federal law on minor prostitution. Citing some law professor's interpretation of the law does not make what he says either correct or the law. What Congress does in the Mueller hearing is not law, it is politics.

The law, and criminal justice in particular (as a system) is made up of cops, courts, lawyers, legislators (when actually passing laws), an executive branch, regulators, etc., each with their own ideas and agendas of "justice" or what the "law" actually is or should be. They are political and arbitrary (even under the color of law) given elected and appointed officials and a dual system of government that seeks checks and balances. They operate silos, and not cooperatively with each other. If I had a dollar for every time some law professor said what the law was only to be overturned by the courts, particularly a case before SCOTUS, I would be off in some palace in the Italian Lake District, discussing issues of importance with George and Amal.
Fine but I think history will judge AG William Barr and what was done with the Mueller investigation very negatively. I think history will be shocked at our collective inaction. In the future I think they'll look at the idea that "everyone has moved on" while the Russians are still attacking our electoral integrity as something like a befuddled modern reading of the jubilation at the time of the Compromise of 1850 (we were in Civil War 11 years later). Time will tell.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

sycasey said:

You'll notice that these CNN articles are examples of the network noticing something that was not factual and correcting it. Breitbart tends to not do that.

A politician like AOC is not necessarily held to the same journalistic standards. Indeed, it's the role of the press to hold a politician to account for such statements.

But if you really want to get into whatabouting on that scale, then I don't think any Democrat can match Trump for lies and exaggerations.


Posting retractions is the clearest way to show CNN's biased reporting. They jump on stories from anonymous biased sources and then edit the article days or weeks later, which nobody reads, or puts a retractions in the editorial section, which nobody reads.

Bias is not the same thing as lying.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

The Dems bashing Mueller in public would be a major mistake IMO. Everyone has moved on, and it looks like sour grapes. There is lot of bad stuff out there regarding Trump that it would seem much more fertile ground to investigate and have in front of the public.


I'm a strong believer in the law. I think it should be followed, particularly when America is under attack.
Well that all sounds profound and highly naive. Law is a lot of things to a lot of people, usually based on their pre-conceived notions and biases. Just look at the post about what the federal law is supposed to be in the Epstein thread, where the guy just made up utter BS about the federal law on minor prostitution. Citing some law professor's interpretation of the law does not make what he says either correct or the law. What Congress does in the Mueller hearing is not law, it is politics.

The law, and criminal justice in particular (as a system) is made up of cops, courts, lawyers, legislators (when actually passing laws), an executive branch, regulators, etc., each with their own ideas and agendas of "justice" or what the "law" actually is or should be. They are political and arbitrary (even under the color of law) given elected and appointed officials and a dual system of government that seeks checks and balances. They operate silos, and not cooperatively with each other. If I had a dollar for every time some law professor said what the law was only to be overturned by the courts, particularly a case before SCOTUS, I would be off in some palace in the Italian Lake District, discussing issues of importance with George and Amal.
Fine but I think history will judge AG William Barr and what was done with the Mueller investigation very negatively. I think history will be shocked at our collective inaction. In the future I think they'll look at the idea that "everyone has moved on" while the Russians are still attacking our electoral integrity as something like a befuddled modern reading of the jubilation at the time of the Compromise of 1850 (we were in Civil War 11 years later). Time will tell.
You may be correct on Barr, or not. But what does that have to do with bashing Mueller in a political forum?

Again, Trump has a lot of skeletons that could be investigated. As for Russia, Congress has imposed sanctions which I believe Trump has imposed. Also, the US has been quite public that is has invaded the government computers of China and Russia and that any attacks, political, economic, etc. will be met with retaliation. If tested, I guess we may have to see if we mean what we say.
going4roses
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Trump is the new Teflon don. System is rigged. Mr grab the ______ is going nowhere. Unless Putin's turns on him.

It's a whole new ballgame now
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Nobody is bashing Mueller. He's more popular than they are.

Did you notice how many questions there were about Mueller at the Democrats debates? And these from their lapdogs at MSNBC! Even they realize the MSNBC fantasies don't play with a national audience. Only the truthers remain and predictably it's the savior Mueller's fault!.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The pro-anarchist talking about fantasies. This is a wonderful board.
Page 1 of 1
 
×
Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.