SURVEY: Should the Mueller Report be made public?

[mikebike]

80% voting full public release as of today.

 

Yet 70% of the posts are of the pro never release/redact variety.

 

Hmmmm... can you say silent majority?

[thaicurious]

16 hours ago, Ahab said:

The investigation was started because of an unverified dossier that was provided by the Russians and paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign

To say started because of unverified dossier is lying by misinformation because:

FBI wiretapping started before "the Dossier"

and here's the timeline of that

 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1utamO_EzX9VMyTKqWGF4x2upqohYCRYIdzyrx6YEyyk/edit#gid=0

2014 "FBI begins investigating Manafort and wiretaps him"

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump–Russia_dossier

"a private intelligence report comprising 17 memos written between June and December 2016 by Christopher Steele,"

 

To say the dossier is unverified is at least partial lying because it has already been established that

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump–Russia_dossier

"The dossier contains multiple allegations, some of which have been publicly verified, others unverified, but, according to James Clapper and Shepard Smith, none have been disproven"

 

To say the dossier was paid for by Hillary is lying because while it was picked up by the DNC and then dropped when Trump was elected, the origination of the report clearly derives from the conservatives, not from the liberals.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump–Russia_dossier

"In October 2015, Fusion GPS was contracted by conservative political website The Washington Free Beacon to provide general opposition research on Trump..."

 

To say it was provided by the Russians is a lie because it was provided by...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump–Russia_dossier

" Christopher Steele,[2] a former head of the Russia Desk for British intelligence (MI6),

 

So in that ONE little sentence alone lives FOUR lies

 

https://www.thoughtco.com/right-speech-450072

"Buddha taught that Right Speech had four parts: Pali Canon, the historical Buddha taught that Right Speech had four parts:

Abstain from false speech; do not tell lies or deceive."

 

14 hours ago, riclag said:

Mueller's conclusion 

"The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities"

Excellent example of a lie by omission for even though "did not establish" might only refer to a bar higher than impeachment would require, Barr's letter also specifically states that the Mueller report "...does not exonerate...”

 

4 hours ago, mikebike said:

80% voting full public release as of today.

 

Yet 70% of the posts are of the pro never release/redact variety.

 

Hmmmm... can you say silent majority?

Those who seek & live by truth need taste the truth but once. 

But those who stuff themselves with lies keep feeding for without nutritional value their words cannot sustain them.

[Ahab]

8 hours ago, thaicurious said:

To say started because of unverified dossier is lying by misinformation because:

FBI wiretapping started before "the Dossier"

and here's the timeline of that

 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1utamO_EzX9VMyTKqWGF4x2upqohYCRYIdzyrx6YEyyk/edit#gid=0

2014 "FBI begins investigating Manafort and wiretaps him"

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump–Russia_dossier

"a private intelligence report comprising 17 memos written between June and December 2016 by Christopher Steele,"

 

To say the dossier is unverified is at least partial lying because it has already been established that

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump–Russia_dossier

"The dossier contains multiple allegations, some of which have been publicly verified, others unverified, but, according to James Clapper and Shepard Smith, none have been disproven"

 

To say the dossier was paid for by Hillary is lying because while it was picked up by the DNC and then dropped when Trump was elected, the origination of the report clearly derives from the conservatives, not from the liberals.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump–Russia_dossier

"In October 2015, Fusion GPS was contracted by conservative political website The Washington Free Beacon to provide general opposition research on Trump..."

 

To say it was provided by the Russians is a lie because it was provided by...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump–Russia_dossier

" Christopher Steele,[2] a former head of the Russia Desk for British intelligence (MI6),

 

So in that ONE little sentence alone lives FOUR lies

 

https://www.thoughtco.com/right-speech-450072

"Buddha taught that Right Speech had four parts: Pali Canon, the historical Buddha taught that Right Speech had four parts:

Abstain from false speech; do not tell lies or deceive."

 

Excellent example of a lie by omission for even though "did not establish" might only refer to a bar higher than impeachment would require, Barr's letter also specifically states that the Mueller report "...does not exonerate...”

 

Those who seek & live by truth need taste the truth but once. 

But those who stuff themselves with lies keep feeding for without nutritional value their words cannot sustain them.

Wikileaks isn't allowed as a source reference even in U.S. high schools. The PBS timeline was interesting. The dossier was provided by Mr. Steele, but the information came from Russian sources.

What information in the dossier "has been verified"?  Nothing has been verified to my knowledge (and James Clapper has lied to congress in the past and Shep Smith is not a source he is a reporter). I am waiting for the report to be released and then will make my judgement on this matter. I am also looking forward to the inspector generals report on how this investigation was started and who at the FBI and DOJ made the choices they did during the Hillary email investigation. Both probes are ongoing internally at the FBI.

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Wikileaks isn't allowed as a source reference even in U.S. high schools. The PBS timeline was interesting. The dossier was provided by Mr. Steele, but the information came from Russian sources.

What information in the dossier "has been verified"?  Nothing has been verified to my knowledge (and James Clapper has lied to congress in the past and Shep Smith is not a source he is a reporter). I am waiting for the report to be released and then will make my judgement on this matter. I am also looking forward to the inspector generals report on how this investigation was started and who at the FBI and DOJ made the choices they did during the Hillary email investigation. Both probes are ongoing internally at the FBI.

The issue under discussion is not the use of ‘Wikileaks’ links, not the content or source of material within the Steele Dossier.

 

This thread relates to the release of the Mueller report to Congress and the public.

 

You are banging on your keyboard and putting out baseless claims rather than dealing with the topic under discussion.

 

Back on topic:

 

Unless by midnight tonight (DC) Barr complies with the Congressional request to hand Congress the complete unredacted Mueller report plus all supporting evidence, Congress shall issue Subpoenas to obtain the report.

 

Focus on these facts and not the fiction you are peddling.

[thaicurious]

15 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Wikileaks isn't allowed as a source reference even in U.S. high schools. The PBS timeline was interesting. The dossier was provided by Mr. Steele, but the information came from Russian sources.

What information in the dossier "has been verified"?  Nothing has been verified to my knowledge (and James Clapper has lied to congress in the past and Shep Smith is not a source he is a reporter). I am waiting for the report to be released and then will make my judgement on this matter. I am also looking forward to the inspector generals report on how this investigation was started and who at the FBI and DOJ made the choices they did during the Hillary email investigation. Both probes are ongoing internally at the FBI.

If you don't like the all knowing and powerful wiki, you can simply read instead all the footnoted references used in its articles--they list & hypertext them for your convenience. Spend as much time as you'd like to reinvent the wheel but keep in mind that's just less time you'll have to manufacture your fun "facts".

 

Meanwhile...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_in_Schools

"Whatever your opinion, Wikipedia has infiltrated the classroom and is here to stay for the foreseeable future. No matter how many times its use is banned, discouraged, or ridiculed in the classroom – no matter how many errors are eaten up and laid bare by the media – Wikipedia is going to play a widespread role in education as the resource of first recourse."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia

The reliability of Wikipedia (predominantly of the English-language edition) has been frequently questioned and often assessed. The reliability has been tested statistically, through comparative review, analysis of the historical patterns, and strengths and weaknesses inherent in the editing process unique to Wikipedia...

 

...Researchers and academics contend that while Wikipedia may not be used as a 100 percent accurate source for final papers, it is a valuable jumping off point for research that can lead to many possibilities if approached critically...."

 

Yes, I know I could have gone to more objective sources to critique wiki but I thought it funnier to go to wiki itself. You should give 2019 a try: you might like it. Or you can simply continue to argue that anything from wiki is not accurate enough for a ThaiVisa forum discussion. Good luck with that.

 

https://www.lawfareblog.com/steele-dossier-retrospective

By Sarah Grant, Chuck Rosenberg

Sarah Grant is a student at Harvard Law School and previously spent five years on active duty in the Marine Corps. She holds an MPhil in International Relations 

 

Chuck Rosenberg is a former U.S. attorney, senior FBI official and chief of the Drug Enforcement Administration.

 

(non-wiki-enough for ya?)

 

"The dossier compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele...(Trump's golden shower fetish, blablabla)...forming part of the basis for the government’s application for a FISA warrant to surveil Carter Page...

 

...The dossier is, quite simply and by design, raw reporting, not a finished intelligence product....

 

....we thought it would be worthwhile to look back at the dossier and to assess, to the extent possible, how the substance of Steele’s reporting holds up over time....we considered only information in the public domain from trustworthy and official government sources...

 

...These materials buttress some of Steele’s reporting, both specifically and thematically. The dossier holds up well over time, and none of it, to our knowledge, has been disproven."

 

Oh, so it's not just Clapper, not just wiki. How surprising that must be for you.

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The issue under discussion is not the use of ‘Wikileaks’ links, not the content or source of material within the Steele Dossier.

 

This thread relates to the release of the Mueller report to Congress and the public.

 

You are banging on your keyboard and putting out baseless claims rather than dealing with the topic under discussion.

 

Back on topic:

 

Unless by midnight tonight (DC) Barr complies with the Congressional request to hand Congress the complete unredacted Mueller report plus all supporting evidence, Congress shall issue Subpoenas to obtain the report.

 

Focus on these facts and not the fiction you are peddling.

Congress cannot order anyone to break the law. Barr will release the report with everything that can legally be released and it will not be by tonight.

[Thainesss]

44 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Unless by midnight tonight (DC) Barr complies with the Congressional request to hand Congress the complete unredacted Mueller report plus all supporting evidence, Congress shall issue Subpoenas to obtain the report.

 

Focus on these facts and not the fiction you are peddling.

 

You've got a rather remarkable way of constantly telling other people what they should and shouldn't do, while at the same time do exactly what you accuse others of. 

 

And its worth noting that every time you state "Congress will do this" and "Congress will do that" in an overly dramatic and hyperbolic way, what you really mean is "Congressional Democrats will do this" and "Congressional Democrats will do that". You ignore this fact because you know its partisan hackery, so you lie by omission. 

[Chomper Higgot]

5 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

You've got a rather remarkable way of constantly telling other people what they should and shouldn't do, while at the same time do exactly what you accuse others of. 

 

And its worth noting that every time you state "Congress will do this" and "Congress will do that" in an overly dramatic and hyperbolic way, what you really mean is "Congressional Democrats will do this" and "Congressional Democrats will do that". You ignore this fact because you know its partisan hackery, so you lie by omission. 

Well yes.

 

What a difference a house majority makes.

 

Doh!

[Chomper Higgot]

8 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Congress cannot order anyone to break the law. Barr will release the report with everything that can legally be released and it will not be by tonight.

Barr will challenge the Subpoenas he is about to receive and the courts will order him to comply.

 

Don’t bet on the courts backing any law against the Constitutional duties of Congress.

[thaicurious]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Focus on these facts and not the fiction you are peddling.

I don't know if some of these guys see it as fiction.

 

If I say something wrong and someone calls me out on it, proves me wrong and corrects me, I correct my thinking to coincide with the correct information that I either didn't know or had misunderstood or hadn't otherwise integrated correctly into my thinking, whatever.

 

I have zero problems with that. I'm not embarrassed by it, I'm not ashamed of it, it doesn't make me feel stupid; I simply enjoy having the opportunity to have the information correct.

 

But some of these guys instead of correcting themselves when they are shown wrong, they double down on their misinformation. I'm not sure what that is. Something in their brain refuses to detach from a prior held concept? A lack of humility that allows for flexibility? An over inflated ego that prevents course correction? It's a mystery.

 

In Trump's case--and I think this is not just disqualifying as president but personally dangerous--I believe him to be a pathological liar which I don't say as degradation but as clinical. I do believe he's got an overabundance of white matter to his brain which causes him to perceive associations of events not associated in reality: thus all the conspiracy nonsense.

 

I believe this is why Trump was not permitted by his lawyers to testify before Mueller. Why that is not in this report. And that might have in part caused Mueller to leave it open ended, for Congress to have Trump testify, for Congress & the Senate be they not complicit to decide. Also I believe this or something similar is what causes some of these guys to hold onto their fictions. I'm not convinced they are simply peddling it. At least not all of them. While there are some bad guys who might be knowingly peddling, I believe that for many others it simply is their reality.

 

But it should never be the country's. America is too great for that. Too good for that. America is too beautiful for that.

 

 

Edited April 2, 2019 by thaicurious

[candide]

2 hours ago, Ahab said:

The dossier was provided by Mr. Steele, but the information came from Russian sources

Well, when it's about things that happened in Russia or involving Russian people, it's not surprising that sources be Russian. I guess foreign sources are one of the main way the CIA, MI5 or other intelligence services also get most of their information.

[Chomper Higgot]

43 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

Glad you admit its partisan, and glad you admit that its an ammunition finding exercise. 

 

You seem to have a problem with the separation of powers and democracy.

[Thainesss]

16 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You seem to have a problem with the separation of powers and democracy.

 

Youre such a hypocritical little troll. You've been railing on the impeachment of a duly elected president for years apparently because you cant get over the loss you took, and im the one with a democracy problem ????

[Rimmer]

A baiting flame has been removed

[mikebike]

2 hours ago, Ahab said:

Wikileaks isn't allowed as a source reference even in U.S. high schools.

Phew, that's good news. Mr. Assange has his uses, but a classroom primer his leaks are not!

 

Oh wait, did you mean Wikipedia?

 

Why wouldn't a curated, fully referenced, digital source be a good beginning resource for research projects?

[riclag]

M

14 hours ago, thaicurious said:

On 4/1/2019 at 8:45 AM, riclag said:

Mueller's conclusion 

"The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities"

Excellent example of a lie by omission for even though "did not establish" might only refer to a bar higher than impeachment would require, Barr's letter also specifically states that the Mueller report "...does not exonerate...”

Mr. D has a popular perspective as to whether or not the current law (rules and regulations) should be circumvented or disregarded. Mueller's Conclusion, will be the underlying bases,antithesis for what Mr. D is referring to.

Dershowitz added: " The American public wants to see this report. But the law has to be complied with, and the law generally protects subjects of investigations who haven’t been indicted."

"I think, even if Barr were hypothetically to refuse to issue anything, there would be no legal basis for a court to compel him to do that," Dershowitz said.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/04/01/dershowitz_no_legal_basis_for_democrats_to_demand_public_release_of_full_mueller_report.html

 

 

Edited April 2, 2019 by riclag

[Thaidream]

Of course the report must be made public so we can come to our conclusions on how far Trump and his henchmen went in  speaking with Russians.

 

It's nice to know that the President is not a Russian agent but there are so many unanswered questions that the American people need revealed.

 

1.  Who in fact  did  the Trump campaign and Trump WH speak with and on what subjects and what did Trump himself know.

2.  Did Trump's past business dealings with Russia  have any bearing on his decisions while President?

3. What was discussed during the meetings with Trump and Putin and where are the notes on this meeting.?

4.  Do Trump's tax returns show Russian investment in the Trump  empire at inflated levels and was all the  monies declared and taxes paid?

5.  Is Trump involved in using the Presidency to enrich himself and his family in violation of the emoluments section of the US Constitution?

 

These are just a few questions that need to be answered.  There maybe no legal collusion and there may not be enough to indict on obstruction of justice but this man is so incredibly sleazy that the American people need to view the full record especially since there is  an election in 2020.

 

Let the people decide-  do we really want a President who puts his own interests first or the interests of the United States first.  So many of his decisions have been wrong and the results have placed America on the least favored list of so many other countries.

[riclag]

20 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

Of course the report must be made public so we can come to our conclusions on how far Trump and his henchmen went in  speaking with Russians.

 

It's nice to know that the President is not a Russian agent but there are so many unanswered questions that the American people need revealed.

 

1.  Who in fact  did  the Trump campaign and Trump WH speak with and on what subjects and what did Trump himself know.

2.  Did Trump's past business dealings with Russia  have any bearing on his decisions while President?

3. What was discussed during the meetings with Trump and Putin and where are the notes on this meeting.?

4.  Do Trump's tax returns show Russian investment in the Trump  empire at inflated levels and was all the  monies declared and taxes paid?

5.  Is Trump involved in using the Presidency to enrich himself and his family in violation of the emoluments section of the US Constitution?

 

These are just a few questions that need to be answered.  There maybe no legal collusion and there may not be enough to indict on obstruction of justice but this man is so incredibly sleazy that the American people need to view the full record especially since there is  an election in 2020.

 

Let the people decide-  do we really want a President who puts his own interests first or the interests of the United States first.  So many of his decisions have been wrong and the results have placed America on the least favored list of so many other countries.

"The special counsel, under the rules, has an obligation to file a report with the attorney general. There’s nothing in the rules that require the attorney general to make the report public, particularly if it contains information critical of people who were not indicted. So, this is a political,media issue and not a legal  issue". Mr. D

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/04/01/dershowitz_no_legal_basis_for_democrats_to_demand_public_release_of_full_mueller_report.html

Edited April 2, 2019 by riclag

[Chomper Higgot]

54 minutes ago, riclag said:

"The special counsel, under the rules, has an obligation to file a report with the attorney general. There’s nothing in the rules that require the attorney general to make the report public, particularly if it contains information critical of people who were not indicted. So, this is a political,media issue and not a legal  issue". Mr. D

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/04/01/dershowitz_no_legal_basis_for_democrats_to_demand_public_release_of_full_mueller_report.html

What do you suppose are the duties of the Congressional Oversight Committee, the Congressional Judiciary Committee and the Congressional Intelligence Committee?

 

[riclag]

Before the statue similar to the current Special Counsel R &R went up for reauthorization in 1993 the Dem Congress favored it and  its procedures..During the years proceeding ,Whitewater and the Clinton impeachment, the statue came up again for reauthorization. The current  law is much different than the previous one,especially when it comes to making public the entire report .  Sadly after twenty years the dems want to change the current statue again, This time MIDSTREAM !

 

March 1999-Attorney General Janet Reno said at a Senate hearing today that she was prepared to abandon the independent counsel statute because it had failed to remove politics from cases involving top administration officials, was fatally flawed by procedural ambiguities and seriously distorted critical prosecution decisions.

''My change of heart about this statute has not come lightly,'' Ms. Reno told the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee. ''To those who question me about this or who tell me that they told me so, I can only say this: I've now seen how the statute operates close up, probably more close up than anybody in this country.

https://www.nytimes.com/1999/03/18/us/independent-counsel-law-is-too-flawed-to-renew-reno-tells-senate-panel.html

Edited April 2, 2019 by riclag

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, riclag said:

Before the statue similar to the current Special Counsel R &R went up for reauthorization in 1993 the Dem Congress favored it and  its procedures..During the years proceeding ,Whitewater and the Clinton impeachment, the statue came up again for reauthorization. The current  law is much different than the previous one,especially when it comes to making public the entire report .  Sadly after twenty years the dems want to change the current statue again, This time MIDSTREAM !

 

March 1999-Attorney General Janet Reno said at a Senate hearing today that she was prepared to abandon the independent counsel statute because it had failed to remove politics from cases involving top administration officials, was fatally flawed by procedural ambiguities and seriously distorted critical prosecution decisions.

''My change of heart about this statute has not come lightly,'' Ms. Reno told the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee. ''To those who question me about this or who tell me that they told me so, I can only say this: I've now seen how the statute operates close up, probably more close up than anybody in this country.

https://www.nytimes.com/1999/03/18/us/independent-counsel-law-is-too-flawed-to-renew-reno-tells-senate-panel.html

Favor it or not, it will not prevent Congress performing it’s Constitutional duties of oversight.

 

 

[riclag]

59 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Favor it or not, it will not prevent Congress performing it’s Constitutional duties of oversight.

 

 

 So  next comes a dem Subpoena 

[thaicurious]

5 hours ago, riclag said:

Dershowitz added: " The American public wants to see this report. But the law has to be complied with, and the law generally protects subjects of investigations who haven’t been indicted."

Dershowitz comes off as pro Trump but I think he is less that and more using Trump's oddly self inflicted situations as a medium to push for civil libertarianism which in good measure has much merit but also can be overwhelmingly quite cold to and thereby wrong in pure form for society at large, ie the ravages of laissez-faire capitalism, the abuses upon the environment by deregulation, et al.

 

With regard to your quote, missing there is that current DoJ regulations guide that a sitting president should by policy--NOT BY LAW--not be indicted and so then it would follow that you wouldn't release such info. But (A) it is not law, it is policy; and (B) even if it were law, which it is not, the law wouldn't hold if the law doesn't apply about which both of those conditions exist.

 

https://www.lawfareblog.com/yes-constitution-allows-indictment-president

"Yes, the Constitution Allows Indictment of the President

By Laurence H. Tribe

My op-ed argued against the Office of Legal Counsel(OLC) memos opining that the Constitution prevents the indictment of a sitting president. Nearly everyone concedes that any such policy would have to permit exceptions. The familiar hypothetical of a president who shoots and kills someone in plain view clinches the point. Surely, there must be an exception for that kind of case..."

 

https://hls.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/10899/Tribe

"Laurence H. Tribe, the Carl M. Loeb University Professor and Professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard, has taught at its Law School since 1968 and was voted the best professor by the graduating class of 2000. The title “University Professor” is Harvard’s highest academic honor, awarded to just a handful of professors at any given time and to just 68 professors in all of Harvard University’s history."

[Chomper Higgot]

59 minutes ago, riclag said:

 So  next comes a dem Subpoena 

Congress issues the Subpoenas.

 

What a difference a house majority makes.

[Chomper Higgot]

6 minutes ago, thaicurious said:

Dershowitz comes off as pro Trump but I think he is less that and more using Trump's oddly self inflicted situations as a medium to push for civil libertarianism which in good measure has much merit but also can be overwhelmingly quite cold to and thereby wrong in pure form for society at large, ie the ravages of laissez-faire capitalism, the abuses upon the environment by deregulation, et al.

 

With regard to your quote, missing there is that current DoJ regulations guide that a sitting president should by policy--NOT BY LAW--not be indicted and so then it would follow that you wouldn't release such info. But (A) it is not law, it is policy; and (B) even if it were law, which it is not, the law wouldn't hold if the law doesn't apply about which both of those conditions exist.

 

https://www.lawfareblog.com/yes-constitution-allows-indictment-president

"Yes, the Constitution Allows Indictment of the President

By Laurence H. Tribe

My op-ed argued against the Office of Legal Counsel(OLC) memos opining that the Constitution prevents the indictment of a sitting president. Nearly everyone concedes that any such policy would have to permit exceptions. The familiar hypothetical of a president who shoots and kills someone in plain view clinches the point. Surely, there must be an exception for that kind of case..."

 

https://hls.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/10899/Tribe

"Laurence H. Tribe, the Carl M. Loeb University Professor and Professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard, has taught at its Law School since 1968 and was voted the best professor by the graduating class of 2000. The title “University Professor” is Harvard’s highest academic honor, awarded to just a handful of professors at any given time and to just 68 professors in all of Harvard University’s history."

Slight comment.

 

DoJ policy has no bearing on State charges.

[thaicurious]

Well, the state charges is a whole other game. That's gonna be way fun. I hope they expose everything there is to be known of this guy. EVERYTHING!

 

Why bother to imPEACH what can simply be imPEARED.

 

 

[riclag]

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Congress issues the Subpoenas.

 

What a difference a house majority makes.

 

2 hours ago, thaicurious said:

Dershowitz comes off as pro Trump but I think he is less that and more using Trump's oddly self inflicted situations as a medium to push for civil libertarianism which in good measure has much merit but also can be overwhelmingly quite cold to and thereby wrong in pure form for society at large, ie the ravages of laissez-faire capitalism, the abuses upon the environment by deregulation, et al.

 

With regard to your quote, missing there is that current DoJ regulations guide that a sitting president should by policy--NOT BY LAW--not be indicted and so then it would follow that you wouldn't release such info. But (A) it is not law, it is policy; and (B) even if it were law, which it is not, the law wouldn't hold if the law doesn't apply about which both of those conditions exist.

 

https://www.lawfareblog.com/yes-constitution-allows-indictment-president

"Yes, the Constitution Allows Indictment of the President

By Laurence H. Tribe

My op-ed argued against the Office of Legal Counsel(OLC) memos opining that the Constitution prevents the indictment of a sitting president. Nearly everyone concedes that any such policy would have to permit exceptions. The familiar hypothetical of a president who shoots and kills someone in plain view clinches the point. Surely, there must be an exception for that kind of case..."

 

https://hls.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/10899/Tribe

"Laurence H. Tribe, the Carl M. Loeb University Professor and Professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard, has taught at its Law School since 1968 and was voted the best professor by the graduating class of 2000. The title “University Professor” is Harvard’s highest academic honor, awarded to just a handful of professors at any given time and to just 68 professors in all of Harvard University’s history."

I have no idea what your links are about(perhaps something for another discussion) ,they have nothing to do with the topic or the  current  statue about releasing the SC report to the AG(rules and reg's) of the special counsel ! In any event  I guess we will have to wait for the dem's to send their subpoena to the AG for Muellers original confidential report in spite of what the law says! 

I think you and I have made our opinions and it seems we will agree to disagree

Edited April 2, 2019 by riclag

[mike787]

Let's say it's public, with my and your infinit wisdom - NOW WHAT? 

Edited April 2, 2019 by mike787

[Cryingdick]

Nadler in 1998

 

 

 

Nadler in 2019

 

 

[Cryingdick]

9 minutes ago, thaicurious said:

I could see where you or someone might try to claim that a hypocrisy but there is a distinction being that the early case when he was significantly overweight deals with a cigar, an intern and her vagina while the current case deals with America and her democracy. See the difference?

 

The difference being: what is in the greater public interest. While a vagina might not override an otherwise seemingly sound policy, democracy itself probably does.

 

Procedure isn't different in either case. He clearly lives in two different worlds. FWIW I hope they release the report and Trump also said let it come out. So just pointing out his 180 spin in direction. No need to say anything about me wanting to keep the files secret because I don't care either way.

Edited April 2, 2019 by Cryingdick