Home Music Articles Forums Blog Chat More...      

add to bookmarks
Prev Topic | Next Topic

Author
Posts
(Read 6650 times)
MikeRobinson
Forum Full Member


Registered: 08/29/11
Posts: 941
Location: Chattanooga, TN United States
 
Re:Mueller vs. Edward R. Morrow
Wednesday, December 26 2018 @ 07:43 PM CST

Ad hominem ... ad hominem ...

Whether-or-not my thoughts align with yours, kindly remember not to align the message with the messenger, nor to make personal inferences about said messenger.   No matter what you might think of “me,” your debate-opponent, “I” am not the problem.

Quite clearly – and, quite clearly, quite recently – the subject of “the Mueller investigation” has branched above-and-beyond mere immediate discussion of that investigation and its investigator.   But, that’s what’s expected to happen in the US-of-A.   People don’t just stand around watching what their government is up to – they get involved.   They don’t just think about the immediate situation – they think beyond it.   And, some of the people who do this are influence-makers in that government (who have law degrees).   You cannot escape this ... and, you surely would not have it any other way.
chikoppi
Forum Full Member


Registered: 04/02/04
Posts: 2057
Location: N/A
 
Re:Mueller vs. Edward R. Morrow
Wednesday, December 26 2018 @ 09:22 PM CST

Quote by: MikeRobinson
Ad hominem ... ad hominem ...

Whether-or-not my thoughts align with yours, kindly remember not to align the message with the messenger, nor to make personal inferences about said messenger.   No matter what you might think of “me,” your debate-opponent, “I” am not the problem.

Quite clearly – and, quite clearly, quite recently – the subject of “the Mueller investigation” has branched above-and-beyond mere immediate discussion of that investigation and its investigator.   But, that’s what’s expected to happen in the US-of-A.   People don’t just stand around watching what their government is up to – they get involved.   They don’t just think about the immediate situation – they think beyond it.   And, some of the people who do this are influence-makers in that government (who have law degrees).   You cannot escape this ... and, you surely would not have it any other way.



I am addressing the substance of your comments. That is not ad hominem. If I were to say that I disagree, "because Mike is a poopy-head," that would be ad hominem. When I point out that the claims you base your argument upon are factually incorrect, that is ad rem.

We aren't having a debate. You are making a series of unfounded assertions.

The aim of the investigation is not an obstruction of justice conviction. Barr's memo has no impact on the investigation unless Mueller actually charges DJT and the narrow argument assumed in the memo is advanced in court.

Here is a clear explanation of why that is unlikely to happen:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/bill-barrs-very-strange-memo-obstruction-justice

Mueller is a veteran prosecutor. He's not going to advance a charge that is even potentially susceptible to procedural derailment. If anything, Barr's memo gave Mueller a roadmap to ensure any charges he files are airtight - that's if he finds sufficient evidence to warrant obstruction charges.

Again, Congress doesn't need a criminal conviction to sanction the actions of a President, neither does a criminal conviction(s) necessitate impeachment.

Once again, the appointment orders:

(b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:

(i) any links and or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and

(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and

(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).

(c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.

“Ya, that idea is dildos.” Skwisgaar Skwigelf
GET SONG FEEDBACK --> MacJams Critics Circles
MikeRobinson
Forum Full Member


Registered: 08/29/11
Posts: 941
Location: Chattanooga, TN United States
 
Re:Mueller vs. Edward R. Morrow
Thursday, December 27 2018 @ 08:11 AM CST

I have bowed out.   But, please don’t shoot the messenger.   I am not the only person on Earth who shares these opinions nor who has these grave reservations.   The opinions that I have expressed in this thread, which I started, are not original with me.   And, the total picture is not simple – it is not “cut and dry.”

The people of whom I am speaking have made their careers in the law.   They are lawmakers, prosecutors, former attorneys general, and judges.   (Some of them are tasked right now with responding to what Mueller has already handed down.)   They are reconciled to the fact that Donald Trump is the lawfully-elected President of the United States.   They look upon what is now being done and they are not pleased with it.

Neither were they pleased with the shenanigans of Mr. Comey.   They eloquently advanced the position that he should be fired, in a letter prepared by the Deputy AG, and he was.   I have read this letter, and say, “good riddance.”   (But a one Mr. Mueller would prefer to say that firing his friend was a felony, and he would demand to interrogate the President as to “what he was thinking” at the time and to give judgment against him accordingly.)

Washington, DC is a town filled with two of the very worst kind of people:   lawyers and politicians.   The law is not meant to be an instrument of politics.   There are those, like me, who feel that it has become so.   These people are deliberating on the subject, as lawyer-folk do.   The law is their life, and they are in some ways very protective of it.

Furthermore, “Election Fraud” is not the stuff of Moscow:   it happened, to me, last November, in a race for Governor in which the Secretary of State, charged with running the election process, was himself a candidate in that election.   My voter registration vanished, but my wife’s did not.   I’m quite sure that my provisional ballot is in an un-counted box somewhere in Atlanta.   Let’s just say that I do not expect a special counsel investigation into voting improprieties in the 2018 mid-terms, because that won’t put a President onto a helicopter on the East Lawn.

2019 is another year, and January promises to be an interesting month.



P.S.:   As I have said before, I want to see a rebuttal legal brief, not an article which in its opening paragraph refers to another brief as a “bizarre document” and which considers the supposed motives and motivations of its author while criticizing him personally.   In this brief, construct and advance an opposing legal argument in the same fashion, point by point by point, keeping “persons and personalities” entirely out of it.   Introduce other new points as you see fit, but support all of them with cited references to settled cases and other sources as Barr has done.   This happens in very-mundane court cases every day:   every attorney knows how to do it.   A brief is a formal document with a well-understood structure.   Submit this brief to the AG, to the Congress, and to the Press as though you were presenting it to a trier of fact.   Let these legal arguments then stand objectively, one against the other, with no regard as to who actually wrote them nor any consideration as to why.

In my opinion, this is the manner in which consideration of this matter will now move forward – not in the court of public opinion, but in the protocols and the language of the law.   Everyone is very, very aware that precedents are about to be set.
magnatone
Forum Full Member


Registered: 02/08/08
Posts: 4475
Location: N/A
 
Re:Mueller vs. Edward R. Morrow
Thursday, December 27 2018 @ 09:19 AM CST

Quote by: MikeRobinson
I have bowed out.  



Quote by: MikeRobinson
But,




my most recent song: "First Light (solo piano)"
chikoppi
Forum Full Member


Registered: 04/02/04
Posts: 2057
Location: N/A
 
Re:Mueller vs. Edward R. Morrow
Thursday, December 27 2018 @ 10:20 AM CST

Quote by: MikeRobinson
I have bowed out. But, please don’t shoot the messenger.   I am not the only person on Earth who shares these opinions nor who has these grave reservations.   The opinions that I have expressed in this thread, which I started, are not original with me.   And, the total picture is not simple – it is not “cut and dry.”



You have repeatedly said, "last word from me" and "I have bowed out," and then continued to make statements.

The issue is not that you "have reservations." The issue is that you are inventing and spreading falsehoods. You are correct that the "total picture" is complex, but you have also demonstrated that you do not have a clear understanding of the facts and that many of your "reservations" are founded on falsified premises.

Maybe consider that it's OK to say "I don't yet know" or "I don't have enough information to justify holding a strong opinion." Don't distort facts for the sake of making your uncertainty seem more substantive.

For instance, I don't yet know if DJT knew of any "links or coordination" with Russia during the campaign. Nor do I know if his subsequent actions amount to obstruction of justice. I am reserving judgement on those matters until sufficient facts are available. The facts will shape my position, not the other way 'round.


Quote by: MikeRobinson
The people of whom I am speaking have made their careers in the law.   They are lawmakers, prosecutors, former attorneys general, and judges.   (Some of them are tasked right now with responding to what Mueller has already handed down.)   They are reconciled to the fact that Donald Trump is the lawfully-elected President of the United States.   They look upon what is now being done and they are not pleased with it.



"Many people are saying?" Great. Your "they" can take that argument to court at any time, as Mueller has time and time again. Counter argument...

Multiple State and Federal Courts, multiple veteran judges, multiple Grand Juries, and Congress have determined repeatedly that the investigation is appropriate and proceeding accordingly. A host of senior law enforcement officials, legal experts, and four past Presidents have praised Mueller for his dedication to duty and unwavering professionalism and integrity.

Quote by: MikeRobinson
Neither were they pleased with the shenanigans of Mr. Comey.   They eloquently advanced the position that he should be fired, in a letter prepared by the Deputy AG, and he was.   I have read this letter, and say, “good riddance.”   (But a one Mr. Mueller would prefer to say that firing his friend was a felony, and he would demand to interrogate the President as to “what he was thinking” at the time and to give judgment against him accordingly.)



This is a particularly weak line of argumentation. Mueller doesn't have to rely on DJT testimony should he pursue an obstruction charge, nor would obstruction necessarily be limited to or demonstrated by actions taken against Comey.

Your entire diatribe against the investigation, including the undeserved maligning of Mueller, boils down to conjecture about a hypothetical situation that has not happened, while blatantly ignoring or falsely representing nearly every other aspect of the actual events.

Quote by: MikeRobinson
Washington, DC is a town filled with two of the very worst kind of people:   lawyers and politicians.   The law is not meant to be an instrument of politics.   There are those, like me, who feel that it has become so.   These people are deliberating on the subject, as lawyer-folk do.   The law is their life, and they are in some ways very protective of it.

Furthermore, “Election Fraud” is not the stuff of Moscow:   it happened, to me, last November, in a race for Governor in which the Secretary of State, charged with running the election process, was himself a candidate in that election.   My voter registration vanished, but my wife’s did not.   I’m quite sure that my provisional ballot is in an un-counted box somewhere in Atlanta.   Let’s just say that I do not expect a special counsel investigation into voting improprieties in the 2018 mid-terms, because that won’t put a President onto a helicopter on the East Lawn.

2019 is another year, and January promises to be an interesting month.



Seems to me an argument for greater transparency and oversight. Maybe you should support the groups advocating for legal action. I'm not familiar with how the GA legislature works, but I assume they could name a special investigator to examine Kemp's office and campaign.

At any rate, the subject is not Germaine here.

Quote by: MikeRobinson
P.S.: As I have said before, I want to see a rebuttal legal brief, not an article which in its opening paragraph refers to another brief as a “bizarre document” and which considers the supposed motives and motivations of its author while criticizing him personally. In this brief, construct and advance an opposing legal argument in the same fashion, point by point by point, keeping “persons and personalities” entirely out of it. Introduce other new points as you see fit, but support all of them with cited references to settled cases and other sources as Barr has done. This happens in very-mundane court cases every day: every attorney knows how to do it. A brief is a formal document with a well-understood structure. Submit this brief to the AG, to the Congress, and to the Press as though you were presenting it to a trier of fact. Let these legal arguments then stand objectively, one against the other, with no regard as to who actually wrote them nor any consideration as to why.

In my opinion, this is the manner in which consideration of this matter will now move forward – not in the court of public opinion, but in the protocols and the language of the law. Everyone is very, very aware that precedents are about to be set.



God...the lack of self-awareness.

"I want to see a rebuttal legal brief," followed immediately by, "this matter will move forward...not in a court of public opinion."

If you don't understand why the brief is considered both limited and problematic or you can't find many eminently qualified legal critiques already published it is because you are not qualified to have an opinion.

You and I are the "public" part of "public opinion."

The PROTOCOL of the the law is not lawyers speculating about cases and writing opinions for an unqualified public. The protocol is facts being laid out before a judge in court.

Unless and until the argument is advanced in court it is, by definition, irrelevant to the investigation. If it is not situationally APPLIED then it is not situationally WARRANTED.

Go bother Rudy Giuliani. He's the one who can solve your imagined frustrations.


“Ya, that idea is dildos.” Skwisgaar Skwigelf
GET SONG FEEDBACK --> MacJams Critics Circles
J.A.Stewart
Forum Full Member


Registered: 11/13/04
Posts: 4650
Location: Somewhere In Time, USA
 
Re:Mueller vs. Edward R. Morrow
Thursday, December 27 2018 @ 11:57 AM CST

Now (hopefully) Departing, This Flight Of...

 photo A Flight Of..._zpsopkw8msd.jpg

MY LATEST: A demo version of my Work-In-Progress DAILY GRIND
MikeRobinson
Forum Full Member


Registered: 08/29/11
Posts: 941
Location: Chattanooga, TN United States
 
Re:Mueller vs. Edward R. Morrow
Thursday, December 27 2018 @ 12:22 PM CST

“Okay, Chikoppi.   You win.”

Another rebuttal that is still not a brief, but engaging nonetheless:

https://www.justsecurity.org/61975/legal-arguments-bill-barrs-memo-mueller-investigation/

(Note that it cites the one that you cited.)

But ...

https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/the-phony-attack-on-william-barr-11545689892

... also, please note, written by “a former Attorney General.”
J.A.Stewart
Forum Full Member


Registered: 11/13/04
Posts: 4650
Location: Somewhere In Time, USA
 
Re:Mueller vs. Edward R. Morrow
Thursday, December 27 2018 @ 12:50 PM CST


.

MY LATEST: A demo version of my Work-In-Progress DAILY GRIND
J.A.Stewart
Forum Full Member


Registered: 11/13/04
Posts: 4650
Location: Somewhere In Time, USA
 
Re:Mueller vs. Edward R. Morrow
Thursday, December 27 2018 @ 10:38 PM CST

Quote by: MikeRobinson
“Okay, Chikoppi.   You win.”

Another rebuttal that is still not a brief, but engaging nonetheless:

https://www.justsecurity.org/61975/legal-arguments-bill-barrs-memo-mueller-investigation/

(Note that it cites the one that you cited.)

But ...

https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/the-phony-attack-on-william-barr-11545689892

... also, please note, written by “a former Attorney General.”



Jeez!


MY LATEST: A demo version of my Work-In-Progress DAILY GRIND
 
chikoppi
Forum Full Member


Registered: 04/02/04
Posts: 2057
Location: N/A
 
Re:Mueller vs. Edward R. Morrow
Thursday, December 27 2018 @ 11:55 PM CST

Yeah. In science this is analogous to something called "P-hacking."

Essentially, a researcher will falsify a study by recording only the evidence that agrees with a hypothesis. P-hacking is a little more statistically complex, but it's the same principle; see only the evidence you like and ignore the greater body of data available.

A pattern of P-hacking will get a person banned from publishing in journals and run out of the profession.

All the evidence must be included when determining confidence levels, even when it's inconvenient.

“Ya, that idea is dildos.” Skwisgaar Skwigelf
GET SONG FEEDBACK --> MacJams Critics Circles