When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I mean, I'm trying to think of an example of a government which did not tend to accumulate more power, and to increasingly limit the liberties of its subjects, over time.
Blue, red or orange, I see it as merely a different flavor of fruit at the bottom of the yogurt cup.
Joe, come on, your rational and objective analysis has no place here.
Pretty much. The other person is the embodiment of corruption and evil, and woe unto us all if they are elected. The streets will flow with blood, and certain people [will / will not] be [allowed / forced] to [get married / bake cakes].
In unrelated news, I simply cannot make up my mind as to whether John McAfee is batshit crazy or utterly brilliant.
I mean, I'm trying to think of an example of a government which did not tend to accumulate more power, and to increasingly limit the liberties of its subjects, over time.
Blue, red or orange, I see it as merely a different flavor of fruit at the bottom of the yogurt cup.
Where has there previously been a government like the American Grand Experiment?
Where has there previously been a government like the American Grand Experiment?
Europe.
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville
I am whatever I say I am, cause if I wasn't, why would i say i am?
Correct. Society doesn't get to define you. If you happen to identify as an Apache helicopter, then the burden is on all of us to recognize you as such.
It’s time to decide, do we run the technology, or does the technology run us?
I really don’t buy the idea that big tech is politically neutral.
Are we going to just let the biggest tech companies decide who wins every election from now on?
I look at search and I look at Google News and I see what it’s doing and I see Google executives go to Congress and say that it’s not manipulated. It’s not political. And I’m just so sure that’s not true.
I have a PhD, I have five years’ experience at Google and I just know how algorithms are. They don’t write themselves. We write them to do what we want them to do.
“Director Mueller,” Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler asked, “the president has repeatedly claimed that your report found there was no obstruction and that it completely and totally exonerated him, but that is not what your report said, is it?”
“Correct,” Mueller replied. “That is not what the report said.”
So then, the President decided to attack the character of his opponents by calling them silly names, rather than directly addressing what they actually said?
But Ratcliffe, a Republican from Texas who is also a former federal prosecutor, focused on the Volume II, the obstruction section of the report, insisting it was not the job of prosecutors such as Mueller to exonerate someone or to prove someone’s innocence. He argued everyone should be given the presumption of innocence, “including sitting presidents.”
Ratcliffe asked Mueller “which DOJ policy or principle sets forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined." Mueller asked him to repeat the question.
“Where does that language come from?” Ratcliffe asked again. “Where is the DOJ policy that says that?”
Mueller seemed unwilling or unable to answer immediately.
“I’ll make it easier,” Ratcliffe said. “Can you give me an example other than Donald Trump where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated because their innocence was not conclusively determined?”
“I cannot,” Mueller replied. “But this is a unique situation.”
“Let’s just leave it at ‘you can’t find it’ and I’ll tell you why — because it doesn’t exist,” Ratcliffe said. “The special counsel’s job, nowhere does it say that you are to conclusively determine Donald Trump’s innocence or that the special counsel report should determine whether or not to exonerate him.”
Ratcliffe said that was not anywhere in Mueller’s appointment order, special counsel regulations, Justice Department guidelines, nor anywhere else.
“Nowhere do those words appear together because, respectfully director, it’s not the special counsel’s job to conclusively determine Donald Trump’s innocence or to exonerate him, because the bedrock principle of our justice system is a presumption of innocence,” Ratcliffe said. “Everyone is entitled to it, including sitting presidents. Because there is a presumption of it, prosecutors never have to conclusively prove it.”
...
“You wrote 180 pages — 180 pages — about decisions that weren't reached, about potential crimes that weren't charged or decided,” Ratcliffe said. “And respectfully, respectfully by doing that you managed to violate every principle and the most sacred of traditions about prosecutors not offering extra prosecutorial analysis about potential crimes that aren't charged.”
Ratcliffe does have a decent point - Mueller was basically given a nonsensical assignment. He was ordered to investigate someone who he'd never be able to prosecute due to DOJ policy. Mueller tried to make the best of it, by basically reporting "If we'd be allowed to prosecute, we would've". I guess also that's what Mueller meant by unique situation - never before has the DOJ investigated someone they cannot prosecute.
A Publix employee told a Cobb County deputy that she witnessed part of the conversation and heard Thomas “continuously tell Eric Sparkes to ‘Go back where you came from!’” but did not hear Sparkes utter those words to Thomas.
Mueller tried to make the best of it, by basically reporting "If we'd be allowed to prosecute, we would've". I guess also that's what Mueller meant by unique situation - never before has the DOJ investigated someone they cannot prosecute.
This does not appear to be entirely accurate.
Here's an analysis on that question from CNN:
In an exchange with Democratic California Rep. Ted Lieu, Mueller said, unequivocally, that the reason that he did not even consider indicting the President on obstruction charges was because of guidance from the Office of Legal Counsel (within the Justice Department) that a sitting President cannot be indicted.
That contradicts repeated assertions by Barr that the OLC ruling was not the only reason that Mueller didn't indict Trump. It also seemingly contradicts a May joint statement from spokespeople for the special counsel's office and the Department of Justice that said this: "The Attorney General has previously stated that the Special Counsel repeatedly affirmed that he was not saying that, but for the [Office of Legal Counsel] opinion, he would have found the President obstructed justice. The Special Counsel's report and his statement today made clear that the office concluded it would not reach a determination -- one way or the other -- about whether the President committed a crime. There is no conflict between these statements."
When questioned about this seeming contradiction by Republican Arizona Rep. Debbie Lesko, Mueller said only that he "would have to look at it closer." Uh, yeah.
Mueller later clarified -- during his appearance before the House Intelligence Committee -- that he had misspoken to Lieu when asked about the role the OLC opinion played in his decision not to consider charging Trump. "We did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime," Mueller said.
0
