“sounds great”
>what are you afraid of

topkek <— this one!

Agreed.

Am abridged version to the ethics committee would clear it up.

I hope you weren't mischaracterizing my post based on the circle-jerk of PaRDs extra-chromosome club.

This post was edited by Skinned on Apr 16 2019 05:20pm

Nadler has been doing nothing BUT requesting a full release of the report and of all investigative material remotely related to the report.

while i agree on the whole i have to draw a line to how investigations of cops or DAs are handled. same thing. the culture protects their own, blue line extends to the DAs office in most precincts. the old paranoid line of "i wonder how far up this goes" applies in situations like this, mayors office, local cops, DA, state attorney, etc. and of course when Mueller was chosen he was called a biased attack on Trump, as literally anyone would have been, they're either an Obama stooge or a RINO no matter who they are. so that unfairness does cut both ways even though the right's case was more reactionary than logical.

When there's a strong public interest, such as the IRS and Ferguson investigations, it's appropriate for the Justice Department to defy the normal practice and release as much information as they can.

It's also bewildering that Trump cultists are generally opposed to this. If Trump is exonerated and the deep state manufactured this investigation, why not release everything?

Well, for one thing, Trump is already exonerated. For the other, releasing ALL the information won't prove the "deep state" manufactured this investigation any more than it already has.

Barr's letter specifically says Trump is not exonerated. No idea what the rest of your post even means.

it's appropriate in almost ALL legal cases. in cases of minors or where the victim of the crime might be shamed by it it's not. in all other cases it's "appropriate". but it's not common because it's not impractical at scale. i tend to think that it should be released given the importance of the case itself, like you say given the national scale on par with Ferguson or IRS. i was just speaking to how this isn't like any other case in some ways, releasing info, but that it is in other ways, that investigators are just fact collectors for a prosecutor to base their decision on. I'd go a step further and say ALL investigations into ANY public officials, even small time comptrollers should be made public, 100% of the time.



the answer is 2 pronged methinks:

1. the dichotomy between where the investigation started (Russian collusion with the goal of impeachment) to where the bulk release leads (endless headlines of new gotcha blurbs with no chance for impeachment).

1a. i have to note the similarities of the Jussie Smollet case, where he hasn't been exonerated by the law, but people have the feeling due to ideological biases (see QuestLove tweet day of charges dropped)

2. the differing burden of proof moving forward. what we see in that pandora's box will be polarizing, people will feel it delegitimizes his presidency if you're on the left (while simultaneously knowing impeachment is gone but hoping it wasn't and for some reason still fighting for it), while people on the right will feel vindicated knowing impeachment isn't in that paper and realize the ticky tacky bad things will lead to the headlines.

2a. similarities can be seen in high profile cases all over. Michael Jackson, R Kelly, etc. in the process of investigation there is a heavy amount of collateral information collected. if Michael Jackson's case was made public he'd be shown as innocent for the crime of child molestation, and his penis would be in picture included, his childhood abuse would be public from private interviews, his relationship with children as "friends" would damn him even if charges were dropped. etc. his fans remained fans for 20 years because that case was sealed, if it was public in 1995 he'd have been finished then. even if you don't get caught raping kids people see 30 days in a hotel room with a kid and it's over. similar, but not the same to Trump. just an example.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Apr 17 2019 08:35am

Barr's summary said: NO evidence of collusion, and as for obstruction, there was not enough evidence to accuse him, nor was he exonerated.

Innocent till PROVEN guilty in the USA.

and of course you feel the same way about Jussie Smollet.