Though this message is a reply to JonF, it is really addressed to all participants in this thread. I didn't expect a discussion to break out in the Links and Information forum, but so be it, and I will moderate. The information which was posted is in Message 1 and so is easy to find.
Discussion in this thread should be topic focused and impersonal. Words used to attack or denigrate others in the discussion will be added to the poster's disallowed words list. For example, the following would result in the words "vomit*", "bushwah" and "Trumpistas" being added to the disallowed word list:
I note you cannot address the substance of the replies, just vomiting up the same bushwah. Oh, well, that's what we expect from Trumpistas.
I of course will not begin doing this right away. I'll wait for people to have a chance to see this message. If you can't help yourself please keep in mind that this approach to moderation can result in some pretty common words getting added to your disallowed word list. For example, "It's all idiots on the right," would result in not just "idiot*" getting added to your list, but also "right," which would become a bit inconvenient.
Participants who insist on posting messages with asterisks will be suspended.
Could you explain what you mean by "persisting in posting messages with asterisks?" Usually the words are quite neutral in themselves and may be necessary to expressing something neutral and simple. Are you saying we can't use them this way after you've taken away words for how they were used somewhere else? I'm serious, I'm having a problem understanding this. I usually don't know what post the word first occurred in you found to be offensive.
Most words have not just multiple definitions but also a multitude of appropriate contexts. Taking away words from those who use denigration and insult is intended to be a very significant inconvenience, one that discourages people from continuing in this way.
You Lefties MUST have somebody to blame, right?. You are very good at saying nothing and blaming me for your illusions.
If someone were to type this into a message in this thread then I would take away the words "left*", "blam*" and "illusion*" (* is the wildcard character, meaning any number of any characters). If the person attempted to avoid the disallowed words, for example by typing "lleft" then I would change the words in their list to include regular expressions. For example, "left" would become "l\S*e\S*f\S*t\S*".
Taking away people's words is intended as a more gentle reminder than suspension that they're crossing the boundaries of the Forum Guidelines. I gather from what people have posted about it that they think it a poor moderation tool, but I am not ready to discard it yet. One possibility I'm considering is to simply not allow the posting of messages that contain disallowed words. This way the person writing the message knows from the asterisks what words must be changed before they can post their message, and no messages containing asterisks will ever actually be posted.
Re: if this were Obama instead of Trump, what would you say.
I'm moderating this thread and hence cannot participate. This post only provides some additional information and should not be construed as part of the discussion. Please, no replies.
The conclusion was a bunch of weasel words to get around - imho - the restriction AG Barr put on the probe to not indict a sitting president. Barr was their boss, so they had to comply.
The Mueller report describes how Mueller and his team decided early on to follow the OLC (DOJ's Office of Legal Council) advisory that sitting presidents cannot be indicted, well before Barr became AG. One of the disappointments Barr expressed about the report was that it made no effort to decide criminality. Barr made this determination himself, deciding with assistant AG Rosenstein's concurrence to absolve Trump of any criminal acts.
Starr was not hampered by an AG with an unorthodox concept of excessive presidential rights that was trying to stop him, and even still he didn't prove the cases of obstruction of justice that he gave to the congress, he gave them a list of incidences which they used to write up articles of impeachment and which were then tried in the Senate.
Starr operated under different rules. He was an independent prosecutor who operated outside the DOJ under the Independent Counsel law and therefore *could* allege criminal acts, such as that Bill Clinton lied about his affair with Monica Lewinsky. Starr was not subject to DOJ rules, such as the OLC advisory about not indicting a sitting president.
The Independent Counsel law expired in 1999 and and was replaced with the Special Counsel law where special counsels operate within the DOJ. Mueller operated as a special counsel reporting to assistant AG Rod Rosenstein in the DOJ. Mueller served within the executive branch investigating the executive branch.
Edited by Admin, : Incorrectly referred to Sessions when I meant Rosenstein, fixed now.
Just providing more information. Please, no replies.
Clinton's impeachment rested on actual felonies.
This is true. The report produced by Ken Starr alleged that Clinton committed multiple acts of perjury, obstruction of justice, and witness tampering, all felonies. The articles of impeachment voted on by the House included all of these.
I think Nixon's also did but I'd have to review it.
Nixon resigned before he could be impeached. Though articles of impeachment were approved by the Judiciary Committee, they were never voted on by the full House.
Trump's absolutely definitely does not.
Because the process is only just now reaching the Judiciary Committee, which will decide whether to recommend any articles of impeachment to the full House, it is premature to say this. For example, the Committee might include obstruction of justice articles, and obstruction of justice is a felony.