General Question

ibstubro's avatar

How much do your agree or disagree with President Obama's statement today, "...I think you'll find a lot of separate and apart from the particular circumstances in Ferguson, which I am careful not to speak to because it's ? it's not my job as president to comment on ongoing investigations and specific cases ?"??

Asked by ibstubro (18765points) November 25th, 2014

Source

I particularly question “it’s not my job as president to comment on ongoing investigations and specific cases”.

The grand jury did not indict. Is the death of Michael Brown still an ongoing investigation?

The grand jury did not indict. Is the President of the United States not able to acknowledge that ‘due process’ did not find cause to pursue Darren Wilson? The chief executive isn’t bound to “uphold the law”?

IMO, this was a moment when a true leader could have brought the nation together.

I shut myself UP!

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

19 Answers

talljasperman's avatar

I was hoping that President Obama was going to free the slaves bring justice to race relations. He’s just playing lip service to Americans. The hope and change campaign was just a phrase to get elected. I think people thought that hope and change was a constitutional change and a something different like a new experiment in social experimentation. A true revolution to modern governance. Health care reform is a start, he’s got two years to bring change to the USA.

DrasticDreamer's avatar

There were, I believe, three open investigations. Now, there are two. Or maybe there were only two, but either way, that still leaves one open investigation.

stanleybmanly's avatar

The statement makes no sense. “a lot of separate and apart” what the hell is that? Was the investigation ongoing when he made the statement? If this was the answer to some reporter’s question, I’ll cut the President some slack. He should have expected the question, but he does have a lot on his plate. There are good days and bad, and no one can be 100% inspirational 24/7.

ibstubro's avatar

Can your source, @DrasticDreamer?
I would appreciate it.

Details, day-after, source, @stanleybmanly

zenvelo's avatar

The prosecutor’s misconduct, defending the possible defendant while accepting Wilson’s statements as fact but discrediting other witnesses, all while he is supposed to prosecute by getting an indictment. is under review by bar associations.

@stanleybmanly this was a question at a press conference. Extemporaneous remarks often sound like that.

ibstubro's avatar

Source, @zenvelo.

I’m curious and willing to listen.

hominid's avatar

@ibstubro: “IMO, this was a moment when a true leader could have brought the nation together.”

What could you possibly mean by this?

stanleybmanly's avatar

@ibstubro Thanks for the link. Most of the speech was coherent. He avoided mentioning the specifics of the case and concentrated on the civil unrest surrounding it. The speech reads as though Obama realized at the end that he should have begun his comments with the items in the final paragraph. He thinks out loud. It’s probably the result of years spent lecturing. I suppose its the logical outcome one should expect from an academic turned President.

zenvelo's avatar

@ibstubro Here is a description of the failure of the prosecutor.

Here’s the call by the National Bar Association to have the Justice Dept. investigate.

josie's avatar

Leader?

jerv's avatar

Thanks to the separation of powers, the President has no control over grand juries anyways. His subordinates can present a case, but that is the extent of executive authority.

Also, commenting on ongoing investigations, especially in the preliminary stages, is pretty much a no-no anyways; at best, it may contaminate the potential juror pool.

Most importantly, the President may be the head of the Executive branch, but he is not the entirety of it. He cannot handle EVERY single investigation; he must delegate. In fact, it’s possible that he doesn’t know enough about he case to have an informed opinion anyways. This may come as a shock, but the President has a lot of responsibilities beyond micromanaging the domestic law enforcement.

Jaxk's avatar

Maybe he’s learning his lesson after his remarks about the cops in Cambridge and the Travon Martin comments. There are still a couple of investigations going on from the Justice Dept so maybe he’s just tired of being wrong every time he opens his mouth.

CWOTUS's avatar

Something tells me that this President has listened to too many people tell him how eloquent he is, and he keeps looking for a moment to deliver his Gettysburg Address. He’s definitely not that eloquent. When I can understand him because he speaks clearly (rarely) I disagree strongly with him – as a rule – but most times his speech is unclear, filled with coded references or open to varying interpretations. Those times, I just disagree with what I think he might have said. But most of the time I simply avoid listening altogether.

jerv's avatar

How much of what Obama (or any president, really) says is the speechwriters, how much is the puppeteers pulling their strings, and how much is actually them though?

ibstubro's avatar

The quote came from a speech.

Thanks for the link, @DrasticDreamer.

Like that dolt G.WB. did following 911, @hominid. By visiting the area and calling for peaceful demonstration (he was in Chicago the following day, anyway).

Great links, @zenvelo. I now understand what a travesty it is that Darren Wilson was not indicted.

I was not suggesting the President handle the investigation personally, @jerv. Above your post @zenvelo cleared most of my question up, and below your comment @DrasticDreamer finished it off.

I agree about the lack of eloquence, @CWOTUS. I, too, avoid listening to him speak as much as possible. At the best of times I find the cadence distracting.

JLeslie's avatar

I don’t expect the President to comment on the case.

sinscriven's avatar

I don’t see what any sort of benefit would have come from him throwing his hat in the ring.

It would only serve to fuel the political firestorm where everyone managed to get JD’s from harvard all at once and are so blinded by their own convictions, assumptions, and prejudices that no real worthwhile conversation can be had about that.

So why give conservatives another reason to make his life more difficult? Abstaining from making an opinion was the most prudent thing he could do given the situation.

ibstubro's avatar

@sinscriven, “Abstaining from making an opinion was the most prudent thing…”, yet we are a Q & A site.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther