|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On March 26 2019 08:58 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2019 08:36 Danglars wrote:On March 26 2019 08:25 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
Why does the senate majority leader position come with so much power? It seems insane to me that he can block something like this. Schumer wanted a unanimous consent vote to release before the judiciary committee has even read the darn thing. You're falling for a propaganda play. Barr and DoJ have a statutory duty to obey 6(e) procedures. The results of this may be disputed by Congress (more redactions, less, addenda, explanations). Let the process work and don't fall prey to the stupidest of political ploys. I should add that the Starr Report was seen by Congress before holding a vote on whether to make the report public as presented to them. I understand the duties of DoJ in this but the senate is not part of DoJ. Why can they not come to a vote on this in the senate? When something has this much house support and you ignore it, isn't that just a middle finger to process? Also it says to release unless prohibited by law so that would not bring problems for DoJ as I read it. Show nested quote + calls for the public release of any report Special Counsel Mueller provides to the Attorney General, except to the extent the public disclosure of any portion thereof is expressly prohibited by law; and calls for the full release to Congress of any report Special Counsel Mueller provides to the Attorney General.
The house can subpeona it. However, to win the legal challenge that would result they need to prove that they tried all other avenues first (ie asking nicely). The house is pretty much certain to eventually get it, but the legislative and legal branches are very slow moving.
|
On March 26 2019 08:58 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2019 08:36 Danglars wrote:On March 26 2019 08:25 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
Why does the senate majority leader position come with so much power? It seems insane to me that he can block something like this. Schumer wanted a unanimous consent vote to release before the judiciary committee has even read the darn thing. You're falling for a propaganda play. Barr and DoJ have a statutory duty to obey 6(e) procedures. The results of this may be disputed by Congress (more redactions, less, addenda, explanations). Let the process work and don't fall prey to the stupidest of political ploys. I should add that the Starr Report was seen by Congress before holding a vote on whether to make the report public as presented to them. I understand the duties of DoJ in this but the senate is not part of DoJ. Why can they not come to a vote on this in the senate? When something has this much house support and you ignore it, isn't that just a middle finger to process? Also it says to release unless prohibited by law so that would not bring problems for DoJ as I read it. Show nested quote + calls for the public release of any report Special Counsel Mueller provides to the Attorney General, except to the extent the public disclosure of any portion thereof is expressly prohibited by law; and calls for the full release to Congress of any report Special Counsel Mueller provides to the Attorney General.
They will come to a vote on this in the Senate ... after the Senate gets the Report. The insane thing is political posturing and unanimous consent bits before there is actually a report to see and vote on. Maybe people think Barr went too far in redactions, or went too light on redactions, and send it back to demand increased visibility.
Barr notifies judiciary committees. Barr delivers Report to Congress complying with 6(e) and any classified info. Congress votes. That's the process. Not inserting a "HOLD A VOTE NOW THAT MEANS NOTHING IF UHH LAW PROHIBITS" first like somebody can't hold their pee in.
|
I like how the Democrats in the senate are being blamed for having a good plan.
|
On March 26 2019 09:54 Plansix wrote:
I like how the Democrats in the senate are being blamed for having a good plan.
If the Democrats do anything, it's their fault and bad. Usually gets blown up into a scandal by Fox News. If the Republicans do something, eyyyy, it doesn't matter.
You could say something about putting the shoe on the other foot, but whiplash is more appropriate. The right's stance on any political issue takes an immediate 180 depending who's involved. This isn't new tho. Just something we have to change, by actually holding Republicans accountable. By voting.
|
On March 26 2019 04:39 Nevuk wrote:
Apparently, Mark Geragos is also implicated as a co-conspirator (CNN analyst and Jussie Smollett's lawyer. He represented Michael Jackson, Scott Peterson, and Winona Ryder).
Is this still real life?
Maybe Avenatti and Jussie Smollet can share the same cell.
|
|
|
On March 26 2019 12:32 Gahlo wrote:
Try reading that again.
Why?
He was Smollets lawyer.Avanettis co conspirator.
Interesting link.
Almost like there was a....conspiracy against Trump?
|
On March 26 2019 13:09 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Why? He was Smollets lawyer.Avanettis co conspirator. Interesting link. Almost like there was a....conspiracy against Trump?
A conspiracy against trump by extorting nike?
|
On March 26 2019 13:11 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2019 13:09 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On March 26 2019 12:32 Gahlo wrote:
Try reading that again. Why? He was Smollets lawyer.Avanettis co conspirator. Interesting link. Almost like there was a....conspiracy against Trump? A conspiracy against trump by extorting nike?
He’s involved with the fake MAGA hate crime guy and the fake porn lawyer guy whos client had to pay Trump costs.
Seems odd to me.
Not that it matters when they can’t get anything to stick to Trump.Teflon Don!
|
I love it whe nettles visits the thread and we get to see how much US news makes it through the nonsense filter that is his internet browsing habits.
|
Speaking of consipracies against Trump, let’s check in with John Brennan. Brennan was Obama’s CIA director during the election and has been an outspoken critic of Trump and proponent of the Russia conspiracy narrative. Now that the Mueller report has announced that there was no evidence of American collusion with Russians to interfere in the election, here’s what Brennan has to say:
Former CIA chief John O. Brennan now says his months of attacks on President Trump may have been based on “bad information.”
One of the president’s harshest critics had a muted tone on Monday as he discussed special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia report on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” No evidence was found to support the claim that Mr. Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign “conspired or coordinated” with Russia.
“Well, I don’t know if I received bad information but I think I suspected there was more than there actually was,” Mr. Brennan told host Joe Scarborough. “I am relieved that it’s been determined there was not a criminal conspiracy with the Russian government over our election.”
Mr. Brennan said in December 2018, for instance, that Mr. Trump should prepare for the “forthcoming exposure of your malfeasance & corruption.”
“We need an actual leader — our Nation’s future is at stake,” he tweeted Dec. 31.
The former CIA head said he still maintained that some conversations between Mr. Trump’s campaign and Russians were “inappropriate.”
“I’m not all that surprised that the high bar of criminal conspiracy was not met,” he said.
Mr. Trump said Sunday that it was “a shame that our country has had to go through this. To be honest, it’s a shame that your president has had to go through this.”
“It began illegally, and hopefully, somebody is going to look at the other side. This was an illegal take-down that failed, and hopefully, somebody is going to be looking at the other side,” he told reporters. “So it is complete exoneration. No collusion, no obstruction.”
Source.
This is just unbelievable. First and foremost, what was the “bad information” that he suggests he received? Multiple CIA spies (Halper, Mifsud, etc) were making contact with various members of Trump’s campaign in 2015-2016 before the FBI opened Crossfire Hurricane. Are we seriously to believe that he knew nothing of this? Hell, it was clear from the transcript of Lisa Page’s testimony that Brennan knew about the dossier before the FBI received it according to the FBI’s official (which is almost certainly bogus, but I digress) because he was briefing the Gang of 8 about it in August 2016. Second, even presuming that he did receive bad information and is just an idiot (as opposed to a traitor), he most certainly does not get a pass for his overt politicization of the investigation and abuse of his credentials to attack Trump. Brennan is an utter disgrace, and I can’t wait for him to get what’s coming to him.
|
United States42004 Posts
On March 26 2019 13:40 xDaunt wrote:
Now that the Mueller report has announced that there was no evidence of American collusion with Russians to interfere in the election
That hasn’t happened. Neither the announcement nor your claim of the contents of the announcement.
|
On March 26 2019 13:50 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2019 13:40 xDaunt wrote:
Now that the Mueller report has announced that there was no evidence of American collusion with Russians to interfere in the election That hasn’t happened. Neither the announcement nor your claim of the contents of the announcement.
Sure it did. Go re-read Barr’s letter: “...the Special Counsel did not find that any US person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with [the Russians].” This begs the question of why the CIA was harassing poor Papadopoulos among others.
Edit: Well, to be super precise, that sentence above refers to the IRA disinformation campaign. The following paragraph refers to the emails and states, “the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with [the Russians].”
|
On March 26 2019 13:40 xDaunt wrote:Speaking of consipracies against Trump, let’s check in with John Brennan. Brennan was Obama’s CIA director during the election and has been an outspoken critic of Trump and proponent of the Russia conspiracy narrative. Now that the Mueller report has announced that there was no evidence of American collusion with Russians to interfere in the election, here’s what Brennan has to say: Show nested quote +Former CIA chief John O. Brennan now says his months of attacks on President Trump may have been based on “bad information.”
One of the president’s harshest critics had a muted tone on Monday as he discussed special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia report on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” No evidence was found to support the claim that Mr. Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign “conspired or coordinated” with Russia.
“Well, I don’t know if I received bad information but I think I suspected there was more than there actually was,” Mr. Brennan told host Joe Scarborough. “I am relieved that it’s been determined there was not a criminal conspiracy with the Russian government over our election.”
Mr. Brennan said in December 2018, for instance, that Mr. Trump should prepare for the “forthcoming exposure of your malfeasance & corruption.”
“We need an actual leader — our Nation’s future is at stake,” he tweeted Dec. 31.
The former CIA head said he still maintained that some conversations between Mr. Trump’s campaign and Russians were “inappropriate.”
“I’m not all that surprised that the high bar of criminal conspiracy was not met,” he said.
Mr. Trump said Sunday that it was “a shame that our country has had to go through this. To be honest, it’s a shame that your president has had to go through this.”
“It began illegally, and hopefully, somebody is going to look at the other side. This was an illegal take-down that failed, and hopefully, somebody is going to be looking at the other side,” he told reporters. “So it is complete exoneration. No collusion, no obstruction.” Source. This is just unbelievable. First and foremost, what was the “bad information” that he suggests he received? Multiple CIA spies (Halper, Mifsud, etc) were making contact with various members of Trump’s campaign in 2015-2016 before the FBI opened Crossfire Hurricane. Are we seriously to believe that he knew nothing of this? Hell, it was clear from the transcript of Lisa Page’s testimony that Brennan knew about the dossier before the FBI received it according to the FBI’s official (which is almost certainly bogus, but I digress) because he was briefing the Gang of 8 about it in August 2016. Second, even presuming that he did receive bad information and is just an idiot (as opposed to a traitor), he most certainly does not get a pass for his overt politicization of the investigation and abuse of his credentials to attack Trump. Brennan is an utter disgrace, and I can’t wait for him to get what’s coming to him.
Brennan's a national embarrassment. The fact that he rose so high in the intelligence hierarchy should give people pause in trusting our intelligence agencies (and their selective leaks). He lies on national TV. He calls Donald Trump's shameful deference at Helsinki "high crimes & misdemeanors" "treasonous" "wholly in the pocket of Putin." He spied on the US Senate, and lied about it. Lied about drones killing civilians. (WaPo). Now more Russia deceit.
Idiot leadership well on down from the top. These are the seasoned elites that I'm expect to trust as opposed to some upstart populist or state politician.
|
On March 26 2019 14:05 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2019 13:50 KwarK wrote:On March 26 2019 13:40 xDaunt wrote:
Now that the Mueller report has announced that there was no evidence of American collusion with Russians to interfere in the election That hasn’t happened. Neither the announcement nor your claim of the contents of the announcement. Sure it did. Go re-read Barr’s letter: “...the Special Counsel did not find that any US person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with [the Russians].” This begs the question of why the CIA was harassing poor Papadopoulos among others. Edit: Well, to be super precise, that sentence above refers to the IRA disinformation campaign. The following paragraph refers to the emails and states, “the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with [the Russians].”
In theory, those passages could be stating that Mueller did not obtain proof beyond a reasonable doubt of collusion/conspiracy, in which case there could be some amount of evidence on the issue that fell short of beyond a reasonable doubt. There was also a counterintelligence component to the investigation, which is going to take longer to be disclosed (probably heavily redacted). I'm guessing it's unlikely there will be any bombshells though.
Aside from collusion, we've definitely learned some very shady things about Trump as a result of the investigation. He surrounds himself with crooks and goons, for one. He publicly called for Russia to release stolen emails, at the same time as he was pursuing a Trump Tower deal in Moscow that required Russian government approval. That doesn't amount to collusion, but it tells us a lot about Trump's willingness to be corrupt and general lack of any ethical standards. That, and the Trump Tower meeting demonstrated that Trump Jr & Sr were perfectly willing to collude. Which again doesn't show collusion but it shows you again that Trump is a crook who is devoid of ethical standards.
|
On March 26 2019 14:42 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2019 14:05 xDaunt wrote:On March 26 2019 13:50 KwarK wrote:On March 26 2019 13:40 xDaunt wrote:
Now that the Mueller report has announced that there was no evidence of American collusion with Russians to interfere in the election That hasn’t happened. Neither the announcement nor your claim of the contents of the announcement. Sure it did. Go re-read Barr’s letter: “...the Special Counsel did not find that any US person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with [the Russians].” This begs the question of why the CIA was harassing poor Papadopoulos among others. Edit: Well, to be super precise, that sentence above refers to the IRA disinformation campaign. The following paragraph refers to the emails and states, “the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with [the Russians].” In theory, those passages could be stating that Mueller did not obtain proof beyond a reasonable doubt of collusion/conspiracy, in which case there could be some amount of evidence on the issue that fell short of beyond a reasonable doubt. There was also a counterintelligence component to the investigation, which is going to take longer to be disclosed (probably heavily redacted). I'm guessing it's unlikely there will be any bombshells though.
There are two problems with this interpretation. The first is that it is inconsistent with how Mueller treated the obstruction investigation. If there was anything there, he’d have passed the buck to Barr. Second, it is inconsistent with the testimony of Page, Strzok, and others saying that they still didn’t have any evidence of Trump/Russian collusion by the time that Comey was fired in May 2017.
|
On March 26 2019 13:35 Plansix wrote:
I love it whe nettles visits the thread and we get to see how much US news makes it through the nonsense filter that is his internet browsing habits.
As opposed to the many people in the media and in online forums who hung their hat on this insane Russian collusion crap.All proven false.But they hung their hats on Stormy Daniels, The Steele dossier, the fake Jussie Smollet attack, the Covington kid.Everything they have believed would take down Trump and smear his supporters has totally failed.
Now that i know theres no reds under the bed i can sleep easier tonight.
|
Uhm, it totally has smeared him. That his supporters have absolutely no morals and are probably the biggest hypocrits to ever walk the earth is the issue.
You can think of Bill Maher what you want, but his "What if Obama did it" segment was 100% spot on.
|
On March 26 2019 14:53 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2019 14:42 Doodsmack wrote:On March 26 2019 14:05 xDaunt wrote:On March 26 2019 13:50 KwarK wrote:On March 26 2019 13:40 xDaunt wrote:
Now that the Mueller report has announced that there was no evidence of American collusion with Russians to interfere in the election That hasn’t happened. Neither the announcement nor your claim of the contents of the announcement. Sure it did. Go re-read Barr’s letter: “...the Special Counsel did not find that any US person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with [the Russians].” This begs the question of why the CIA was harassing poor Papadopoulos among others. Edit: Well, to be super precise, that sentence above refers to the IRA disinformation campaign. The following paragraph refers to the emails and states, “the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with [the Russians].” In theory, those passages could be stating that Mueller did not obtain proof beyond a reasonable doubt of collusion/conspiracy, in which case there could be some amount of evidence on the issue that fell short of beyond a reasonable doubt. There was also a counterintelligence component to the investigation, which is going to take longer to be disclosed (probably heavily redacted). I'm guessing it's unlikely there will be any bombshells though. There are two problems with this interpretation. The first is that it is inconsistent with how Mueller treated the obstruction investigation. If there was anything there, he’d have passed the buck to Barr. Second, it is inconsistent with the testimony of Page, Strzok, and others saying that they still didn’t have any evidence of Trump/Russian collusion by the time that Comey was fired in May 2017.
We don't know if he passed the buck to Barr. We know Barr took the choice for himself. There are sources saying the idea was to let congress judge. We don't know how Mueller treated the obstruction investigation. We don't know the amounts of evidence found. We don't know much of anything. We have 4 sentences quoted from the report, and Barrs summary of the summary.
|
On March 26 2019 18:29 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2019 14:53 xDaunt wrote:On March 26 2019 14:42 Doodsmack wrote:On March 26 2019 14:05 xDaunt wrote:On March 26 2019 13:50 KwarK wrote:On March 26 2019 13:40 xDaunt wrote:
Now that the Mueller report has announced that there was no evidence of American collusion with Russians to interfere in the election That hasn’t happened. Neither the announcement nor your claim of the contents of the announcement. Sure it did. Go re-read Barr’s letter: “...the Special Counsel did not find that any US person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with [the Russians].” This begs the question of why the CIA was harassing poor Papadopoulos among others. Edit: Well, to be super precise, that sentence above refers to the IRA disinformation campaign. The following paragraph refers to the emails and states, “the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with [the Russians].” In theory, those passages could be stating that Mueller did not obtain proof beyond a reasonable doubt of collusion/conspiracy, in which case there could be some amount of evidence on the issue that fell short of beyond a reasonable doubt. There was also a counterintelligence component to the investigation, which is going to take longer to be disclosed (probably heavily redacted). I'm guessing it's unlikely there will be any bombshells though. There are two problems with this interpretation. The first is that it is inconsistent with how Mueller treated the obstruction investigation. If there was anything there, he’d have passed the buck to Barr. Second, it is inconsistent with the testimony of Page, Strzok, and others saying that they still didn’t have any evidence of Trump/Russian collusion by the time that Comey was fired in May 2017. We don't know if he passed the buck to Barr. We know Barr took the choice for himself. There are sources saying the idea was to let congress judge. We don't know how Mueller treated the obstruction investigation. We don't know the amounts of evidence found. We don't know much of anything. We have 4 sentences quoted from the report, and Barrs summary of the summary.
Of course Mueller passed the buck to Barr. There’s no one else to pass it to. Congress doesn’t prosecute. More to the point, the special counsel answers to the DOJ — ie Barr — by law. This idea that “Barr took the choice for himself” is nothing but a bizarre Democrat talking point. Your better talking point is that Trump’s handpicked AG declined to prosecute, but that talking point is garbage, too, because Rosenstein — the guy who appointed Mueller in the first place and who also was involved in the 25th Amendment talk — also signed off on not prosecuting further. In retrospect, Trump’s decision not to fire Rosenstein until after Rosenstein could sign off on the future AG’s certifications was a stroke of genius. Mueller’s deferral is pure political bullshit, but keeping Rosenstein around has defused it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
