|
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 April 05 2019 04:30 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2019 03:00 JimmiC wrote:On April 05 2019 01:24 xDaunt wrote:On April 05 2019 01:16 Nevuk wrote:
Goes a bit farther than being upset about only getting a summary. Some of Mueller's team are now saying there was a lot of evidence for obstruction. Via NBC
WSJ also backs NYT:
That would be WashPo unsurprisingly backing the NYT, not WSJ. In fact, the WSJ editorial board is having none of this shit: ....Under Justice rules relating to special counsels, Mr. Barr has no obligation to provide anything beyond notifying Congress when an investigation has started or concluded, and whether the AG overruled a special counsel’s decisions. Mr. Barr’s notice to Congress that Mr. Mueller had completed his investigation said Mr. Mueller was not overruled.
Congress has no automatic right to more. The final subparagraph of DOJ’s rule governing special counsels reads: “The regulations in this part are not intended to, do not, and may not be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity, by any person or entity, in any matter, civil, criminal or administrative.”
Mr. Barr has made clear that he appreciates the public interest in seeing as much of Mr. Mueller’s report as possible. Yet his categories of information for review aren’t frivolous or political inventions. The law protecting grand-jury secrecy is especially strict, as even Democrats admit.
House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff recently tweeted that “Barr should seek court approval (just like in Watergate) to allow the release of grand jury material. Redactions are unacceptable.” This is an acknowledgment that the government must apply to a judge for permission to disclose grand-jury proceedings.
A judge can grant release in certain circumstances—namely to government attorneys who need the information for their duties. None of the secrecy exceptions permit disclosure to Congress or the public. The purpose of this secrecy is to protect the innocent and encourage candor in grand-jury testimony.
It’s true that in 1974 the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a federal judge’s decision to release a grand jury report to the House Judiciary Committee that was investigating Watergate. Such a sealed report—which juries can choose to produce—is different from raw grand-jury testimony, which is what Democrats are demanding now. The Supreme Court has never ruled on such a disclosure, so Democrats could be facing a long legal battle if Mr. Barr resists their subpoenas.
Mr. Barr should release as much of the report as possible, and on close calls he should side with public disclosure. But no one should think that Democrats are really worried about a coverup. They want to see an unredacted version before the public does so they can leak selected bits that allow them to use friendly media outlets to claim there really was collusion, or to tarnish Trump officials.
The nation is entitled to the Mueller facts in their proper context, not to selective leaks from Democrats trying to revive their dashed hopes of a collusion narrative that the Mueller probe found doesn’t exist. In short, all of this whining about the Barr letter is political theater. No one is entitled to see anything. The House threatening to subpoena stuff is nothing but a naked bluff for political purposes. The same goes for these these NYT and WashPo stories. The fact they are politically charged nonsense should be self-evident from the fact that they're quoting anonymous sources again. More to the point, the fact that these Mueller investigators are now bleating about Barr's letter anonymously to the press should make it obvious just how political their investigation was. If Barr had concluded that Trump had obstructed and should be impeached, would you just take his word for it? Or would you like to see the full report? I mean I wanted to see the full report either way, and apparently Trump is(was) ok with it, so lets get on with it. Sure, if Barr came out and said, "I have concluded that Trump obstructed justice, and I have reached that conclusion based upon X, Y, and Z reasons," where the reasons given actually form a basis for obstruction of justice, then yes, I'd be fine with an impeachment referral.
Correct me if I am wrong, but he did not give reasons for why he decided he did not obstruct justice right? He just said he didn't, that is it.
|
The best part about those stories about Barr (besides the fact they could be like third hand sources, how it's written) is how collusion takes a hit. What they are complaining about is Barr's judgement on obstruction. No "frightening" evidence of collusion or conspiracy?
They are complaining essentially about his judgment, because their boss came to no conclusion himself about obstruction. No whining about Rosenstein either, who has been involved since day one. I expect we will see much of the material on obstruction, as I assume that has less criminal importance, presumably involves fewer people, and the White House isn't going to review it before hand (last I read).
|
On April 05 2019 04:33 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2019 04:30 xDaunt wrote:On April 05 2019 03:00 JimmiC wrote:On April 05 2019 01:24 xDaunt wrote:That would be WashPo unsurprisingly backing the NYT, not WSJ. In fact, the WSJ editorial board is having none of this shit: ....Under Justice rules relating to special counsels, Mr. Barr has no obligation to provide anything beyond notifying Congress when an investigation has started or concluded, and whether the AG overruled a special counsel’s decisions. Mr. Barr’s notice to Congress that Mr. Mueller had completed his investigation said Mr. Mueller was not overruled.
Congress has no automatic right to more. The final subparagraph of DOJ’s rule governing special counsels reads: “The regulations in this part are not intended to, do not, and may not be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity, by any person or entity, in any matter, civil, criminal or administrative.”
Mr. Barr has made clear that he appreciates the public interest in seeing as much of Mr. Mueller’s report as possible. Yet his categories of information for review aren’t frivolous or political inventions. The law protecting grand-jury secrecy is especially strict, as even Democrats admit.
House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff recently tweeted that “Barr should seek court approval (just like in Watergate) to allow the release of grand jury material. Redactions are unacceptable.” This is an acknowledgment that the government must apply to a judge for permission to disclose grand-jury proceedings.
A judge can grant release in certain circumstances—namely to government attorneys who need the information for their duties. None of the secrecy exceptions permit disclosure to Congress or the public. The purpose of this secrecy is to protect the innocent and encourage candor in grand-jury testimony.
It’s true that in 1974 the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a federal judge’s decision to release a grand jury report to the House Judiciary Committee that was investigating Watergate. Such a sealed report—which juries can choose to produce—is different from raw grand-jury testimony, which is what Democrats are demanding now. The Supreme Court has never ruled on such a disclosure, so Democrats could be facing a long legal battle if Mr. Barr resists their subpoenas.
Mr. Barr should release as much of the report as possible, and on close calls he should side with public disclosure. But no one should think that Democrats are really worried about a coverup. They want to see an unredacted version before the public does so they can leak selected bits that allow them to use friendly media outlets to claim there really was collusion, or to tarnish Trump officials.
The nation is entitled to the Mueller facts in their proper context, not to selective leaks from Democrats trying to revive their dashed hopes of a collusion narrative that the Mueller probe found doesn’t exist. In short, all of this whining about the Barr letter is political theater. No one is entitled to see anything. The House threatening to subpoena stuff is nothing but a naked bluff for political purposes. The same goes for these these NYT and WashPo stories. The fact they are politically charged nonsense should be self-evident from the fact that they're quoting anonymous sources again. More to the point, the fact that these Mueller investigators are now bleating about Barr's letter anonymously to the press should make it obvious just how political their investigation was. If Barr had concluded that Trump had obstructed and should be impeached, would you just take his word for it? Or would you like to see the full report? I mean I wanted to see the full report either way, and apparently Trump is(was) ok with it, so lets get on with it. Sure, if Barr came out and said, "I have concluded that Trump obstructed justice, and I have reached that conclusion based upon X, Y, and Z reasons," where the reasons given actually form a basis for obstruction of justice, then yes, I'd be fine with an impeachment referral. Correct me if I am wrong, but he did not give reasons for why he decided he did not obstruct justice right? He just said he didn't, that is it.
He gave some reasoning. But the more important point is that we should expect a much more detailed explanation if impeachment is recommended than if it is concluded if no crime is found. When prosecutors decline to move forward with a charge, they aren't supposed to air all of the dirty laundry that was gathered in the investigation. In fact, the law generally forbids this.
|
On April 05 2019 04:37 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2019 04:33 IyMoon wrote:On April 05 2019 04:30 xDaunt wrote:On April 05 2019 03:00 JimmiC wrote:On April 05 2019 01:24 xDaunt wrote:That would be WashPo unsurprisingly backing the NYT, not WSJ. In fact, the WSJ editorial board is having none of this shit: ....Under Justice rules relating to special counsels, Mr. Barr has no obligation to provide anything beyond notifying Congress when an investigation has started or concluded, and whether the AG overruled a special counsel’s decisions. Mr. Barr’s notice to Congress that Mr. Mueller had completed his investigation said Mr. Mueller was not overruled.
Congress has no automatic right to more. The final subparagraph of DOJ’s rule governing special counsels reads: “The regulations in this part are not intended to, do not, and may not be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity, by any person or entity, in any matter, civil, criminal or administrative.”
Mr. Barr has made clear that he appreciates the public interest in seeing as much of Mr. Mueller’s report as possible. Yet his categories of information for review aren’t frivolous or political inventions. The law protecting grand-jury secrecy is especially strict, as even Democrats admit.
House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff recently tweeted that “Barr should seek court approval (just like in Watergate) to allow the release of grand jury material. Redactions are unacceptable.” This is an acknowledgment that the government must apply to a judge for permission to disclose grand-jury proceedings.
A judge can grant release in certain circumstances—namely to government attorneys who need the information for their duties. None of the secrecy exceptions permit disclosure to Congress or the public. The purpose of this secrecy is to protect the innocent and encourage candor in grand-jury testimony.
It’s true that in 1974 the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a federal judge’s decision to release a grand jury report to the House Judiciary Committee that was investigating Watergate. Such a sealed report—which juries can choose to produce—is different from raw grand-jury testimony, which is what Democrats are demanding now. The Supreme Court has never ruled on such a disclosure, so Democrats could be facing a long legal battle if Mr. Barr resists their subpoenas.
Mr. Barr should release as much of the report as possible, and on close calls he should side with public disclosure. But no one should think that Democrats are really worried about a coverup. They want to see an unredacted version before the public does so they can leak selected bits that allow them to use friendly media outlets to claim there really was collusion, or to tarnish Trump officials.
The nation is entitled to the Mueller facts in their proper context, not to selective leaks from Democrats trying to revive their dashed hopes of a collusion narrative that the Mueller probe found doesn’t exist. In short, all of this whining about the Barr letter is political theater. No one is entitled to see anything. The House threatening to subpoena stuff is nothing but a naked bluff for political purposes. The same goes for these these NYT and WashPo stories. The fact they are politically charged nonsense should be self-evident from the fact that they're quoting anonymous sources again. More to the point, the fact that these Mueller investigators are now bleating about Barr's letter anonymously to the press should make it obvious just how political their investigation was. If Barr had concluded that Trump had obstructed and should be impeached, would you just take his word for it? Or would you like to see the full report? I mean I wanted to see the full report either way, and apparently Trump is(was) ok with it, so lets get on with it. Sure, if Barr came out and said, "I have concluded that Trump obstructed justice, and I have reached that conclusion based upon X, Y, and Z reasons," where the reasons given actually form a basis for obstruction of justice, then yes, I'd be fine with an impeachment referral. Correct me if I am wrong, but he did not give reasons for why he decided he did not obstruct justice right? He just said he didn't, that is it. He gave some reasoning. But the more important point is that we should expect a much more detailed explanation if impeachment is recommended than if it is concluded if no crime is found. When prosecutors decline to move forward with a charge, they aren't supposed to air all of the dirty laundry that was gathered in the investigation. In fact, the law generally forbids this.
This isn't a legal proceeding though. Impeachment is a pure public opinion/ political operation.
The bar for both need to be equal. especially with members of the investigation team coming forward saying this disagree with Barrs statments
Also the question was if you would take his word for it
and I have reached that conclusion based upon X, Y, and Z reasons, clearly means you wouldn't take his word for it.
|
On April 05 2019 04:34 Introvert wrote:
The best part about those stories about Barr (besides the fact they could be like third hand sources, how it's written) is how collusion takes a hit. What they are complaining about is Barr's judgement on obstruction. No "frightening" evidence of collusion or conspiracy?
They are complaining essentially about his judgment, because their boss came to no conclusion himself about obstruction. No whining about Rosenstein either, who has been involved since day one. I expect we will see much of the material on obstruction, as I assume that has less criminal importance, presumably involves fewer people, and the White House isn't going to review it before hand (last I read). People are not complaining about Rosenstein because he hasn't said or done anything. Barr is his boss and the person in charge who made the statement.
|
On April 05 2019 04:39 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2019 04:37 xDaunt wrote:On April 05 2019 04:33 IyMoon wrote:On April 05 2019 04:30 xDaunt wrote:On April 05 2019 03:00 JimmiC wrote:On April 05 2019 01:24 xDaunt wrote:That would be WashPo unsurprisingly backing the NYT, not WSJ. In fact, the WSJ editorial board is having none of this shit: ....Under Justice rules relating to special counsels, Mr. Barr has no obligation to provide anything beyond notifying Congress when an investigation has started or concluded, and whether the AG overruled a special counsel’s decisions. Mr. Barr’s notice to Congress that Mr. Mueller had completed his investigation said Mr. Mueller was not overruled.
Congress has no automatic right to more. The final subparagraph of DOJ’s rule governing special counsels reads: “The regulations in this part are not intended to, do not, and may not be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity, by any person or entity, in any matter, civil, criminal or administrative.”
Mr. Barr has made clear that he appreciates the public interest in seeing as much of Mr. Mueller’s report as possible. Yet his categories of information for review aren’t frivolous or political inventions. The law protecting grand-jury secrecy is especially strict, as even Democrats admit.
House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff recently tweeted that “Barr should seek court approval (just like in Watergate) to allow the release of grand jury material. Redactions are unacceptable.” This is an acknowledgment that the government must apply to a judge for permission to disclose grand-jury proceedings.
A judge can grant release in certain circumstances—namely to government attorneys who need the information for their duties. None of the secrecy exceptions permit disclosure to Congress or the public. The purpose of this secrecy is to protect the innocent and encourage candor in grand-jury testimony.
It’s true that in 1974 the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a federal judge’s decision to release a grand jury report to the House Judiciary Committee that was investigating Watergate. Such a sealed report—which juries can choose to produce—is different from raw grand-jury testimony, which is what Democrats are demanding now. The Supreme Court has never ruled on such a disclosure, so Democrats could be facing a long legal battle if Mr. Barr resists their subpoenas.
Mr. Barr should release as much of the report as possible, and on close calls he should side with public disclosure. But no one should think that Democrats are really worried about a coverup. They want to see an unredacted version before the public does so they can leak selected bits that allow them to use friendly media outlets to claim there really was collusion, or to tarnish Trump officials.
The nation is entitled to the Mueller facts in their proper context, not to selective leaks from Democrats trying to revive their dashed hopes of a collusion narrative that the Mueller probe found doesn’t exist. In short, all of this whining about the Barr letter is political theater. No one is entitled to see anything. The House threatening to subpoena stuff is nothing but a naked bluff for political purposes. The same goes for these these NYT and WashPo stories. The fact they are politically charged nonsense should be self-evident from the fact that they're quoting anonymous sources again. More to the point, the fact that these Mueller investigators are now bleating about Barr's letter anonymously to the press should make it obvious just how political their investigation was. If Barr had concluded that Trump had obstructed and should be impeached, would you just take his word for it? Or would you like to see the full report? I mean I wanted to see the full report either way, and apparently Trump is(was) ok with it, so lets get on with it. Sure, if Barr came out and said, "I have concluded that Trump obstructed justice, and I have reached that conclusion based upon X, Y, and Z reasons," where the reasons given actually form a basis for obstruction of justice, then yes, I'd be fine with an impeachment referral. Correct me if I am wrong, but he did not give reasons for why he decided he did not obstruct justice right? He just said he didn't, that is it. He gave some reasoning. But the more important point is that we should expect a much more detailed explanation if impeachment is recommended than if it is concluded if no crime is found. When prosecutors decline to move forward with a charge, they aren't supposed to air all of the dirty laundry that was gathered in the investigation. In fact, the law generally forbids this. This isn't a legal proceeding though. Impeachment is a pure public opinion/ political operation. The bar for both need to be equal. especially with members of the investigation team coming forward saying this disagree with Barrs statments
Yet it was a legal proceeding, even if impeachment is not. The evidence that was gathered was gathered through legal process. And no, the bar for both does not need to be equal. In fact, by design, it's not.
|
On April 05 2019 02:21 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2019 02:01 Archeon wrote:On April 05 2019 00:57 Nouar wrote:
[...]
In other news, 14 (fourteen) large donors to the Trump inauguration were appointed as ambassadors. (not all got a go from the Senate). I mean, even one would be an issue in France. In fact, Macron tried to appoint 20 consuls, and was sharply rebuked by a high court. He tried to appoint one (not even talking about donors here, just "friends") and got a huge backlash immediately. Meanwhile POTUS casually gets 14 ambassadorships to people that donated on average 350000$ to his inauguration. In what world is that ok ? It's like, in your face corruption... (Seems Obama did it for one, Bush for a couple)
This is under investigation, like the whole inauguration I believe (yeah, raising record amounts of money to spend it at lavish rates in your own hotels while having shady accounting is somehow under investigation, too. I'm glad.) The USA are a plutocracy. Trump and Obama are the only two presidents ever who won vs opponents despite having less donations than their opponent and the top 10% in the USA own 77% of the total wealth (again incredibly top heavy, with the top 1% owning half of that). So if you make those 10% happy, you have a very good chance to win the election. The Clinton's combined net worth is estimated at 110 million $, Trump's is roughly two times that. Trump actually financed roughly 1/6th of his campaign's spendings for the election himself, with a sum higher than Macron's and Merkel's combined net worth. You're wrong on two counts. First off, Obama outraised/outspent his presidential opponents McCain and Romney. Did you mean to specify Presidential Primary Campaigns, where more historical underdogs would undermine your statement? Second off, you're forgetting about the 60s. Goldwater vs Johnson, and Kennedy vs Nixon both were won by the underdog in campaign spending. I suggest moderating the extreme "only two presidents ever" to something more relational instead of absolute. You might be right that there's a plutocratic element, but you won't make that point ignoring the contrary examples from history.
I would say a bigger argument for the US as a plutocracy is the inaction of congress on nearly every major issue, despite the majority clearly supporting one view over the other.
|
Northern Ireland27071 Posts
On April 05 2019 04:41 ShambhalaWar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2019 02:21 Danglars wrote:On April 05 2019 02:01 Archeon wrote:On April 05 2019 00:57 Nouar wrote:
[...]
In other news, 14 (fourteen) large donors to the Trump inauguration were appointed as ambassadors. (not all got a go from the Senate). I mean, even one would be an issue in France. In fact, Macron tried to appoint 20 consuls, and was sharply rebuked by a high court. He tried to appoint one (not even talking about donors here, just "friends") and got a huge backlash immediately. Meanwhile POTUS casually gets 14 ambassadorships to people that donated on average 350000$ to his inauguration. In what world is that ok ? It's like, in your face corruption... (Seems Obama did it for one, Bush for a couple)
This is under investigation, like the whole inauguration I believe (yeah, raising record amounts of money to spend it at lavish rates in your own hotels while having shady accounting is somehow under investigation, too. I'm glad.) The USA are a plutocracy. Trump and Obama are the only two presidents ever who won vs opponents despite having less donations than their opponent and the top 10% in the USA own 77% of the total wealth (again incredibly top heavy, with the top 1% owning half of that). So if you make those 10% happy, you have a very good chance to win the election. The Clinton's combined net worth is estimated at 110 million $, Trump's is roughly two times that. Trump actually financed roughly 1/6th of his campaign's spendings for the election himself, with a sum higher than Macron's and Merkel's combined net worth. You're wrong on two counts. First off, Obama outraised/outspent his presidential opponents McCain and Romney. Did you mean to specify Presidential Primary Campaigns, where more historical underdogs would undermine your statement? Second off, you're forgetting about the 60s. Goldwater vs Johnson, and Kennedy vs Nixon both were won by the underdog in campaign spending. I suggest moderating the extreme "only two presidents ever" to something more relational instead of absolute. You might be right that there's a plutocratic element, but you won't make that point ignoring the contrary examples from history. I would say a bigger argument for the US as a plutocracy is the inaction of congress on nearly every major issue, despite the majority clearly supporting one view over the other.
Isn't that basically everywhere though?
There does seem to be a pretty damn inefficient transfer of electorate preference on issues into those being actualised at a legislative level, but that's not just in the US.
I'm not so sure money is the sole gate here, but self-interest. If you're a conservative politician who say, legalises weed you'll get voted out by your conservative base, but you won't pull that back vs a progressive opponent because you won't be as progressive as they are. If 60-70% of the country is for something but 60-70% of your base is against it you're just opening yourself up to get turfed out.
|
On April 05 2019 04:40 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2019 04:34 Introvert wrote:
The best part about those stories about Barr (besides the fact they could be like third hand sources, how it's written) is how collusion takes a hit. What they are complaining about is Barr's judgement on obstruction. No "frightening" evidence of collusion or conspiracy?
They are complaining essentially about his judgment, because their boss came to no conclusion himself about obstruction. No whining about Rosenstein either, who has been involved since day one. I expect we will see much of the material on obstruction, as I assume that has less criminal importance, presumably involves fewer people, and the White House isn't going to review it before hand (last I read). People are not complaining about Rosenstein because he hasn't said or done anything. Barr is his boss and the person in charge who made the statement.
The statement says that it was Rosenstein's opinion too.
Just read the NBc article. It will be amusing if the story about Trump telling the White House to fire him (apparently not seriously) is their big fish. The White House also let the same person be questioned by Mueller for like 19 hours and placed no restrictions on his answers. Presumably that's in the report, too.
|
On April 05 2019 04:34 Introvert wrote:
The best part about those stories about Barr (besides the fact they could be like third hand sources, how it's written) is how collusion takes a hit. What they are complaining about is Barr's judgement on obstruction. No "frightening" evidence of collusion or conspiracy?
They are complaining essentially about his judgment, because their boss came to no conclusion himself about obstruction. No whining about Rosenstein either, who has been involved since day one. I expect we will see much of the material on obstruction, as I assume that has less criminal importance, presumably involves fewer people, and the White House isn't going to review it before hand (last I read).
The special counsel left the decision about evidence of obstruction to the AG and Congress, because it is the President of the United States and special counsel really can’t bring charges against him. The AG turned around, paraphrased the findings of a 300 page report, said there wasn’t enough evidence to bring a case and he would release a redacted version in April.
Man, I can’t understand why the people who worked on the 300 page report are not happy with the 4 page summary that didn’t articulate any of their findings and the report not being released to Congressional leadership.
|
On April 05 2019 04:49 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2019 04:40 Gorsameth wrote:On April 05 2019 04:34 Introvert wrote:
The best part about those stories about Barr (besides the fact they could be like third hand sources, how it's written) is how collusion takes a hit. What they are complaining about is Barr's judgement on obstruction. No "frightening" evidence of collusion or conspiracy?
They are complaining essentially about his judgment, because their boss came to no conclusion himself about obstruction. No whining about Rosenstein either, who has been involved since day one. I expect we will see much of the material on obstruction, as I assume that has less criminal importance, presumably involves fewer people, and the White House isn't going to review it before hand (last I read). People are not complaining about Rosenstein because he hasn't said or done anything. Barr is his boss and the person in charge who made the statement. The statement says that it was Rosenstein's opinion too. Just read the NBc article. It will be amusing if the story about Trump telling the White House to fire him (apparently not seriously) is their big fish. The White House also let the same person be questioned by Mueller for like 19 hours and placed no restrictions on his answers. Presumably that's in the report, too.
Gotta keep the cognitive dissonance train rolling, right?
The big giveaway on how we know that media's concern about obstruction is fraudulent is the fact that they never report any of the mitigating/contravening evidence, such as the fact that the underlying investigation was bullshit, that Trump encouraged Comey to continue his investigations, that McCabe testified that Comey's firing didn't effect the investigation, and the basic fact that Mueller actually completed his investigation. This isn't hard.
|
On April 05 2019 04:54 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2019 04:49 Introvert wrote:On April 05 2019 04:40 Gorsameth wrote:On April 05 2019 04:34 Introvert wrote:
The best part about those stories about Barr (besides the fact they could be like third hand sources, how it's written) is how collusion takes a hit. What they are complaining about is Barr's judgement on obstruction. No "frightening" evidence of collusion or conspiracy?
They are complaining essentially about his judgment, because their boss came to no conclusion himself about obstruction. No whining about Rosenstein either, who has been involved since day one. I expect we will see much of the material on obstruction, as I assume that has less criminal importance, presumably involves fewer people, and the White House isn't going to review it before hand (last I read). People are not complaining about Rosenstein because he hasn't said or done anything. Barr is his boss and the person in charge who made the statement. The statement says that it was Rosenstein's opinion too. Just read the NBc article. It will be amusing if the story about Trump telling the White House to fire him (apparently not seriously) is their big fish. The White House also let the same person be questioned by Mueller for like 19 hours and placed no restrictions on his answers. Presumably that's in the report, too. Gotta keep the cognitive dissonance train rolling, right? The big giveaway on how we know that media's concern about obstruction is fraudulent is the fact that they never report any of the mitigating/contravening evidence, such as the fact that the underlying investigation was bullshit, that Trump encouraged Comey to continue his investigations, that McCabe testified that Comey's firing didn't effect the investigation, and the basic fact that Mueller actually completed his investigation. This isn't hard.
Ah yes, because attempting to do something and failing means it isn't a crime. Thank you for opening my eyes
|
|
|
On April 05 2019 04:57 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2019 04:54 xDaunt wrote:On April 05 2019 04:49 Introvert wrote:On April 05 2019 04:40 Gorsameth wrote:On April 05 2019 04:34 Introvert wrote:
The best part about those stories about Barr (besides the fact they could be like third hand sources, how it's written) is how collusion takes a hit. What they are complaining about is Barr's judgement on obstruction. No "frightening" evidence of collusion or conspiracy?
They are complaining essentially about his judgment, because their boss came to no conclusion himself about obstruction. No whining about Rosenstein either, who has been involved since day one. I expect we will see much of the material on obstruction, as I assume that has less criminal importance, presumably involves fewer people, and the White House isn't going to review it before hand (last I read). People are not complaining about Rosenstein because he hasn't said or done anything. Barr is his boss and the person in charge who made the statement. The statement says that it was Rosenstein's opinion too. Just read the NBc article. It will be amusing if the story about Trump telling the White House to fire him (apparently not seriously) is their big fish. The White House also let the same person be questioned by Mueller for like 19 hours and placed no restrictions on his answers. Presumably that's in the report, too. Gotta keep the cognitive dissonance train rolling, right? The big giveaway on how we know that media's concern about obstruction is fraudulent is the fact that they never report any of the mitigating/contravening evidence, such as the fact that the underlying investigation was bullshit, that Trump encouraged Comey to continue his investigations, that McCabe testified that Comey's firing didn't effect the investigation, and the basic fact that Mueller actually completed his investigation. This isn't hard. Ah yes, because attempting to do something and failing means it isn't a crime. Thank you for opening my eyes
So what, now you're going to cherry pick singular facts? Look at the totality of what's out there and then make an informed decision. Very rarely is any singular fact dispositive.
|
On April 05 2019 04:58 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2019 04:30 xDaunt wrote:On April 05 2019 03:00 JimmiC wrote:On April 05 2019 01:24 xDaunt wrote:That would be WashPo unsurprisingly backing the NYT, not WSJ. In fact, the WSJ editorial board is having none of this shit: ....Under Justice rules relating to special counsels, Mr. Barr has no obligation to provide anything beyond notifying Congress when an investigation has started or concluded, and whether the AG overruled a special counsel’s decisions. Mr. Barr’s notice to Congress that Mr. Mueller had completed his investigation said Mr. Mueller was not overruled.
Congress has no automatic right to more. The final subparagraph of DOJ’s rule governing special counsels reads: “The regulations in this part are not intended to, do not, and may not be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity, by any person or entity, in any matter, civil, criminal or administrative.”
Mr. Barr has made clear that he appreciates the public interest in seeing as much of Mr. Mueller’s report as possible. Yet his categories of information for review aren’t frivolous or political inventions. The law protecting grand-jury secrecy is especially strict, as even Democrats admit.
House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff recently tweeted that “Barr should seek court approval (just like in Watergate) to allow the release of grand jury material. Redactions are unacceptable.” This is an acknowledgment that the government must apply to a judge for permission to disclose grand-jury proceedings.
A judge can grant release in certain circumstances—namely to government attorneys who need the information for their duties. None of the secrecy exceptions permit disclosure to Congress or the public. The purpose of this secrecy is to protect the innocent and encourage candor in grand-jury testimony.
It’s true that in 1974 the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a federal judge’s decision to release a grand jury report to the House Judiciary Committee that was investigating Watergate. Such a sealed report—which juries can choose to produce—is different from raw grand-jury testimony, which is what Democrats are demanding now. The Supreme Court has never ruled on such a disclosure, so Democrats could be facing a long legal battle if Mr. Barr resists their subpoenas.
Mr. Barr should release as much of the report as possible, and on close calls he should side with public disclosure. But no one should think that Democrats are really worried about a coverup. They want to see an unredacted version before the public does so they can leak selected bits that allow them to use friendly media outlets to claim there really was collusion, or to tarnish Trump officials.
The nation is entitled to the Mueller facts in their proper context, not to selective leaks from Democrats trying to revive their dashed hopes of a collusion narrative that the Mueller probe found doesn’t exist. In short, all of this whining about the Barr letter is political theater. No one is entitled to see anything. The House threatening to subpoena stuff is nothing but a naked bluff for political purposes. The same goes for these these NYT and WashPo stories. The fact they are politically charged nonsense should be self-evident from the fact that they're quoting anonymous sources again. More to the point, the fact that these Mueller investigators are now bleating about Barr's letter anonymously to the press should make it obvious just how political their investigation was. If Barr had concluded that Trump had obstructed and should be impeached, would you just take his word for it? Or would you like to see the full report? I mean I wanted to see the full report either way, and apparently Trump is(was) ok with it, so lets get on with it. Sure, if Barr came out and said, "I have concluded that Trump obstructed justice, and I have reached that conclusion based upon X, Y, and Z reasons," where the reasons given actually form a basis for obstruction of justice, then yes, I'd be fine with an impeachment referral. Didn't someone, or even multiple people say "Hillary didn't based upon X, Y and Z reasons" and the report was made public and you still don't believe it. You don't honestly believe the above do you?
I listened very carefully to Comey's speech and called it out as bullshit right away because he outlined all of the facts that establish a crime and then obviously fucked around with the language of the criminal statute (using "extreme carelessness" instead of "gross negligence" in his speech). And as we learn more and more about the Midyear investigation from these congressional hearings and IG report, the more it looks like that I was right to call it out as bullshit.
|
On April 05 2019 04:50 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2019 04:34 Introvert wrote:
The best part about those stories about Barr (besides the fact they could be like third hand sources, how it's written) is how collusion takes a hit. What they are complaining about is Barr's judgement on obstruction. No "frightening" evidence of collusion or conspiracy?
They are complaining essentially about his judgment, because their boss came to no conclusion himself about obstruction. No whining about Rosenstein either, who has been involved since day one. I expect we will see much of the material on obstruction, as I assume that has less criminal importance, presumably involves fewer people, and the White House isn't going to review it before hand (last I read). The special counsel left the decision about evidence of obstruction to the AG and Congress, because it is the President of the United States and special counsel really can’t bring charges against him. The AG turned around, paraphrased the findings of a 300 page report, said there wasn’t enough evidence to bring a case and he would release a redacted version in April. Man, I can’t understand why the people who worked on the 300 page report are not happy with the 4 page summary that didn’t articulate any of their findings and the report not being released to Congressional leadership.
Well barr just bungled the whole thing, probably on purpose. That 4 page summary i find is quite appropriate for an initial claim to the general public but not inviting key members of congress to go through the investigation in full is absurd. It's not like they lack the security clearances. Anything short of at least some members of congress seeing it in full would just lead to a prolonged shouting match. Then later a more redacted version for congress and finally a really redacted version for the public.
|
On April 05 2019 04:49 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2019 04:40 Gorsameth wrote:On April 05 2019 04:34 Introvert wrote:
The best part about those stories about Barr (besides the fact they could be like third hand sources, how it's written) is how collusion takes a hit. What they are complaining about is Barr's judgement on obstruction. No "frightening" evidence of collusion or conspiracy?
They are complaining essentially about his judgment, because their boss came to no conclusion himself about obstruction. No whining about Rosenstein either, who has been involved since day one. I expect we will see much of the material on obstruction, as I assume that has less criminal importance, presumably involves fewer people, and the White House isn't going to review it before hand (last I read). People are not complaining about Rosenstein because he hasn't said or done anything. Barr is his boss and the person in charge who made the statement. The statement says that it was Rosenstein's opinion too. Just read the NBc article. It will be amusing if the story about Trump telling the White House to fire him (apparently not seriously) is their big fish. The White House also let the same person be questioned by Mueller for like 19 hours and placed no restrictions on his answers. Presumably that's in the report, too.
Has to have been serious considering McGahn threatened to resign. The White House was also apparently not aware of McGahn's extensive discussions with Mueller. That was the news report anyway. Then there's the demand for loyalty, which to all honest minds is code word for protection, firing Comey, and whatever else.
|
On April 05 2019 04:58 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2019 04:57 IyMoon wrote:On April 05 2019 04:54 xDaunt wrote:On April 05 2019 04:49 Introvert wrote:On April 05 2019 04:40 Gorsameth wrote:On April 05 2019 04:34 Introvert wrote:
The best part about those stories about Barr (besides the fact they could be like third hand sources, how it's written) is how collusion takes a hit. What they are complaining about is Barr's judgement on obstruction. No "frightening" evidence of collusion or conspiracy?
They are complaining essentially about his judgment, because their boss came to no conclusion himself about obstruction. No whining about Rosenstein either, who has been involved since day one. I expect we will see much of the material on obstruction, as I assume that has less criminal importance, presumably involves fewer people, and the White House isn't going to review it before hand (last I read). People are not complaining about Rosenstein because he hasn't said or done anything. Barr is his boss and the person in charge who made the statement. The statement says that it was Rosenstein's opinion too. Just read the NBc article. It will be amusing if the story about Trump telling the White House to fire him (apparently not seriously) is their big fish. The White House also let the same person be questioned by Mueller for like 19 hours and placed no restrictions on his answers. Presumably that's in the report, too. Gotta keep the cognitive dissonance train rolling, right? The big giveaway on how we know that media's concern about obstruction is fraudulent is the fact that they never report any of the mitigating/contravening evidence, such as the fact that the underlying investigation was bullshit, that Trump encouraged Comey to continue his investigations, that McCabe testified that Comey's firing didn't effect the investigation, and the basic fact that Mueller actually completed his investigation. This isn't hard. Ah yes, because attempting to do something and failing means it isn't a crime. Thank you for opening my eyes So what, now you're going to cherry pick singular facts? Look at the totality of what's out there and then make an informed decision. Very rarely is any singular fact dispositive.
Sure, let's look at all of the things you listed.
1) such as the fact that the underlying investigation was bullshit.
In your opinion. Also, it doesn't matter if it was, if you try to stop it you're obstructing justice. Unless you can point out that you must be guilty in order to obstruct justice.
2) Trump encouraged Comey to continue his investigations
Trump switches his stance on everything under the sun day by day. Him saying once to Comey ' go finish it' doesn't mean shit.
3) McCabe testified that Comey's firing didn't effect the investigation
Being bad at a crime doesn't mean you didn't commit one.
4) the basic fact that Mueller actually completed his investigation.
I already addressed
|
On April 05 2019 05:01 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2019 04:50 Plansix wrote:On April 05 2019 04:34 Introvert wrote:
The best part about those stories about Barr (besides the fact they could be like third hand sources, how it's written) is how collusion takes a hit. What they are complaining about is Barr's judgement on obstruction. No "frightening" evidence of collusion or conspiracy?
They are complaining essentially about his judgment, because their boss came to no conclusion himself about obstruction. No whining about Rosenstein either, who has been involved since day one. I expect we will see much of the material on obstruction, as I assume that has less criminal importance, presumably involves fewer people, and the White House isn't going to review it before hand (last I read). The special counsel left the decision about evidence of obstruction to the AG and Congress, because it is the President of the United States and special counsel really can’t bring charges against him. The AG turned around, paraphrased the findings of a 300 page report, said there wasn’t enough evidence to bring a case and he would release a redacted version in April. Man, I can’t understand why the people who worked on the 300 page report are not happy with the 4 page summary that didn’t articulate any of their findings and the report not being released to Congressional leadership. Well barr just bungled the whole thing, probably on purpose. That 4 page summary i find is quite appropriate for an initial claim to the general public but not inviting key members of congress to go through the investigation in full is absurd. It's not like they lack the security clearances. Anything short of at least some members of congress seeing it in full would just lead to a prolonged shouting match. Then later a more redacted version for congress and finally a really redacted version for the public.
And since it is Trumps guy doing this, i think it is quite obvious that whatever is in that report isn't really good for Trump.
|
On April 05 2019 05:06 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2019 04:49 Introvert wrote:On April 05 2019 04:40 Gorsameth wrote:On April 05 2019 04:34 Introvert wrote:
The best part about those stories about Barr (besides the fact they could be like third hand sources, how it's written) is how collusion takes a hit. What they are complaining about is Barr's judgement on obstruction. No "frightening" evidence of collusion or conspiracy?
They are complaining essentially about his judgment, because their boss came to no conclusion himself about obstruction. No whining about Rosenstein either, who has been involved since day one. I expect we will see much of the material on obstruction, as I assume that has less criminal importance, presumably involves fewer people, and the White House isn't going to review it before hand (last I read). People are not complaining about Rosenstein because he hasn't said or done anything. Barr is his boss and the person in charge who made the statement. The statement says that it was Rosenstein's opinion too. Just read the NBc article. It will be amusing if the story about Trump telling the White House to fire him (apparently not seriously) is their big fish. The White House also let the same person be questioned by Mueller for like 19 hours and placed no restrictions on his answers. Presumably that's in the report, too. Has to have been serious considering McGahn threatened to resign. The White House was also apparently not aware of McGahn's extensive discussions with Mueller. That was the news report anyway. Then there's the demand for loyalty, which to all honest minds is code word for protection, firing Comey, and whatever else.
Nah, the whole conversation could have taken 30 seconds and Trump could have had it explained. I don't think the WH knew exactly how long he had spent talking, but remember that they placed zero restrictions on testimony. Seems pretty relevant. Mcgahn didnt want to be set up but he also felt he was free to sing like a bird. Not obstructionist behavior.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
