|
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 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.
Barr is part of the school Exemplar Executive school of Republican thought that thinks the Presidency shouldn’t be bothered with investigations and so on. It doesn’t surprise me that he used his office to hold on to the report and didn’t give it to congressional leaders.
Note, this school of thought seems to become less pronounced in Republicans when Democrats hold office.
|
On April 05 2019 05:21 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2019 05:06 Doodsmack 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. 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.
The part that drives me nuts about this conversation is that everything that we know that Trump did that might colorably be "obstruction of justice" absolutely pales in comparison to what we know that Hillary and the Obama administration did in the Midyear investigation. Yet the Left doesn't seem to give two shits about any of that. The hypocrisy is absolutely staggering.
|
And we have run right back 'but Hillary'.
So predictable.
|
I really do enjoy the conservatives collaborative fan fiction of Obama and Clinton being super buddies and committing obstruction of justice together. And also somehow roping in the FBI, State department and like a thousand plus people. The conspiracy at the highest levels to cover up some sort of malfeasance that totally merits this level of effort. What malfeasance, you ask? Who can say, but it must be very serious for all of this.
|
The proof of how damaging a Mueller report without collusion is how desperate you hear people say Barr is working on a coverup, or has done so. If people talking here had an ounce of common sense about them, they'd admit that all this theater prior to release is stupid.
Barr is literally carrying out his statutory duty in the redactions from intelligence sources, secret grand jury testimony, and the privacy of peripheral third parties.
What's damaging is how Democrats are putting up these show subpoenas demanding the whole thing now and how many people are lapping up the posturing. You lost this one. Kindly show some nonpartisan sense and capability in the time before the report's release. See the report with redactions and decide if any look suspicious (Mueller is literally working with Barr on the redactions).
From the WSJ editorial page:
Democrats are still reeling from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s conclusion that the Trump campaign did not collude with Russians in 2016. But they’ve now hit upon a political comeback strategy: Accuse Attorney General William Barr of a coverup.
That’s the context for Wednesday’s decision by House Democrats to authorize subpoenas, on a partisan vote, demanding that Mr. Barr immediately hand over the entire Mueller report and its supporting evidence. This is intended to give the impression, abetted by a press corps that was fully invested in the collusion story, that Mr. Barr is somehow lying about Mr. Mueller’s real conclusions.
That’s preposterous, since Mr. Barr’s four-page letter quotes directly from Mr. Mueller’s report. The AG surely understood on releasing the summary of conclusions last week that he would be open to contradiction by Mr. Mueller if he took such liberties. Mr. Barr also knew he’d be called to testify before Congress once the rest of the report is released.
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.
My conclusion is almost obligatory at this point. You can't pivot from calling Trump a Russian stooge and traitor that conspired with them to help his election. You're just working to re-elect Trump and hurt the country in the process.
|
|
|
On April 05 2019 05:37 Danglars wrote:The proof of how damaging a Mueller report without collusion is how desperate you hear people say Barr is working on a coverup, or has done so. If people talking here had an ounce of common sense about them, they'd admit that all this theater prior to release is stupid. Barr is literally carrying out his statutory duty in the redactions from intelligence sources, secret grand jury testimony, and the privacy of peripheral third parties. What's damaging is how Democrats are putting up these show subpoenas demanding the whole thing now and how many people are lapping up the posturing. You lost this one. Kindly show some nonpartisan sense and capability in the time before the report's release. See the report with redactions and decide if any look suspicious (Mueller is literally working with Barr on the redactions). From the WSJ editorial page: Show nested quote +Democrats are still reeling from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s conclusion that the Trump campaign did not collude with Russians in 2016. But they’ve now hit upon a political comeback strategy: Accuse Attorney General William Barr of a coverup.
That’s the context for Wednesday’s decision by House Democrats to authorize subpoenas, on a partisan vote, demanding that Mr. Barr immediately hand over the entire Mueller report and its supporting evidence. This is intended to give the impression, abetted by a press corps that was fully invested in the collusion story, that Mr. Barr is somehow lying about Mr. Mueller’s real conclusions.
That’s preposterous, since Mr. Barr’s four-page letter quotes directly from Mr. Mueller’s report. The AG surely understood on releasing the summary of conclusions last week that he would be open to contradiction by Mr. Mueller if he took such liberties. Mr. Barr also knew he’d be called to testify before Congress once the rest of the report is released. Show nested quote +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. My conclusion is almost obligatory at this point. You can't pivot from calling Trump a Russian stooge and traitor that conspired with them to help his election. You're just working to re-elect Trump and hurt the country in the process.
Why would the democrats give up the tool that Republicans have been using so well for the last 20 years?
If you want an end to partisan posturing, you should support Barr conceding and giving a bipartisan group of the Congressional leadership access to the report.
|
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: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.
Not only that, but even barr who has thrown his lot in with trump said that the report did not exonerate trump.
|
On April 05 2019 05:44 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2019 05:00 xDaunt wrote:On April 05 2019 04:58 JimmiC 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. 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. I'm not getting into whether you were right or wrong. I'm getting to the point that under very similar circumstances, minus all the indictments and convictions, you did not trust the person giving the review. How can you not see that you trusting Barr has to do with him agreeing with your assumptions? You seem very pragmatic from many of your posts but your blind spot becomes very large when it is about trump or politics in general.
No, it's not the same at all. The entire premise of your posting is inaccurate and belies a lack of understanding of the basic facts. When Comey gave his speech saying that the FBI would not recommend that Hillary be indicted, he listed a whole bunch of facts showing that she did commit a crime, acknowledged that she was "extremely careless," yet still said that her conduct did not amount to prosecutable "gross negligence" under the applicable statute. Barr's letter does none of that. For it be remotely similar, Barr would have had to list a bunch of facts showing that Trump obstructed justice, admitted that in engaging in this conduct, Trump "impeded the investigation(s)," yet still concluded that this conduct did not amount to obstruction of justice. If he had done that, you can bet your ass that everyone on the Left would have gone apeshit.
|
On April 05 2019 06:01 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2019 05:44 JimmiC wrote:On April 05 2019 05:00 xDaunt wrote:On April 05 2019 04:58 JimmiC 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. 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. I'm not getting into whether you were right or wrong. I'm getting to the point that under very similar circumstances, minus all the indictments and convictions, you did not trust the person giving the review. How can you not see that you trusting Barr has to do with him agreeing with your assumptions? You seem very pragmatic from many of your posts but your blind spot becomes very large when it is about trump or politics in general. No, it's not the same at all. The entire premise of your posting is inaccurate and belies a lack of understanding of the basic facts. When Comey gave his speech saying that the FBI would not recommend that Hillary be indicted, he listed a whole bunch of facts showing that she did commit a crime, acknowledged that she was "extremely careless," yet still said that her conduct did not amount to prosecutable "gross negligence" under the applicable statute. Barr's letter does none of that. For it be remotely similar, Barr would have had to list a bunch of facts showing that Trump obstructed justice, admitted that in engaging in this conduct, Trump "impeded the investigation(s)," yet still concluded that this conduct did not amount to obstruction of justice. If he had done that, you can bet your ass that everyone on the Left would have gone apeshit. Instead we have Trump himself list off a bunch of things that constitute Obstruction of justice and Conspiracy to receive aid contributions and donations by foreign nationals and then Barr concluding he did none of those things.
|
|
|
On April 05 2019 06:01 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2019 05:44 JimmiC wrote:On April 05 2019 05:00 xDaunt wrote:On April 05 2019 04:58 JimmiC 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. 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. I'm not getting into whether you were right or wrong. I'm getting to the point that under very similar circumstances, minus all the indictments and convictions, you did not trust the person giving the review. How can you not see that you trusting Barr has to do with him agreeing with your assumptions? You seem very pragmatic from many of your posts but your blind spot becomes very large when it is about trump or politics in general. No, it's not the same at all. The entire premise of your posting is inaccurate and belies a lack of understanding of the basic facts. When Comey gave his speech saying that the FBI would not recommend that Hillary be indicted, he listed a whole bunch of facts showing that she did commit a crime, acknowledged that she was "extremely careless," yet still said that her conduct did not amount to prosecutable "gross negligence" under the applicable statute. Barr's letter does none of that. For it be remotely similar, Barr would have had to list a bunch of facts showing that Trump obstructed justice, admitted that in engaging in this conduct, Trump "impeded the investigation(s)," yet still concluded that this conduct did not amount to obstruction of justice. If he had done that, you can bet your ass that everyone on the Left would have gone apeshit.
You left out the part where there is a standing assessment at the DOJ saying that "gross negligence" statute is so bad they won't bring charges and the case was kinda shit.
Edit: I re-read the testimony and the charges would not be legally sustainable because the statute is to vague. Plus, per the assessment, no successful case had ever been brought so it's viability was always questionable.
|
On April 05 2019 05:21 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2019 05:06 Doodsmack 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. 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.
A threat to resign seems pretty clear as far as the course of that conversation. I mean if Trump has the mental capacity of a baby, he may have needed it explained. But we're far beyond the point where Trump's conduct should be interpreted charitably. He wanted loyalty from Sessions, McGahn, and Comey, and we all know what that means.
The strength of the obstruction evidence can certainly be debated. Any attempts at obstruction that did occur obviously weren't effective, but that's not conclusive. It's also not entirely surprising because we're talking about Trump. At the least, the evidence needs to be seen in full by Congress. But I think Barr will make that happen in due time.
|
On April 05 2019 05:37 Danglars wrote:The proof of how damaging a Mueller report without collusion is how desperate you hear people say Barr is working on a coverup, or has done so. If people talking here had an ounce of common sense about them, they'd admit that all this theater prior to release is stupid. Barr is literally carrying out his statutory duty in the redactions from intelligence sources, secret grand jury testimony, and the privacy of peripheral third parties. What's damaging is how Democrats are putting up these show subpoenas demanding the whole thing now and how many people are lapping up the posturing. You lost this one. Kindly show some nonpartisan sense and capability in the time before the report's release. See the report with redactions and decide if any look suspicious (Mueller is literally working with Barr on the redactions). From the WSJ editorial page: Show nested quote +Democrats are still reeling from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s conclusion that the Trump campaign did not collude with Russians in 2016. But they’ve now hit upon a political comeback strategy: Accuse Attorney General William Barr of a coverup.
That’s the context for Wednesday’s decision by House Democrats to authorize subpoenas, on a partisan vote, demanding that Mr. Barr immediately hand over the entire Mueller report and its supporting evidence. This is intended to give the impression, abetted by a press corps that was fully invested in the collusion story, that Mr. Barr is somehow lying about Mr. Mueller’s real conclusions.
That’s preposterous, since Mr. Barr’s four-page letter quotes directly from Mr. Mueller’s report. The AG surely understood on releasing the summary of conclusions last week that he would be open to contradiction by Mr. Mueller if he took such liberties. Mr. Barr also knew he’d be called to testify before Congress once the rest of the report is released. Show nested quote +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. My conclusion is almost obligatory at this point. You can't pivot from calling Trump a Russian stooge and traitor that conspired with them to help his election. You're just working to re-elect Trump and hurt the country in the process.
Barr could have quoted more than just 4 sentences from the report if you didn't want these kind of reactions. Barr could have released the summaries they prepared for release and not write his own thing. Barr's choice of making a decision on obstruction that was seemingly too complicated for a team in two years, in two days, without us being able to see any underlying story also adds to this feeling that something isn't right. Barr having said prior that he doesn't believe presidents should be indicted doesn't help his case.
The feeling this generates is that this is just a measure to get ahead of the story, and get all the Trumpers to already claim the report is a nothingburger, while that's totally not the case. And it's working. Then later when details come out you just cry partisan hitjob and ignore details because it's convenient for you. The narrative will be 'hey first there was nothing and now they claim there actually wasn't nothing? No way another democrat scam' no matter how damaging the details will be. That's why there is such a demand for fast release. So the details don't get lost in the storyline some months later.
There is huge demand for public release yet Barr hasn't made any actions to ask for the release of the grand jury information.
|
We are losing a valuable asset in leadership of the country. Linda McMahon was a skilled Entrepreneur and Private Business Executive. During her time helping to lead the WWF, she learned a lot about the Grapple as well as the Special Move.
|
On April 05 2019 05:28 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2019 05:21 Introvert wrote:On April 05 2019 05:06 Doodsmack 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. 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. The part that drives me nuts about this conversation is that everything that we know that Trump did that might colorably be "obstruction of justice" absolutely pales in comparison to what we know that Hillary and the Obama administration did in the Midyear investigation. Yet the Left doesn't seem to give two shits about any of that. The hypocrisy is absolutely staggering.
So the argument here is that it doesn't matter what X has done because Y has done something similar or worse and Y wasn't punished/punished enough. That's an argument of equity not morality, which is not exactly what i call relevant when talking criminal justice it barely counts for property law, corpus juris.
|
Are the people on the left defending “Biden being Biden” the same ones decrying the term “Boys will be Boys”?
Biden won’t even nominate after all this hoo haa.
|
I’m pretty sure the game plan is to delay the report, hope everyone forgets about it, and hopefully not release it until after the 2020 election.
If the report were as good for Trump as Barr’s summary hinted they would’ve released this thing a week ago.
|
Northern Ireland25333 Posts
On April 05 2019 09:43 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Are the people on the left defending “Biden being Biden” the same ones decrying the term “Boys will be Boys”?
Biden won’t even nominate after all this hoo haa.
Probably not, no.
If it was say, Bernie Sanders you might have some cognitive dissonance in that respect, I don’t think Biden is particularly popular amongst the kind of circles that are pushing such messages out there.
|
This man is highly qualified to be IRS Chief Counsel. He understands that when a person is under audit, they cant release their tax returns to the public. In other words, he understands that when Super Successful Business Executive is not a billionaire, he cannot release his tax returns.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
