|
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 11 2019 00:43 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 00:41 IyMoon wrote:On April 11 2019 00:39 xDaunt wrote:
I'm enjoying watching senate democrats flail wildly against Barr with regards to his summary of the Mueller report. Van Holland's questioning was particularly sad. Barr has been very clear that he will give full explanations regarding what happened and why after the report is released in the next several days, yet Democrats keep demanding that he explain himself. A couple interesting points:
1) Barr said that the redacted report will disclose the underlying facts and conclusions of law regarding the obstruction of justice charge.
2) Barr said that he does believe that Trump's campaign was "spied" upon by the FBI and/or Obama administration. The question in his mind is whether there was a valid predicate for that spying and that he wants to satisfy himself that there was no abuse of law enforcement or intelligence powers. Pretty sure the point is democrats don't believe him. That's a pretty deranged (not to mention highly premature) position to take.
Really? Because if I say something like 'obstruction charges are fatally misconceived' and then find later that oh man, there was no obstruction. But I wont let you see everything on how I came to that conclusion...
You might question if I am telling the truth.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/24/politics/barr-memo-mueller/index.html
Not to say he is lying. He could very well be telling the truth. But you really have to be able to see why people might question it
|
My favorite part was watching Barr slowly die inside when asked about the DOJ’s stance on the ACA was now unconstitutional and why he, the head of the DOJ, was pushing forward with a legal opinion that he did not feel was viable. And Barr being forced to say that he was doing it at the direction of the executive, which isn’t really how the DOJ and AG are supposed work when they are defending federal laws. It was lovely when he had to say “I wouldn’t be concerned about it” as to admit he expected to lose.
And being forced to say that the administration wanted protections for pre-existing conditions while the DOJ is arguing to end those protections through the court. Gave us a real clear window into exactly how independent he really is.
Edit: Barr's legal theories on if the president can be investigated did not align with most of congress in the 1990s, let alone now.
|
On April 11 2019 00:46 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 00:43 xDaunt wrote:On April 11 2019 00:41 IyMoon wrote:On April 11 2019 00:39 xDaunt wrote:
I'm enjoying watching senate democrats flail wildly against Barr with regards to his summary of the Mueller report. Van Holland's questioning was particularly sad. Barr has been very clear that he will give full explanations regarding what happened and why after the report is released in the next several days, yet Democrats keep demanding that he explain himself. A couple interesting points:
1) Barr said that the redacted report will disclose the underlying facts and conclusions of law regarding the obstruction of justice charge.
2) Barr said that he does believe that Trump's campaign was "spied" upon by the FBI and/or Obama administration. The question in his mind is whether there was a valid predicate for that spying and that he wants to satisfy himself that there was no abuse of law enforcement or intelligence powers. Pretty sure the point is democrats don't believe him. That's a pretty deranged (not to mention highly premature) position to take. Really? Because if I say something like 'obstruction charges are fatally misconceived' and then find later that oh man, there was no obstruction. But I wont let you see everything on how I came to that conclusion... You might question if I am telling the truth. https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/24/politics/barr-memo-mueller/index.html
Has it occurred to you that Barr was right then just as he is right now? I definitely get that you're having a very difficult time reconciling the false narrative that you have zealously adhered to over the past 2-3 years with actual facts, but you really need to start making a better effort at it.
|
On April 11 2019 00:50 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 00:46 IyMoon wrote:On April 11 2019 00:43 xDaunt wrote:On April 11 2019 00:41 IyMoon wrote:On April 11 2019 00:39 xDaunt wrote:
I'm enjoying watching senate democrats flail wildly against Barr with regards to his summary of the Mueller report. Van Holland's questioning was particularly sad. Barr has been very clear that he will give full explanations regarding what happened and why after the report is released in the next several days, yet Democrats keep demanding that he explain himself. A couple interesting points:
1) Barr said that the redacted report will disclose the underlying facts and conclusions of law regarding the obstruction of justice charge.
2) Barr said that he does believe that Trump's campaign was "spied" upon by the FBI and/or Obama administration. The question in his mind is whether there was a valid predicate for that spying and that he wants to satisfy himself that there was no abuse of law enforcement or intelligence powers. Pretty sure the point is democrats don't believe him. That's a pretty deranged (not to mention highly premature) position to take. Really? Because if I say something like 'obstruction charges are fatally misconceived' and then find later that oh man, there was no obstruction. But I wont let you see everything on how I came to that conclusion... You might question if I am telling the truth. https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/24/politics/barr-memo-mueller/index.html Has it occurred to you that Barr was right then just as he is right now? I definitely get that you're having a very difficult time reconciling the false narrative that you have zealously adhered to over the past 2-3 years with actual facts, but you really need to start making a better effort at it.
You really need to stop with this bullshit.
Most people have accepted the report, we just want to fucking read it without someone who got the job specifically to find the conclusions he did hiding away what he wants.
|
On April 11 2019 00:50 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 00:46 IyMoon wrote:On April 11 2019 00:43 xDaunt wrote:On April 11 2019 00:41 IyMoon wrote:On April 11 2019 00:39 xDaunt wrote:
I'm enjoying watching senate democrats flail wildly against Barr with regards to his summary of the Mueller report. Van Holland's questioning was particularly sad. Barr has been very clear that he will give full explanations regarding what happened and why after the report is released in the next several days, yet Democrats keep demanding that he explain himself. A couple interesting points:
1) Barr said that the redacted report will disclose the underlying facts and conclusions of law regarding the obstruction of justice charge.
2) Barr said that he does believe that Trump's campaign was "spied" upon by the FBI and/or Obama administration. The question in his mind is whether there was a valid predicate for that spying and that he wants to satisfy himself that there was no abuse of law enforcement or intelligence powers. Pretty sure the point is democrats don't believe him. That's a pretty deranged (not to mention highly premature) position to take. Really? Because if I say something like 'obstruction charges are fatally misconceived' and then find later that oh man, there was no obstruction. But I wont let you see everything on how I came to that conclusion... You might question if I am telling the truth. https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/24/politics/barr-memo-mueller/index.html Has it occurred to you that Barr was right then just as he is right now? I definitely get that you're having a very difficult time reconciling the false narrative that you have zealously adhered to over the past 2-3 years with actual facts, but you really need to start making a better effort at it.
Has it occurred to you that people don't want to form opinions based on the lack of evidence? I've tried to talk to you about this before: We don't know because we do not have all the information required. People want to be informed, and the summary Barr gave us can not be trusted based on what he himself have stated earlier. You have already made up your mind about what the truth is, while the rest of us are still trying to find it.
|
On April 11 2019 00:49 Plansix wrote:
My favorite part was watching Barr slowly die inside when asked about the DOJ’s stance on the ACA was now unconstitutional and why he, the head of the DOJ, was pushing forward with a legal opinion that he did not feel was viable. And Barr being forced to say that he was doing it at the direction of the executive, which isn’t really how the DOJ and AG are supposed work when they are defending federal laws. It was lovely when he had to say “I wouldn’t be concerned about it” as to admit he expected to lose.
And being forced to say that the administration wanted protections for pre-existing conditions while the DOJ is arguing to end those protections through the court. Gave us a real clear window into exactly how independent he really is.
You need to listen more closely to what he said. He did not say that it was not viable. He said that he thought that the ACA would not be stricken in its entirety. Specifically, he said that the individual mandate will be stricken as unconstitutional. The question in his mind is whether it will be found that the entirety of the ACA is dependent upon the individual mandate. He noted that most justices on the Supreme Court already have said it was, which is why the Administration's decision not to defend the ACA was a legally defensible position. This is the same analysis that I gave in the other thread when the district court struck the ACA down.
|
On April 11 2019 00:41 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 00:39 xDaunt wrote:
I'm enjoying watching senate democrats flail wildly against Barr with regards to his summary of the Mueller report. Van Holland's questioning was particularly sad. Barr has been very clear that he will give full explanations regarding what happened and why after the report is released in the next several days, yet Democrats keep demanding that he explain himself. A couple interesting points:
1) Barr said that the redacted report will disclose the underlying facts and conclusions of law regarding the obstruction of justice charge.
2) Barr said that he does believe that Trump's campaign was "spied" upon by the FBI and/or Obama administration. The question in his mind is whether there was a valid predicate for that spying and that he wants to satisfy himself that there was no abuse of law enforcement or intelligence powers. Pretty sure the point is democrats don't believe him.
I mean if he says the arguments are there then I'll believe him. If he says all the facts surrounding the obstruction charge are there and some end up not being present, then it will 100% get called out by members of Mueller's team. That would make him look horrible and undermine his process. Barr is smarter than that I'd like to think.
As for the "spying" Barr can look into whatever he wants so it is what it is. Tho if the evidence is all as readily available and obvious as people like xDaunt and Nunes make it seem I imagine we should have indicments any week now...
|
On April 11 2019 00:54 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 00:50 xDaunt wrote:On April 11 2019 00:46 IyMoon wrote:On April 11 2019 00:43 xDaunt wrote:On April 11 2019 00:41 IyMoon wrote:On April 11 2019 00:39 xDaunt wrote:
I'm enjoying watching senate democrats flail wildly against Barr with regards to his summary of the Mueller report. Van Holland's questioning was particularly sad. Barr has been very clear that he will give full explanations regarding what happened and why after the report is released in the next several days, yet Democrats keep demanding that he explain himself. A couple interesting points:
1) Barr said that the redacted report will disclose the underlying facts and conclusions of law regarding the obstruction of justice charge.
2) Barr said that he does believe that Trump's campaign was "spied" upon by the FBI and/or Obama administration. The question in his mind is whether there was a valid predicate for that spying and that he wants to satisfy himself that there was no abuse of law enforcement or intelligence powers. Pretty sure the point is democrats don't believe him. That's a pretty deranged (not to mention highly premature) position to take. Really? Because if I say something like 'obstruction charges are fatally misconceived' and then find later that oh man, there was no obstruction. But I wont let you see everything on how I came to that conclusion... You might question if I am telling the truth. https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/24/politics/barr-memo-mueller/index.html Has it occurred to you that Barr was right then just as he is right now? I definitely get that you're having a very difficult time reconciling the false narrative that you have zealously adhered to over the past 2-3 years with actual facts, but you really need to start making a better effort at it. Has it occurred to you that people don't want to form opinions based on the lack of evidence? I've tried to talk to you about this before: We don't know because we have no information to tell us what we should know. People want to be informed, and what Barr gave us was not information that can be trusted based on what he himself had stated earlier. You have already made up your mind about what the truth is, while the rest of us are still trying to find it.
There's a ton of evidence on these points. I have cited to it as have others. Most of you simply ignore it. Which is fine. You can run, but you can't hide from the truth forever.
|
On April 11 2019 00:55 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 00:54 Excludos wrote:On April 11 2019 00:50 xDaunt wrote:On April 11 2019 00:46 IyMoon wrote:On April 11 2019 00:43 xDaunt wrote:On April 11 2019 00:41 IyMoon wrote:On April 11 2019 00:39 xDaunt wrote:
I'm enjoying watching senate democrats flail wildly against Barr with regards to his summary of the Mueller report. Van Holland's questioning was particularly sad. Barr has been very clear that he will give full explanations regarding what happened and why after the report is released in the next several days, yet Democrats keep demanding that he explain himself. A couple interesting points:
1) Barr said that the redacted report will disclose the underlying facts and conclusions of law regarding the obstruction of justice charge.
2) Barr said that he does believe that Trump's campaign was "spied" upon by the FBI and/or Obama administration. The question in his mind is whether there was a valid predicate for that spying and that he wants to satisfy himself that there was no abuse of law enforcement or intelligence powers. Pretty sure the point is democrats don't believe him. That's a pretty deranged (not to mention highly premature) position to take. Really? Because if I say something like 'obstruction charges are fatally misconceived' and then find later that oh man, there was no obstruction. But I wont let you see everything on how I came to that conclusion... You might question if I am telling the truth. https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/24/politics/barr-memo-mueller/index.html Has it occurred to you that Barr was right then just as he is right now? I definitely get that you're having a very difficult time reconciling the false narrative that you have zealously adhered to over the past 2-3 years with actual facts, but you really need to start making a better effort at it. Has it occurred to you that people don't want to form opinions based on the lack of evidence? I've tried to talk to you about this before: We don't know because we have no information to tell us what we should know. People want to be informed, and what Barr gave us was not information that can be trusted based on what he himself had stated earlier. You have already made up your mind about what the truth is, while the rest of us are still trying to find it. There's a ton of evidence on these points. I have cited to it as have others. Most of you simply ignore it. Which is fine. You can run, but you can't hide from the truth forever.
There's also "Tons of evidence" pointing to the fact that Trump did, in fact, obstruct. But the evidence we are currently clamouring for is the one made by the Mueller team which, for some ungodly reason, no one is allowed to read, except for the man who was put into that exact position because he stated he wouldn't indict.
Again: We have seen nothing, but you have already made your mind up. It's absolutely infuriating watching you spew out one bullshit after another based on information no one on this forum has access too. You can have your opinions and that's fine, but you're talking as if you are already sitting with the report in your hands..in which case please hand them over to us.
|
On April 11 2019 00:54 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 00:49 Plansix wrote:
My favorite part was watching Barr slowly die inside when asked about the DOJ’s stance on the ACA was now unconstitutional and why he, the head of the DOJ, was pushing forward with a legal opinion that he did not feel was viable. And Barr being forced to say that he was doing it at the direction of the executive, which isn’t really how the DOJ and AG are supposed work when they are defending federal laws. It was lovely when he had to say “I wouldn’t be concerned about it” as to admit he expected to lose.
And being forced to say that the administration wanted protections for pre-existing conditions while the DOJ is arguing to end those protections through the court. Gave us a real clear window into exactly how independent he really is. You need to listen more closely to what he said. He did not say that it was not viable. He said that he thought that the ACA would not be stricken in its entirety. Specifically, he said that the individual mandate will be stricken as unconstitutional. The question in his mind is whether it will be found that the entirety of the ACA is dependent upon the individual mandate. He noted that most justices on the Supreme Court already have said it was, which is why the Administration's decision not to defend the ACA was a legally defensible position. This is the same analysis that I gave in the other thread when the district court struck the ACA down.
You are entitled to your opinion of that hearing and your interpretation of what Barr said. Just as I’m entitled to not find your analysis very persuasive in this matter.
|
On April 11 2019 01:00 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 00:54 xDaunt wrote:On April 11 2019 00:49 Plansix wrote:
My favorite part was watching Barr slowly die inside when asked about the DOJ’s stance on the ACA was now unconstitutional and why he, the head of the DOJ, was pushing forward with a legal opinion that he did not feel was viable. And Barr being forced to say that he was doing it at the direction of the executive, which isn’t really how the DOJ and AG are supposed work when they are defending federal laws. It was lovely when he had to say “I wouldn’t be concerned about it” as to admit he expected to lose.
And being forced to say that the administration wanted protections for pre-existing conditions while the DOJ is arguing to end those protections through the court. Gave us a real clear window into exactly how independent he really is. You need to listen more closely to what he said. He did not say that it was not viable. He said that he thought that the ACA would not be stricken in its entirety. Specifically, he said that the individual mandate will be stricken as unconstitutional. The question in his mind is whether it will be found that the entirety of the ACA is dependent upon the individual mandate. He noted that most justices on the Supreme Court already have said it was, which is why the Administration's decision not to defend the ACA was a legally defensible position. This is the same analysis that I gave in the other thread when the district court struck the ACA down. You are entitled to your opinion of that hearing and your interpretation of what Barr said. Just as I’m entitled to not find your analysis very persuasive in this matter.
This isn't my interpretation of what Barr said. That's what Barr said. Period. I get that it's inconsistent with your post, but that's on you for not relaying it accurately.
|
On April 11 2019 00:39 xDaunt wrote:
I'm enjoying watching senate democrats flail wildly against Barr with regards to his summary of the Mueller report. Van Holland's questioning was particularly sad. Barr has been very clear that he will give full explanations regarding what happened and why after the report is released in the next several days, yet Democrats keep demanding that he explain himself. A couple interesting points:
1) Barr said that the redacted report will disclose the underlying facts and conclusions of law regarding the obstruction of justice charge.
2) Barr said that he does believe that Trump's campaign was "spied" upon by the FBI and/or Obama administration. The question in his mind is whether there was a valid predicate for that spying and that he wants to satisfy himself that there was no abuse of law enforcement or intelligence powers.
I liked the hearing. It juxtaposed the current left’s embrace of domestic spying with the prior left’s opposition of domestic spying during the Vietnam War. Previously, people that knew anti-war protestors were up to something, and now, that Trump’s 2016 campaign was up to something. Barr’s growing on me. Let’s see how much he can get done.
I’m also laughing at what the report will look like with color-coded redactions. Pink is secretive grand jury testimony, purple is CIA foreign assets and methods ...
|
On April 11 2019 00:59 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 00:55 xDaunt wrote:On April 11 2019 00:54 Excludos wrote:On April 11 2019 00:50 xDaunt wrote:On April 11 2019 00:46 IyMoon wrote:On April 11 2019 00:43 xDaunt wrote:On April 11 2019 00:41 IyMoon wrote:On April 11 2019 00:39 xDaunt wrote:
I'm enjoying watching senate democrats flail wildly against Barr with regards to his summary of the Mueller report. Van Holland's questioning was particularly sad. Barr has been very clear that he will give full explanations regarding what happened and why after the report is released in the next several days, yet Democrats keep demanding that he explain himself. A couple interesting points:
1) Barr said that the redacted report will disclose the underlying facts and conclusions of law regarding the obstruction of justice charge.
2) Barr said that he does believe that Trump's campaign was "spied" upon by the FBI and/or Obama administration. The question in his mind is whether there was a valid predicate for that spying and that he wants to satisfy himself that there was no abuse of law enforcement or intelligence powers. Pretty sure the point is democrats don't believe him. That's a pretty deranged (not to mention highly premature) position to take. Really? Because if I say something like 'obstruction charges are fatally misconceived' and then find later that oh man, there was no obstruction. But I wont let you see everything on how I came to that conclusion... You might question if I am telling the truth. https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/24/politics/barr-memo-mueller/index.html Has it occurred to you that Barr was right then just as he is right now? I definitely get that you're having a very difficult time reconciling the false narrative that you have zealously adhered to over the past 2-3 years with actual facts, but you really need to start making a better effort at it. Has it occurred to you that people don't want to form opinions based on the lack of evidence? I've tried to talk to you about this before: We don't know because we have no information to tell us what we should know. People want to be informed, and what Barr gave us was not information that can be trusted based on what he himself had stated earlier. You have already made up your mind about what the truth is, while the rest of us are still trying to find it. There's a ton of evidence on these points. I have cited to it as have others. Most of you simply ignore it. Which is fine. You can run, but you can't hide from the truth forever. There's also "Tons of evidence" pointing to the fact that Trump did, in fact, obstruct. But the evidence we are currently clamouring for is the one made by the Mueller team which, for some ungodly reason, no one is allowed to read, except for the man who was put into that exact position because he stated he wouldn't indict. Again: We have seen nothing, but you have already made your mind up. It's absolutely infuriating watching you spew out one bullshit after another based on information no one on this forum has access too. You can have your opinions and that's fine, but you're talking as if you are already sitting with the report in your hands..in which case please hand them over to us.
While I understand everyone's frustration here, Mueller made his decision and it wasn't an indictment or a recommendation to prosecute. All that's in the report is to what degree some of the last couple years reporting has been confirmed or came up empty.
It's politically relevant from a partisan perspective but as I've suggested before it's not going to have much if any "news" in it.
The more people lean into this pressing on the report the more it looks partisan and not about the securing of democracy it's allegedly supposed to be about.
On April 11 2019 01:04 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 00:39 xDaunt wrote:
I'm enjoying watching senate democrats flail wildly against Barr with regards to his summary of the Mueller report. Van Holland's questioning was particularly sad. Barr has been very clear that he will give full explanations regarding what happened and why after the report is released in the next several days, yet Democrats keep demanding that he explain himself. A couple interesting points:
1) Barr said that the redacted report will disclose the underlying facts and conclusions of law regarding the obstruction of justice charge.
2) Barr said that he does believe that Trump's campaign was "spied" upon by the FBI and/or Obama administration. The question in his mind is whether there was a valid predicate for that spying and that he wants to satisfy himself that there was no abuse of law enforcement or intelligence powers. I liked the hearing. It juxtaposed the current left’s embrace of domestic spying with the prior left’s opposition of domestic spying during the Vietnam War. Previously, people that knew anti-war protestors were up to something, and now, that Trump’s 2016 campaign was up to something. Barr’s growing on me. Let’s see how much he can get done. I’m also laughing at what the report will look like with color-coded redactions. Pink is secretive grand jury testimony, purple is CIA foreign assets and methods ...
It'd be helpful if you said "Democrats" because "the left" doesn't really include supporters of the FBI/CIA then or now. Just a polite request from "the left".
|
On April 11 2019 01:02 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 01:00 Plansix wrote:On April 11 2019 00:54 xDaunt wrote:On April 11 2019 00:49 Plansix wrote:
My favorite part was watching Barr slowly die inside when asked about the DOJ’s stance on the ACA was now unconstitutional and why he, the head of the DOJ, was pushing forward with a legal opinion that he did not feel was viable. And Barr being forced to say that he was doing it at the direction of the executive, which isn’t really how the DOJ and AG are supposed work when they are defending federal laws. It was lovely when he had to say “I wouldn’t be concerned about it” as to admit he expected to lose.
And being forced to say that the administration wanted protections for pre-existing conditions while the DOJ is arguing to end those protections through the court. Gave us a real clear window into exactly how independent he really is. You need to listen more closely to what he said. He did not say that it was not viable. He said that he thought that the ACA would not be stricken in its entirety. Specifically, he said that the individual mandate will be stricken as unconstitutional. The question in his mind is whether it will be found that the entirety of the ACA is dependent upon the individual mandate. He noted that most justices on the Supreme Court already have said it was, which is why the Administration's decision not to defend the ACA was a legally defensible position. This is the same analysis that I gave in the other thread when the district court struck the ACA down. You are entitled to your opinion of that hearing and your interpretation of what Barr said. Just as I’m entitled to not find your analysis very persuasive in this matter. This isn't my interpretation was Barr said. That's what Barr said. Period. I get that it's inconsistent with your post, but that's on you for not relaying it accurately.
That's your problem. All of a sudden, now you think everyone needs to take what a government official is saying at face value. The same guy who claims perpetual impropriety on behalf of the folks who investigated Hillary a dozen times, and the folks who ought to be throwing Obama in jail. No, now, the AG's word is law.
People are asking for the information to be public. Because that was the real point of the Mueller investigation. People are declaring that before they accept Barr's conclusions, they want to be able to read the same thing he did. That's basic scientific method. But no, you know better than everybody else, and it's just that everyone but you is an idiot. Again. It's a funny pattern.
|
On April 11 2019 01:02 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 01:00 Plansix wrote:On April 11 2019 00:54 xDaunt wrote:On April 11 2019 00:49 Plansix wrote:
My favorite part was watching Barr slowly die inside when asked about the DOJ’s stance on the ACA was now unconstitutional and why he, the head of the DOJ, was pushing forward with a legal opinion that he did not feel was viable. And Barr being forced to say that he was doing it at the direction of the executive, which isn’t really how the DOJ and AG are supposed work when they are defending federal laws. It was lovely when he had to say “I wouldn’t be concerned about it” as to admit he expected to lose.
And being forced to say that the administration wanted protections for pre-existing conditions while the DOJ is arguing to end those protections through the court. Gave us a real clear window into exactly how independent he really is. You need to listen more closely to what he said. He did not say that it was not viable. He said that he thought that the ACA would not be stricken in its entirety. Specifically, he said that the individual mandate will be stricken as unconstitutional. The question in his mind is whether it will be found that the entirety of the ACA is dependent upon the individual mandate. He noted that most justices on the Supreme Court already have said it was, which is why the Administration's decision not to defend the ACA was a legally defensible position. This is the same analysis that I gave in the other thread when the district court struck the ACA down. You are entitled to your opinion of that hearing and your interpretation of what Barr said. Just as I’m entitled to not find your analysis very persuasive in this matter. This isn't my interpretation was Barr said. That's what Barr said. Period. I get that it's inconsistent with your post, but that's on you for not relaying it accurately.
He did parrot the white house’s talking points as to their justice. Which had nothing to do with what I posted since I was talking about how visibility uncomfortable he was making that argument or admitting that the DOJ not defending a federal law for political reasons. Or straight up lying about how the administration supports protections for pre-existing conditions while refusing to defend the law that provides those protections.
|
On April 11 2019 00:54 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 00:49 Plansix wrote:
My favorite part was watching Barr slowly die inside when asked about the DOJ’s stance on the ACA was now unconstitutional and why he, the head of the DOJ, was pushing forward with a legal opinion that he did not feel was viable. And Barr being forced to say that he was doing it at the direction of the executive, which isn’t really how the DOJ and AG are supposed work when they are defending federal laws. It was lovely when he had to say “I wouldn’t be concerned about it” as to admit he expected to lose.
And being forced to say that the administration wanted protections for pre-existing conditions while the DOJ is arguing to end those protections through the court. Gave us a real clear window into exactly how independent he really is. You need to listen more closely to what he said. He did not say that it was not viable. He said that he thought that the ACA would not be stricken in its entirety. Specifically, he said that the individual mandate will be stricken as unconstitutional. The question in his mind is whether it will be found that the entirety of the ACA is dependent upon the individual mandate. He noted that most justices on the Supreme Court already have said it was, which is why the Administration's decision not to defend the ACA was a legally defensible position. This is the same analysis that I gave in the other thread when the district court struck the ACA down.
The justices dont decide if the ACA needed the mandate if Congress has already made the decision that it doesnt. Just 2 years ago Congress zeroed out the penalty from the mandate while keeping the rest of the law. How can the mandate be inseparable when Congress literally separated it?
It shouldn't be a surprise that many of the fiercest ACA critics hate the OConner ruling and think it's going to set back their efforts. There is a reason the executive editor of the Washington Examiner called the decision "an assault on the rule of law." Like much of the legal community, I expect the DOJ to get their asses kicked here.
Ofc this is a massive lose-lose for the Republican party and DOJ. Either they get embarrassed in court or, worse yet, they actually win and the country devolves into chaos without any viable replacement to the ACA in sight. Horrible fight to pick.
|
On April 11 2019 01:08 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 01:02 xDaunt wrote:On April 11 2019 01:00 Plansix wrote:On April 11 2019 00:54 xDaunt wrote:On April 11 2019 00:49 Plansix wrote:
My favorite part was watching Barr slowly die inside when asked about the DOJ’s stance on the ACA was now unconstitutional and why he, the head of the DOJ, was pushing forward with a legal opinion that he did not feel was viable. And Barr being forced to say that he was doing it at the direction of the executive, which isn’t really how the DOJ and AG are supposed work when they are defending federal laws. It was lovely when he had to say “I wouldn’t be concerned about it” as to admit he expected to lose.
And being forced to say that the administration wanted protections for pre-existing conditions while the DOJ is arguing to end those protections through the court. Gave us a real clear window into exactly how independent he really is. You need to listen more closely to what he said. He did not say that it was not viable. He said that he thought that the ACA would not be stricken in its entirety. Specifically, he said that the individual mandate will be stricken as unconstitutional. The question in his mind is whether it will be found that the entirety of the ACA is dependent upon the individual mandate. He noted that most justices on the Supreme Court already have said it was, which is why the Administration's decision not to defend the ACA was a legally defensible position. This is the same analysis that I gave in the other thread when the district court struck the ACA down. You are entitled to your opinion of that hearing and your interpretation of what Barr said. Just as I’m entitled to not find your analysis very persuasive in this matter. This isn't my interpretation was Barr said. That's what Barr said. Period. I get that it's inconsistent with your post, but that's on you for not relaying it accurately. That's your problem. All of a sudden, now you think everyone needs to take what a government official is saying at face value. The same guy who claims perpetual impropriety on behalf of the folks who investigated Hillary a dozen times, and the folks who ought to be throwing Obama in jail. No, now, the AG's word is law.
As usual, you're imagining things. None of this can be fairly gleaned from my post.
People are asking for the information to be public. Because that was the real point of the Mueller investigation. People are declaring that before they accept Barr's conclusions, they want to be able to read the same thing he did. That's basic scientific method.
Barr said he is going to make it all public. I said that Barr said that he was going to make it all public. Yet still posters around here (like lymoon) push this stupid talking point that Barr is hiding all sorts of Trump malfeasance that Mueller found. Nevermind that Mueller himself declined to find obstruction or otherwise recommend that Trump be charged or impeached. So many of you are completely off the rails on this stuff.
But no, you know better than everybody else, and it's just that everyone but you is an idiot. Again. It's a funny pattern.
If you're so ashamed of your posting that you think this, then post better. I certainly would appreciate it.
|
On April 11 2019 01:22 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 01:08 NewSunshine wrote:On April 11 2019 01:02 xDaunt wrote:On April 11 2019 01:00 Plansix wrote:On April 11 2019 00:54 xDaunt wrote:On April 11 2019 00:49 Plansix wrote:
My favorite part was watching Barr slowly die inside when asked about the DOJ’s stance on the ACA was now unconstitutional and why he, the head of the DOJ, was pushing forward with a legal opinion that he did not feel was viable. And Barr being forced to say that he was doing it at the direction of the executive, which isn’t really how the DOJ and AG are supposed work when they are defending federal laws. It was lovely when he had to say “I wouldn’t be concerned about it” as to admit he expected to lose.
And being forced to say that the administration wanted protections for pre-existing conditions while the DOJ is arguing to end those protections through the court. Gave us a real clear window into exactly how independent he really is. You need to listen more closely to what he said. He did not say that it was not viable. He said that he thought that the ACA would not be stricken in its entirety. Specifically, he said that the individual mandate will be stricken as unconstitutional. The question in his mind is whether it will be found that the entirety of the ACA is dependent upon the individual mandate. He noted that most justices on the Supreme Court already have said it was, which is why the Administration's decision not to defend the ACA was a legally defensible position. This is the same analysis that I gave in the other thread when the district court struck the ACA down. You are entitled to your opinion of that hearing and your interpretation of what Barr said. Just as I’m entitled to not find your analysis very persuasive in this matter. This isn't my interpretation was Barr said. That's what Barr said. Period. I get that it's inconsistent with your post, but that's on you for not relaying it accurately. That's your problem. All of a sudden, now you think everyone needs to take what a government official is saying at face value. The same guy who claims perpetual impropriety on behalf of the folks who investigated Hillary a dozen times, and the folks who ought to be throwing Obama in jail. No, now, the AG's word is law. As usual, you're imagining things. None of this can be fairly gleaned from my post. Show nested quote +People are asking for the information to be public. Because that was the real point of the Mueller investigation. People are declaring that before they accept Barr's conclusions, they want to be able to read the same thing he did. That's basic scientific method. Barr said he is going to make it all public. I said that Barr said that he was going to make it all public. Yet still posters around here (like lymoon) push this stupid talking point that Barr is hiding all sorts of Trump malfeasance that Mueller found. Nevermind that Mueller himself declined to find obstruction or otherwise recommend that Trump be charged or impeached. So many of you are completely off the rails on this stuff. Show nested quote +But no, you know better than everybody else, and it's just that everyone but you is an idiot. Again. It's a funny pattern. If you're so ashamed of your posting that you think this, then post better. I certainly would appreciate it.
I think the whole thread would appreciate you being less of a prick, but you do you.
If Muller left the call of obstruction to congress, blanking out information from congress would be a problem wouldn't it?
Unless Muller left it 100% up to the AG... which doesn't seem like it's the AG job.
Did Muller leave the call on obstruction 100% up to the AG?
|
I also agree that you could be less of an asshole to everyone that responds to you. I’m not stranger to talking shit, but it isn’t a great way to have a discussion.
|
On April 11 2019 01:22 xDaunt wrote:
Barr said he is going to make it all public. I said that Barr said that he was going to make it all public. Yet still posters around here (like lymoon) push this stupid talking point that Barr is hiding all sorts of Trump malfeasance that Mueller found. Nevermind that Mueller himself declined to find obstruction or otherwise recommend that Trump be charged or impeached. So many of you are completely off the rails on this stuff.
People actually want to see all of it. I don't see lyMoon saying anything different from what I'm saying. Nobody thinks the report is going to magically contain charges that haven't been brought already. The problem, and what Republicans are afraid of, is what the report contains as to what didn't quite amount to enough to charge. There's all kinds of things that report can say that wouldn't amount to Trump being charged or indicted, but would still look pretty shitty for him. I think you know that too.
On April 11 2019 01:22 xDaunt wrote:
If you're so ashamed of your posting that you think this, then post better. I certainly would appreciate it.
Yes, so ashamed that I've literally seen you say as much on more than one occasion. I feel terrible. Did you think that was cute?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
