|
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 |
Reporting on the first round of fundraising disclosures for the 2020 campaign and candidates not keeping their promises already. I love that O'Rourke couldn't go a single quarter before showing his two-faced nature.
Beto O’Rourke is one of the candidates who had pledge to run a campaign financed only by regular people — “not PACs, not lobbyists, not corporations, and not special interests.” His latest filing, however, shows that he accepted donations from a federal utility-company lobbyist and a top Chevron lobbyist in New Mexico.
Some lobbyist cash comes from individuals who are clearly lobbyists but have chosen not to register with a federal system rife with loopholes.
Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., has also collected donations from registered corporate lobbyists in South Carolina, New York, and California. Several technology lobbyists from San Francisco have given to her campaign. Another Harris donor, Robert Crowe, from the firm, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, is a federal lobbyist who has worked to influence Congress on behalf of pipeline firm EQT Corporation and Alphabet, the parent company of Google.
Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., similarly announced that he would eschew campaign donations from federal lobbyists, and his campaign appears to be making most of the caveat about “federal” lobbyists. Though he has returned donations from lobbyists registered under the federal government’s system, Booker has taken half a dozen donations from lobbyists registered under state and municipal lobbyist registration laws, but who do not appear in federal disclosures.
The pledge to reject lobbyist cash is completely voluntary and self-defined. O’Rourke has made blanket statements that he will reject all donations from lobbyists. Harris has made promises in emails to her supporters to reject all lobbyist donations and, in other emails, to only reject donations from federal lobbyists. Booker’s campaign website only specifies that he will not accept money from federal lobbyists.
theintercept.com
He also didn't mention fluffing his Day 1 fundraising announcement with some general election funds (people who donated over the $2800 limit).
|
On April 18 2019 10:45 Danglars wrote:I need to go compile links to a dozen articles from the likes of Byron York, Mollie Hemingway, Chuck Ross to establish the major allegations. If you’re interested in just the dossier parts and the media response to it, this article does an adequate job. Links and timeline help establish some of the major points. The Washington Examiner Magazine has a good wrap up of the Clapper/Brennan/Comey lies, but that’s paywalled. I’ll get around to it this weekend if not earlier.
John Solomon is the best-sourced for the major allegations. All of his articles since 2017 have been prescient. He and the rest of the people that have been showing up regularly on Hannity for reports on this stuff over the past two years are the ones getting inside information. In terms of analysis putting things together, I think that the Conservative Treehouse guys have been remarkably good as has Dan Bongino. They've put the major media outlets (NYT, WashPo, etc) to shame.
|
If there was any doubt that Barr is a hack dedicated to only protecting Trump (there wasn't any doubt, but let's pretend), this puts the nail in the coffin.
"Justice Department officials have had numerous conversations with White House lawyers about the conclusions made by Mr. Mueller, the special counsel, in recent days, according to people with knowledge of the discussions. The talks have aided the president’s legal team as it prepares a rebuttal to the report and strategizes for the coming public war over its findings."
No one in attendance at the "press conference" from the actual investigative team tomorrow. The silence is deafening. It almost seems like a protest. When Mueller testifies or someone on his team blows the whistle, it will have so much more weight because of their continued professionalism and adherence to norms. This is so blatant it's absurd.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/17/us/politics/trump-mueller-report.html
|
On April 18 2019 11:41 Ayaz2810 wrote:If there was any doubt that Barr is a hack dedicated to only protecting Trump (there wasn't any doubt, but let's pretend), this puts the nail in the coffin. "Justice Department officials have had numerous conversations with White House lawyers about the conclusions made by Mr. Mueller, the special counsel, in recent days, according to people with knowledge of the discussions. The talks have aided the president’s legal team as it prepares a rebuttal to the report and strategizes for the coming public war over its findings." No one in attendance at the "press conference" from the actual investigative team tomorrow. The silence is deafening. It almost seems like a protest. When Mueller testifies or someone on his team blows the whistle, it will have so much more weight because of their continued professionalism and adherence to norms. This is so blatant it's absurd. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/17/us/politics/trump-mueller-report.html
Here's my big question for you: so what?
The investigation is over. Sure, Barr is helping the president politically. What's the big deal with it? It's not interfering with any investigation. And if the Mueller report is the work of a biased hack that many think it is, then I'm all in favor of Barr giving the president the heads up so that he can respond in timely fashion. In fact, I like the fact that the president will be submitting a formal written rebuttal within hours of the Mueller report's release. That's fairness in action.
You're getting gaslit over a bigger nothingburger than the Mueller report.
|
On April 18 2019 11:28 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2019 10:45 Danglars wrote:I need to go compile links to a dozen articles from the likes of Byron York, Mollie Hemingway, Chuck Ross to establish the major allegations. If you’re interested in just the dossier parts and the media response to it, this article does an adequate job. Links and timeline help establish some of the major points. The Washington Examiner Magazine has a good wrap up of the Clapper/Brennan/Comey lies, but that’s paywalled. I’ll get around to it this weekend if not earlier. John Solomon is the best-sourced for the major allegations. All of his articles since 2017 have been prescient. He and the rest of the people that have been showing up regularly on Hannity for reports on this stuff over the past two years are the ones getting inside information. In terms of analysis putting things together, I think that the Conservative Treehouse guys have been remarkably good as has Dan Bongino. They've put the major media outlets (NYT, WashPo, etc) to shame.
Yeah I should've included Solomon on the list, and I knew I was forgetting someone. He's also been indispensable. He argues so well from the facts that it really makes me think the *current* move to suppress and deny and misdirect has been for lack of other options. One Two Three examples.
The others I haven't been familiar with for long enough to form an informed opinion. Bongino is in the radio-host genre for synthesis of research from others. Conservative Treehouse is a blog of the likes of AceOfSpades, but newer. Conservative blogosphere news and opinion aggregator. I'll be keeping my eyes out.
|
On April 18 2019 11:41 Ayaz2810 wrote:If there was any doubt that Barr is a hack dedicated to only protecting Trump (there wasn't any doubt, but let's pretend), this puts the nail in the coffin. "Justice Department officials have had numerous conversations with White House lawyers about the conclusions made by Mr. Mueller, the special counsel, in recent days, according to people with knowledge of the discussions. The talks have aided the president’s legal team as it prepares a rebuttal to the report and strategizes for the coming public war over its findings." No one in attendance at the "press conference" from the actual investigative team tomorrow. The silence is deafening. It almost seems like a protest. When Mueller testifies or someone on his team blows the whistle, it will have so much more weight because of their continued professionalism and adherence to norms. This is so blatant it's absurd. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/17/us/politics/trump-mueller-report.html
Wow. Mueller's report will obviously be one-sided ... because he's a PROSECUTOR. He's not employed to defend Trump in any way. Trump has a response? Shit, better accuse them all of malfeasance, blatant absurdity, violation of norms, unprofessionalism.
The last two years have been instructive in how little it takes for the left to call someone a "hack." It's all about anger that Trump actually gets a say through his AG in the process. Next up: Trump continues his war on the press by ... giving a press conference ... and taking questions ... and releasing the report an hour and a half later. Worst war on the press ever.
|
On April 18 2019 12:01 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2019 11:41 Ayaz2810 wrote:If there was any doubt that Barr is a hack dedicated to only protecting Trump (there wasn't any doubt, but let's pretend), this puts the nail in the coffin. "Justice Department officials have had numerous conversations with White House lawyers about the conclusions made by Mr. Mueller, the special counsel, in recent days, according to people with knowledge of the discussions. The talks have aided the president’s legal team as it prepares a rebuttal to the report and strategizes for the coming public war over its findings." No one in attendance at the "press conference" from the actual investigative team tomorrow. The silence is deafening. It almost seems like a protest. When Mueller testifies or someone on his team blows the whistle, it will have so much more weight because of their continued professionalism and adherence to norms. This is so blatant it's absurd. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/17/us/politics/trump-mueller-report.html Here's my big question for you: so what? The investigation is over. Sure, Barr is helping the president politically. What's the big deal with it? It's not interfering with any investigation. And if the Mueller report is the work of a biased hack that many think it is, then I'm all in favor of Barr giving the president the heads up so that he can respond in timely fashion. In fact, I like the fact that the president will be submitting a formal written rebuttal within hours of the Mueller report's release. That's fairness in action. You're getting gaslit over a bigger nothingburger than the Mueller report.
Why would you submit a rebuttal to a "not guilty verdict"? This shit makes no sense. He was totally exonerated a week ago, and now he needs a team of lawyers getting inside information to head off a boatload of damaging information? That's as obvious as can be. It's also completely inappropriate, a departure from norms, a conflict of interest of the highest order, and on top of it all, an attempt at a coverup. If it were a nothingburger, they wouldn't be trying so hard to spin and rebut it. The very fact that this is even happening shows how bad this is going to be.
It is the furthest thing from fair, and it's being done both hamhandedly and in plain sight. It won't work, but I am blown away by the audacity of Barr. When Congress gets the full report with the underlying evidence, he is going to be in some real hot water.
|
On April 18 2019 12:11 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2019 11:41 Ayaz2810 wrote:If there was any doubt that Barr is a hack dedicated to only protecting Trump (there wasn't any doubt, but let's pretend), this puts the nail in the coffin. "Justice Department officials have had numerous conversations with White House lawyers about the conclusions made by Mr. Mueller, the special counsel, in recent days, according to people with knowledge of the discussions. The talks have aided the president’s legal team as it prepares a rebuttal to the report and strategizes for the coming public war over its findings." No one in attendance at the "press conference" from the actual investigative team tomorrow. The silence is deafening. It almost seems like a protest. When Mueller testifies or someone on his team blows the whistle, it will have so much more weight because of their continued professionalism and adherence to norms. This is so blatant it's absurd. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/17/us/politics/trump-mueller-report.html Wow. Mueller's report will obviously be one-sided ... because he's a PROSECUTOR. He's not employed to defend Trump in any way. Trump has a response? Shit, better accuse them all of malfeasance, blatant absurdity, violation of norms, unprofessionalism. The last two years have been instructive in how little it takes for the left to call someone a "hack." It's all about anger that Trump actually gets a say through his AG in the process. Next up: Trump continues his war on the press by ... giving a press conference ... and taking questions ... and releasing the report an hour and a half later. Worst war on the press ever.
The purpose of a press conference is for the press to ask questions. Which they can't do if they haven't seen the report. You know damn well this is an attempt to give the spin a couple of hours to take hold before the report drops. It is a last ditch effort to create headlines that morons will not read past and to give Trump TV talking points and clips to show. There is nothing normal, honest, or legitimate about what he is doing.
|
On April 18 2019 12:12 Ayaz2810 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2019 12:01 xDaunt wrote:On April 18 2019 11:41 Ayaz2810 wrote:If there was any doubt that Barr is a hack dedicated to only protecting Trump (there wasn't any doubt, but let's pretend), this puts the nail in the coffin. "Justice Department officials have had numerous conversations with White House lawyers about the conclusions made by Mr. Mueller, the special counsel, in recent days, according to people with knowledge of the discussions. The talks have aided the president’s legal team as it prepares a rebuttal to the report and strategizes for the coming public war over its findings." No one in attendance at the "press conference" from the actual investigative team tomorrow. The silence is deafening. It almost seems like a protest. When Mueller testifies or someone on his team blows the whistle, it will have so much more weight because of their continued professionalism and adherence to norms. This is so blatant it's absurd. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/17/us/politics/trump-mueller-report.html Here's my big question for you: so what? The investigation is over. Sure, Barr is helping the president politically. What's the big deal with it? It's not interfering with any investigation. And if the Mueller report is the work of a biased hack that many think it is, then I'm all in favor of Barr giving the president the heads up so that he can respond in timely fashion. In fact, I like the fact that the president will be submitting a formal written rebuttal within hours of the Mueller report's release. That's fairness in action. You're getting gaslit over a bigger nothingburger than the Mueller report. Why would you submit a rebuttal to a "not guilty verdict"? This shit makes no sense. He was totally exonerated a week ago, and now he needs a team of lawyers getting inside information to head off a boatload of damaging information? That's as obvious as can be. It's also completely inappropriate, a departure from norms, a conflict of interest of the highest order, and on top of it all, an attempt at a coverup. If it were a nothingburger, they wouldn't be trying so hard to spin and rebut it. The very fact that this is even happening shows how bad this is going to be. It is the furthest thing from fair, and it's being done both hamhandedly and in plain sight. It won't work, but I am blown away by the audacity of Barr. When Congress gets the full report with the underlying evidence, he is going to be in some real hot water.
You're kidding yourself. Barr is going to continue to swat away those fools on Capitol Hill like flies.
As for the purpose of the rebuttal, I already pointed out the reason. Notwithstanding the exoneration, Mueller is very likely going to do his best to portray the evidence in a way to damage Trump. Of course Trump should be prepared to rebut it. I get that you don't like the fact that the anti-Trump crowd has lost control of the narrative and are about to be exposed as utter frauds on all of the this Russia stuff. But Trump has every right to defend himself politically, and there is nothing improper about his AG assisting in that effort when the investigation is done.
|
On April 18 2019 12:01 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2019 11:41 Ayaz2810 wrote:If there was any doubt that Barr is a hack dedicated to only protecting Trump (there wasn't any doubt, but let's pretend), this puts the nail in the coffin. "Justice Department officials have had numerous conversations with White House lawyers about the conclusions made by Mr. Mueller, the special counsel, in recent days, according to people with knowledge of the discussions. The talks have aided the president’s legal team as it prepares a rebuttal to the report and strategizes for the coming public war over its findings." No one in attendance at the "press conference" from the actual investigative team tomorrow. The silence is deafening. It almost seems like a protest. When Mueller testifies or someone on his team blows the whistle, it will have so much more weight because of their continued professionalism and adherence to norms. This is so blatant it's absurd. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/17/us/politics/trump-mueller-report.html Here's my big question for you: so what? The investigation is over. Sure, Barr is helping the president politically. What's the big deal with it? It's not interfering with any investigation. And if the Mueller report is the work of a biased hack that many think it is, then I'm all in favor of Barr giving the president the heads up so that he can respond in timely fashion. In fact, I like the fact that the president will be submitting a formal written rebuttal within hours of the Mueller report's release. That's fairness in action. You're getting gaslit over a bigger nothingburger than the Mueller report. You've got to be joking. If this was a Democrat president in this situation, the Republicans would be in full-on meltdown over what Barr is doing right now. His behaviour the last few weeks has shown that he is completely in on playing team ball for Trump.
Sure, Barr is helping the president politically
This is explicitly not supposed to happen. The Department of Justice is supposed to be independent of Executive Branch. If Barr is acting as counsel for the WH (which is basically you are describing since he is counselling them on things in the report) in a case involving people in the WH, then he is in clear conflict of interest and is destroying the independence of the DOJ. This is quite literally how an authoritarian regime would operate. Good god dude, it seems pretty clear at this point that you are 100% fine with the Republicans completely disregarding law and how the government is supposed to operate. Separation of powers and departmental independence are crucial to keeping a country free and allowing citizens to have faith that their government is acting truthfully and in their best interest.
That's fairness in action. No it fucking isn't. It should be seen by the other co-equal branches of the government at the same time as the executive branch gets to see it, and unredacted. That would be actual fairness. This is Trump getting a clear advantage so they can try and minimize damage and steer the narrative. In all other cases involving special prosecuters/counsels, the report was put out before the press conference on it. They are doing the reverse here so they get 3+ hours of time to steer the narrative, and get to misrepresent what it is until people have the chance to read all 300+ pages of it.
If the report exonerates Trump like they are claiming, then they should have released the full report to back that up. They are literally telling people what to believe and using "Trust us, we've seen the report" as their proof but when asked for the proof, they say we can't see it. Now that their bluff has been called, they're going back to trying to mislead as much as possible while making it difficult to find out actual facts on the matter.
|
Speaking of losing control of the narrative, take a look at what showed up over at the Washington Post of all places this week: an opinion article stating that Fox News was right all along on this Russia gate stuff!
Throughout most of southern Ohio, residents who watch cable news are predominantly glued to one channel: Fox News.
People there don’t watch Fox News to know what to think; they already know what they think, and they avoid news channels that insult their intelligence and core beliefs. Yes, Fox News is an echo chamber for the right, but no more than CNN and MSNBC are for the left, as far as conservatives are concerned. To be fair, when a Democrat is in the White House, the networks switch places, with Fox News criticizing every move, and MSNBC and CNN defending the Oval Office fortress.
But for now, while partisans on the left may quibble, the fact remains that on the subject of collusion with Russia by President Trump or his campaign, Fox News was right and the others were wrong. For at least two years, MSNBC and CNN devoted hour upon hour, day after day, to promoting the narrative that Trump colluded with the Russians, and that special counsel Robert S. Mueller III was going to prove it. That turned out to be wrong.
Along with defending Trump, Fox News hosts such as Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham and, especially, Sean Hannity have been slammed for spending nearly two years clamoring for an investigation of the investigators, aligning themselves with the president’s claim of a politically motivated witch hunt. Most of the media portrayed such accusations as preposterous, designed merely to divert attention from Trump’s alleged misdeeds.
But then comes Attorney General William P. Barr, dropping a bombshell last week by declaring during congressional testimony that he thinks “spying did occur” on the Trump campaign in 2016, and that he is looking into it. Democrats and many in the media immediately blasted Barr for carrying Trump’s water. Barr soon clarified his remarks, saying, “I am not saying that improper surveillance occurred. I’m saying that I am concerned about it and looking into it.”
Just three weeks ago, before Mueller wrapped up his report, The Post — in a story representative of mainstream sources at the time — produced a mostly flattering profile of the new attorney general. “A Justice Department official told The Washington Post last month that Barr is viewed at the department as ‘a lawyer’s lawyer’ and is seen as less politically minded than his predecessors,” the story noted.
Timothy Flanigan, a former Barr colleague at the Justice Department, described Barr’s independent streak, saying, “If Bill starts getting the tweet treatment, Bill is a tough guy. He’s a tough, tough guy. Not that Jeff Sessions wasn’t, but I don’t think Bill’s just going to sit there and take it. I think he would make sure that the president understood that it is not really a smart thing to be lambasting the attorney general.”
Now, Barr is being cast by the liberal cable channels and others as an unscrupulous political hack attached to the president’s leash. On CBS’s “60 Minutes” on Sunday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said that Barr “may be whitewashing” his summary of the report. Such accusations represent an unlikely turn of events for a 68-year-old professional with an impeccable record and a career more behind him than in front of him.
For Fox News devotees in southern Ohio and other Trump strongholds, nothing from the Mueller investigation has provided cause to waver from their preferred news source. Meanwhile, even regular viewers of CNN and MSNBC must certainly recognize the straws being grasped to justify sticking with a conspiracy theory that has been largely debunked — although the expected release of Mueller’s report this week will probably provide just enough juice for one last effort.
After two years of conjecture from all sides, some hard truths have emerged. Russia did try to influence the 2016 election. Neither Trump nor his campaign conspired with Russia. The president’s actions did not rise to criminal obstruction of justice. And how and why this all began may well turn out to be the most troubling story of all.
During his confirmation hearing in January, Barr told senators, “I am not going to do anything that I think is wrong, and I will not be bullied into doing anything I think is wrong. By anybody. Whether it be editorial boards, or Congress or the president. I’m going to do what I think is right.” Observers at the time took Barr’s comments as reassurance of his independence from Trump, but in hindsight it should be noted that he mentioned editorial boards and Congress first.
Barr’s career does not paint a portrait of someone who chases tin-foil-hat conspiracies. There’s enough evidence in the public record to raise valid suspicions that the FBI’s investigation of the Trump campaign was motivated not by real concerns about national security, but rather by a loathing of the candidate. And though new facts may emerge in the full, redacted report, they won’t change the larger truth. It would behoove serious journalists to put aside their political biases and delve into a story that might actually be worthy of Watergate comparisons — even if it includes the painful admission that Fox News has been right all along.
Source.
I'm glad that this guy focused on the liberal news outlets. Their narratives have just been so utterly wrong and it's going to take a long time to disabuse everyone who has bought their crap hook, line, and sinker. But I think that this process is going to be expedited starting with Barr's press conference tomorrow. And it's likely going to kick into overdrive next week. John Solomon said on Hannity tonight that he will be breaking news next week that the investigation into the Trump campaign began in January 2016 with a meeting at the White House. This is the first information that anyone has provided regarding the origin of this mess. I can't wait to see what he says.
|
On April 18 2019 12:29 xDaunt wrote:Speaking of losing control of the narrative, take a look at what showed up over at the Washington Post of all places this week: an opinion article stating that Fox News was right all along on this Russia gate stuff! Show nested quote +Throughout most of southern Ohio, residents who watch cable news are predominantly glued to one channel: Fox News.
People there don’t watch Fox News to know what to think; they already know what they think, and they avoid news channels that insult their intelligence and core beliefs. Yes, Fox News is an echo chamber for the right, but no more than CNN and MSNBC are for the left, as far as conservatives are concerned. To be fair, when a Democrat is in the White House, the networks switch places, with Fox News criticizing every move, and MSNBC and CNN defending the Oval Office fortress.
But for now, while partisans on the left may quibble, the fact remains that on the subject of collusion with Russia by President Trump or his campaign, Fox News was right and the others were wrong. For at least two years, MSNBC and CNN devoted hour upon hour, day after day, to promoting the narrative that Trump colluded with the Russians, and that special counsel Robert S. Mueller III was going to prove it. That turned out to be wrong.
Along with defending Trump, Fox News hosts such as Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham and, especially, Sean Hannity have been slammed for spending nearly two years clamoring for an investigation of the investigators, aligning themselves with the president’s claim of a politically motivated witch hunt. Most of the media portrayed such accusations as preposterous, designed merely to divert attention from Trump’s alleged misdeeds.
But then comes Attorney General William P. Barr, dropping a bombshell last week by declaring during congressional testimony that he thinks “spying did occur” on the Trump campaign in 2016, and that he is looking into it. Democrats and many in the media immediately blasted Barr for carrying Trump’s water. Barr soon clarified his remarks, saying, “I am not saying that improper surveillance occurred. I’m saying that I am concerned about it and looking into it.”
Just three weeks ago, before Mueller wrapped up his report, The Post — in a story representative of mainstream sources at the time — produced a mostly flattering profile of the new attorney general. “A Justice Department official told The Washington Post last month that Barr is viewed at the department as ‘a lawyer’s lawyer’ and is seen as less politically minded than his predecessors,” the story noted.
Timothy Flanigan, a former Barr colleague at the Justice Department, described Barr’s independent streak, saying, “If Bill starts getting the tweet treatment, Bill is a tough guy. He’s a tough, tough guy. Not that Jeff Sessions wasn’t, but I don’t think Bill’s just going to sit there and take it. I think he would make sure that the president understood that it is not really a smart thing to be lambasting the attorney general.”
Now, Barr is being cast by the liberal cable channels and others as an unscrupulous political hack attached to the president’s leash. On CBS’s “60 Minutes” on Sunday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said that Barr “may be whitewashing” his summary of the report. Such accusations represent an unlikely turn of events for a 68-year-old professional with an impeccable record and a career more behind him than in front of him.
For Fox News devotees in southern Ohio and other Trump strongholds, nothing from the Mueller investigation has provided cause to waver from their preferred news source. Meanwhile, even regular viewers of CNN and MSNBC must certainly recognize the straws being grasped to justify sticking with a conspiracy theory that has been largely debunked — although the expected release of Mueller’s report this week will probably provide just enough juice for one last effort.
After two years of conjecture from all sides, some hard truths have emerged. Russia did try to influence the 2016 election. Neither Trump nor his campaign conspired with Russia. The president’s actions did not rise to criminal obstruction of justice. And how and why this all began may well turn out to be the most troubling story of all.
During his confirmation hearing in January, Barr told senators, “I am not going to do anything that I think is wrong, and I will not be bullied into doing anything I think is wrong. By anybody. Whether it be editorial boards, or Congress or the president. I’m going to do what I think is right.” Observers at the time took Barr’s comments as reassurance of his independence from Trump, but in hindsight it should be noted that he mentioned editorial boards and Congress first.
Barr’s career does not paint a portrait of someone who chases tin-foil-hat conspiracies. There’s enough evidence in the public record to raise valid suspicions that the FBI’s investigation of the Trump campaign was motivated not by real concerns about national security, but rather by a loathing of the candidate. And though new facts may emerge in the full, redacted report, they won’t change the larger truth. It would behoove serious journalists to put aside their political biases and delve into a story that might actually be worthy of Watergate comparisons — even if it includes the painful admission that Fox News has been right all along. Source. I'm glad that this guy focused on the liberal news outlets. Their narratives have just been so utterly wrong and it's going to take a long time to disabuse everyone who has bought their crap hook, line, and sinker. But I think that this process is going to be expedited starting with Barr's press conference tomorrow. And it's likely going to kick into overdrive next week. John Solomon said on Hannity tonight that he will be breaking news next week that the investigation into the Trump campaign began in January 2016 with a meeting at the White House. This is the first information that anyone has provided regarding the origin of this mess. I can't wait to see what he says.
There is a fine, but important, distinction. The conspiracy with Russia was ruled out only because it was decided that it was not with the RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT ITSELF. There was shitloads of "collusion: with cutouts and oligarchs. I expect we will see some of that tomorrow.
|
I would not be surprised if Barr is willing to act in politically biased ways. Back when Bush Sr was in office after the Iran Contra scandal, Barr encouraged Bush to pardon not just one but all six of the people who had been criminally charged by the independent counsel investigation that followed that scandal. Barr thought they had been treated unfairly. In addition to that, Barr sent an unsolicited memo last year to the Justice Department arguing that the president can't commit obstruction of justice by firing people. So you can see why Trump hired him. He has expansive views of executive power, at least when a Republican is in office.
|
On April 18 2019 12:13 Ayaz2810 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2019 12:11 Danglars wrote:On April 18 2019 11:41 Ayaz2810 wrote:If there was any doubt that Barr is a hack dedicated to only protecting Trump (there wasn't any doubt, but let's pretend), this puts the nail in the coffin. "Justice Department officials have had numerous conversations with White House lawyers about the conclusions made by Mr. Mueller, the special counsel, in recent days, according to people with knowledge of the discussions. The talks have aided the president’s legal team as it prepares a rebuttal to the report and strategizes for the coming public war over its findings." No one in attendance at the "press conference" from the actual investigative team tomorrow. The silence is deafening. It almost seems like a protest. When Mueller testifies or someone on his team blows the whistle, it will have so much more weight because of their continued professionalism and adherence to norms. This is so blatant it's absurd. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/17/us/politics/trump-mueller-report.html Wow. Mueller's report will obviously be one-sided ... because he's a PROSECUTOR. He's not employed to defend Trump in any way. Trump has a response? Shit, better accuse them all of malfeasance, blatant absurdity, violation of norms, unprofessionalism. The last two years have been instructive in how little it takes for the left to call someone a "hack." It's all about anger that Trump actually gets a say through his AG in the process. Next up: Trump continues his war on the press by ... giving a press conference ... and taking questions ... and releasing the report an hour and a half later. Worst war on the press ever. The purpose of a press conference is for the press to ask questions. Which they can't do if they haven't seen the report. You know damn well this is an attempt to give the spin a couple of hours to take hold before the report drops. It is a last ditch effort to create headlines that morons will not read past and to give Trump TV talking points and clips to show. There is nothing normal, honest, or legitimate about what he is doing.
I note that you did not say "which they can't do because Trump has accused them of such terrible things, and they're all so demoralized, and they're victims of the war on the press." I did note that the report drops in less than two hours afterwards. Are you really that fearful of headlines, talking points, and clips, that this is threatening to you? Democracy much be in dire straights indeed that you are talking about this. Morons get the vote, but you're here telling us that we have to protect morons from forming false opinions. I really wish you'd abandon the pretense and endorse rule by experts.
|
On April 18 2019 12:36 Ayaz2810 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2019 12:29 xDaunt wrote:Speaking of losing control of the narrative, take a look at what showed up over at the Washington Post of all places this week: an opinion article stating that Fox News was right all along on this Russia gate stuff! Throughout most of southern Ohio, residents who watch cable news are predominantly glued to one channel: Fox News.
People there don’t watch Fox News to know what to think; they already know what they think, and they avoid news channels that insult their intelligence and core beliefs. Yes, Fox News is an echo chamber for the right, but no more than CNN and MSNBC are for the left, as far as conservatives are concerned. To be fair, when a Democrat is in the White House, the networks switch places, with Fox News criticizing every move, and MSNBC and CNN defending the Oval Office fortress.
But for now, while partisans on the left may quibble, the fact remains that on the subject of collusion with Russia by President Trump or his campaign, Fox News was right and the others were wrong. For at least two years, MSNBC and CNN devoted hour upon hour, day after day, to promoting the narrative that Trump colluded with the Russians, and that special counsel Robert S. Mueller III was going to prove it. That turned out to be wrong.
Along with defending Trump, Fox News hosts such as Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham and, especially, Sean Hannity have been slammed for spending nearly two years clamoring for an investigation of the investigators, aligning themselves with the president’s claim of a politically motivated witch hunt. Most of the media portrayed such accusations as preposterous, designed merely to divert attention from Trump’s alleged misdeeds.
But then comes Attorney General William P. Barr, dropping a bombshell last week by declaring during congressional testimony that he thinks “spying did occur” on the Trump campaign in 2016, and that he is looking into it. Democrats and many in the media immediately blasted Barr for carrying Trump’s water. Barr soon clarified his remarks, saying, “I am not saying that improper surveillance occurred. I’m saying that I am concerned about it and looking into it.”
Just three weeks ago, before Mueller wrapped up his report, The Post — in a story representative of mainstream sources at the time — produced a mostly flattering profile of the new attorney general. “A Justice Department official told The Washington Post last month that Barr is viewed at the department as ‘a lawyer’s lawyer’ and is seen as less politically minded than his predecessors,” the story noted.
Timothy Flanigan, a former Barr colleague at the Justice Department, described Barr’s independent streak, saying, “If Bill starts getting the tweet treatment, Bill is a tough guy. He’s a tough, tough guy. Not that Jeff Sessions wasn’t, but I don’t think Bill’s just going to sit there and take it. I think he would make sure that the president understood that it is not really a smart thing to be lambasting the attorney general.”
Now, Barr is being cast by the liberal cable channels and others as an unscrupulous political hack attached to the president’s leash. On CBS’s “60 Minutes” on Sunday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said that Barr “may be whitewashing” his summary of the report. Such accusations represent an unlikely turn of events for a 68-year-old professional with an impeccable record and a career more behind him than in front of him.
For Fox News devotees in southern Ohio and other Trump strongholds, nothing from the Mueller investigation has provided cause to waver from their preferred news source. Meanwhile, even regular viewers of CNN and MSNBC must certainly recognize the straws being grasped to justify sticking with a conspiracy theory that has been largely debunked — although the expected release of Mueller’s report this week will probably provide just enough juice for one last effort.
After two years of conjecture from all sides, some hard truths have emerged. Russia did try to influence the 2016 election. Neither Trump nor his campaign conspired with Russia. The president’s actions did not rise to criminal obstruction of justice. And how and why this all began may well turn out to be the most troubling story of all.
During his confirmation hearing in January, Barr told senators, “I am not going to do anything that I think is wrong, and I will not be bullied into doing anything I think is wrong. By anybody. Whether it be editorial boards, or Congress or the president. I’m going to do what I think is right.” Observers at the time took Barr’s comments as reassurance of his independence from Trump, but in hindsight it should be noted that he mentioned editorial boards and Congress first.
Barr’s career does not paint a portrait of someone who chases tin-foil-hat conspiracies. There’s enough evidence in the public record to raise valid suspicions that the FBI’s investigation of the Trump campaign was motivated not by real concerns about national security, but rather by a loathing of the candidate. And though new facts may emerge in the full, redacted report, they won’t change the larger truth. It would behoove serious journalists to put aside their political biases and delve into a story that might actually be worthy of Watergate comparisons — even if it includes the painful admission that Fox News has been right all along. Source. I'm glad that this guy focused on the liberal news outlets. Their narratives have just been so utterly wrong and it's going to take a long time to disabuse everyone who has bought their crap hook, line, and sinker. But I think that this process is going to be expedited starting with Barr's press conference tomorrow. And it's likely going to kick into overdrive next week. John Solomon said on Hannity tonight that he will be breaking news next week that the investigation into the Trump campaign began in January 2016 with a meeting at the White House. This is the first information that anyone has provided regarding the origin of this mess. I can't wait to see what he says. There is a fine, but important, distinction. The conspiracy with Russia was ruled out only because it was decided that it was not with the RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT ITSELF. There was shitloads of "collusion: with cutouts and oligarchs. I expect we will see some of that tomorrow.
I'm glad you pointed this out. The contacts weren't with Russian government agents. The contacts with were western spies (Halper, and likely Mifsud), Fusion GPS contacts (ie the Trump Tower meeting stuff), and people friendly to the Clintons (like Downer). I really, really hope that Mueller talks about this in exquisite detail in his report, but I doubt he will.
|
On April 18 2019 12:39 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2019 12:36 Ayaz2810 wrote:On April 18 2019 12:29 xDaunt wrote:Speaking of losing control of the narrative, take a look at what showed up over at the Washington Post of all places this week: an opinion article stating that Fox News was right all along on this Russia gate stuff! Throughout most of southern Ohio, residents who watch cable news are predominantly glued to one channel: Fox News.
People there don’t watch Fox News to know what to think; they already know what they think, and they avoid news channels that insult their intelligence and core beliefs. Yes, Fox News is an echo chamber for the right, but no more than CNN and MSNBC are for the left, as far as conservatives are concerned. To be fair, when a Democrat is in the White House, the networks switch places, with Fox News criticizing every move, and MSNBC and CNN defending the Oval Office fortress.
But for now, while partisans on the left may quibble, the fact remains that on the subject of collusion with Russia by President Trump or his campaign, Fox News was right and the others were wrong. For at least two years, MSNBC and CNN devoted hour upon hour, day after day, to promoting the narrative that Trump colluded with the Russians, and that special counsel Robert S. Mueller III was going to prove it. That turned out to be wrong.
Along with defending Trump, Fox News hosts such as Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham and, especially, Sean Hannity have been slammed for spending nearly two years clamoring for an investigation of the investigators, aligning themselves with the president’s claim of a politically motivated witch hunt. Most of the media portrayed such accusations as preposterous, designed merely to divert attention from Trump’s alleged misdeeds.
But then comes Attorney General William P. Barr, dropping a bombshell last week by declaring during congressional testimony that he thinks “spying did occur” on the Trump campaign in 2016, and that he is looking into it. Democrats and many in the media immediately blasted Barr for carrying Trump’s water. Barr soon clarified his remarks, saying, “I am not saying that improper surveillance occurred. I’m saying that I am concerned about it and looking into it.”
Just three weeks ago, before Mueller wrapped up his report, The Post — in a story representative of mainstream sources at the time — produced a mostly flattering profile of the new attorney general. “A Justice Department official told The Washington Post last month that Barr is viewed at the department as ‘a lawyer’s lawyer’ and is seen as less politically minded than his predecessors,” the story noted.
Timothy Flanigan, a former Barr colleague at the Justice Department, described Barr’s independent streak, saying, “If Bill starts getting the tweet treatment, Bill is a tough guy. He’s a tough, tough guy. Not that Jeff Sessions wasn’t, but I don’t think Bill’s just going to sit there and take it. I think he would make sure that the president understood that it is not really a smart thing to be lambasting the attorney general.”
Now, Barr is being cast by the liberal cable channels and others as an unscrupulous political hack attached to the president’s leash. On CBS’s “60 Minutes” on Sunday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said that Barr “may be whitewashing” his summary of the report. Such accusations represent an unlikely turn of events for a 68-year-old professional with an impeccable record and a career more behind him than in front of him.
For Fox News devotees in southern Ohio and other Trump strongholds, nothing from the Mueller investigation has provided cause to waver from their preferred news source. Meanwhile, even regular viewers of CNN and MSNBC must certainly recognize the straws being grasped to justify sticking with a conspiracy theory that has been largely debunked — although the expected release of Mueller’s report this week will probably provide just enough juice for one last effort.
After two years of conjecture from all sides, some hard truths have emerged. Russia did try to influence the 2016 election. Neither Trump nor his campaign conspired with Russia. The president’s actions did not rise to criminal obstruction of justice. And how and why this all began may well turn out to be the most troubling story of all.
During his confirmation hearing in January, Barr told senators, “I am not going to do anything that I think is wrong, and I will not be bullied into doing anything I think is wrong. By anybody. Whether it be editorial boards, or Congress or the president. I’m going to do what I think is right.” Observers at the time took Barr’s comments as reassurance of his independence from Trump, but in hindsight it should be noted that he mentioned editorial boards and Congress first.
Barr’s career does not paint a portrait of someone who chases tin-foil-hat conspiracies. There’s enough evidence in the public record to raise valid suspicions that the FBI’s investigation of the Trump campaign was motivated not by real concerns about national security, but rather by a loathing of the candidate. And though new facts may emerge in the full, redacted report, they won’t change the larger truth. It would behoove serious journalists to put aside their political biases and delve into a story that might actually be worthy of Watergate comparisons — even if it includes the painful admission that Fox News has been right all along. Source. I'm glad that this guy focused on the liberal news outlets. Their narratives have just been so utterly wrong and it's going to take a long time to disabuse everyone who has bought their crap hook, line, and sinker. But I think that this process is going to be expedited starting with Barr's press conference tomorrow. And it's likely going to kick into overdrive next week. John Solomon said on Hannity tonight that he will be breaking news next week that the investigation into the Trump campaign began in January 2016 with a meeting at the White House. This is the first information that anyone has provided regarding the origin of this mess. I can't wait to see what he says. There is a fine, but important, distinction. The conspiracy with Russia was ruled out only because it was decided that it was not with the RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT ITSELF. There was shitloads of "collusion: with cutouts and oligarchs. I expect we will see some of that tomorrow. I'm glad you pointed this out. The contacts weren't with Russian government agents. The contacts with were western spies (Halper, and likely Mifsud), Fusion GPS contacts (ie the Trump Tower meeting stuff), and people friendly to the Clintons (like Downer). I really, really hope that Mueller talks about this in exquisite detail in his report, but I doubt he will.
Stop being intentionally obtuse. You know as well as I that every meeting with an oligarch, representative of one, former Russian intel agent, or "official" is the same as talking to Putin himself.
|
On April 18 2019 12:39 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2019 12:13 Ayaz2810 wrote:On April 18 2019 12:11 Danglars wrote:On April 18 2019 11:41 Ayaz2810 wrote:If there was any doubt that Barr is a hack dedicated to only protecting Trump (there wasn't any doubt, but let's pretend), this puts the nail in the coffin. "Justice Department officials have had numerous conversations with White House lawyers about the conclusions made by Mr. Mueller, the special counsel, in recent days, according to people with knowledge of the discussions. The talks have aided the president’s legal team as it prepares a rebuttal to the report and strategizes for the coming public war over its findings." No one in attendance at the "press conference" from the actual investigative team tomorrow. The silence is deafening. It almost seems like a protest. When Mueller testifies or someone on his team blows the whistle, it will have so much more weight because of their continued professionalism and adherence to norms. This is so blatant it's absurd. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/17/us/politics/trump-mueller-report.html Wow. Mueller's report will obviously be one-sided ... because he's a PROSECUTOR. He's not employed to defend Trump in any way. Trump has a response? Shit, better accuse them all of malfeasance, blatant absurdity, violation of norms, unprofessionalism. The last two years have been instructive in how little it takes for the left to call someone a "hack." It's all about anger that Trump actually gets a say through his AG in the process. Next up: Trump continues his war on the press by ... giving a press conference ... and taking questions ... and releasing the report an hour and a half later. Worst war on the press ever. The purpose of a press conference is for the press to ask questions. Which they can't do if they haven't seen the report. You know damn well this is an attempt to give the spin a couple of hours to take hold before the report drops. It is a last ditch effort to create headlines that morons will not read past and to give Trump TV talking points and clips to show. There is nothing normal, honest, or legitimate about what he is doing. I note that you did not say "which they can't do because Trump has accused them of such terrible things, and they're all so demoralized, and they're victims of the war on the press." I did note that the report drops in less than two hours afterwards. Are you really that fearful of headlines, talking points, and clips, that this is threatening to you? Democracy much be in dire straights indeed that you are talking about this. Morons get the vote, but you're here telling us that we have to protect morons from forming false opinions. I really wish you'd abandon the pretense and endorse rule by experts.
When people who watch Fox are swayed by blatant lies, clips that reinforce the false narrative that Trump is exonerated or is not an obvious criminal are concerning. I care about the American people, and it pisses me off when they are lied to day in and day out. Especially about something so important. Protecting morons from forming false opinions is a pretty good idea. I'm glad you mentioned it.
|
|
|
Democrats were quite lucky last time that Bernie was such a good sport about the party screwing him over. I doubt that Bernie's supporters will let him be so magnanimous if the party tries something this time around.
|
On April 18 2019 13:22 xDaunt wrote:Democrats were quite lucky last time that Bernie was such a good sport about the party screwing him over. I doubt that Bernie's supporters will let him be so magnanimous if the party tries something this time around.
The slightest hint of foul and his supporters will go berserk. He's the freaking frontrunner right now ffs lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
