|
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 May 02 2019 00:15 JimmiC wrote:
I think I remember people stating this before but man these people are old! Like way past what I would feel comfortable as my doctor old, heck I wouldn't think that they all would be able to pass drivers tests. They even talk slow and seem to struggle.
I'm sure that many are impressive people who have lead impressive lives and have great amounts of wisdom. But I would prefer people of that age group more in advisory roles instead of the decision making ones. Their is no way they can be close to performing at the level they once did from a cognitive perspective. Let alone be in touch with much of the populace,
One more generation. Just wait one more generation abd we'll be rid of the fossils.
|
United States43967 Posts
1) Write a memo agreeing with Trump regarding Mueller being a witch hunt and saying that you think it should all be dismissed out of hand
2) Send memo unsolicited to Trump’s legal defence team
3) Trump appoints you to a position of public trust with power over the investigation
4) Dismiss it all out of hand
The most surprising thing about this is the few days posters like xDaunt spent insisting that Barr’s summary was the end of all this.
|
On May 02 2019 00:18 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2019 00:15 JimmiC wrote:
I think I remember people stating this before but man these people are old! Like way past what I would feel comfortable as my doctor old, heck I wouldn't think that they all would be able to pass drivers tests. They even talk slow and seem to struggle.
I'm sure that many are impressive people who have lead impressive lives and have great amounts of wisdom. But I would prefer people of that age group more in advisory roles instead of the decision making ones. Their is no way they can be close to performing at the level they once did from a cognitive perspective. Let alone be in touch with much of the populace, One more generation. Just wait one more generation abd we'll be rid of the fossils. And then new fossils will replace them.
|
Leahy just took his best shot at Barr on this "Barr lied" nonsense and fell flat. The Democrats have nothing on Barr. And all of you who still think that anything that Trump did constituted a crime -- particularly the McGahn stuff -- should listen to how Barr responded to Feinstein's questioning. Barr made it very clear why Mueller could not have pushed the obstruction charge.
|
On May 02 2019 00:26 xDaunt wrote:
Leahy just took his best shot at Barr on this "Barr lied" nonsense and fell flat. The Democrats have nothing on Barr. And all of you who still think that anything that Trump did constituted a crime -- particularly the McGahn stuff -- should listen to how Barr responded to Feinstein's questioning. Barr made it very clear why Mueller could not have pushed the obstruction charge.
I’m sure that will be the end of it and they won’t call Mueller to testify now. Big win all around.
I remember back in the day you told folk to not expect a witness before congress to perjure themselves. That it won’t happen. As Barr is a pretty good attorney, I don’t think anyone expected him to admit “Oh yeah, left that letter out of my testimony last time to deceive congress.” Barr is a lot of things. Stupid is not one of them.
|
Leahy and Durbin have given their all to this project, and Barr's speaking clearly his opinion, the facts, the law, and timelines. Trump's got a great AG if he can keep him.
|
The problem that the Democrats are having with Barr is that they are asking him questions that aren't properly predicated in the facts. It's an apples and oranges problem. If they are trying to pin Barr down on his position on apples, they need to ask him about apples, not oranges. It's just very sloppy questioning.
|
"I don't believe the word "spying" has any pejorative connotation" says William Barr, former CIA employee in the 1970s who knows very well that the word has negative and pejorative connotations. This is a special level of fecklessness, even for him.
|
|
|
On May 02 2019 00:10 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2019 00:03 Gorsameth wrote:On May 01 2019 23:49 Danglars wrote:On May 01 2019 23:27 Gorsameth wrote:On May 01 2019 23:22 Danglars wrote:On May 01 2019 22:58 mikedebo wrote:
If Barr manages to get out of this scott-free, will we say that there were no Barrs held in contempt of court? Since his opening statement said he didn’t reverse any redaction decisions, can we say that there were no holds Barred? I’m not at all surprised that Mueller was concerned about narrative in the few weeks before release. It’s consistent with the tone of the report made for public consumption. In the words of Andrew McCarthy, “he and the Clinton/Obama minions he recruited to staff the case wrote the report with a certain mood music in mind. To their chagrin, Barr gave us just the no-crime bottom line.” It’s pretty neat that the private letter, obviously written for the public, was leaked late in the day before Barr faces two days of tough questioning before Congress. Narrative wars, and Mueller’s as concerned as the media. Is it strange that he letter is leaked when last time Barr, in front of Congress, having already received the letter, said he didn't know what Mueller thought? He damn well knew, Mueller told him. Twice. He lied and tried to hide the truth. So whistleblowers have to show the American public what is really going on. If he didn't lie last time and told Congress about the letter and phonecall there would have been nothing to leak. No, you’re confusing two questions, perhaps deliberately. The question before Barr in Congress was whether Mueller agreed with Barr’s conclusion on obstruction. The letter answered the question if Mueller agreed with releasing only the decision conclusions ahead of the full report, which Mueller did not agree. Now are you going to “hide the truth,” or admit Barr told no lies? I’m perfectly willing to recognize mistakes, just not persecution ignorant of the facts. Barr isn't completely stupid enough to directly lie. Just lies of omission, like taking parts of sentences from Mueller's report out of context to change their meaning in a letter to congress. If that is the bar(r) you set for an AG then power to you. I'd place it a little bit higher then that. But you see, you told me "in front of Congress ... said he didn't know what Mueller thought" "Mueller told him. Twice" That's a lie, before you want to retreat into other forms, like lying by omission. Do you retract what you said was the lie? Do you admit the summary of conclusions and prosecutorial decision on obstruction of justice are different things? Tell me now so I know if this was a mistake or something different.
+ Show Spoiler +On May 01 2019 23:59 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2019 23:49 Danglars wrote:On May 01 2019 23:27 Gorsameth wrote:On May 01 2019 23:22 Danglars wrote:On May 01 2019 22:58 mikedebo wrote:
If Barr manages to get out of this scott-free, will we say that there were no Barrs held in contempt of court? Since his opening statement said he didn’t reverse any redaction decisions, can we say that there were no holds Barred? I’m not at all surprised that Mueller was concerned about narrative in the few weeks before release. It’s consistent with the tone of the report made for public consumption. In the words of Andrew McCarthy, “he and the Clinton/Obama minions he recruited to staff the case wrote the report with a certain mood music in mind. To their chagrin, Barr gave us just the no-crime bottom line.” It’s pretty neat that the private letter, obviously written for the public, was leaked late in the day before Barr faces two days of tough questioning before Congress. Narrative wars, and Mueller’s as concerned as the media. Is it strange that he letter is leaked when last time Barr, in front of Congress, having already received the letter, said he didn't know what Mueller thought? He damn well knew, Mueller told him. Twice. He lied and tried to hide the truth. So whistleblowers have to show the American public what is really going on. If he didn't lie last time and told Congress about the letter and phonecall there would have been nothing to leak. No, you’re confusing two questions, perhaps deliberately. The question before Barr in Congress was whether Mueller agreed with Barr’s conclusion on obstruction. The letter answered the question if Mueller agreed with releasing only the decision conclusions ahead of the full report, which Mueller did not agree. Now are you going to “hide the truth,” or admit Barr told no lies? I’m perfectly willing to recognize mistakes, just not persecution ignorant of the facts. Are we talking about the same letter? "The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not full capture the context, natures and substance of this Office's work and conclusions"
Sounds like to me that answer to "the question before Barr in Congress was whether Mueller agreed with Barr’s conclusion on obstruction" is No, Mueller does not.
Is this a new thing you are doing here? If reality offers a different perspective, you just ignore it, and pretend it never happened?
This is some alternative facts going on here. At least xdaunt and Serm bother to reply back at times when contrary information is given.
|
On May 02 2019 00:26 xDaunt wrote:
Leahy just took his best shot at Barr on this "Barr lied" nonsense and fell flat. The Democrats have nothing on Barr. And all of you who still think that anything that Trump did constituted a crime -- particularly the McGahn stuff -- should listen to how Barr responded to Feinstein's questioning. Barr made it very clear why Mueller could not have pushed the obstruction charge. The "go and replace X" is not the same as "fire X" defence?
Because the person replacing X will totally not be selected to not look to far into Trump?
"Your honor, I did not kill this man. I merely removed his ability to breath. His death as a result of that is not my fault"
Its horseshit and you know it.
|
On May 02 2019 01:07 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2019 00:26 xDaunt wrote:
Leahy just took his best shot at Barr on this "Barr lied" nonsense and fell flat. The Democrats have nothing on Barr. And all of you who still think that anything that Trump did constituted a crime -- particularly the McGahn stuff -- should listen to how Barr responded to Feinstein's questioning. Barr made it very clear why Mueller could not have pushed the obstruction charge. The "go and replace X" is not the same as "fire X" defence? Because the person replacing X will totally not be selected to not look to far into Trump? "Your honor, I did not kill this man. I merely removed his ability to breath. His death as a result of that is not my fault" Its horseshit and you know it.
As Barr pointed out, directing that someone be fired and the investigation shut down is not the same as having the DOJ have someone removed and replaced due to a conflict of interest.
|
On May 02 2019 01:18 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2019 01:07 Gorsameth wrote:On May 02 2019 00:26 xDaunt wrote:
Leahy just took his best shot at Barr on this "Barr lied" nonsense and fell flat. The Democrats have nothing on Barr. And all of you who still think that anything that Trump did constituted a crime -- particularly the McGahn stuff -- should listen to how Barr responded to Feinstein's questioning. Barr made it very clear why Mueller could not have pushed the obstruction charge. The "go and replace X" is not the same as "fire X" defence? Because the person replacing X will totally not be selected to not look to far into Trump? "Your honor, I did not kill this man. I merely removed his ability to breath. His death as a result of that is not my fault" Its horseshit and you know it. As Barr pointed out, directing that someone be fired and the investigation shut down is not the same as having the DOJ have someone removed and replaced due to a conflict of interest. And who would decide this person to replace Mueller?
Trump?
His administration?
Congress?
"please remove this man and replace him with someone who will not look at me" is totally not obstruction of justice /s.
Your not fooling anyone, including yourself.
|
On May 02 2019 01:23 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2019 01:18 xDaunt wrote:On May 02 2019 01:07 Gorsameth wrote:On May 02 2019 00:26 xDaunt wrote:
Leahy just took his best shot at Barr on this "Barr lied" nonsense and fell flat. The Democrats have nothing on Barr. And all of you who still think that anything that Trump did constituted a crime -- particularly the McGahn stuff -- should listen to how Barr responded to Feinstein's questioning. Barr made it very clear why Mueller could not have pushed the obstruction charge. The "go and replace X" is not the same as "fire X" defence? Because the person replacing X will totally not be selected to not look to far into Trump? "Your honor, I did not kill this man. I merely removed his ability to breath. His death as a result of that is not my fault" Its horseshit and you know it. As Barr pointed out, directing that someone be fired and the investigation shut down is not the same as having the DOJ have someone removed and replaced due to a conflict of interest. And who would decide this person to replace Mueller? Trump? His administration? Congress? "please remove this man and replace him with someone who will not look at me" is totally not obstruction of justice /s. Your not feeling anyone, including yourself.
The DOJ (in this case, Rosenstein) would appoint the replacement just as the DOJ appointed Mueller in the first place. This is basic stuff.
|
On May 02 2019 01:27 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2019 01:23 Gorsameth wrote:On May 02 2019 01:18 xDaunt wrote:On May 02 2019 01:07 Gorsameth wrote:On May 02 2019 00:26 xDaunt wrote:
Leahy just took his best shot at Barr on this "Barr lied" nonsense and fell flat. The Democrats have nothing on Barr. And all of you who still think that anything that Trump did constituted a crime -- particularly the McGahn stuff -- should listen to how Barr responded to Feinstein's questioning. Barr made it very clear why Mueller could not have pushed the obstruction charge. The "go and replace X" is not the same as "fire X" defence? Because the person replacing X will totally not be selected to not look to far into Trump? "Your honor, I did not kill this man. I merely removed his ability to breath. His death as a result of that is not my fault" Its horseshit and you know it. As Barr pointed out, directing that someone be fired and the investigation shut down is not the same as having the DOJ have someone removed and replaced due to a conflict of interest. And who would decide this person to replace Mueller? Trump? His administration? Congress? "please remove this man and replace him with someone who will not look at me" is totally not obstruction of justice /s. Your not feeling anyone, including yourself. The DOJ (in this case, Rosenstein) would appoint the replacement just as the DOJ appointed Mueller in the first place. This is basic stuff. So someone loyal to Trump who has previously agreed to not look at Trump himself.
You know, like Barr's application that he would not indict a President to get the job of AG.
Good, that's what I expected.
Ps.
Still not sure what conflict of interest requires Mueller to be removed in the first place.
|
|
|
On May 02 2019 01:32 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2019 01:27 xDaunt wrote:On May 02 2019 01:23 Gorsameth wrote:On May 02 2019 01:18 xDaunt wrote:On May 02 2019 01:07 Gorsameth wrote:On May 02 2019 00:26 xDaunt wrote:
Leahy just took his best shot at Barr on this "Barr lied" nonsense and fell flat. The Democrats have nothing on Barr. And all of you who still think that anything that Trump did constituted a crime -- particularly the McGahn stuff -- should listen to how Barr responded to Feinstein's questioning. Barr made it very clear why Mueller could not have pushed the obstruction charge. The "go and replace X" is not the same as "fire X" defence? Because the person replacing X will totally not be selected to not look to far into Trump? "Your honor, I did not kill this man. I merely removed his ability to breath. His death as a result of that is not my fault" Its horseshit and you know it. As Barr pointed out, directing that someone be fired and the investigation shut down is not the same as having the DOJ have someone removed and replaced due to a conflict of interest. And who would decide this person to replace Mueller? Trump? His administration? Congress? "please remove this man and replace him with someone who will not look at me" is totally not obstruction of justice /s. Your not feeling anyone, including yourself. The DOJ (in this case, Rosenstein) would appoint the replacement just as the DOJ appointed Mueller in the first place. This is basic stuff. So someone loyal to Trump who has previously agreed to not look at Trump himself. You know, like Barr's application that he would not indict a President to get the job of AG. Good, that's what I expected. Ps. Still not sure what conflict of interest requires Mueller to be removed in the first place.
Rosenstein was loyal to the Trump? The same guy who appointed the special counsel and reportedly wanted to a wear a wire to secretly record the president? Are you joking?
|
On May 02 2019 01:58 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2019 01:32 Gorsameth wrote:On May 02 2019 01:27 xDaunt wrote:On May 02 2019 01:23 Gorsameth wrote:On May 02 2019 01:18 xDaunt wrote:On May 02 2019 01:07 Gorsameth wrote:On May 02 2019 00:26 xDaunt wrote:
Leahy just took his best shot at Barr on this "Barr lied" nonsense and fell flat. The Democrats have nothing on Barr. And all of you who still think that anything that Trump did constituted a crime -- particularly the McGahn stuff -- should listen to how Barr responded to Feinstein's questioning. Barr made it very clear why Mueller could not have pushed the obstruction charge. The "go and replace X" is not the same as "fire X" defence? Because the person replacing X will totally not be selected to not look to far into Trump? "Your honor, I did not kill this man. I merely removed his ability to breath. His death as a result of that is not my fault" Its horseshit and you know it. As Barr pointed out, directing that someone be fired and the investigation shut down is not the same as having the DOJ have someone removed and replaced due to a conflict of interest. And who would decide this person to replace Mueller? Trump? His administration? Congress? "please remove this man and replace him with someone who will not look at me" is totally not obstruction of justice /s. Your not feeling anyone, including yourself. The DOJ (in this case, Rosenstein) would appoint the replacement just as the DOJ appointed Mueller in the first place. This is basic stuff. So someone loyal to Trump who has previously agreed to not look at Trump himself. You know, like Barr's application that he would not indict a President to get the job of AG. Good, that's what I expected. Ps. Still not sure what conflict of interest requires Mueller to be removed in the first place. Rosenstein was loyal to the Trump? The same guy who appointed the special counsel and reportedly wanted to a wear a wire to secretly record the president? Are you joking? How can I be joking about something I didn't say?
|
Barr left out the part where the special counsel can only be fired for good cause and failed to detail what Trumps reasoning was. So he is technically correct in part, but omitted the part that matters.
|
He really sounds like the presidents lawyer in this Klobuchar questioning. 'Oh I'm sure he meant flipping in a different way' 'well he said he never said 'fire' the counsel'. Just wiping all the presidents actions away with a 'I'm sure he didn't mean it like that' attitude lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
