EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 1414
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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 | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On May 02 2019 02:32 JimmiC wrote: So what you are saying is that you can be factual and not honest. It sounds much the posters on this thread who like to quote just one line and comment on it out of context. Yes it is factual and no it is not honest. It is a critical part of the practice of law, to be frank. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
Senator Van Holen, whether you knew that Bob Mueller supported your conclusion and you said "I don't know whether Bob Mueller supported my conclusion." >>Excuse me, that conclusion was not related to my description of the findings in the March 24th letter. That conclusion refers to my conclusion on the obstruction cases. So it's a different conclusion. I bet we're going to have another full day where Democrats and allies pretend Mueller wanting more released early is the same as Barr/Rosenstein's conclusion on obstruction. Enough of their voters want to believe Barr lied and Barr's a hack, and they won't read further to understand it's conflict with the facts. Politically, this strategy is useful because Barr is looking into the grounds for counterintelligence investigation and spying, and the dossier, and the FISA application, which may reflect badly on reporting and statements by Democratic leaders. If they're successful in persuading Democrats that this guy is sleazy, then the fallout from the investigation passes under a cloud. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21700 Posts
On May 02 2019 02:55 Danglars wrote: And yet i'm perfectly fine with Barr's investigation and will judge it on the evidence that it discovers.Blumenthal tried the same line just a few minutes ago. Senator Van Holen, whether you knew that Bob Mueller supported your conclusion and you said "I don't know whether Bob Mueller supported my conclusion." >>Excuse me, that conclusion was not related to my description of the findings in the March 24th letter. That conclusion refers to my conclusion on the obstruction cases. So it's a different conclusion. I bet we're going to have another full day where Democrats and allies pretend Mueller wanting more released early is the same as Barr/Rosenstein's conclusion on obstruction. Enough of their voters want to believe Barr lied and Barr's a hack, and they won't read further to understand it's conflict with the facts. Politically, this strategy is useful because Barr is looking into the grounds for counterintelligence investigation and spying, and the dossier, and the FISA application, which may reflect badly on reporting and statements by Democratic leaders. If they're successful in persuading Democrats that this guy is sleazy, then the fallout from the investigation passes under a cloud. One side is fine with people being looked at. The other isn't. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23246 Posts
"The words we use to characterize an issue make a difference in how it is perceived and prioritized politically," said Arkush. When outlets with massive nightly audiences like the ones the report studied "consistently fail to use language that conveys that climate change is a crisis or emergency," Arkush added, "they unwittingly put a heavy thumb on the scale in favor of complacency and inaction." Fox News was the worst offender, with the use of "climate crisis" coming in for only five mentions during the coverage period—all of which, as Public Citizen noted, were efforts to "minimize the issue with false logic, mockery or misinformation." But other news networks weren't much better than the conservative channel. The only network to use the term in double digits was CNN, and only 16 of the 26 mentions were by a host. Van Jones, whose eponymous show ran every other Sunday during the survey period, accounted for six of those mentions. NEW REPORT: In 2018, only 50 of 1,429 national TV news segments used the word “crisis” or “emergency" when discussing climate change. That's a measly 3.5 percent. Here's how the networks stack up: MSNBC: 7% NBC: 6% CNN: 3% CBS: 3% ABC: 2% Fox: 2% www.commondreams.org | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On May 02 2019 03:12 Gorsameth wrote: And yet i'm perfectly fine with Barr's investigation and will judge it on the evidence that it discovers. One side is fine with people being looked at. The other isn't. I shined a light, twice, on your false smear of Barr's testimony, and gave you a chance to acknowledge a mistake and move on. You have not taken that chance. You doubled down, citing nothing of substance to invalidate my charge, and changed it to lies of omission. I therefore conclude that you're unwilling to admit mistakes, rather hoping that modifying a stream of accusations is sufficient to never come to terms with the argument presented. I rapidly lose interest in your third and fourth attempts to prove something, when you neglect to conclude on the first and second attempts. This is childlike conduct and I wish to speak to people prepared to have adult conversations on the subject. | ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
Starting out with 'has WH asked you to start investigations'. Barr goes in complete shutdown mode in response, suddenly not understanding what asking would mean. And then going something like 'well nobody literally asked me' and she goes ok so implied, suggested etc and he couldn't deny it so just went off on tangents of rambling. Barr fumbled so much it was very clear he was guided by WH in starting the counter investigations. and then she goes into how he made his charging decision and he looked waaay out of his depth | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21700 Posts
On May 02 2019 03:42 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: Kamala Harris is a really good questioner, it's worth rewatching. Starting out with 'has WH asked you to start investigations'. Barr goes in complete shutdown mode in response, suddenly not understanding what asking would mean. And then going something like 'well nobody literally asked me' and she goes ok so implied, suggested etc and he couldn't deny it so just went off on tangents of rambling. Barr fumbled so much it was very clear he was guided by WH in starting the counter investigations. and then she goes into how he made his charging decision and he looked waaay out of his depth I'm reading the CNN blog (which I am sure some will considered biased) but these 2 exchanges from Harris were mentioned and they stand out as bad for Barr indeed (tho nothing will come of it because Republicans will refuse to hold him accountable) + Show Spoiler + Harris: "As the attorney general of the United States, you run the United States Department of Justice. If in any US attorney's office around the country, the head of that office, when being asked to make a critical decision about, in this case, the person who holds the highest office in the land, and whether or not that person committed a crime, would you accept them recommending a charging decision to you if they had not reviewed the evidence?" Barr: "Well, that’s a question for Bob Mueller. He’s the US attorney. He’s the one who presents the report." Harris: "But it was you who made the charging decision, sir." Barr: "What --" Harris: "You made the decision not to charge the President." Barr: "No -- in the [sic] memo, and in the declination memo --" Harris: "You said it was your baby, what did you mean by that?" Barr: "It was my baby to decide whether or not to disclose it to the public." Harris: "And whose decision was it -- who had the power to make the decision about whether or not the evidence was sufficient to make a determination of whether there had been an obstruction of justice?" Barr: "Prosecution memos go up to the supervisor, in this case, it was, you know, the attorney general and the deputy attorney general, who decide on the final decision. And that is based on the memo as presented by the US attorney's office" Harris: "I think you’ve made it clear that you have not looked at the evidence. We can move on. I think you’ve made it clear sir that you’ve not looked at the evidence, and we can move on." So Mueller decided not to charge, citing that he couldn't and therefor Barr decided not to charge because that's what Mueller said. despite it not being what Mueller said at all. And a very good point about how Rosenstein could help Barr in reaching a decision to prosecute Trump when Rosenstein was a witness in the case and had to recuse himself. + Show Spoiler + Harris: Did the ethics officials in your office in the Department of Justice review the appropriateness of Rod Rosenstein being a part of making the charging decision on an investigation which he is also a witness in? Barr: So, as I said, my understanding was he had been cleared and he had been cleared before I arrived. Harris: In making a decision on the Mueller report? Barr: Yes. Harris: And the findings of whether or not the case would be charged on obstruction of justice? He had been cleared on that? Barr: He was the acting attorney general on the Mueller investigation. Harris: Had he been cleared to make — Barr: I'm informed that before I arrived, he had been cleared by the ethics officials. Harris: Of what? Barr: Of serving as acting attorney general on the Mueller case. Harris: How about making a charging decision on obstruction of justice, the underlying offices which include him as a witness? Barr: That is what the acting attorney general's job is. Harris: To be a witness and to make the decision about being prosecuted? Barr: Well, no. But to make charging decisions. Harris: I have nothing else. My time has run out. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On May 02 2019 04:18 JimmiC wrote: And probably the main reason people don't like lawyers. Unless they are using their dirty tricks for you of course! It isn’t a dirty trick if everyone knows that is what is happening and there are rules to compel the truth. Congress is not a court. It has different rules that make this stuff much easier. | ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
On May 02 2019 04:10 Gorsameth wrote: I'm reading the CNN blog (which I am sure some will considered biased) but these 2 exchanges from Harris were mentioned and they stand out as bad for Barr indeed (tho nothing will come of it because Republicans will refuse to hold him accountable) + Show Spoiler + Harris: "As the attorney general of the United States, you run the United States Department of Justice. If in any US attorney's office around the country, the head of that office, when being asked to make a critical decision about, in this case, the person who holds the highest office in the land, and whether or not that person committed a crime, would you accept them recommending a charging decision to you if they had not reviewed the evidence?" Barr: "Well, that’s a question for Bob Mueller. He’s the US attorney. He’s the one who presents the report." Harris: "But it was you who made the charging decision, sir." Barr: "What --" Harris: "You made the decision not to charge the President." Barr: "No -- in the [sic] memo, and in the declination memo --" Harris: "You said it was your baby, what did you mean by that?" Barr: "It was my baby to decide whether or not to disclose it to the public." Harris: "And whose decision was it -- who had the power to make the decision about whether or not the evidence was sufficient to make a determination of whether there had been an obstruction of justice?" Barr: "Prosecution memos go up to the supervisor, in this case, it was, you know, the attorney general and the deputy attorney general, who decide on the final decision. And that is based on the memo as presented by the US attorney's office" Harris: "I think you’ve made it clear that you have not looked at the evidence. We can move on. I think you’ve made it clear sir that you’ve not looked at the evidence, and we can move on." So Mueller decided not to charge, citing that he couldn't and therefor Barr decided not to charge because that's what Mueller said. despite it not being what Mueller said at all. And a very good point about how Rosenstein could help Barr in reaching a decision to prosecute Trump when Rosenstein was a witness in the case and had to recuse himself. + Show Spoiler + Harris: Did the ethics officials in your office in the Department of Justice review the appropriateness of Rod Rosenstein being a part of making the charging decision on an investigation which he is also a witness in? Barr: So, as I said, my understanding was he had been cleared and he had been cleared before I arrived. Harris: In making a decision on the Mueller report? Barr: Yes. Harris: And the findings of whether or not the case would be charged on obstruction of justice? He had been cleared on that? Barr: He was the acting attorney general on the Mueller investigation. Harris: Had he been cleared to make — Barr: I'm informed that before I arrived, he had been cleared by the ethics officials. Harris: Of what? Barr: Of serving as acting attorney general on the Mueller case. Harris: How about making a charging decision on obstruction of justice, the underlying offices which include him as a witness? Barr: That is what the acting attorney general's job is. Harris: To be a witness and to make the decision about being prosecuted? Barr: Well, no. But to make charging decisions. Harris: I have nothing else. My time has run out. Here's the whole thing. Yeah she really goes in on him not having reviewed any evidence but making claims there's insufficient evidence. She's now calling for him to resign too. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15690 Posts
| ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23246 Posts
THOUSANDS OF EDUCATORS in North Carolina and South Carolina walked out of classrooms Wednesday to protest low salaries in a continuation of the educator unrest sweeping the U.S. The Carolina walkouts mark the eighth and ninth display of teacher activism this year. Teachers have already walked the picket lines, held sick-outs, marched and protested in Los Angeles, Virginia, Denver, West Virginia, Oakland, Kentucky and Sacramento – all in the last three months. In South Carolina, where public employees are barred from collective bargaining, the minimum salary for teachers with a bachelor's degree is $32,000, which has not kept up with inflation since 2003, according to a Post and Courier analysis. A proposal currently under consideration would bump that up to $35,000, nearly catching up with inflation. www.usnews.com | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
First, this idea that Barr did something wrong when he declined to prosecute despite failing to review the underlying evidence is utter nonsense. He reviewed Mueller's own summary of the evidence -- the Mueller report -- when making the decision. This means that Barr accepted everything that Mueller said in his report as being true (which almost certainly means that everything was construed in the light least favorable to Trump), yet he still declined to prosecute Trump. Second, the Rosenstein conflict of interest line of questioning was asinine. It's fair enough to ask Barr whether Rosenstein was cleared of any conflicts to act as AG for purposes of the investigation. But asking whether Rosenstein was subsequently cleared to make a charging decision is idiotic and betrays either outright deceit or ignorance on Kamala's part. The primary job of the AG is to decide whether to prosecute. So if someone is cleared to be the AG, they necessarily are also cleared to decide whether to prosecute. Barr's incredulity at the questioning says it all. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23246 Posts
On May 02 2019 06:22 JimmiC wrote: What is Trump doing that he (Mueller) would want to stop? Talking trash about and disrespecting the agencies (namely the FBI for Mueller) for one. Military and intelligence people don't like being talked down to by a moronic chickenhawk. I think Trump, Mueller, and Barr are all despicable though. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On May 02 2019 06:22 JimmiC wrote: You have probably explained this already so my apologies. But why is Mueller so biased against Trump? I've talked about it before, but the fact of Mueller's bias becomes quite clear when you look at the entire body of work that he has done as special counsel. There has been nothing that he has done as special counsel that has benefited Trump. Every action that he has taken has been tailor made to hurt Trump. This is most obvious when reviewing the structure of the report. But you can even see the bias continuing with this letter to Barr nonsense that came up last night. Why exactly is Mueller writing a letter to Barr to complain about Barr's summary letter? Did Mueller object to the accuracy of what Barr said? Nope! He complained about the political perception of the impact of Barr's letter upon Mueller's investigation. Let me repeat it: a purportedly unbiased and fair law enforcement officer cared about politics. And crucially, Mueller seemed only to care because the political considerations seemed to favor Trump. Place this in contrast with Mueller's outright refusal to come out and say that there was no evidence that Trump illegally conspired with the Russians despite knowing that there was no such evidence almost as soon as he was appointed special counsel, and Mueller's bias is undeniable. As for the cause of this bias, I don't know. And if he is and had the opportunity (as Barr said he could) to recommend indicting why didnt he? Because, like I have said before, the charge was bullshit on the merits and wouldn't withstand scrutiny in court. As an outsider it appears to me like Mueller attempted to not be biased. If anything since he is a republican I would think that he would be biased for Trump. I do get that Trump is a "outsider" but he is appointing the judges reps want, doing the tax shit they want, why would he want to get rid of Trump. What is Trump doing that he would want to stop? I've written about this at length, and don't have time to go into it again right now. But it is an absolute mistake to look at Trump through a republican vs democrat lens. Opposition to Trump goes far beyond the political parties and touches huge international interests. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21700 Posts
edition.cnn.com I'm sure some here will say its because the Democrats would just be mean to him and its pointless to have a second go but think for 2 seconds what you would have said if a Democrat AG refused to appear before the House Judiciary Committee over supposed bad conduct. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
That sounds like to me that Mueller did object to the accuracy of what Barr said. “There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations.” That is to say that Barr has mislead the public. It is somewhat funny for you to write that Mueller appears to be a aw enforcement officer who cared about politics, when you don't give a damn about Barr being a political hack for the republicans and for Trump. | ||
| ||
