|
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 06 2019 07:22 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2019 07:21 xDaunt wrote:
GH, I think you're artificially imposing a binary construct upon this conversation. This doesn't have to be a strictly either/or, all or nothing, proposition. I'm not artificially imposing it, it's intellectual consistency. You can't argue the FBI cares about the rule of law while simultaneously arguing they abandoned it. Or at minimum you'll be where Democrats are now trying to reconcile their belief in a system that has indisputably failed to hold what they see as obvious criminals accountable.
Of course you are artificially imposing it. Your tactic is straight out of Rules for Radicals. And look. For as much shit as I give the DOJ and FBI for what they have done with the Russia investigation, I certainly don't intend to tarnish every member of those institutions. The reality is that this mess was caused by a relative few bad actors at the top. I have all the faith in the world that they will be held accountable. And if it turns out that everything that they did was justified, so be it. But don't give me this nonsense about my being selective with the application of the rule of law. It applies to everyone equally. I don't care who the bad actor is. If that person committed a crime, they should be prosecuted in accordance with the law. That this standard is aspirational and doesn't always reflect reality due to a variety of reasons doesn't at all lessen the value of the rule of law itself.
|
checked the thread real quick to see if anyone else already mentioned it but couldn't find anything (only checked for the last 6 hours because what I'm posting is 6hours old), so completly unrelated to what people are discussing about right now, Trump increasing tariffs on China as of Friday. From 10% to 25%.
Not gonna lie, I kind of expected them to not do anything, make a longer period where tariffs stay the way they are right now, say that the negotiations are really close to finishing, no matter if they are or not because it's hurting more and more people and pretend that the problem doesn't exist.
No response yet from China as far as I'm aware.
Sry for it being kind of out of nowhere with people discussing other things but I feel like that's a rather big change of ... politics/strategy compared to the last couple months so I figured it might be intereting to hear what other people think about it. Expected since the deal wasn't comming along? Or did you guys think, like I did, that they're trying to pretend it's not a thing etc.
//edit uwa... haven't posted in months and I guess the tweet is my source and belongs below my thoughts on the matter now as of thread-guidelines? editing right now to make it fit
that's a bit of a curious tweet if I've ever seen one. For 10 months, China has been paying Tariffs to the USA of 25% on 50 Billion Dollars of High Tech, and 10% on 200 Billion Dollars of other goods.
Apparently China is paying the tariffs?
|
On May 06 2019 07:40 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2019 07:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 06 2019 07:21 xDaunt wrote:
GH, I think you're artificially imposing a binary construct upon this conversation. This doesn't have to be a strictly either/or, all or nothing, proposition. I'm not artificially imposing it, it's intellectual consistency. You can't argue the FBI cares about the rule of law while simultaneously arguing they abandoned it. Or at minimum you'll be where Democrats are now trying to reconcile their belief in a system that has indisputably failed to hold what they see as obvious criminals accountable. Of course you are artificially imposing it. Your tactic is straight out of Rules for Radicals. And look. For as much shit as I give the DOJ and FBI for what they have done with the Russia investigation, I certainly don't intend to tarnish every member of those institutions. The reality is that this mess was caused by a relative few bad actors at the top. I have all the faith in the world that they will be held accountable. And if it turns out that everything that they did was justified, so be it. But don't give me this nonsense about my being selective with the application of the rule of law. It applies to everyone equally. I don't care who the bad actor is. If that person committed a crime, they should be prosecuted in accordance with the law. That this standard is aspirational and doesn't always reflect reality due to a variety of reasons doesn't at all lessen the value of the rule of law itself.
I have all the faith in the world that they will be held accountable.
I don't. As I don't think Hillary will be held accountable for her foundation which must have been shady else there's not much explanation for the precipitous decline in contributions to it. Was what she and the foundation doing "illegal" who knows? But I know she's not, and won't be held accountable. Just as Trump isn't and won't be nor are law enforcement in general (save the rare exceptions after immense public pressure).
You don't have to tarnish every member of the FBI and DOJ for them to be reasonably described as parts of scummy institutions, the institutions have done more than enough of that themselves.
Look no further than the bipartisan credibility Mueller held going into the investigation despite his role in massive criminal surveillance of US citizens.
|
On May 06 2019 07:50 Toadesstern wrote:checked the thread real quick to see if anyone else already mentioned it but couldn't find anything (only checked for the last 6 hours because what I'm posting is 6hours old), so completly unrelated to what people are discussing about right now, Trump increasing tariffs on China as of Friday. From 10% to 25%. Not gonna lie, I kind of expected them to not do anything, make a longer period where tariffs stay the way they are right now, say that the negotiations are really close to finishing, no matter if they are or not because it's hurting more and more people and pretend that the problem doesn't exist. No response yet from China as far as I'm aware. Sry for it being kind of out of nowhere with people discussing other things but I feel like that's a rather big change of ... politics/strategy compared to the last couple months so I figured it might be intereting to hear what other people think about it. Expected since the deal wasn't comming along? Or did you guys think, like I did, that they're trying to pretend it's not a thing etc. //edit uwa... haven't posted in months and I guess the tweet is my source and belongs below my thoughts on the matter now as of thread-guidelines? editing right now to make it fit https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1125069836088950784that's a bit of a curious tweet if I've ever seen one. Show nested quote +For 10 months, China has been paying Tariffs to the USA of 25% on 50 Billion Dollars of High Tech, and 10% on 200 Billion Dollars of other goods. Apparently China is paying the tariffs?
Definitely not the most accurate economic messaging. What he should be talking about is how his tariff policy is fostering domestic investment spending. That's the real secret sauce for his economic success. Regardless, I'm interested in seeing what happens with this trade dispute. So far, MAGAnomics has far exceeded the expectations of most economists. There's going to be a lot academic work done on this period before long.
|
On May 06 2019 05:54 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2019 05:19 Danglars wrote:On May 06 2019 04:47 semantics wrote:On May 06 2019 04:21 Danglars wrote:The repetition of the same debunked points is getting a little droll. Aya2801, and his quoted post from Ben..., say nothing to Barr's sworn testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Will you call Mueller a fool for publishing the language in the report and telling Barr that the OLC guidelines were not what prevented him from reaching a conclusion on obstruction, or do you think Barr committed perjury by claiming Mueller said that? Whining about Fox & Breitbart is no substitute for arguments. I do have to agree with the subtext of the posts here and here--that if you don't like refuting the facts opposed, and think the explanations are somehow insufficient, then stop repeating the same points ad nauseum. xDaunt's third explanation of the criminal offense of obstruction won't cover much new ground. The fourth and fifth time you reiterate your opinion that someone's lying will not change anyone's mind. Ayaz's opinion on TL allowing liars is no substitute for arguments, counterarguments, and the evidence that backs up your claims. Nobody benefits when you repost your opinion on who won the last debate and who's lying. When in the testimony does barr say Muller said the olc guidelines would have not prevented him from persuing charges Barr says he himself had no issue pursuing charges irreguadingless of olc guidelines, I dont remember him saying Muller was the same. He does say that he thinks Muller's had no issue with his representation of the report. He also reiterates that Muller was not going to make a decision on obstruction Looking over the transcript on c span I dont find it either. I watched it live. Fueled watched it archived, and also found "Barr also stated something like that in his testimony." I'll find it again to be helpful, but I won't keep finding and refinding things just because somebody doesn't search hard enough in transcripts. C-SPAN around 34 minutesWe first heard that the Special Counsel's decision not to decide the obstruction issue on the March 5th meeting ... and we were frankly surprised that they were not going to reach a decision on obstruction. We asked them a lot on the reasoning behind this and the basis on this. Special Counsel Mueller stated to us 3 times in that meeting in response to our questioning that he emphatically was not saying that but for the OLC opinion he would have found obstruction... In the whole of the Mueller report, the strange justifications for not reaching a conclusion were the only things really necessitating explanation by Mueller because it is so unprecedented. It makes incredible sense for Barr to quiz Mueller directly on what the fuck he meant by not making a prosecutorial decision as a special prosecutor. It makes sense for him to share it with inquiring Senators in the Senate Judiciary Committee. I expected Barr to testify on that matter and he did. That's a double negative it's too ambiguous. I saw that in the transcript but that doesn't mean Muller did not find obstruction. The fact that it shares the same paragraph as not reaching a decision on obstruction is laughable. That allows for Muller to not reach a decision on obstruction but at the same time saying the olc did not prevent him from reaching a decision. That Incongruous, that's having your cake and eating it too. That's using implication of absence. That's simply cannot be true if Muller was not making a decision on obstruction, which is what the report explicitly says. When in reality its saying obstruction was not pursued one way or the other. So its enough evidence but olc prevented a charge and lacking evidence and olc prevented dissmissal. Hes stating that Muller made no decision regardless of evidence
It doesn't answer this new question you're introducing now, but it does answer your former question of "When in the testimony does barr say Muller said the olc guidelines would have not prevented him from persuing charges."
|
He is increasing taxes on Americans and hoping business will develop industry in the US, which is some great depression level economic policy. Meanwhile most businesses are just going to wait out the administration or seek exemptions, as is the want of US companies.
But it looks good and a simple solution to a complex problem, so it’s perfect for MAGA voters who hate the experts and elites.
|
Regarding the rule of law line of discussion, Trump has pardoned seven people. Arpaio, D'Souza, and the arsonists whose convictions led to the wildlife refuge occupation by right wing militias are four of them.
|
using "respect rule of law" as an angle to attempt to defend trump is the most laughable thing I've read all day, I appreciate it. I believe just a few pages back someone mentioned how the usual suspects are all about "rule of law" as a way of attempting to defend blatant criminals, until the "rule of law" no longer suits them.
|
5930 Posts
On May 06 2019 09:12 Plansix wrote:
He is increasing taxes on Americans and hoping business will develop industry in the US, which is some great depression level economic policy. Meanwhile most businesses are just going to wait out the administration or seek exemptions, as is the want of US companies.
But it looks good and a simple solution to a complex problem, so it’s perfect for MAGA voters who hate the experts and elites.
The large corporate income tax rate cut just encouraged stock buybacks that is fueling the stock market. As for unemployment, its been following the same trend for like 8 years.
In the mean time, personal non-mortgage/investment, business debts and federal debt are way up. Delinquency on personal debts is staying the same but just like Australia in the 1980s the protectionist economy together with businesses requiring to seek increasing amounts of debt to fuel growth eventually resulted in a bust. These things just aren't sustainable
Its the same sort of story we've seen again and again, there's nothing particularly amazing about MAGAnomics.
|
On May 06 2019 10:35 Womwomwom wrote:
In the mean time, personal non-mortgage/investment, business debts and federal debt are way up. Delinquency on personal debts is staying the same but just like Australia in the 1980s the protectionist economy together with businesses requiring to seek increasing amounts of debt to fuel growth eventually resulted in a bust. These things just aren't sustainable
Its the same sort of story we've seen again and again, there's nothing particularly amazing about MAGAnomics.
There is no solution apart from total system reset or a new system.Trump is just trying to keep the economy going until the next election.Not sure if he will get there, global economy is slowing pretty fast.There’s just too much debt.
|
On May 06 2019 11:15 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2019 10:35 Womwomwom wrote:
In the mean time, personal non-mortgage/investment, business debts and federal debt are way up. Delinquency on personal debts is staying the same but just like Australia in the 1980s the protectionist economy together with businesses requiring to seek increasing amounts of debt to fuel growth eventually resulted in a bust. These things just aren't sustainable
Its the same sort of story we've seen again and again, there's nothing particularly amazing about MAGAnomics. There is no solution apart from total system reset or a new system.Trump is just trying to keep the economy going until the next election.Not sure if he will get there, global economy is slowing pretty fast.There’s just too much debt.
The economy was doing quite well until trump got his tiny hands on it. With his failed trade war and complete tax disaster that's going to screw over everyone but the super rich, he is doing everything but trying to keep the economy going.
|
|
|
On May 06 2019 08:38 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2019 07:50 Toadesstern wrote:checked the thread real quick to see if anyone else already mentioned it but couldn't find anything (only checked for the last 6 hours because what I'm posting is 6hours old), so completly unrelated to what people are discussing about right now, Trump increasing tariffs on China as of Friday. From 10% to 25%. Not gonna lie, I kind of expected them to not do anything, make a longer period where tariffs stay the way they are right now, say that the negotiations are really close to finishing, no matter if they are or not because it's hurting more and more people and pretend that the problem doesn't exist. No response yet from China as far as I'm aware. Sry for it being kind of out of nowhere with people discussing other things but I feel like that's a rather big change of ... politics/strategy compared to the last couple months so I figured it might be intereting to hear what other people think about it. Expected since the deal wasn't comming along? Or did you guys think, like I did, that they're trying to pretend it's not a thing etc. //edit uwa... haven't posted in months and I guess the tweet is my source and belongs below my thoughts on the matter now as of thread-guidelines? editing right now to make it fit https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1125069836088950784that's a bit of a curious tweet if I've ever seen one. For 10 months, China has been paying Tariffs to the USA of 25% on 50 Billion Dollars of High Tech, and 10% on 200 Billion Dollars of other goods. Apparently China is paying the tariffs? Definitely not the most accurate economic messaging. What he should be talking about is how his tariff policy is fostering domestic investment spending. That's the real secret sauce for his economic success. Regardless, I'm interested in seeing what happens with this trade dispute. So far, MAGAnomics has far exceeded the expectations of most economists. There's going to be a lot academic work done on this period before long.
Except foreign investment in the domestic market is more strongly correlated to a trade deficit which has only increased under his presidency. So i guess in a round about way, yes.
On May 06 2019 09:09 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2019 05:54 semantics wrote:On May 06 2019 05:19 Danglars wrote:On May 06 2019 04:47 semantics wrote:On May 06 2019 04:21 Danglars wrote:The repetition of the same debunked points is getting a little droll. Aya2801, and his quoted post from Ben..., say nothing to Barr's sworn testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Will you call Mueller a fool for publishing the language in the report and telling Barr that the OLC guidelines were not what prevented him from reaching a conclusion on obstruction, or do you think Barr committed perjury by claiming Mueller said that? Whining about Fox & Breitbart is no substitute for arguments. I do have to agree with the subtext of the posts here and here--that if you don't like refuting the facts opposed, and think the explanations are somehow insufficient, then stop repeating the same points ad nauseum. xDaunt's third explanation of the criminal offense of obstruction won't cover much new ground. The fourth and fifth time you reiterate your opinion that someone's lying will not change anyone's mind. Ayaz's opinion on TL allowing liars is no substitute for arguments, counterarguments, and the evidence that backs up your claims. Nobody benefits when you repost your opinion on who won the last debate and who's lying. When in the testimony does barr say Muller said the olc guidelines would have not prevented him from persuing charges Barr says he himself had no issue pursuing charges irreguadingless of olc guidelines, I dont remember him saying Muller was the same. He does say that he thinks Muller's had no issue with his representation of the report. He also reiterates that Muller was not going to make a decision on obstruction Looking over the transcript on c span I dont find it either. I watched it live. Fueled watched it archived, and also found "Barr also stated something like that in his testimony." I'll find it again to be helpful, but I won't keep finding and refinding things just because somebody doesn't search hard enough in transcripts. C-SPAN around 34 minutesWe first heard that the Special Counsel's decision not to decide the obstruction issue on the March 5th meeting ... and we were frankly surprised that they were not going to reach a decision on obstruction. We asked them a lot on the reasoning behind this and the basis on this. Special Counsel Mueller stated to us 3 times in that meeting in response to our questioning that he emphatically was not saying that but for the OLC opinion he would have found obstruction... In the whole of the Mueller report, the strange justifications for not reaching a conclusion were the only things really necessitating explanation by Mueller because it is so unprecedented. It makes incredible sense for Barr to quiz Mueller directly on what the fuck he meant by not making a prosecutorial decision as a special prosecutor. It makes sense for him to share it with inquiring Senators in the Senate Judiciary Committee. I expected Barr to testify on that matter and he did. That's a double negative it's too ambiguous. I saw that in the transcript but that doesn't mean Muller did not find obstruction. The fact that it shares the same paragraph as not reaching a decision on obstruction is laughable. That allows for Muller to not reach a decision on obstruction but at the same time saying the olc did not prevent him from reaching a decision. That Incongruous, that's having your cake and eating it too. That's using implication of absence. That's simply cannot be true if Muller was not making a decision on obstruction, which is what the report explicitly says. When in reality its saying obstruction was not pursued one way or the other. So its enough evidence but olc prevented a charge and lacking evidence and olc prevented dissmissal. Hes stating that Muller made no decision regardless of evidence It doesn't answer this new question you're introducing now, but it does answer your former question of "When in the testimony does barr say Muller said the olc guidelines would have not prevented him from persuing charges."
He doesn't explicitly say that, he implies it. There is a difference in doing so. He doesn't answer either question, he implies an answer to the question but in reality the implication is for both that question and the question i added both are equally valid at that point. A is not a proper subset of B.
This is consistent with what is found in the report"Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him." That is because they chose not to have a judgement on obstruction.
Barr intentionally leaves out the second half in his response. Given that Barr ruled on obstruction and muller did not it's obvious as to why he did so.
It's important to note Barr doesn't say "Muller said the olc guidelines would have not prevented him from persuing charges", he says "that he emphatically was not saying that but for the OLC opinion he would have found obstruction"
X Y If X then Y
T T T
T F F
F T T
F F T
[not]( [but for] [OLC opinion] then [found obstruction])
negation(negationX then Y)
X and negationY
So if X and negation Y
X Y X and Y
T T T
T F F
F T F
F F F
OLC opinion and not found obstruction
That's all he's saying, it's an empty statement equivalent to "Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him"
|
On May 06 2019 12:06 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2019 08:38 xDaunt wrote:On May 06 2019 07:50 Toadesstern wrote:checked the thread real quick to see if anyone else already mentioned it but couldn't find anything (only checked for the last 6 hours because what I'm posting is 6hours old), so completly unrelated to what people are discussing about right now, Trump increasing tariffs on China as of Friday. From 10% to 25%. Not gonna lie, I kind of expected them to not do anything, make a longer period where tariffs stay the way they are right now, say that the negotiations are really close to finishing, no matter if they are or not because it's hurting more and more people and pretend that the problem doesn't exist. No response yet from China as far as I'm aware. Sry for it being kind of out of nowhere with people discussing other things but I feel like that's a rather big change of ... politics/strategy compared to the last couple months so I figured it might be intereting to hear what other people think about it. Expected since the deal wasn't comming along? Or did you guys think, like I did, that they're trying to pretend it's not a thing etc. //edit uwa... haven't posted in months and I guess the tweet is my source and belongs below my thoughts on the matter now as of thread-guidelines? editing right now to make it fit https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1125069836088950784that's a bit of a curious tweet if I've ever seen one. For 10 months, China has been paying Tariffs to the USA of 25% on 50 Billion Dollars of High Tech, and 10% on 200 Billion Dollars of other goods. Apparently China is paying the tariffs? Definitely not the most accurate economic messaging. What he should be talking about is how his tariff policy is fostering domestic investment spending. That's the real secret sauce for his economic success. Regardless, I'm interested in seeing what happens with this trade dispute. So far, MAGAnomics has far exceeded the expectations of most economists. There's going to be a lot academic work done on this period before long. Except foreign investment in the domestic market is more strongly correlated to a trade deficit which has only increased under his presidency. So i guess in a round about way, yes. Show nested quote +On May 06 2019 09:09 Danglars wrote:On May 06 2019 05:54 semantics wrote:On May 06 2019 05:19 Danglars wrote:On May 06 2019 04:47 semantics wrote:On May 06 2019 04:21 Danglars wrote:The repetition of the same debunked points is getting a little droll. Aya2801, and his quoted post from Ben..., say nothing to Barr's sworn testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Will you call Mueller a fool for publishing the language in the report and telling Barr that the OLC guidelines were not what prevented him from reaching a conclusion on obstruction, or do you think Barr committed perjury by claiming Mueller said that? Whining about Fox & Breitbart is no substitute for arguments. I do have to agree with the subtext of the posts here and here--that if you don't like refuting the facts opposed, and think the explanations are somehow insufficient, then stop repeating the same points ad nauseum. xDaunt's third explanation of the criminal offense of obstruction won't cover much new ground. The fourth and fifth time you reiterate your opinion that someone's lying will not change anyone's mind. Ayaz's opinion on TL allowing liars is no substitute for arguments, counterarguments, and the evidence that backs up your claims. Nobody benefits when you repost your opinion on who won the last debate and who's lying. When in the testimony does barr say Muller said the olc guidelines would have not prevented him from persuing charges Barr says he himself had no issue pursuing charges irreguadingless of olc guidelines, I dont remember him saying Muller was the same. He does say that he thinks Muller's had no issue with his representation of the report. He also reiterates that Muller was not going to make a decision on obstruction Looking over the transcript on c span I dont find it either. I watched it live. Fueled watched it archived, and also found "Barr also stated something like that in his testimony." I'll find it again to be helpful, but I won't keep finding and refinding things just because somebody doesn't search hard enough in transcripts. C-SPAN around 34 minutesWe first heard that the Special Counsel's decision not to decide the obstruction issue on the March 5th meeting ... and we were frankly surprised that they were not going to reach a decision on obstruction. We asked them a lot on the reasoning behind this and the basis on this. Special Counsel Mueller stated to us 3 times in that meeting in response to our questioning that he emphatically was not saying that but for the OLC opinion he would have found obstruction... In the whole of the Mueller report, the strange justifications for not reaching a conclusion were the only things really necessitating explanation by Mueller because it is so unprecedented. It makes incredible sense for Barr to quiz Mueller directly on what the fuck he meant by not making a prosecutorial decision as a special prosecutor. It makes sense for him to share it with inquiring Senators in the Senate Judiciary Committee. I expected Barr to testify on that matter and he did. That's a double negative it's too ambiguous. I saw that in the transcript but that doesn't mean Muller did not find obstruction. The fact that it shares the same paragraph as not reaching a decision on obstruction is laughable. That allows for Muller to not reach a decision on obstruction but at the same time saying the olc did not prevent him from reaching a decision. That Incongruous, that's having your cake and eating it too. That's using implication of absence. That's simply cannot be true if Muller was not making a decision on obstruction, which is what the report explicitly says. When in reality its saying obstruction was not pursued one way or the other. So its enough evidence but olc prevented a charge and lacking evidence and olc prevented dissmissal. Hes stating that Muller made no decision regardless of evidence It doesn't answer this new question you're introducing now, but it does answer your former question of "When in the testimony does barr say Muller said the olc guidelines would have not prevented him from persuing charges." He doesn't explicitly say that, he implies it. There is a difference in doing so. He doesn't answer either question, he implies an answer to the question but in reality the implication is for both that question and the question i added both are equally valid at that point. A is not a proper subset of B.
One reading of his report is that the OLC is the reason he could not reach a conclusion. He was asked point blank by Barr if he would've found collusion if not for OLC guidance. Mueller (get this) answered the question! Mueller did not evade Barr's question, or answer a different question, or leave room for error. Barr states that "we asked him a lot about the reasoning behind this and the basis for this."
He said that in the future, the facts of the case against a president might be such that a special counsel would recommend abandoning the OLC opinion, but this is not such a case.
We did not understand exactly why the special counsel was not reaching a decision. And when we pressed him on it, he said that his team was still formulating the explanation.
Simple facts are more than a problem for just Trump. Barr pressed Mueller, and he couldn't give an answer other than to say it wasn't from the OLC, and his staff wasn't done formulating. He denied the OLC rationale three times. That's why the final report invented some new indictment theory which you ended up reading. Barr goes on to restate how important it was for his office to make a binary decision on evidence of a crime (doing such a superb job as to make people truly focus on attacking/vilifying the man in the press instead of attacking his arguments).
One last restatement: When Mueller says three times it was not due to the OLC guidance, it isn't because Barr was hard of hearing and he asked for Mueller to say it louder. This was a key point needing to be settled in the strange reason not to reach a conclusion, so Barr & his team of lawyers settled it in that meeting.
|
I would suggest waiting and seeing what Mueller has to say before we start making the assumption that Barr's depiction of their communications is accurate given that Barr has already been caught being at the very least quite misleading about the content of his communications with Mueller. To be frank, after the recent incident involving the Mueller letter that contradicted Barr's previous testimony, I don't trust Barr to give an accurate depiction of any non-recorded communications with Mueller. His unwillingness to even consider giving any of the staff notes regarding his phone conversation with Mueller to quell the well-earned skepticism people have towards him only reinforces this. Given his behaviour in the last couple months along with the similar patterns of behaviour shown in his handling of the Iran Contra investigation and handling of being questioned by Congress on kidnapping 30 years ago, he should be given no benefit of the doubt.
edit: Here's more on whole kidnapping thing and consequent "summary" thing that is basically identical to what he did with the Mueller Report: www.nytimes.com
In 1989, Barr, then assistant attorney general in charge of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, determined that the F.B.I could legally seize criminal suspects in foreign countries without consent from their governments. In doing so, Barr changed the department’s position — in a 1980 legal opinion, the government said that such kidnappings were unlawful.
It was a controversial opinion, especially given its key implication at the time — that the United States could abduct Gen. Manuel Noriega of Panama, who had seized power that spring. In response, Congress called Barr to testify. “Kidnapping a suspect would make the U.S. into an international outlaw,” Representative Don Edwards of California said during the hearing, as he outlined the consequences for America’s reputation if federal authorities had free rein to kidnap. Congress also asked Barr to release his memorandum to the public, but he refused. Instead, he wrote a 13-page summary that he claimed contained its “principal” arguments and conclusions, something that should sound familiar to contemporary observers.
Except it didn’t. In 1991, Congress obtained a copy of the full memo. It contained several points not present in the summary, including the contention that the president of the United States could ignore the United Nations’ prohibition of state-sponsored kidnapping.
Barr misled Congress and the public through omission. But by then he was already on his way to confirmation as attorney general under President George H.W. Bush, where he would recommend pardons for key figures in the Iran-contra scandal, which stymied a yearslong investigation into executive-branch lawbreaking that implicated the sitting president.
|
Man, barr sure sounds like a real law and order kind of guy right there.
|
Entirely unsurprising. Not only is it almost a point-for-point rehash of what he's doing now, it also should send up alarm bells for anyone when xDaunt decides we need to take someone's word at face value. Even ostensibly clean investigations are cover-ups, hit jobs and political operations with tainted motivations that can't be proven, but a convenient summary comes out clearing Trump and that's supposed to be the end of the discussion. Cool.
|
On May 06 2019 12:51 Ben... wrote:I would suggest waiting and seeing what Mueller has to say before we start making the assumption that Barr's depiction of their communications is accurate given that Barr has already been caught being at the very least quite misleading about the content of his communications with Mueller. To be frank, after the recent incident involving the Mueller letter that contradicted Barr's previous testimony, I don't trust Barr to give an accurate depiction of any non-recorded communications with Mueller. His unwillingness to even consider giving any of the staff notes regarding his phone conversation with Mueller to quell the well-earned skepticism people have towards him only reinforces this. Given his behaviour in the last couple months along with the similar patterns of behaviour shown in his handling of the Iran Contra investigation and handling of being questioned by Congress on kidnapping 30 years ago, he should be given no benefit of the doubt. edit: Here's more on whole kidnapping thing and consequent "summary" thing that is basically identical to what he did with the Mueller Report: www.nytimes.comShow nested quote +In 1989, Barr, then assistant attorney general in charge of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, determined that the F.B.I could legally seize criminal suspects in foreign countries without consent from their governments. In doing so, Barr changed the department’s position — in a 1980 legal opinion, the government said that such kidnappings were unlawful.
It was a controversial opinion, especially given its key implication at the time — that the United States could abduct Gen. Manuel Noriega of Panama, who had seized power that spring. In response, Congress called Barr to testify. “Kidnapping a suspect would make the U.S. into an international outlaw,” Representative Don Edwards of California said during the hearing, as he outlined the consequences for America’s reputation if federal authorities had free rein to kidnap. Congress also asked Barr to release his memorandum to the public, but he refused. Instead, he wrote a 13-page summary that he claimed contained its “principal” arguments and conclusions, something that should sound familiar to contemporary observers.
Except it didn’t. In 1991, Congress obtained a copy of the full memo. It contained several points not present in the summary, including the contention that the president of the United States could ignore the United Nations’ prohibition of state-sponsored kidnapping.
Barr misled Congress and the public through omission. But by then he was already on his way to confirmation as attorney general under President George H.W. Bush, where he would recommend pardons for key figures in the Iran-contra scandal, which stymied a yearslong investigation into executive-branch lawbreaking that implicated the sitting president.
So the author of that op ed accuses Barr of submitting a summary of a memo to congress that does not include everything that the memo has. Why exactly is this a big deal? A summary of a larger document by definition is not going to have everything in it that the larger document does. So what did Barr leave out? Did he leave out anything material? Did he leave out something of the summary that caused it to misrepresent the contents of the memo by omission? Why doesn't the author of the op-ed elaborate on these points?
Color me unimpressed.
|
Writing a memorandum changing US policy on kidnapping foreign nationals and then refusing to release it to the public is Barr in a nutshell. He loves the idea of an imperial executive doing whatever they want and fighting with congress and the public every step of the way. He is an advocate for the executive branch who’s word cannot be taken at face value.
|
On May 06 2019 07:50 Toadesstern wrote:checked the thread real quick to see if anyone else already mentioned it but couldn't find anything (only checked for the last 6 hours because what I'm posting is 6hours old), so completly unrelated to what people are discussing about right now, Trump increasing tariffs on China as of Friday. From 10% to 25%. Not gonna lie, I kind of expected them to not do anything, make a longer period where tariffs stay the way they are right now, say that the negotiations are really close to finishing, no matter if they are or not because it's hurting more and more people and pretend that the problem doesn't exist. No response yet from China as far as I'm aware. Sry for it being kind of out of nowhere with people discussing other things but I feel like that's a rather big change of ... politics/strategy compared to the last couple months so I figured it might be intereting to hear what other people think about it. Expected since the deal wasn't comming along? Or did you guys think, like I did, that they're trying to pretend it's not a thing etc. //edit uwa... haven't posted in months and I guess the tweet is my source and belongs below my thoughts on the matter now as of thread-guidelines? editing right now to make it fit https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1125069836088950784that's a bit of a curious tweet if I've ever seen one. Show nested quote +For 10 months, China has been paying Tariffs to the USA of 25% on 50 Billion Dollars of High Tech, and 10% on 200 Billion Dollars of other goods. Apparently China is paying the tariffs?
leave it to trump to continually shoot himself in the foot killing the stock market. the one thing he tries to claim credit for with wide appeal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
