|
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 19 2019 05:14 Danglars wrote:Maybe two or three more criticisms of the language used and we'll be up to our quota of "you aren't outraged enough and I'm the judge!" for the week. Question on Issue A, no answer just dumpster-fire-unprecedented-disdain-ignorance-corruption. It's like bringing a big bowl of word salad to a debate, and throwing it all over everyone until they get pissed off at you and leave. Show nested quote +On May 19 2019 03:20 Gorsameth wrote:On May 19 2019 03:14 Danglars wrote:On May 19 2019 02:57 Gorsameth wrote:On May 19 2019 02:47 Danglars wrote:On May 19 2019 01:57 JimmiC wrote:On May 19 2019 00:47 Danglars wrote:
A lot of reiteration of his character defects, not a lot of on point conversation. Barr said something completely uncontroversial about the Presidents reaction in his situation. Then a bunch of you act like the Mueller report didn’t matter, you simply know he’s gotta be guilty and thus he has no right to call it a witch hunt. This is such a political farce, likely born of the fear that Barr’s on track to find some real damaging things that happened at the beginning. I suggest finding real issues with Barr instead of all this tomfoolery. The undersell continues. Hiring someone under investigation, and then publicly lying about being told about. These are not minor character flaws, it is at best incredible incompetence by the most important person in your party and goverment. It is loud chewing. I just faulted people like you of making non-substantive responses on the issue by drawing things back to his character or other things about Trump you don't like. If you have something on topic that shows Barr isn't 100% correct in his comments, share it. I'm not interested in all the reasons you say Trump's incompetent, which doesn't bear on Barr's truthful comments, and the general political hackery surrounding the accusers of Barr. On May 19 2019 02:01 Gorsameth wrote:
An investigation that was started because the president fired the FBI director and publicly said he did so to get rid of an ongoing investigation into a colleague is not a 'Witch Hunt' under any definition of the word.
And the head of the DoJ describing it as such is yet another in a long list of examples of why he is utterly unqualified to be in that position. Sadly, you're off base again. Citation needed. Trump referred vaguely to a "Russia thing." For all we know, it could refer to Comey briefing Trump on the pee tape part of dossier, assuring Trump he was not under investigation, and then seeing that meeting immediately leak to back the credibility of the dossier. You're missing a glaringly obvious point: if this investigation that Comey so mismanaged was bullshit from the start, it presents Trump with obvious reasons to fire the guy most involved in it. It's this hand-waving which is so comical ... asking people to narrowly interpret the Mueller investigation, and never look back into the investigation preceding that as well. Right never look back. Except for that I have, several times, said that I have no problem with them taking a look at how the initial investigation started. Because I care about things being done properly, no matter who is on which side. And Obstruction of Justice doesn't care about the details of the investigation your obstructing, merely that you are obstructing. Maybe you should connect what you're saying now with your phantom looks back at the start of the investigation that got Comey fired. Or maybe spot some time on the reasons I just said were legitimate reasons to fire Comey. I mean, you're quoting me, but going off on sidings like how you care about things being done properly, and what obstruction cares and doesn't care about. If you have no response but to claim you care and actually were better about these things in the past, then I'll just conclude that you really do think Trump's in the right and wish he weren't. I didn't spell it out clear enough? Firing Comey was (potential) obstruction of justice regardless of the legitimacy of the underlying investigation and therefor the Mueller investigation into said (potential) obstruction of justice is not a witch hunt and the head of the DoJ should never call it that. Period. full stop. The course, length, leaks, and coverage of an investigation into Russian collusion and (potential) obstruction of justice, in this case you're focusing on Comey's firing, when you're innocent and had perfectly acceptable reasoning for the firing that was known to everyone one month in, is adequately described as a witch hunt. Period, full stop. Mueller should've issued a memo attesting to that fact within the first three months of the start. Pick your favorite explanation between stupidity, personally partisan alliances, incompetent and biased underlings/friends, pressure from the biases of outside groups. Barr's in the right here, and I suspect you know it.
My favorite new fact to come out of the Flynn proceedings with the new release of the sentencing memos is that Flynn told Mueller that the Trump team didn't even begin discussing contacting Wikileaks about Hillary's emails until after Wikileaks released the Podesta emails. Of course, this favorable fact for Trump didn't show up in the Mueller report given how badly it undercuts the conspiracy narrative. Omitting this kind of exonerating evidence is unquestionably unethical for a prosecutor.
And speaking of Flynn, I'm looking forward to seeing what Mueller's team releases in response to the Court's order to produce all recordings of Flynn. I think the Court suspects that Flynn has pleaded to a non-crime and wants to see for itself what exactly Flynn lied about, if anything.
|
On May 19 2019 05:19 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2019 00:47 Danglars wrote:
A lot of reiteration of his character defects, not a lot of on point conversation. Barr said something completely uncontroversial about the Presidents reaction in his situation. Then a bunch of you act like the Mueller report didn’t matter, you simply know he’s gotta be guilty and thus he has no right to call it a witch hunt. This is such a political farce, likely born of the fear that Barr’s on track to find some real damaging things that happened at the beginning. I suggest finding real issues with Barr instead of all this tomfoolery. He literally lied and said the investigation showed that Trump unequivocally did not conspire with the Russians. That lie, ofc, originated with the WH itself. Your bar for the attorney general is apparently as low as your bar for President.
When the investigation cannot find persuasive evidence of that fact, Barr's absolutely right. This is usually the place where political actors pretend that prosecutors failing to find conspiracy or coordination in Russia's election influence does not prove it didn't happen. I guess you can really stoop down to proving negatives like some religious nuts demand to prove God doesn't exist, but I don't know if that's also you or just others in this forum. So, Barr literally conveyed the results of the investigation accurately, despite Mueller trying to muddle the issue.
I would like more proofs that Barr tells the truth, and his actions stand up to later scrutiny, but coupled with a feeble attempt to recast them as proof of perfidy. I suggest to you that Barr's good actions from appointment to this present day is the precise reason he is attacked. An ineffective and flawed AG in his position would merit so little of these baseless attacks.
|
On May 19 2019 05:32 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2019 05:14 Danglars wrote:Maybe two or three more criticisms of the language used and we'll be up to our quota of "you aren't outraged enough and I'm the judge!" for the week. Question on Issue A, no answer just dumpster-fire-unprecedented-disdain-ignorance-corruption. It's like bringing a big bowl of word salad to a debate, and throwing it all over everyone until they get pissed off at you and leave. On May 19 2019 03:20 Gorsameth wrote:On May 19 2019 03:14 Danglars wrote:On May 19 2019 02:57 Gorsameth wrote:On May 19 2019 02:47 Danglars wrote:On May 19 2019 01:57 JimmiC wrote:On May 19 2019 00:47 Danglars wrote:
A lot of reiteration of his character defects, not a lot of on point conversation. Barr said something completely uncontroversial about the Presidents reaction in his situation. Then a bunch of you act like the Mueller report didn’t matter, you simply know he’s gotta be guilty and thus he has no right to call it a witch hunt. This is such a political farce, likely born of the fear that Barr’s on track to find some real damaging things that happened at the beginning. I suggest finding real issues with Barr instead of all this tomfoolery. The undersell continues. Hiring someone under investigation, and then publicly lying about being told about. These are not minor character flaws, it is at best incredible incompetence by the most important person in your party and goverment. It is loud chewing. I just faulted people like you of making non-substantive responses on the issue by drawing things back to his character or other things about Trump you don't like. If you have something on topic that shows Barr isn't 100% correct in his comments, share it. I'm not interested in all the reasons you say Trump's incompetent, which doesn't bear on Barr's truthful comments, and the general political hackery surrounding the accusers of Barr. On May 19 2019 02:01 Gorsameth wrote:
An investigation that was started because the president fired the FBI director and publicly said he did so to get rid of an ongoing investigation into a colleague is not a 'Witch Hunt' under any definition of the word.
And the head of the DoJ describing it as such is yet another in a long list of examples of why he is utterly unqualified to be in that position. Sadly, you're off base again. Citation needed. Trump referred vaguely to a "Russia thing." For all we know, it could refer to Comey briefing Trump on the pee tape part of dossier, assuring Trump he was not under investigation, and then seeing that meeting immediately leak to back the credibility of the dossier. You're missing a glaringly obvious point: if this investigation that Comey so mismanaged was bullshit from the start, it presents Trump with obvious reasons to fire the guy most involved in it. It's this hand-waving which is so comical ... asking people to narrowly interpret the Mueller investigation, and never look back into the investigation preceding that as well. Right never look back. Except for that I have, several times, said that I have no problem with them taking a look at how the initial investigation started. Because I care about things being done properly, no matter who is on which side. And Obstruction of Justice doesn't care about the details of the investigation your obstructing, merely that you are obstructing. Maybe you should connect what you're saying now with your phantom looks back at the start of the investigation that got Comey fired. Or maybe spot some time on the reasons I just said were legitimate reasons to fire Comey. I mean, you're quoting me, but going off on sidings like how you care about things being done properly, and what obstruction cares and doesn't care about. If you have no response but to claim you care and actually were better about these things in the past, then I'll just conclude that you really do think Trump's in the right and wish he weren't. I didn't spell it out clear enough? Firing Comey was (potential) obstruction of justice regardless of the legitimacy of the underlying investigation and therefor the Mueller investigation into said (potential) obstruction of justice is not a witch hunt and the head of the DoJ should never call it that. Period. full stop. The course, length, leaks, and coverage of an investigation into Russian collusion and (potential) obstruction of justice, in this case you're focusing on Comey's firing, when you're innocent and had perfectly acceptable reasoning for the firing that was known to everyone one month in, is adequately described as a witch hunt. Period, full stop. Mueller should've issued a memo attesting to that fact within the first three months of the start. Pick your favorite explanation between stupidity, personally partisan alliances, incompetent and biased underlings/friends, pressure from the biases of outside groups. Barr's in the right here, and I suspect you know it. My favorite new fact to come out of the Flynn proceedings with the new release of the sentencing memos is that Flynn told Mueller that the Trump team didn't even begin discussing contacting Wikileaks about Hillary's emails until after Wikileaks released the Podesta emails. Of course, this favorable fact for Trump didn't show up in the Mueller report given how badly it undercuts the conspiracy narrative. Omitting this kind of exonerating evidence is unquestionably unethical for a prosecutor. And speaking of Flynn, I'm looking forward to seeing what Mueller's team releases in response to the Court's order to produce all recordings of Flynn. I think the Court suspects that Flynn has pleaded to a non-crime and wants to see for itself what exactly Flynn lied about, if anything.
And what I'm most looking forward to in the Flynn recordings is the possible evidence that a member of Congress (Nunes?) was
attempting to obstruct the Mueller investigation.
|
On May 19 2019 05:35 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2019 05:19 On_Slaught wrote:On May 19 2019 00:47 Danglars wrote:
A lot of reiteration of his character defects, not a lot of on point conversation. Barr said something completely uncontroversial about the Presidents reaction in his situation. Then a bunch of you act like the Mueller report didn’t matter, you simply know he’s gotta be guilty and thus he has no right to call it a witch hunt. This is such a political farce, likely born of the fear that Barr’s on track to find some real damaging things that happened at the beginning. I suggest finding real issues with Barr instead of all this tomfoolery. He literally lied and said the investigation showed that Trump unequivocally did not conspire with the Russians. That lie, ofc, originated with the WH itself. Your bar for the attorney general is apparently as low as your bar for President. When the investigation cannot find persuasive evidence of that fact, Barr's absolutely right. This is usually the place where political actors pretend that prosecutors failing to find conspiracy or coordination in Russia's election influence does not prove it didn't happen. I guess you can really stoop down to proving negatives like some religious nuts demand to prove God doesn't exist, but I don't know if that's also you or just others in this forum. So, Barr literally conveyed the results of the investigation accurately, despite Mueller trying to muddle the issue. I would like more proofs that Barr tells the truth, and his actions stand up to later scrutiny, but coupled with a feeble attempt to recast them as proof of perfidy. I suggest to you that Barr's good actions from appointment to this president day is the precise reason he is attacked. An ineffective and flawed AG in his position would merit so little of these baseless attacks.
Barr is an attorney, and a good one at that. He absolutely understands the subtle distinction between saying the investigation did not find evidence of conspiracy and saying the investigation showed the President did not conspire. That he actively and continually chooses to spread the latter, false statement is strong evidence of his bias imo.
|
On May 19 2019 05:28 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2019 03:54 xDaunt wrote:On May 19 2019 03:38 JimmiC wrote:On May 19 2019 02:39 xDaunt wrote:On May 19 2019 01:20 Doodsmack wrote:On May 19 2019 00:47 Danglars wrote:
A lot of reiteration of his character defects, not a lot of on point conversation. Barr said something completely uncontroversial about the Presidents reaction in his situation. Then a bunch of you act like the Mueller report didn’t matter, you simply know he’s gotta be guilty and thus he has no right to call it a witch hunt. This is such a political farce, likely born of the fear that Barr’s on track to find some real damaging things that happened at the beginning. I suggest finding real issues with Barr instead of all this tomfoolery. The witch hunt language doesn't need to be the reaction to an investigation, because it could still be a valid investigation. Trump's reaction was over the top (and it's pretty much inconceivable, given his personality, that his reaction would not be over the top), an attack on the integrity of law enforcement, which Barr says is okay. Barr is also giving a media interview in which he reveals some of the contents of his ongoing investigation (by saying that the stories being given by targets are not "hanging together" and are "inadequate"). In other words he's revealing derogatory facts about the targets while the investigation is ongoing. He claimed during his confirmation hearing that that's "not how the DOJ does business." He also implied that Democrats probably aren't going to like the results of the investigation, which is a prejudgment of the evidence on his part. Though I would say that Democratic politicans' attacks on Barr are over the top and politically motivated. The criticisms of Trump's language pertaining to the investigations are predicated upon the proposition that the investigations were proper to begin with. That proposition is very much in doubt and is becoming even less tenable as time goes on. The weak spot has always been the Steele dossier and the FBI's usage of it to get the Carter Page FISA warrant. Not only did Mueller fail to vindicate the Steele dossier in his report, but now it is becoming clear that the FBI officials leading the investigation knew that Steele dossier was bogus before they made the initial Carter Page FISA application. There has been ample reporting over the past week about Kathleen Kavalec, a former State Department official, interviewing Steele and drafting a memo in which she raised huge red flags about his reliability as a source. Just minor stuff like his claims that Russia was running operations out of a consulate in Miami when there is no Russian consulate in Miami. I have little doubt that she also checked in on the claim that Cohen went to Prague and verified that it was false (unsurprisingly, there's a redaction in the written memo and in her handwritten notes where this information likely is) This memo made its way to Strzok before the FISA application was filed, yet the investigators still swore to the FISA court that they had no derogatory information on Steele at all. That's a big, big problem. Reports are that the Horowitz has pretty much wrapped up his review, so I have no doubt that Barr has already been briefed on what Horowitz found. I highly doubt that the news leaking of Durham's appointment to look into this stuff would have come out unless criminal investigations and indictments were going to come out of this. I thought your and common thought of the right was that the ends justify the means sort of approach. That he isn't a "choir boy" or however you put it (I just don't want to misquote but I think it was this or boy scout or some term) but everything he is doing makes it worthwhile. So by that logic even if the investigation was not perfect from the start, all the criminals it caught, and it more then paid for itself, make it worth while? Overlooking some personal deficiencies is not on the same level as overlooking the criminal violation of constitutional rights.. That is probably the lawyer in you talking, there is a reason so many hero's on shows draw outside the lines to catch criminals and it is the bad guys that get away on the technicalities of bad searches or warrants. That being said if what you're saying happened, happened. And it looks like it is getting investigated by a guy very motivated to look everywhere. I would also hope those people that were found to be corrupt be caught as well.
I think that you're giving the FBI/CIA/DOJ too much benefit of the doubt in ascribing this debacle to mere anti-Trump zeal. The evidence points to this being more than just about Trump. I think that what we're ultimately going to find out is that this is all about the Judge Collyer report regarding FISA/NSA abuse. Stated another way, what we're going to find out is that, during the Obama administration, domestic and foreign surveillance assets were unlawfully used to spy on political opponents. We know the abuse happened because it is well-documented in Judge Collyer's report. Now it's just a matter of piecing together what really happened. I have no doubt that people like Trump, Barr, and Nunes already know. This is one of the reasons why I am so interested in Judge Sullivan's order for Mueller's team to produce the recordings of Flynn. What if there already was a FISA warrant on Flynn and there are more recordings of him than just the Kislyak recording?
|
On May 19 2019 05:32 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2019 05:14 Danglars wrote:Maybe two or three more criticisms of the language used and we'll be up to our quota of "you aren't outraged enough and I'm the judge!" for the week. Question on Issue A, no answer just dumpster-fire-unprecedented-disdain-ignorance-corruption. It's like bringing a big bowl of word salad to a debate, and throwing it all over everyone until they get pissed off at you and leave. On May 19 2019 03:20 Gorsameth wrote:On May 19 2019 03:14 Danglars wrote:On May 19 2019 02:57 Gorsameth wrote:On May 19 2019 02:47 Danglars wrote:On May 19 2019 01:57 JimmiC wrote:On May 19 2019 00:47 Danglars wrote:
A lot of reiteration of his character defects, not a lot of on point conversation. Barr said something completely uncontroversial about the Presidents reaction in his situation. Then a bunch of you act like the Mueller report didn’t matter, you simply know he’s gotta be guilty and thus he has no right to call it a witch hunt. This is such a political farce, likely born of the fear that Barr’s on track to find some real damaging things that happened at the beginning. I suggest finding real issues with Barr instead of all this tomfoolery. The undersell continues. Hiring someone under investigation, and then publicly lying about being told about. These are not minor character flaws, it is at best incredible incompetence by the most important person in your party and goverment. It is loud chewing. I just faulted people like you of making non-substantive responses on the issue by drawing things back to his character or other things about Trump you don't like. If you have something on topic that shows Barr isn't 100% correct in his comments, share it. I'm not interested in all the reasons you say Trump's incompetent, which doesn't bear on Barr's truthful comments, and the general political hackery surrounding the accusers of Barr. On May 19 2019 02:01 Gorsameth wrote:
An investigation that was started because the president fired the FBI director and publicly said he did so to get rid of an ongoing investigation into a colleague is not a 'Witch Hunt' under any definition of the word.
And the head of the DoJ describing it as such is yet another in a long list of examples of why he is utterly unqualified to be in that position. Sadly, you're off base again. Citation needed. Trump referred vaguely to a "Russia thing." For all we know, it could refer to Comey briefing Trump on the pee tape part of dossier, assuring Trump he was not under investigation, and then seeing that meeting immediately leak to back the credibility of the dossier. You're missing a glaringly obvious point: if this investigation that Comey so mismanaged was bullshit from the start, it presents Trump with obvious reasons to fire the guy most involved in it. It's this hand-waving which is so comical ... asking people to narrowly interpret the Mueller investigation, and never look back into the investigation preceding that as well. Right never look back. Except for that I have, several times, said that I have no problem with them taking a look at how the initial investigation started. Because I care about things being done properly, no matter who is on which side. And Obstruction of Justice doesn't care about the details of the investigation your obstructing, merely that you are obstructing. Maybe you should connect what you're saying now with your phantom looks back at the start of the investigation that got Comey fired. Or maybe spot some time on the reasons I just said were legitimate reasons to fire Comey. I mean, you're quoting me, but going off on sidings like how you care about things being done properly, and what obstruction cares and doesn't care about. If you have no response but to claim you care and actually were better about these things in the past, then I'll just conclude that you really do think Trump's in the right and wish he weren't. I didn't spell it out clear enough? Firing Comey was (potential) obstruction of justice regardless of the legitimacy of the underlying investigation and therefor the Mueller investigation into said (potential) obstruction of justice is not a witch hunt and the head of the DoJ should never call it that. Period. full stop. The course, length, leaks, and coverage of an investigation into Russian collusion and (potential) obstruction of justice, in this case you're focusing on Comey's firing, when you're innocent and had perfectly acceptable reasoning for the firing that was known to everyone one month in, is adequately described as a witch hunt. Period, full stop. Mueller should've issued a memo attesting to that fact within the first three months of the start. Pick your favorite explanation between stupidity, personally partisan alliances, incompetent and biased underlings/friends, pressure from the biases of outside groups. Barr's in the right here, and I suspect you know it. My favorite new fact to come out of the Flynn proceedings with the new release of the sentencing memos is that Flynn told Mueller that the Trump team didn't even begin discussing contacting Wikileaks about Hillary's emails until after Wikileaks released the Podesta emails. Of course, this favorable fact for Trump didn't show up in the Mueller report given how badly it undercuts the conspiracy narrative. Omitting this kind of exonerating evidence is unquestionably unethical for a prosecutor. And speaking of Flynn, I'm looking forward to seeing what Mueller's team releases in response to the Court's order to produce all recordings of Flynn. I think the Court suspects that Flynn has pleaded to a non-crime and wants to see for itself what exactly Flynn lied about, if anything. Where in the report would you expect this Flynn statement to be?
Perhaps in the section that talks about Wikileaks?
The section that is almost entirely blacked out by Barr because it concerns an ongoing investigation, most likely in relation to Stone?
Its presumptuous to talk about it not being in the report when the place it would be in is redacted.
|
|
|
On May 19 2019 05:32 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2019 05:14 Danglars wrote:Maybe two or three more criticisms of the language used and we'll be up to our quota of "you aren't outraged enough and I'm the judge!" for the week. Question on Issue A, no answer just dumpster-fire-unprecedented-disdain-ignorance-corruption. It's like bringing a big bowl of word salad to a debate, and throwing it all over everyone until they get pissed off at you and leave. On May 19 2019 03:20 Gorsameth wrote:On May 19 2019 03:14 Danglars wrote:On May 19 2019 02:57 Gorsameth wrote:On May 19 2019 02:47 Danglars wrote:On May 19 2019 01:57 JimmiC wrote:On May 19 2019 00:47 Danglars wrote:
A lot of reiteration of his character defects, not a lot of on point conversation. Barr said something completely uncontroversial about the Presidents reaction in his situation. Then a bunch of you act like the Mueller report didn’t matter, you simply know he’s gotta be guilty and thus he has no right to call it a witch hunt. This is such a political farce, likely born of the fear that Barr’s on track to find some real damaging things that happened at the beginning. I suggest finding real issues with Barr instead of all this tomfoolery. The undersell continues. Hiring someone under investigation, and then publicly lying about being told about. These are not minor character flaws, it is at best incredible incompetence by the most important person in your party and goverment. It is loud chewing. I just faulted people like you of making non-substantive responses on the issue by drawing things back to his character or other things about Trump you don't like. If you have something on topic that shows Barr isn't 100% correct in his comments, share it. I'm not interested in all the reasons you say Trump's incompetent, which doesn't bear on Barr's truthful comments, and the general political hackery surrounding the accusers of Barr. On May 19 2019 02:01 Gorsameth wrote:
An investigation that was started because the president fired the FBI director and publicly said he did so to get rid of an ongoing investigation into a colleague is not a 'Witch Hunt' under any definition of the word.
And the head of the DoJ describing it as such is yet another in a long list of examples of why he is utterly unqualified to be in that position. Sadly, you're off base again. Citation needed. Trump referred vaguely to a "Russia thing." For all we know, it could refer to Comey briefing Trump on the pee tape part of dossier, assuring Trump he was not under investigation, and then seeing that meeting immediately leak to back the credibility of the dossier. You're missing a glaringly obvious point: if this investigation that Comey so mismanaged was bullshit from the start, it presents Trump with obvious reasons to fire the guy most involved in it. It's this hand-waving which is so comical ... asking people to narrowly interpret the Mueller investigation, and never look back into the investigation preceding that as well. Right never look back. Except for that I have, several times, said that I have no problem with them taking a look at how the initial investigation started. Because I care about things being done properly, no matter who is on which side. And Obstruction of Justice doesn't care about the details of the investigation your obstructing, merely that you are obstructing. Maybe you should connect what you're saying now with your phantom looks back at the start of the investigation that got Comey fired. Or maybe spot some time on the reasons I just said were legitimate reasons to fire Comey. I mean, you're quoting me, but going off on sidings like how you care about things being done properly, and what obstruction cares and doesn't care about. If you have no response but to claim you care and actually were better about these things in the past, then I'll just conclude that you really do think Trump's in the right and wish he weren't. I didn't spell it out clear enough? Firing Comey was (potential) obstruction of justice regardless of the legitimacy of the underlying investigation and therefor the Mueller investigation into said (potential) obstruction of justice is not a witch hunt and the head of the DoJ should never call it that. Period. full stop. The course, length, leaks, and coverage of an investigation into Russian collusion and (potential) obstruction of justice, in this case you're focusing on Comey's firing, when you're innocent and had perfectly acceptable reasoning for the firing that was known to everyone one month in, is adequately described as a witch hunt. Period, full stop. Mueller should've issued a memo attesting to that fact within the first three months of the start. Pick your favorite explanation between stupidity, personally partisan alliances, incompetent and biased underlings/friends, pressure from the biases of outside groups. Barr's in the right here, and I suspect you know it. My favorite new fact to come out of the Flynn proceedings with the new release of the sentencing memos is that Flynn told Mueller that the Trump team didn't even begin discussing contacting Wikileaks about Hillary's emails until after Wikileaks released the Podesta emails. Of course, this favorable fact for Trump didn't show up in the Mueller report given how badly it undercuts the conspiracy narrative. Omitting this kind of exonerating evidence is unquestionably unethical for a prosecutor. And speaking of Flynn, I'm looking forward to seeing what Mueller's team releases in response to the Court's order to produce all recordings of Flynn. I think the Court suspects that Flynn has pleaded to a non-crime and wants to see for itself what exactly Flynn lied about, if anything.
I haven't been following the Flynn judge orders too closely. It's encouraging to see more transparency. Something's definitely fishy about the interview sans lawyers representing Flynn that led to the charge of making false statements.
The omission of findings relevant to the Russian attempts to influence the election through Russian officials' testimony in the Steele dossier was troubling. I think the various current DoJ investigations will cover that angle.
I'm looking forward to additional dumps to the NYT/WaPo in the vein of the recent one showing we're up to multiple spies/handlers infiltrating the Trump campaign (Mifsud/Halper/Azra Turk). It's way ahead of DoJ investigation findings. It tries to execute a clean swap from denying that spying occurred, to alleging it was common and justified. That can't be the only leak prior to investigative findings that try to spin the story in the most positive light possible.
I'm also hopeful because James Baker admitted he and Comey were "quite worried" that the FBI would be seen as blackmailing Trump with salacious Steele dossier material, with "analogies" made to abuse of power under J Edgar Hoover. Furthermore, Baker said he argued for Comey not to tell Trump that he wasn't under personal investigation, because the activities fell into that category. They knew of the danger that they had already crossed the line, and Comey did it anyways. There will be more hidden misconduct now that that's out in the open for investigators to pursue.
Trump's lucky that he's got Barr & Horowitz & Durham heading these efforts.
|
On May 19 2019 06:03 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2019 05:39 xDaunt wrote:On May 19 2019 05:28 JimmiC wrote:On May 19 2019 03:54 xDaunt wrote:On May 19 2019 03:38 JimmiC wrote:On May 19 2019 02:39 xDaunt wrote:On May 19 2019 01:20 Doodsmack wrote:On May 19 2019 00:47 Danglars wrote:
A lot of reiteration of his character defects, not a lot of on point conversation. Barr said something completely uncontroversial about the Presidents reaction in his situation. Then a bunch of you act like the Mueller report didn’t matter, you simply know he’s gotta be guilty and thus he has no right to call it a witch hunt. This is such a political farce, likely born of the fear that Barr’s on track to find some real damaging things that happened at the beginning. I suggest finding real issues with Barr instead of all this tomfoolery. The witch hunt language doesn't need to be the reaction to an investigation, because it could still be a valid investigation. Trump's reaction was over the top (and it's pretty much inconceivable, given his personality, that his reaction would not be over the top), an attack on the integrity of law enforcement, which Barr says is okay. Barr is also giving a media interview in which he reveals some of the contents of his ongoing investigation (by saying that the stories being given by targets are not "hanging together" and are "inadequate"). In other words he's revealing derogatory facts about the targets while the investigation is ongoing. He claimed during his confirmation hearing that that's "not how the DOJ does business." He also implied that Democrats probably aren't going to like the results of the investigation, which is a prejudgment of the evidence on his part. Though I would say that Democratic politicans' attacks on Barr are over the top and politically motivated. The criticisms of Trump's language pertaining to the investigations are predicated upon the proposition that the investigations were proper to begin with. That proposition is very much in doubt and is becoming even less tenable as time goes on. The weak spot has always been the Steele dossier and the FBI's usage of it to get the Carter Page FISA warrant. Not only did Mueller fail to vindicate the Steele dossier in his report, but now it is becoming clear that the FBI officials leading the investigation knew that Steele dossier was bogus before they made the initial Carter Page FISA application. There has been ample reporting over the past week about Kathleen Kavalec, a former State Department official, interviewing Steele and drafting a memo in which she raised huge red flags about his reliability as a source. Just minor stuff like his claims that Russia was running operations out of a consulate in Miami when there is no Russian consulate in Miami. I have little doubt that she also checked in on the claim that Cohen went to Prague and verified that it was false (unsurprisingly, there's a redaction in the written memo and in her handwritten notes where this information likely is) This memo made its way to Strzok before the FISA application was filed, yet the investigators still swore to the FISA court that they had no derogatory information on Steele at all. That's a big, big problem. Reports are that the Horowitz has pretty much wrapped up his review, so I have no doubt that Barr has already been briefed on what Horowitz found. I highly doubt that the news leaking of Durham's appointment to look into this stuff would have come out unless criminal investigations and indictments were going to come out of this. I thought your and common thought of the right was that the ends justify the means sort of approach. That he isn't a "choir boy" or however you put it (I just don't want to misquote but I think it was this or boy scout or some term) but everything he is doing makes it worthwhile. So by that logic even if the investigation was not perfect from the start, all the criminals it caught, and it more then paid for itself, make it worth while? Overlooking some personal deficiencies is not on the same level as overlooking the criminal violation of constitutional rights.. That is probably the lawyer in you talking, there is a reason so many hero's on shows draw outside the lines to catch criminals and it is the bad guys that get away on the technicalities of bad searches or warrants. That being said if what you're saying happened, happened. And it looks like it is getting investigated by a guy very motivated to look everywhere. I would also hope those people that were found to be corrupt be caught as well. I think that you're giving the FBI/CIA/DOJ too much benefit of the doubt in ascribing this debacle to mere anti-Trump zeal. The evidence points to this being more than just about Trump. I think that what we're ultimately going to find out is that this is all about the Judge Collyer report regarding FISA/NSA abuse. Stated another way, what we're going to find out is that, during the Obama administration, domestic and foreign surveillance assets were unlawfully used to spy on political opponents. We know the abuse happened because it is well-documented in Judge Collyer's report. Now it's just a matter of piecing together what really happened. I have no doubt that people like Trump, Barr, and Nunes already know. This is one of the reasons why I am so interested in Judge Sullivan's order for Mueller's team to produce the recordings of Flynn. What if there already was a FISA warrant on Flynn and there are more recordings of him than just the Kislyak recording? Like I said I hope they catch them all. It is just really strange that you only look in one direction, not that you are alone. And is it your presumption that Flynn's lawyer was so incompetent that he let him plea to a non crime? Like you think he is actually not criminal? Or you think that it could have gotten thrown out based on a technicality?
Trump didn't do anything wrong. He did not conspire with the Russians. That much is crystal clear from the Mueller report. Trump was set up, and all of the obstruction nonsense comes from the fact that he was set up and likely being unlawfully investigated.
As for Flynn, I think he accepted the plea deal to save his son from being prosecuted by Mueller. Regardless of the merits of the prosecution, defending oneself from a criminal indictment -- particularly a federal one -- is disastrously taxing and harmful. Hell, Flynn was basically bankrupted mounting the limited the defense that he did.
|
|
|
|
|
I love how he accuses Barr of playing word games while doing the exact same thing regarding impeachment and obstruction, nevermind the lack of examples.
But Amash has always been wierd, often in the typical libertarian way. Very right about some things and very wrong about others. Also, like many libertarians, he is almost totally irrelevant. So no, not a big deal. It looks like Trump won the district by 10, best showing for a GOP candidate since 2004.
edit: also I don't see how it's brave, the people who normally dismiss him as a kook for his views on the size and scope of government praise him now, and he's won by large margins almost every year. Textbook example of how this is a smaller deal than many people assume.
|
United States44286 Posts
On May 19 2019 05:32 xDaunt wrote:
Flynn has pleaded to a non-crime
Orwell would be proud of this amazing new world.
For those who aren't keeping track, non-crime means crime now.
|
|
|
It surprises me to no end that the crime he's guilty of "doesn't really count as a crime", because otherwise it would provide legitimacy to the investigation, which is obviously a witch hunt because it also looked into Trump. The same Trump who lambaste Flynn for being guilty while knowing nothing about it despite being warned numerous times.
|
On May 19 2019 08:41 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2019 08:16 Introvert wrote:
I love how he accuses Barr of playing word games while doing the exact same thing regarding impeachment and obstruction, nevermind the lack of examples.
But Amash has always been wierd, often in the typical libertarian way. Very right about some things and very wrong about others. Also, like many libertarians, he is almost totally irrelevant. So no, not a big deal. It looks like Trump won the district by 10, best showing for a GOP candidate since 2004.
edit: also I don't see how it's brave, the people who normally dismiss him as a kook for his views on the size and scope of government praise him now, and he's won by large margins almost every year. Textbook example of how this is a smaller deal than many people assume. I think it tells you that if Republicans in office feel this way, it is not crazy or strange why people outside the country on neither team feel the same way.
No, it tells you that Amash feels this way, that was my point. Let me put it a different way: Amash is one of the most idiosyncratic members of Congress. Call me back when a group of milquetoast suburban Republicans (or more hardocre conservatives) start talking about impeachment. I would never use Amash as a proxy for anyone besides Amash, lol.
|
|
|
And I told you Amash is not a neutral person. In fact his kind basically doesnt exist outside the US at all, at least if the European posters here are to be believed.
|
|
|
On May 19 2019 09:00 JimmiC wrote:
He is anti Trump/ Anti republican? Because the odd thing is basically once you talk against Trump you are no longer a good republican. Mccain, Mueller now Amash. Maybe they are not part of a conspiracy but there is actually lots of evidence, including Trumps own words and lies that indicate he is a terrible president.
Yes, he's been anti Trump since the primary. I didnt say he was a bad Republican (yet), it's a big tent. But this event in no way portends anything else. maybe if he ran for president as a libertarian (as is a rumor) he'd win a few percent more in his own district than the nation at large.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
