EPTWell played Donald.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1516
| 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 | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4329 Posts
Well played Donald. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21525 Posts
On May 31 2019 21:33 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Yeah... you know the US consumer is the one that ends up paying for the tariffs right? And not Mexico?So this is how Mexico pays for the wall. Well played Donald. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4329 Posts
On May 31 2019 21:36 Gorsameth wrote: Yeah... you know the US consumer is the one that ends up paying for the tariffs right? And not Mexico? They help build it and stop illegals or they cop a 25% tariff on their exports. Masterstroke. Checkmate Libs. User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9486 Posts
On May 31 2019 21:33 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: So this is how Mexico pays for the wall. Well played Donald. You know that won't work right? | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
On May 31 2019 18:59 iamthedave wrote: Does mid-term voting reflect Presidential voting, though? And are you sure that this issue contributed to his party getting slaughtered? I seem to recall from the conversation at the time that pretty much all of the seats that shifted were the ones everyone expected to shift going in due to either weak Republican candidates or state-level issues that were nothing to do with Trump. And most of the Republicans who lost were ones who actively distanced themselves from Trump. Not saying the above is true, just what I remember from the mid-term discussions when they happened, from both sides. Daunt and co were disappointed but not surprised especially, and the left-leaning posters felt they didn't score any really big wins because none of the Republican critical states flipped. No doubt it wasnt the biggest issue. The biggest issue in 2018, which will also be the biggest issue in 2020, is the fact that Trump is a deeply unliked person. That helped drive up turnout which is always bad for Republicans. It will likely result in historic turnout in 2020 as well (again, which is bad for Republicans). However, there is plenty of evidence that immigration did not play well (especially the family separation policy which was the big news around election time). This article sums up a lot of facets of 2018 relative to immigration. https://americasvoice.org/press_releases/how-did-immigrants-and-immigration-fare-in-the-2018-elections/ Even without polling data and the like, it still seems pretty self evident that the economy is Trumps best strategy to getting reelected (by far), and this change not only doesnt help that, it stands to undermine it by driving up prices for Americans. Ofc I see Trump as an existential threat to American democracy and world order, so him undermining his own campaign is great news. Still, objectively I think he is getting bad advice. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21525 Posts
On May 31 2019 21:39 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: If I have to pay 25% tariffs to export to the US, my US customers pay 25% more for their product or I don't sell to them. Ergo I'm not paying the US, my customers who are US citizens, are paying.They help build it and stop illegals or they cop a 25% tariff on their exports. Masterstroke. Checkmate Libs. So gz, your paying for Trump's wall. | ||
|
EnDeR_
Spain2627 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11405 Posts
On May 31 2019 21:39 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: They help build it and stop illegals or they cop a 25% tariff on their exports. Masterstroke. Checkmate Libs. Okay. Now, if it were anyone but nettles posting this, i would have been certain that this is a sarcastic comment pointing out the ridiculousness of the whole thing. But it is nettles. So i guess he is actually serious. I just hope that you guys willfully ruining your economy through stupidity isn't going to pull the rest of us down with you the way it did in 2008. Well, i guess it is only 1.5 more years of this shit. So lets see how much more stuff Trump can fuck up in this time, and how the reps manage to blame the democrats for all of it afterwards. | ||
|
brian
United States9616 Posts
On May 31 2019 21:39 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: They help build it and stop illegals or they cop a 25% tariff on their exports. Masterstroke. Checkmate Libs. you’ve said a lot of dumb shit, but this one takes the cake. the exporter does not pay the tariff. ‘better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.’ On May 31 2019 21:44 Gorsameth wrote: If I have to pay 25% tariffs to export to the US, my US customers pay 25% more for their product or I don't sell to them. Ergo I'm not paying the US, my customers who are US citizens, are paying. So gz, your paying for Trump's wall. the importer pays. at no point does anything mexican pay this tariff. it’s intention is to instead push people to buy non mexican products, indirectly lowering mexico’s exports by making non-mexican goods more attractive. mexico doesn’t pay one thin peso to these tariffs. instead it lowers their revenue by incentivizing lower sales. the only people that pay tariffs are the us consumers that still have to purchase the mexican goods. which, i haven’t even mentioned the shit this will once again take on the stock market. the fucking idiot. dow already down 300 points twenty minutes after opening 🥳. checkmate libs indeed. got em /s | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Blitzkrieg0
United States13132 Posts
On May 31 2019 22:06 JimmiC wrote: Come on guys you are all wrong this is a master stroke by the Donald, he has managed to increase government revenue by increasing the cost to the American people and have his base cheer him for it. I know this is sarcasm, but I don't think it is too far off the mark. I'm sure someone in the government understands that the tax bill creates a huge revenue deficit and it needs to be made up in other areas. Tariffs are a way to do that and apparently the spin machine is running at full capacity to make it into a win. | ||
|
Nouar
France3270 Posts
Well to be fair, Trump probably expects that foreign countries, since they are "playing the US", are just willing to lower their prices by as much as he raises the tarriffs by, to continue selling to the US. While that might be true for some chinese industries heavily subsidised, it is definitely not true for everything. I expect he still hasn't understood who was paying for this. He also expects that since prices are higher by X%, it's now cheaper/more competitive to produce the product directly in the US. While this is also somewhat true, that does mean the end product is overall more expensive to the consumer, and all industries cannot by magic in 1 month suddenly produce everything locally. Resources are needed, manpower is needed (and employment is high so low available labor), training of that manpower, investment (only if viable in the long term, which means high volatility under Trump means financing those industries is mostly not going to come, too risky if tarriffs get removed tomorrow), etc etc. Too complicated for Trump to fathom. His motto has always been "me no happy, me no pay you, fuck the law". | ||
|
farvacola
United States18820 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17918 Posts
On May 31 2019 22:59 JimmiC wrote: I wonder if the next president is either going to close some of these loop holes in executive privilege that the Donald is using. Or use them for their own reasons/benefits. I'm hoping for the former, the checks and balances that are supposed to exist are there for good reason. I don't think it's up to the executive to close those loopholes, as the next president could just reopen them. It's up to congress. So unless congress gets its act together and starts doing its job, there isn't much hope of that. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On May 31 2019 16:35 Artisreal wrote: Which protection are you talking about? Could you cite the source of your statement? ![[image loading]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/11/World_population_%28UN%29.svg/800px-World_population_%28UN%29.svg.png) Any of the normal projections. That is from wikipedia. I thought this was common knowledge that world population is projected to level off at around 10 billion. On May 31 2019 16:23 Jockmcplop wrote: This ignores groups though. One normal person, acting within the bounds of normal behaviour is not morally reponsible for their behaviour towards the environment, but a group of these normal people may need to get together and alter their behaviour once they realize that as a group they are behaving in a way that damages their environment... If they knowingly fail to do so is that a moral issue? I think it depends on how willing you are to attribute moral qualities to large groups of people, but I would say it is. Yes it does ignore groups. It is difficult to talk about group culpability in this way, primarily for epistemic reasons. | ||
|
Ben...
Canada3485 Posts
If Trump took even 5 minutes to actually understand how tariffs work and who ends up paying for them, he would realize the tariffs he is imposing are not having the effect he thinks they are. Same with his supporters, but at this point it's pretty clear they've drank so much of the Kool-aid that it just doesn't matter. In other news, a third Republican congressperson has delayed passage of bill that would give $19 billion in aide targeted at victims of natural disasters, citing the $22 trillion national debt. The bill already passed the senate with an overwhelming majority and Trump expressed support of the bill. Congress is currently not in session but those still in Washington were trying to pass this bill using a unanimous consent rule so the aide could get to those who need it earlier than when full congress returns. Next week everyone will be back so the bill will easily pass then, but that's another week that people in need of the aide will have to wait. I do not understand the logic behind why these three Republicans are doing this. I can guarantee if it was their people in need of the aide, they would not be blocking this bill's passage. This type of grandstanding accomplishes nothing but harms many. | ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9234 Posts
On May 31 2019 23:17 IgnE wrote: Any of the normal projections. That is from wikipedia. I thought this was common knowledge that world population is projected to level off at around 10 billion. Yes it does ignore groups. It is difficult to talk about group culpability in this way, primarily for epistemic reasons. I'll put my question a bit clearer. You are aware that we're currently already past the the carrying capacity for this year? you are aware that we're currently less than 10 billion people on the planet? You are capable of deducting that more people means more resources means overburdening the natural capacity even faster. Earth overshoot day. I wonder why you post to the contrary? For years already it is established that, by various metrics, we exceed the carrying capacity. As you didn't indicate any form of behavioural change in the populace, we can assume that consumption patterns equal to the status quo are in place, which leads to the conclusion that your claim is void. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
JAN CRAWFORD: Mr. Attorney General, thank you very much for sitting down with us. So, obviously we saw the special counsel yesterday make that statement, he analyzed 11 instances where there were possible obstruction and then said that he really couldn't make a decision- conclusion on whether or not the president had in fact committed obstruction because of the existing OLC opinion in the legal counsel's office. Do you agree with that interpretation that that legal opinion prevented him from making a conclusion? WILLIAM BARR: I am not sure he said it prevented him. I think what he said was he took that into account plus a number of other prudential judgments about fairness and other things and decided that the best course was not for him to reach a decision. I personally felt he could've reached a decision but-- JAN CRAWFORD: Was there anything that would've stopped him in the regulations or in those...that opinion itself, he could've -- in your view he could've reached a conclusion? WILLIAM BARR: Right, he could've reached a conclusion. The opinion says you cannot indict a president while he is in office but he could've reached a decision as to whether it was criminal activity but he had his reasons for not doing it, which he explained and I am not going to, you know, argue about those reasons but when he didn't make a decision, the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I felt it was necessary for us as the heads of the Department to reach that decision. That is what the Department of Justice does, that is why we have the compulsory powers like a grand jury to force people to give us evidence so that we can determine whether a crime has committed and in order to legitimate the process we felt we had to reach a decision. So here's Barr saying exactly what I said about the OLC guidelines and Mueller's reasoning for not coming to a charging decision. Frankly, I think that Barr is going out of his way to be charitable to Mueller and the statements that Mueller made at the press conference yesterday by focusing instead upon the argument that Mueller made in his report. JAN CRAWFORD: Now you have testified that when you met with Mueller at the Justice Department, you had that meeting, that you were surprised that he told you then that he was not going to reach a conclusion on obstruction. WILLIAM BARR: Yes, Rod and I were both surprised by that. JAN CRAWFORD: Did you ask him, look, we need you to make a conclusion on this? You should make a conclusion. WILLIAM BARR: I wouldn't say I really pressed him on it. I was interested in his thinking on it and he explained his position, said he was still thinking it through and- and- but I didn't really press him nor did Rod. JAN CRAWFORD: So, but you left that meeting thinking that he wasn't going to have a conclusion? WILLIAM BARR: That's right. This is quite interesting. First, Barr is letting us know that these conversations that he had with Mueller about the OLC guidelines had other witnesses, including Rosenstein. This means that this is not a "he said, he said" situation involving just Barr and Mueller as the media as tried to portray it (and again, I'm pretty sure that this conversation was recorded). Second, Barr's statement that Mueller was "still thinking it through" strongly suggests that the introduction to Volume 2 may have been thrown in at the last minute, possibly in response to Barr's questioning or even his overall involvement on the matter (it's either that or Mueller was lying to Barr). This smacks of Mueller acting politically. If we accept Barr's testimony (and we have no reason not to) that Mueller told him at this meeting that the OLC guidelines were not the reason for his decision not to charge Trump and that deficiencies in the evidence itself was the reason, and if we look at how quickly that this investigation wrapped up once Barr became AG (thereby creating the inference that Barr reined in Mueller and effectively shut down the investigation upon figuring out that Mueller still had nothing), then what Barr is saying is that Mueller scrambled to find a way to inflict maximum damage upon Trump notwithstanding his inability to come to a charging decision. JAN CRAWFORD: The four page summary that you wrote, did you ask in that March 5th meeting for the special counsel to kind of redact all the grand jury material? WILLIAM BARR: Yes, not redact it but highlight it so we could redact it, we would, so, you know, the report was over 400 pages, I knew that it was voluminous and coming our way in a few weeks. My intent was to get out as much as I could as quickly as I could. To do that I would have to, as a matter of law, make sure that grand jury material was redacted because regardless of the political posturing that's going on it's not lawful for me to just make that public. JAN CRAWFORD: Not even to Congress? WILLIAM BARR: Not even-- JAN CRAWFORD: So you could even give Congress, which of course is demanding that and threatening to hold you in contempt because you're not giving them the full report WILLIAM BARR: That's right, and so-- JAN CRAWFORD: But by law you can't? WILLIAM BARR: Right, and so because we were not involved in the investigation we would have no way looking at the report of determining what was grand jury material and what wasn't, so we had for a period of weeks been asking the special counsel's office to highlight the stuff so we could quickly process it for release and I guess-- JAN CRAWFORD: For a period of weeks you had asked for this material? WILLIAM BARR: Yeah even before the March 5 meeting we had asked or raised the subject-- JAN CRAWFORD: And what was the response? WILLIAM BARR: And then at the March 5 meeting I made it explicit and then after the March 5th meeting we asked.. JAN CRAWFORD: And what was the response? WILLIAM BARR: We thought it was being-- we thought it was being done and I do believe they were putting in more footnotes in that would be necessary ultimately in identifying the material but whether the wires were crossed or whatever it didn't come in a form that identified the 6E material. JAN CRAWFORD: And that was a surprise to you when you got the report? WILLIAM BARR: Yes. JAN CRAWFORD: It was. WILLIAM BARR: And it immediately meant that you know it was going to be a period of weeks before we could get the report out if I had my druthers I would have liked to get the report out as quickly as possible. JAN CRAWFORD: So instead, you turned this four page summary? WILLIAM BARR: Right, because I didn't think the body politic would allow us to go on radio silence for four weeks. I mean, people were camped outside my house and the department and every- there was all kinds of wild speculation going on. Former senior intelligence officials who were purporting to have it- or intimating that they had inside information were suggesting that the president and his family were going to be indicted and so forth-- Here Barr talks about the origins of his four page summary letter. This is really revealing. Barr never intended to issue such a letter. What he says that he wanted to do was to release the entire report as quickly as possible. He realized ahead of time that the report would contain grand jury material that could not be released as a matter of law, so he directed Mueller's team to mark that material in the report so that it could be quickly and easily redacted. Mueller and his team refused to do this. In retrospect, it's quite obvious now that Mueller's team wanted the public's first impression of the report to be the summaries that they had prepared rather than the report itself. Prosecutors have no business playing politics like this. These people are dirty. JAN CRAWFORD: You didn't say in that four-page memo that the report would not exonerate the president on obstruction. That line-- WILLIAM BARR: I said that, yes. In the- in the- in my four-page memo, I said that Mueller did not reach a decision. He gave both sides and that- and then I quoted that sentence which is, while we didn't find a crime, we didn't exonerate the president. That was in the four-page letter. JAN CRAWFORD: The- did not- we would so clearly state the preface to that. WILLIAM BARR: Yeah. Look how screwed up the interviewer is. He's been so hardwired to believe that Barr misrepresented Mueller's report with his letter that he doesn't even know the basics of what's in Barr's letter. I'm sure that Barr wanted to slap this fucking idiot. JAN CRAWFORD: He wrote the letter taking issue, saying there caused- you had caused confusion. Did that catch you off guard? WILLIAM BARR: Yeah, sure. I was surprised he just didn't pick up the phone and call me given our 30 year relationship, but-- JAN CRAWFORD: Why didn't he? WILLIAM BARR: I don't, I don't know, but, as I said it in the hearing, I thought it was- the letter was a little snitty and staff-driven-- JAN CRAWFORD: Staff-driven? WILLIAM BARR: Yeah. I personally felt, but we had a good conversation-- I'm quite annoyed by how frequently this interviewing needlessly interrupts Barr and steps on important points that he's making. This one could be a doozy. What Barr seems to be saying here is that Mueller may not have been driving the bus when it came to writing and issuing the report. It was previously reported that Weissman was the one who largely picked Mueller's team, and the report itself certainly smacks of Weissman's style. Perhaps this is why Mueller was so uncomfortable giving his statement the other day. It wasn't really his statement so much as it was his "staff's." I wonder how much of this investigation was "staff-driven" as opposed to Mueller-driven. JAN CRAWFORD: Do you think enough was done in 2016? WILLIAM BARR: Enough was done in 2016? Probably not. You know, I think Bob Mueller did some impressive work in his investigation, you know, identifying some of the Russian hackers and their influence campaign and you sort of wonder if that kind of work had been done starting in 2016, things could have been a lot different. JAN CRAWFORD: Right because it's just hard to understand why it wasn't taken more seriously. WILLIAM BARR: Right. JAN CRAWFORD: Why do you think it was not? WILLIAM BARR: I have no idea. That's one of the things I'm interested in looking at you know-- JAN CRAWFORD: --As part of the review? WILLIAM BARR: Yes. In other words, you know, there are statements being made that people were warned back in April-- JAN CRAWFORD: --of 2016-- WILLIAM BARR: Right and I don't have any reason to doubt that, but I'm wondering what exactly was the response to it if they were alarmed. Surely the response should have been more than just, you know, dangling a confidential informant in front of a peripheral player in the Trump Campaign. Barr's putting on a master class in trolling right here. He's saying that he doesn't buy the story that this investigation started with legit concerns about the Russians. He damned well knows what happened. JAN CRAWFORD: I want to talk to you about the investigation. Um, because your, that's suggesting that was obviously inadequate, but when you talk to Director Wray about appointing this high level group and efforts to ensure that this doesn't happen again in 2020, has he expressed any concern to you that the kind of review that you are now going to undertake, or this investigation of the investigation, that that could hamper these efforts in 2020? WILLIAM BARR: We've discussed how important it is that that not be allowed to happen and we are both very cognizant of that and-- JAN CRAWFORD: ---You have discussed that with him? WILLIAM BARR: Oh yes, and I think he is being very supportive and we're working together on, you know, trying to reconstruct what happened. People have to understand, you know, one of the things here is that these efforts in 2016, these counter-intelligence activities that were directed at the Trump Campaign, were not done in the normal course and not through the normal procedures as a far as I can tell. And a lot of the people who were involved are no longer there. JAN CRAWFORD: So it's just as dangerous- So when we talk about foreign interference versus say a government abuse of power, which is more troubling? WILLIAM BARR: Well they're both, they're both troubling. JAN CRAWFORD: Equally? WILLIAM BARR: In my mind, they are, sure. I mean, republics have fallen because of Praetorian Guard mentality where government officials get very arrogant, they identify the national interest with their own political preferences and they feel that anyone who has a different opinion, you know, is somehow an enemy of the state. And you know, there is that tendency that they know better and that, you know, they're there to protect as guardians of the people. That can easily translate into essentially supervening the will of the majority and getting your own way as a government official. JAN CRAWFORD: And you are concerned that that may have happened in 2016? WILLIAM BARR: Well, I just think it has to be carefully look at because the use of foreign intelligence capabilities and counterintelligence capabilities against an American political campaign to me is unprecedented and it's a serious red line that's been crossed. Yep. He knows. JAN CRAWFORD: The Inspector General is looking at only, it is my understanding, a small part of this? Is that correct? the FISA warrant? WILLIAM BARR: Yeah, I wouldn't say small but he's looking at a discrete area that is- that is you know, important, which is the use of electronic surveillance that was targeted at Carter Page. JAN CRAWFORD: And could he have… could you have just said I want to expand this investigation? Why did you feel it was necessary to turn to John Durham? WILLIAM BARR: Well the inspector general at the department, Mike Horowitz, who you know is a superb government official he has limited powers. He doesn't have the power to compel testimony, he doesn't have the power really to investigate beyond the current cast of characters at the Department of Justice. His ability to get information from former officials or from other agencies outside the department is very limited JAN CRAWFORD: So he wouldn't have been able to go and try to speak with some of the former officials who are making these decisions, necessarily? WILLIAM BARR: Right JAN CRAWFORD: If they are not in the department anymore. WILLIAM BARR: Right Let me translate: "I brought in Durham because I need to criminally investigate people, and potentially indict some of them." JAN CRAWFORD: Um, what's the status of Huber's investigation in Utah? I think the former Attorney General Sessions had asked him to look at this. WILLIAM BARR: Right, so Huber had originally been asked to take a look at the FISA applications and the electronic surveillance but then he stood back and put that on hold while the Office of Inspector General was conducting its review, which would've been normal for the department. And he was essentially on standby in case Mr. Horowitz referred a matter to him to be handled criminally. So he has not been active on this front in recent months and so Durham is taking over that role. The other issues he's been working on relate to Hillary Clinton. Those are winding down and hopefully we'll be in a position to bring those to fruition. JAN CRAWFORD: So he won't be involved in this really at all then? WILLIAM BARR: No. JAN CRAWFORD: This is his role, it's done? WILLIAM BARR: Right. I don't know what to make of this one. Here, Barr seems to be saying that Huber has been doing something all of this time and that it's about to be wrapped up. On the other hand, Joe DiGenova, who represents one of the main Clinton Foundation whistleblowers, has been adamant that Huber has done fuck-all since Sessions appointed him to look at this stuff. If Huber had been doing something, I would think that DiGenova's client would have been brought before a grand jury already, which has not happened. We'll see. But I will say that this is one of the big tests as to whether Barr is actually going to do his job or whether he's going to sweep all of this under the rug. JAN CRAWFORD: But you have concerns about how they conducted the investigation? WILLIAM BARR: Yes but you know, when you're dealing with official government contact, intent is frequently a murky issue. I'm not suggesting that people did what they did necessarily because of conscious, nefarious motives. Sometimes people can convince themselves that what they're doing is in the higher interest, the better good. They don't realize that what they're doing is really antithetical to the democratic system that we have. They start viewing themselves as the guardians of the people that are more informed and insensitive than everybody else. They can- in their own mind, they can have those kinds of motives. And sometimes they can look at evidence and facts through a biased prism that they themselves don't realize. WILLIAM BARR: That something objectively as applied as a neutral principle across the board really you know, shouldn't be the standard used in the case but because they have a particular bias they don't see that. So that's why procedures and standards are important and review afterward is an important way of making sure that government power is being conscientiously and properly applied. It doesn't necessarily mean that there are people- you know, that people have crossed lines have done so with corrupt intent or anything like that. JAN CRAWFORD: But it seems like you have a concern that there may have been a bias by top officials in the FBI as they looked at whether to launch and conduct this investigation? WILLIAM BARR: Well it's hard to read some of the texts with and not feel that there was gross bias at work and they're appalling. And if the shoe were on the other-- JAN CRAWFORD: Appalling. WILLIAM BARR: Those were appalling. And on their face they were very damning and I think if the shoe was on the other foot we could be hearing a lot about it. If those kinds of discussions were held you know when Obama first ran for office, people talking about Obama in those tones and suggesting that "Oh that he might be a Manchurian candidate for Islam or something like that." You know some wild accusations like that and you had that kind of discussion back and forth, you don't think we would be hearing a lot more about it? This is pretty classic from Barr. He says that "intent is frequently murky issue" and that he doesn't want to infer why people did what they did, but then he goes right to the Strzok/Page texts and says that they're "appalling," "damning," and would be a huge deal if they had been said about Obama and Obama's supporters. JAN CRAWFORD: You- I guess when you said that there were things done that were not the typical run of business, ad hoc, small group, it's not how these counterintelligence operations normally work. I think that maybe Comey and others might say well this was such an extraordinary thing we had to keep it so closely held. So we had to do it differently what's your response to that? Is that legit? WILLIAM BARR: Well it might be legit under certain circumstances but a lot of that has to do with how good the evidence was at that point. And you know Mueller has spent two and half years and the fact is there is no evidence of a conspiracy. So it was bogus, this whole idea that the Trump was in cahoots with the Russians is bogus And here Barr hones in on the real issue. What business did Mueller or the FBI have investigating an issue that was always bogus? JAN CRAWFORD: So did you ask the president for authority to declassify? WILLIAM BARR: Yes. JAN CRAWFORD: You asked the president? WILLIAM BARR: Yes and also you know, the direction of the intelligence agencies to support our efforts. JAN CRAWFORD: So did you discuss this with the DNI and head of the CIA? WILLIAM BARR: Yes. JAN CRAWFORD: And what's their response? WILLIAM BARR: That they're going to be supportive. I got a good laugh reading this. Barr likes to go out of his way to help everyone involved save face (even Mueller), but what he's really saying here is "I got declassification authority from the president because those fuckers at the agencies weren't cooperating with me. Now they have no choice." JAN CRAWFORD: And so you won't will you declassify things without reviewing it with them it seems like you have the authority to do that? WILLIAM BARR: Well in an exceptional circumstance I have that authority but obviously I intend to consult with them. I'm amused by these people who make a living by disclosing classified information, including the names of intelligence operatives, wringing their hands about whether I'm going to be responsible in protecting intelligence sources and methods. I've been in the business as I've said for over 50 years long before they were born and I know how to handle classified information and I believe strongly in protecting intelligence sources and methods. But at the same time if there is information that can be shared with the American people without jeopardizing intelligence sources and methods that decision should be made and because I will be involved in finding out what the story was I think I'm in the best decision to make that decision Here's Barr putting the DNI, Brennan, and the other people objecting to his declassification authority in their place. It should also be noted that Barr is saying that intends to actually publish declassified information to the American people to the extent that he can. We'll see what he does. JAN CRAWFORD: You are only the second Attorney General in history who's served twice. I think the first one was back in 1850. WILLIAM BARR: Right. JAN CRAWFORD: But you are working for a man who is- I mean you are an establishment figure in a way. You've had a long career in Washington but you are working for a man who is not establishment. And some of his tweets about officials and the rule of law, how do you react when you see those? Are you on Twitter? Do you read his tweets? WILLIAM BARR: No, I am not on Twitter and every once in a while a tweet is brought to my attention but my experience with the president is, we have- we have a good working, professional working relationship. We, you know, we talk to each other and if he has something to say to me I figure he'll tell me directly. I don't look to tweets for, you know, I don't look at them as directives or as official communications with the department. JAN CRAWFORD: But when you came into this job, you were kind of, it's like the US Attorney in Connecticut, I mean, you had a good reputation on the right and on the left. You were a man with a good reputation. You are not someone who is, you know, accused of protecting the president, enabling the president, lying to Congress. Did you expect that coming in? And what is your response to it? How do you? What's your response to that? WILLIAM BARR: Well in a way I did expect it. JAN CRAWFORD: You did? WILLIAM BARR: Yeah, because I realize we live in a crazy hyper-partisan period of time and I knew that it would only be a matter of time if I was behaving responsibly and calling them as I see them, that I would be attacked because nowadays people don't care about the merits and the substance. They only care about who it helps, who benefits, whether my side benefits or the other side benefits, everything is gauged by politics. And as I say, that's antithetical to the way the department runs and any attorney general in this period is going to end up losing a lot of political capital and I realize that and that is one of the reasons that I ultimately was persuaded that I should take it on because I think at my stage in life it really doesn't make any difference. Barr is saying that he gives no fucks politically. JAN CRAWFORD: So you don't regret taking the job? WILLIAM BARR: No. JAN CRAWFORD: Not even today? WILLIAM BARR: I'd rather, in many ways, I'd rather be back to my old life but I think that I love the Department of Justice, I love the FBI, I think it's important that we not, in this period of intense partisan feeling, destroy our institutions. I think one of the ironies today is that people are saying that it's President Trump that's shredding our institutions. I really see no evidence of that, it is hard, and I really haven't seen bill of particulars as to how that's being done. From my perspective the idea of resisting a democratically elected president and basically throwing everything at him and you know, really changing the norms on the grounds that we have to stop this president, that is where the shredding of our norms and our institutions is occurring. JAN CRAWFORD: And you think that happened even with the investigation into the campaign, potentially? WILLIAM BARR: I am concerned about that. Like I said, Barr knows what's up, and he intends to do something about it. | ||
| ||
