|
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 |
|
|
|
|
The impeachment thing is, as far as I can tell, about throwing procedural hurdles up to delay a slap dash confirmation of a SC justice.
No idea why she's still talking about skipping the debates though. Biden looked, if not amazing, OK at most of the dem primary ones, and Trump has never been a skilled debater.
|
|
|
On September 26 2020 09:55 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2020 08:11 Doodsmack wrote:On September 26 2020 07:40 farvacola wrote:It isn't hard to figure this stuff out lol, so much for your grand conspiracy. The following is an NPR article on the topic of the recently released interview with FBI Agent Barnett. An FBI agent assigned to special counsel Robert Mueller's team told investigators he thought the probe into Michael Flynn was "unclear and disorganized" and that the former national security adviser wasn't conspiring with Russia.
That assessment from William Barnett is contained in a 13-page document summarizing an interview Barnett did on Sept. 17 with Justice Department investigators.
The department provided the summary to Michael Flynn's attorneys, who filed it late Thursday in federal court as part of the ongoing legal fight over his case.
The Justice Department is seeking to dismiss its case against Flynn, who pleaded guilty in 2017 to lying to the FBI about his contacts with the then-Russian ambassador.
Critics say the department's effort to drop the prosecution smacks of a political favor by Attorney General William Barr, who approved the move, toward an ally of the president.
U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan has scheduled a hearing for next Tuesday on the government's motion to dismiss.
The interview with Barnett is one of several internal Justice Department documents that Flynn's attorneys filed late Thursday that they claim support their allegations of government misconduct in the case.
Skeptical investigator
Barnett, who began working for the FBI in 1999, was assigned as the original case agent on the bureau's investigations into Flynn and President Trump's former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort.
In his interview, Barnett expresses skepticism about the foundations of the investigation into possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia, according to the summary.
Barnett told investigators that he found the Flynn probe to be "unclear and disorganized" in its initial stages, and that little was done on it through November 2016. And even later, he says, he didn't believe that Flynn had committed a crime, although he says others in the FBI, including the lead analyst on the case, did.
Flynn was interviewed by the FBI in January 2017, during which he lied about his conversations with the Russian ambassador.
Barnett acknowledges that Flynn lied, but he said he believes Flynn did so "to save his job" and not to cover up collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.
After Mueller was appointed special counsel and took over the broader Russia investigation in May 2017, Barnett joined Mueller's team with the hope, he told investigators, that his perspective would prevent "group think."
The special agent accuses some attorneys in the special counsel's office of having a "get Trump attitude." He says many of the lawyers tended to interpret information that would point to a crime having been committed.
He accuses one attorney, Jeannie Rhee, of being obsessed with Flynn after she disagreed with Barnett's assessment about money Flynn received for a speech he gave in Russia.
Flynn received tens of thousands of dollars in payments from foreign sources, including Russian ones, after he left the government following his stint as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency.
Investigation of the investigation
It is highly unusual for the Justice Department to provide documents detailing internal discussions, including handwritten notes and instant-messaging communications, from an investigation to defense counsel.
But in the Flynn case, Barr appointed U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri Jeff Jensen to review the Flynn matter after Trump and supporters raised concerns about his prosecution.
Barnett was interviewed as part of Jensen's review, although it's unclear why it took place on Sept. 17 — when the department had moved to drop the Flynn prosecution back in early May.
Judge Sullivan has not granted the government's motion to dismiss the case. Instead, he appointed a former judge to provide an opposing viewpoint. After a failed bid by Flynn's attorneys to force Sullivan to sign off of the bid to dismiss, a hearing is scheduled next week in the case. FBI Agent In Flynn Case Had Doubts About Investigation, Document ShowsOn an unrelated note, word is that Trump will pick Judge Amy Coney Barrett to succeed Justice Ginsburg. This story seems pretty fair and balanced. Key quotes: "An FBI agent assigned to special counsel Robert Mueller's team told investigators he thought the probe into Michael Flynn was "unclear and disorganized" and that the former national security adviser wasn't conspiring with Russia." (The actual documents show Barnett saying the theory against Flynn consisted of "supposition upon supposition.") "In his interview, Barnett expresses skepticism about the foundations of the investigation into possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia." "Barnett told investigators that he found the Flynn probe to be "unclear and disorganized" in its initial stages, and that little was done on it through November 2016. And even later, he says, he didn't believe that Flynn had committed a crime." If you thought any of that is flattering for the investigation, you might want to reconsider. I don't see it as flattering or damning. Seems like a guy disagreed with his superiors and is airing it , which is odd but not so much in these political times. I'm not sure if that speaks to him have sour grapes or it being extraordinary. Also, there are other parts less flattering to Trump and Barr, Show nested quote +It is highly unusual for the Justice Department to provide documents detailing internal discussions, including handwritten notes and instant-messaging communications, from an investigation to defense counsel.
But in the Flynn case, Barr appointed U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri Jeff Jensen to review the Flynn matter after Trump and supporters raised concerns about his prosecution. Show nested quote +Flynn received tens of thousands of dollars in payments from foreign sources, including Russian ones, after he left the government following his stint as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. Show nested quote +Barnett acknowledges that Flynn lied, but he said he believes Flynn did so "to save his job" and not to cover up collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. I mean things like him thinking Flynn lied for one reason rather than an other is not exactly the best endorsement for letting someone who plead guilty off. I'm not saying it looks perfect, but I don't think investigating senior officials on colluding with Russians and the president may or may not being in on that has much of a playbook it being disorganized sounds pretty reasonable as people trying to figure it out, but it does not look as your first tweets made it out to be either it is far from scathing.
A member of the Mueller team questioned the entire predicate, that is, the collusion theory. He thought the theory behind the Flynn case consisted of "supposition on supposition." It's not a pretty picture in the slightest. That of course is just one aspect of the whole collusion investigation. It's a complicated series of events and the Flynn case was just one part.
|
|
|
The smart thing for biden to do i think would be indeed to not debate trump. Now that things are spiraling out of control again there doesnt seem to be much reason or urgency either. I dont think there is anything to win for biden in the debates (edit:at this moment) while there is quiet a bit to lose. Trump will make a mockery out of biden in the debate and biden is not the person who can counter that. When it comes to substance trump will indeed just lie if needed and then you get a more or less stumbling biden trying to point out those lies or getting mad because trump will trigger him in one way or the other. It all wont look great on tv. Maybe i am wrong and biden will do great in the debates,its not impossible but i am not convinced either. The low risk aproach for now seems to be to just dodge and debate trump at a later time if needed,when things have spiralled out of control even more.
|
|
|
On an unrelated note, word is that Trump will pick Judge Amy Coney Barrett to succeed Justice Ginsburg
This is the one that worked on Bush v Gore for the GOP right?
|
On September 26 2020 11:39 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On an unrelated note, word is that Trump will pick Judge Amy Coney Barrett to succeed Justice Ginsburg This is the one that worked on Bush v Gore for the GOP right?
Yes.
And here are some quotes from her Wiki: 1. "her judicial philosophy has been likened to that of her mentor and former boss, Antonin Scalia.[3]" 2. "Reuters described Barrett as "a favorite among religious conservatives," and said that she has supported expansive gun rights and voted in favor of one of the Trump administration's anti-immigration policies.[57]" 3. "In 2013, Barrett wrote a Texas Law Review article on the doctrine of stare decisis wherein she listed seven cases that should be considered "superprecedents"—cases that the court would never consider overturning. The list included Brown v. Board of Education but specifically excluded Roe v. Wade." 4. "Barrett was critical of Chief Justice John Roberts' opinion in the 5–4 decision that upheld the constitutionality of the central provision in the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) in NFIB vs. Sebelius." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Coney_Barrett#Judicial_philosophy_and_political_views
|
On September 26 2020 11:45 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2020 11:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On an unrelated note, word is that Trump will pick Judge Amy Coney Barrett to succeed Justice Ginsburg This is the one that worked on Bush v Gore for the GOP right? Yes. And here are some quotes from her Wiki: 1. "her judicial philosophy has been likened to that of her mentor and former boss, Antonin Scalia.[3]" 2. "Reuters described Barrett as "a favorite among religious conservatives," and said that she has supported expansive gun rights and voted in favor of one of the Trump administration's anti-immigration policies.[57]" 3. "In 2013, Barrett wrote a Texas Law Review article on the doctrine of stare decisis wherein she listed seven cases that should be considered "superprecedents"—cases that the court would never consider overturning. The list included Brown v. Board of Education but specifically excluded Roe v. Wade." 4. "Barrett was critical of Chief Justice John Roberts' opinion in the 5–4 decision that upheld the constitutionality of the central provision in the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) in NFIB vs. Sebelius." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Coney_Barrett#Judicial_philosophy_and_political_views
Strikes me as the kind of person Democrats should oppose not just on the technicality of the timing of her nomination but the substance. Seems odd then they aren't employing any of the dozen+ strategies presented to them to prevent Trump from easily securing his justice.
|
On September 26 2020 09:47 Nevuk wrote: The impeachment thing is, as far as I can tell, about throwing procedural hurdles up to delay a slap dash confirmation of a SC justice.
No idea why she's still talking about skipping the debates though. Biden looked, if not amazing, OK at most of the dem primary ones, and Trump has never been a skilled debater.
Ya dems dont want a nomination before the election and if mcturtle wants to ram them trough before it is going to have to be one of the fastest in history. They have more then enough time after but it looks like trump is going to lose and they are going lose the senate. The price they are going to pay is going to be heavy if they try to confirm while they have been kicked out completely. They want to do it before so they can kinda have an excuse to lesen the blow.
|
mcturtle wants to ram them trough before it is going to have to be one of the fastest in history You mean hold a vote with the time of consideration before the actual vote being quite common for supreme court nominees?
Ram it through before it would have to be fastest appears a long way of saying the timing is measured and normal.
Trump was elected president and a majority of Republican Senators won their races to make both constitutional parties to nominations united in control. Trump can literally concede after the mail-in votes are counted, and retire with a solid conservative legacy of 3 originalist supreme court justices. (Libs were already threatening to pack the court and remove the legislative filibuster before RBG's death, so their threats that they're really gonna go crazy now shouldn't be heeded)
|
On September 26 2020 12:25 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +mcturtle wants to ram them trough before it is going to have to be one of the fastest in history You mean hold a vote with the time of consideration before the actual vote being quite common for supreme court nominees? Ram it through before it would have to be fastest appears a long way of saying the timing is measured and normal. Trump was elected president and a majority of Republican Senators won their races to make both constitutional parties to nominations united in control. Trump can literally concede after the mail-in votes are counted, and retire with a solid conservative legacy of 3 originalist supreme court justices. (Libs were already threatening to pack the court and remove the legislative filibuster before RBG's death, so their threats that they're really gonna go crazy now shouldn't be heeded) Why the rush, not a couple of months ago a majority of the republican cacus was in the mind that it was too close to election day to pick a justice. I mean it was like 8 months before election for obama and they where very adamant that the american people would get a voice in the choice. Surely if 8 months before election is far to close to let a vote for a justice a mere 40 days is just................................
|
|
|
I think the election is going to be much closer than most people seem to think, but if you've been keeping track of what we've been discussing here you'd realize why Trump winning or not is totally irrelevant to this nomination. Barrett just recently went through this process anyways, it doesn't need to drag on. Longer nomination -->confirmation are are only recent phenomenon anyways (since the 80s iirc).
So I have no idea what that fact "tells."
|
On September 26 2020 13:24 Introvert wrote: I think the election is going to be much closer than most people seem to think, but if you've been keeping track of what we've been discussing here you'd realize why Trump winning or not is totally irrelevant to this nomination. Barrett just recently went through this process anyways, it doesn't need to drag on. Longer nomination -->confirmation are are only recent phenomenon anyways (since the 80s).
So I have no idea what that fact "tells."
Why do you think trump is going to do better. The fact that he is only running adds in 3 brattlegrouds should tell you about how dire his straights are right now. Is it just because of 2016, Biden is doing far better then hilary was. also the numbers where not that off in 2016. I think everywhere but wisconsin was whitin margin of error. You do the same thing this time and and shift margin completely in trumps favor and he still loses
|
|
|
Who else but Trump could so willingly and effectively undermine the whole country's trust in our election process? Republicans are going to be afraid of mass mail-in ballot "fraud", while Democrats will be afraid of having those ballots thrown out or suppressed by the administration and its cronies. Regardless of the extent of Russia's influence in our politics, their objectives are being met so nicely that it's not even funny.
|
On September 26 2020 12:34 Shingi11 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2020 12:25 Danglars wrote:mcturtle wants to ram them trough before it is going to have to be one of the fastest in history You mean hold a vote with the time of consideration before the actual vote being quite common for supreme court nominees? Ram it through before it would have to be fastest appears a long way of saying the timing is measured and normal. Trump was elected president and a majority of Republican Senators won their races to make both constitutional parties to nominations united in control. Trump can literally concede after the mail-in votes are counted, and retire with a solid conservative legacy of 3 originalist supreme court justices. (Libs were already threatening to pack the court and remove the legislative filibuster before RBG's death, so their threats that they're really gonna go crazy now shouldn't be heeded) Why the rush, not a couple of months ago a majority of the republican cacus was in the mind that it was too close to election day to pick a justice. I mean it was like 8 months before election for obama and they where very adamant that the american people would get a voice in the choice. Surely if 8 months before election is far to close to let a vote for a justice a mere 40 days is just................................ Why do you call it a rush? There's a vacancy, and the President and Senate are from the same party.
You'll have to explain what you mean by "a majority of the republican cacus."
I'll say a final time, the President and Senate are from the same party. In Obama's tenure, the American People sent a majority of senators from the opposite party to bring their advice and consent to Obama nominees. They didn't consent. That's not a hurdle, and there's no reason for delay. Win the Senate next time if you want to do something about it?
|
|
|
|
|
|