|
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 April 18 2019 11:08 GreenHorizons wrote:Reporting on the first round of fundraising disclosures for the 2020 campaign and candidates not keeping their promises already. I love that O'Rourke couldn't go a single quarter before showing his two-faced nature. Show nested quote +Beto O’Rourke is one of the candidates who had pledge to run a campaign financed only by regular people — “not PACs, not lobbyists, not corporations, and not special interests.” His latest filing, however, shows that he accepted donations from a federal utility-company lobbyist and a top Chevron lobbyist in New Mexico.
Some lobbyist cash comes from individuals who are clearly lobbyists but have chosen not to register with a federal system rife with loopholes.
Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., has also collected donations from registered corporate lobbyists in South Carolina, New York, and California. Several technology lobbyists from San Francisco have given to her campaign. Another Harris donor, Robert Crowe, from the firm, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, is a federal lobbyist who has worked to influence Congress on behalf of pipeline firm EQT Corporation and Alphabet, the parent company of Google.
Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., similarly announced that he would eschew campaign donations from federal lobbyists, and his campaign appears to be making most of the caveat about “federal” lobbyists. Though he has returned donations from lobbyists registered under the federal government’s system, Booker has taken half a dozen donations from lobbyists registered under state and municipal lobbyist registration laws, but who do not appear in federal disclosures.
The pledge to reject lobbyist cash is completely voluntary and self-defined. O’Rourke has made blanket statements that he will reject all donations from lobbyists. Harris has made promises in emails to her supporters to reject all lobbyist donations and, in other emails, to only reject donations from federal lobbyists. Booker’s campaign website only specifies that he will not accept money from federal lobbyists. theintercept.comHe also didn't mention fluffing his Day 1 fundraising announcement with some general election funds (people who donated over the $2800 limit).
It's immediately apparent when looking at the data that the only people who aren't beholden to corporate interests are Sanders, Yang, and Warren.
I remember reading that Beto raised $6.1 million in the first 24 hours. Dead giveaway. Then he has the gall to spew some shit like "largest grassroots campaign in history," lol. Cory Booker has always been about that lobby money. Kamala I wasn't sure about, but she raised an absurd amount of money with practically no public campaign presence, so...
|
On April 18 2019 07:43 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2019 07:24 Nouar wrote:On April 18 2019 06:37 xDaunt wrote:On April 18 2019 06:27 Plansix wrote:
Third option: He and others don't think the evidence provided is that compelling. I have yet to see a good argument from anyone as to why the evidence that I have presented is not compelling. Of the people who rotely dismiss my posts on this, not one has demonstrated an even passable understanding of the facts or applicable law. So I'll file this under option 2 as previously provided. It's tempting to believe you here, however when you dismiss all the deep-digging I've done on the underlying facts of the "emails" case (since you just dismiss the whole investigation itself as it doesn't support your baseless conclusions, as some do here for Trump), while still advocating for further investigation and prosecution without any predicate other than your gut feeling, it's really hard to trust you on that whole "understanding of the facts or applicable law". Because it conveniently applies only where you deem it fit. I don't categorize your posts on the email thing as being dismissive of the evidence that I have presented. To the contrary, you are one of like two posters who has thoughtfully engaged on this stuff. In fact, my recollection of our last go around on this stuff in which we discussed the OIG report was that you acknowledged some of the majority problems with the investigation.
I will answer to that a bit later (for example that the Republicans raised issues but never even endeavored to interview the relevant people they raised issues about while they had the duty to do it and were in power, meaning they probably know they were grasping at straws), but...
On April 18 2019 08:14 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2019 07:54 Plansix wrote:On April 18 2019 07:22 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
So the White House had access to (more information from) the report already. No wonder Barr suddenly couldn't answer that question during his hearing. DoJ people working to aid Trumps lawyers. Seems ridiculous to me that they get access before congressional committees who have to wait until Barr does his media spin.
Between this and Barr now announcing he will be holding a press conference before the release, the spectre of him steering the conclusions is not going away soon. Can you imagine if Comey had leaked his findings in the emails investigation to the Clinton team days in advance so they could prepare a response? We would still be hearing conservatives complaints about it today and until the heat death of the sun. We don’t have to imagine it, because what actually happened was worse. Comey drafted his statement exonerating her before interviewing anyone, and the DOJ told the FBI that there would be no indictment, period. And that’s before we even touch Hillary’s own obstruction issues such as destruction of the email server.
See ? You're continuing the same bullshit I called you out on earlier. What destruction of which email server ? How is that supported by any fact ? How do you want DOJ to support an indictment when what happened is not even a crime ? Mishandling confidential information, when there is no intent to disseminate it, and the information itself was not properly marked, cannot be reasonable pursued by prosecutors.
"passable understanding of the facts and the applicable law". Exactly what you said earlier.
On April 18 2019 09:01 Ben... wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2019 08:54 xDaunt wrote:On April 18 2019 08:47 Plansix wrote:On April 18 2019 08:14 xDaunt wrote:On April 18 2019 07:54 Plansix wrote:On April 18 2019 07:22 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:So the White House had access to (more information from) the report already. No wonder Barr suddenly couldn't answer that question during his hearing. DoJ people working to aid Trumps lawyers. Seems ridiculous to me that they get access before congressional committees who have to wait until Barr does his media spin. https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1118630251276505088Between this and Barr now announcing he will be holding a press conference before the release, the spectre of him steering the conclusions is not going away soon. Can you imagine if Comey had leaked his findings in the emails investigation to the Clinton team days in advance so they could prepare a response? We would still be hearing conservatives complaints about it today and until the heat death of the sun. We don’t have to imagine it, because what actually happened was worse. Comey drafted his statement exonerating her before interviewing anyone, and the DOJ told the FBI that there would be no indictment, period. And that’s before we even touch Hillary’s own obstruction issues such as destruction of the email server. So where is the evidence the DOJ leaked it to Clinton again? Because the FBI reports to the department of justice, so Comey was just doing what he is supposed to do. See, it this kind of post that makes it very difficult to take you seriously. I point out conduct that is unequivocally worse than a leak, yet you still want to see the leak. Well that’s fine. I will direct your attention to the Loretta Lynch/Bill Clinton tarmac meeting in Phoenix. I highly doubt that they were discussing cookie recipes. By that exact same logic, would it not be safe to assume that in the various documented contacts between Trump campaign members and various Russians they were also not talking about cookie recipes? Same deal with when Trump was found out to have been talking with Putin off the record (or when on the record, had all record of it stopped from being documented) on multiple occasions? I'm sure Vlad has some killer cookie recipes. If you are going to assume the worst for a short chat between Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch, it makes no sense that you give Trump and his people a free pass.
Don't even bother, these kind of things only make sense to him when they happen to ONE side. I'll stop taking xDaunt seriously unless he makes the same badwill/goodwill assumptions when they do happen, for both sides.
In my point of view, all these long-time politicians and businessmen are corrupt to the root. Only "newer" guys are not as corrupt (meaning they are, still), since they spent less time in power, but lack a bit of experience to manage a country. I don't have a solution.
On April 18 2019 12:29 xDaunt wrote:Speaking of losing control of the narrative, take a look at what showed up over at the Washington Post of all places this week: an opinion article stating that Fox News was right all along on this Russia gate stuff! Show nested quote +Throughout most of southern Ohio, residents who watch cable news are predominantly glued to one channel: Fox News.
People there don’t watch Fox News to know what to think; they already know what they think, and they avoid news channels that insult their intelligence and core beliefs. Yes, Fox News is an echo chamber for the right, but no more than CNN and MSNBC are for the left, as far as conservatives are concerned. To be fair, when a Democrat is in the White House, the networks switch places, with Fox News criticizing every move, and MSNBC and CNN defending the Oval Office fortress.
But for now, while partisans on the left may quibble, the fact remains that on the subject of collusion with Russia by President Trump or his campaign, Fox News was right and the others were wrong. For at least two years, MSNBC and CNN devoted hour upon hour, day after day, to promoting the narrative that Trump colluded with the Russians, and that special counsel Robert S. Mueller III was going to prove it. That turned out to be wrong.
Along with defending Trump, Fox News hosts such as Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham and, especially, Sean Hannity have been slammed for spending nearly two years clamoring for an investigation of the investigators, aligning themselves with the president’s claim of a politically motivated witch hunt. Most of the media portrayed such accusations as preposterous, designed merely to divert attention from Trump’s alleged misdeeds.
But then comes Attorney General William P. Barr, dropping a bombshell last week by declaring during congressional testimony that he thinks “spying did occur” on the Trump campaign in 2016, and that he is looking into it. Democrats and many in the media immediately blasted Barr for carrying Trump’s water. Barr soon clarified his remarks, saying, “I am not saying that improper surveillance occurred. I’m saying that I am concerned about it and looking into it.”
Just three weeks ago, before Mueller wrapped up his report, The Post — in a story representative of mainstream sources at the time — produced a mostly flattering profile of the new attorney general. “A Justice Department official told The Washington Post last month that Barr is viewed at the department as ‘a lawyer’s lawyer’ and is seen as less politically minded than his predecessors,” the story noted.
Timothy Flanigan, a former Barr colleague at the Justice Department, described Barr’s independent streak, saying, “If Bill starts getting the tweet treatment, Bill is a tough guy. He’s a tough, tough guy. Not that Jeff Sessions wasn’t, but I don’t think Bill’s just going to sit there and take it. I think he would make sure that the president understood that it is not really a smart thing to be lambasting the attorney general.”
Now, Barr is being cast by the liberal cable channels and others as an unscrupulous political hack attached to the president’s leash. On CBS’s “60 Minutes” on Sunday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said that Barr “may be whitewashing” his summary of the report. Such accusations represent an unlikely turn of events for a 68-year-old professional with an impeccable record and a career more behind him than in front of him.
For Fox News devotees in southern Ohio and other Trump strongholds, nothing from the Mueller investigation has provided cause to waver from their preferred news source. Meanwhile, even regular viewers of CNN and MSNBC must certainly recognize the straws being grasped to justify sticking with a conspiracy theory that has been largely debunked — although the expected release of Mueller’s report this week will probably provide just enough juice for one last effort.
After two years of conjecture from all sides, some hard truths have emerged. Russia did try to influence the 2016 election. Neither Trump nor his campaign conspired with Russia. The president’s actions did not rise to criminal obstruction of justice. And how and why this all began may well turn out to be the most troubling story of all.
During his confirmation hearing in January, Barr told senators, “I am not going to do anything that I think is wrong, and I will not be bullied into doing anything I think is wrong. By anybody. Whether it be editorial boards, or Congress or the president. I’m going to do what I think is right.” Observers at the time took Barr’s comments as reassurance of his independence from Trump, but in hindsight it should be noted that he mentioned editorial boards and Congress first.
Barr’s career does not paint a portrait of someone who chases tin-foil-hat conspiracies. There’s enough evidence in the public record to raise valid suspicions that the FBI’s investigation of the Trump campaign was motivated not by real concerns about national security, but rather by a loathing of the candidate. And though new facts may emerge in the full, redacted report, they won’t change the larger truth. It would behoove serious journalists to put aside their political biases and delve into a story that might actually be worthy of Watergate comparisons — even if it includes the painful admission that Fox News has been right all along. Source. I'm glad that this guy focused on the liberal news outlets. Their narratives have just been so utterly wrong and it's going to take a long time to disabuse everyone who has bought their crap hook, line, and sinker. But I think that this process is going to be expedited starting with Barr's press conference tomorrow. And it's likely going to kick into overdrive next week. John Solomon said on Hannity tonight that he will be breaking news next week that the investigation into the Trump campaign began in January 2016 with a meeting at the White House. This is the first information that anyone has provided regarding the origin of this mess. I can't wait to see what he says.
Come on it's an opinion piece... Even Fox sometimes runs opinion pieces by liberals... Don't even look at the opinion section of news websites, please... it's the most full-of-shit section on any website, not journalism.
|
On April 18 2019 13:22 xDaunt wrote:Democrats were quite lucky last time that Bernie was such a good sport about the party screwing him over. I doubt that Bernie's supporters will let him be so magnanimous if the party tries something this time around.
His fundraising emails indicate he isn't. Easy to miss in there is that Buttigieg is part of this "Stop Sanders" alliance (along with scummy hacks like David Brock and Neera Tanden.
The matter of What To Do About Bernie and the larger imperative of party unity has, for example, hovered over a series of previously undisclosed Democratic dinners in New York and Washington organized by the longtime party financier Bernard Schwartz. The gatherings have included scores from the moderate or center-left wing of the party, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California; Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the minority leader; former Gov. Terry McAuliffe of Virginia; Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., himself a presidential candidate; and the president of the Center for American Progress, Neera Tanden.
On April 18 2019 15:16 Dromar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2019 11:08 GreenHorizons wrote:Reporting on the first round of fundraising disclosures for the 2020 campaign and candidates not keeping their promises already. I love that O'Rourke couldn't go a single quarter before showing his two-faced nature. Beto O’Rourke is one of the candidates who had pledge to run a campaign financed only by regular people — “not PACs, not lobbyists, not corporations, and not special interests.” His latest filing, however, shows that he accepted donations from a federal utility-company lobbyist and a top Chevron lobbyist in New Mexico.
Some lobbyist cash comes from individuals who are clearly lobbyists but have chosen not to register with a federal system rife with loopholes.
Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., has also collected donations from registered corporate lobbyists in South Carolina, New York, and California. Several technology lobbyists from San Francisco have given to her campaign. Another Harris donor, Robert Crowe, from the firm, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, is a federal lobbyist who has worked to influence Congress on behalf of pipeline firm EQT Corporation and Alphabet, the parent company of Google.
Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., similarly announced that he would eschew campaign donations from federal lobbyists, and his campaign appears to be making most of the caveat about “federal” lobbyists. Though he has returned donations from lobbyists registered under the federal government’s system, Booker has taken half a dozen donations from lobbyists registered under state and municipal lobbyist registration laws, but who do not appear in federal disclosures.
The pledge to reject lobbyist cash is completely voluntary and self-defined. O’Rourke has made blanket statements that he will reject all donations from lobbyists. Harris has made promises in emails to her supporters to reject all lobbyist donations and, in other emails, to only reject donations from federal lobbyists. Booker’s campaign website only specifies that he will not accept money from federal lobbyists. theintercept.comHe also didn't mention fluffing his Day 1 fundraising announcement with some general election funds (people who donated over the $2800 limit). It's immediately apparent when looking at the data that the only people who aren't beholden to corporate interests are Sanders, Yang, and Warren. I remember reading that Beto raised $6.1 million in the first 24 hours. Dead giveaway. Then he has the gall to spew some shit like "largest grassroots campaign in history," lol. Cory Booker has always been about that lobby money. Kamala I wasn't sure about, but she raised an absurd amount of money with practically no public campaign presence, so...
Kamala has very little grassroots support despite the big fundraising number. Can't say she hasn't learned anything from Trump though.
On the Democratic side, Harris is slicing the numbers in a similar fashion. Her campaign said in a news release that 98 percent of contributions were under $100. A Harris spokesman clarified that it’s actually 97 percent.
But looking at the overall fundraising picture, Harris raised $12 million in the first quarter, 37 percent of which came from small-dollar donations of $200 or less.
Why is there such a big gulf here, with 97 percent on one hand and 37 percent on the other? Because many of the Harris contributions above $100 were way above $100.
It’s the same dynamic with Trump. His campaign says nearly 99 percent of contributions were for $200 or less. But many of the other donations (in the 1 percent) were way over $200.
“It’s in all campaigns’ interests to report the information like Trump did. It makes them look like they’re appealing more to the grass roots,” said Sarah Bryner, research director at the Center for Responsive Politics, which analyzes campaign finance figures at OpenSecrets.org.
www.washingtonpost.com
|
Yeah. On the subject of campaign fundraising, as a Minnesotan I was pretty disappointed to see Klobuchar's numbers (specifically the small donors / average donation numbers).
I think that, not only will her presidential bid not get off the ground, but it may even cost her the office she currently holds. Klobuchar was viewed pretty favorably among Minnesotans before her presidential bid. I'm not sure it'll be the same after.
|
Northern Ireland22770 Posts
Trump, the most petty man alive wouldn’t want as much of the Mueller report that he said ‘completely exonerated’ him as possible?
Politics is a complex and shady world, except when it’s not.
|
Northern Ireland22770 Posts
On April 18 2019 18:47 Dromar wrote:
Yeah. On the subject of campaign fundraising, as a Minnesotan I was pretty disappointed to see Klobuchar's numbers (specifically the small donors / average donation numbers).
I think that, not only will her presidential bid not get off the ground, but it may even cost her the office she currently holds. Klobuchar was viewed pretty favorably among Minnesotans before her presidential bid. I'm not sure it'll be the same after.
How closely do people outside of the likes of us even look at those things?
It does probably become more pertinent if the run goes on longer, where it comes up and becomes ingrained in people’s perceptions. Hang around for long enough that that does happen though and yeah that might very well be a problem for her down the line as you said.
It does seem a net positive that in recent elections the convention has changed so this stuff is more out in the open and people are more aware of how politics works and is funded.
|
Total exoneration of Trump from Barrs description of the Mueller report.
No collusion.
Time to lay this Russiagate conspiracy hoax to bed for good.
|
Excellent. Now on to the real investigations, like why Trump gave high level security passes to people who were a massive risk to national security.
|
United States41470 Posts
On April 18 2019 22:49 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Total exoneration of Trump from Barrs description of the Mueller report.
No collusion.
Time to lay this Russiagate conspiracy hoax to bed for good.
He already admitted to enough on Twitter. The fact that the guy he appointed to clear him says it’s good does not somehow erase his prior confessions.
|
On April 18 2019 22:51 Jockmcplop wrote:
Excellent. Now on to the real investigations, like why Trump gave high level security passes to people who were a massive risk to national security.
They'll be just as fruitful, regardless of their validity, would be my expectation anyway.
|
The guy is literally praising Trump for not invoking executive privilege, and lamenting how tough a time he's had these years. Also hitting every Trump twitter keyword. It's embarrassing.
|
One thing I noticed in his speech : he specifically said that Mueller investigated if there was obstruction "of the special counsel investigation". Not of the investigation itself, especially everything related to Comey's firing and previous events. I found that phrasing pretty surprising. I'll wait to read the report I guess.
Now, it was good that no executive privilege was asserted. If Trump could do the same (not asserting executive privilege) to stop blocking all the investigations into the processes of this WH (clearances especially, because I am really worried about all this SA/Kuchner/nuclear deals stuff), I would really praise him.
|
On April 18 2019 22:51 Jockmcplop wrote:
Excellent. Now on to the real investigations, like why Trump gave high level security passes to people who were a massive risk to national security.
Ever read that story 'The boy who cried Wolf' ?
That is literally the dems and majority of the mainstream media the past two years.Without actually finding any truths.
At least they've moved on from Stormy Daniels now her lawyer is facing 330 years in jail.It'd be hilarious all this if it wasn't so goddamn pathetic.
|
Can you explain X? Well you'll have to read it in the report. Yeah, no shit sherlock, but nobody has yet.
And leaves after 4 questions or so. Literally just a spin job to repeat no collusion 10 more times.
|
On April 18 2019 22:54 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2019 22:51 Jockmcplop wrote:
Excellent. Now on to the real investigations, like why Trump gave high level security passes to people who were a massive risk to national security. They'll be just as fruitful, regardless of their validity, would be my expectation anyway.
I don't see a controversy or a silver bullet issue like his taxes and alleged financial crimes bringing down Trump at all. Voters are inundated in his scandals and are increasingly numb to them, and there's no guarantee his taxes or security clearances or Saudi interests will bring him down either. Nice to investigate them, but I would expect nothing to come out of those either frankly.
|
On April 18 2019 22:59 PhoenixVoid wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2019 22:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 18 2019 22:51 Jockmcplop wrote:
Excellent. Now on to the real investigations, like why Trump gave high level security passes to people who were a massive risk to national security. They'll be just as fruitful, regardless of their validity, would be my expectation anyway. I don't see a controversy or a silver bullet issue like his taxes and alleged financial crimes bringing down Trump at all. Voters are inundated in his scandals and are increasingly numb to them, and there's no guarantee his taxes or security clearances or Saudi interests will bring him down either. Nice to investigate them, but I would expect nothing to come out of those either frankly.
Pretty confident even if a prosecutor like Harris won Trump would be totally safe from legal consequences. It's not like powerful/influential people didn't know he was a flagrant criminal before he even started running for president. Last I checked Democrats happily cashed his checks right up until they stopped coming.
|
Well that clears on one thing: Barr disagreed with the analysis of the Mueller team on conclusion obstruction, but accepted their findings. And there was nothing technically illegal done by meeting with the Russians. So it is up to the voters to decide was un-American to seek aid from a foreign government to win an election and hide the fact that you did it.
On April 18 2019 22:59 PhoenixVoid wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2019 22:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 18 2019 22:51 Jockmcplop wrote:
Excellent. Now on to the real investigations, like why Trump gave high level security passes to people who were a massive risk to national security. They'll be just as fruitful, regardless of their validity, would be my expectation anyway. I don't see a controversy or a silver bullet issue like his taxes and alleged financial crimes bringing down Trump at all. Voters are inundated in his scandals and are increasingly numb to them, and there's no guarantee his taxes or security clearances or Saudi interests will bring him down either. Nice to investigate them, but I would expect nothing to come out of those either frankly.
If 2018 proved anything, it is that the voters did not like the course of the country after the 2018 election, So I disagree with the argument that they don’t care about these reports. They do, but only get to says so once every 2 years.
|
Some of his other comments were along the lines of "the 10items found by Mueller must be put in relation with the fact that the president, newly arrived in the white house, was feeling targeted and impeded by this investigation, thus his decisions, and the corrupt intent to characterize obstruction, need to be viewed in perspective".
I understood it as : "He was innocent and frustrated, thus took bad decisions, but the corrupt intent is not there because he was feeling targeted". Not fond of that either.
Maybe a native can correct me or I can find a transcript afterwards.
|
Nah, you got the gist of it down pat. What a dumb presser.
|
On April 18 2019 23:02 Plansix wrote:
Well that clears on one thing: Barr disagreed with the analysis of the Mueller team on conclusion obstruction, but accepted their findings. And there was nothing technically illegal done by meeting with the Russians. So it is up to the voters to decide was un-American to seek aid from a foreign government to win an election and hide the fact that you did it.
Think it clears up that the constant reporting, commentary, and conspiracy crafting was a huge waste of time and resources too.
Democrats/The media are going to have to own that eventually.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
