|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Trump Presidency | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
As we now know, after Barr released his letter exonerating Trump of obstruction of justice, Mueller sent Barr a memo on March 27 saying that Barr's letter "did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance" of the report. Here's a link to Mueller's memo, and here is that full paragraph:
quote: In testimony before Congress in early April Barr stated that he did not know why there were reports that members of Mueller's staff were dissatisfied with the Barr letter, apparently believing the fact that Mueller himself had expressed dissatisfaction not worth mentioning. In today's testimony before Congress Barr defended his earlier answer as accurate to the question, as if he was unaware that the questioner was seeking to establish whether the Mueller team agreed with Barr's statement of the report's primary findings. Growing numbers of Democratic House members are becoming increasingly distrustful of Barr's statements, and calls for his impeachment are beginning to be heard. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
There's been a new development in the Assange case (Swedish prosecutor reopens Assange rape investigation, will seek extradition). Assange is no longer under Ecuadorian protection and is serving a 50 week sentence in a British prison, so a Swedish prosecutor has stated that she will continue and conclude the investigation into rape allegations and seek a European Arrest Warrant to gain Assange's extradition to Sweden. The US also has an extradition request. Once Assange completes his British prison time the UK will decide which extradition request to honor first.
I remain surprised that the US has maintained its extradition request for Assange. His prison term will expire next year just as the US presidential election is whipping into high gear, and the possible impact on the Trump administration ranges from inconsequential to embarrassing to criminal. Maybe Assange will reveal nothing of import, or maybe he'll testify that Roger Stone or his emissaries visited him several times in the Ecuadorian embassy and discussed the timing of the release of emails and how to obtain more. A Swedish arrest warrant helps the Trump administration, which I am guessing will negotiate with the British behind the scenes to have them honor the Swedish arrest warrant first. This will put Assange in Sweden for the duration of the US presidential election and safely out of harm's way. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Attorney General William Barr has appointed a prosecutor to investigate the origins of the Russia probe to see if the FBI did anything unlawful or inappropriate. Barr is most likely interested in how the FBI obtained a surveillance warrant for Trump associate Carter Page, and their use of an informant to gain information from Trump campaign foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos (Barr appoints prosecutor to examine Russia probe origins).
Suspicion of FBI malfeasance by the Attorney General is sufficient to justify this probe into a probe, but Barr isn't any ordinary Attorney General. Through his false characterization of Mueller report conclusions, by his exoneration of Trump of any obstruction of justice, and by his referring to FBI surveillance as spying, Barr has revealed himself as a Trump partisan, the president's attorney, and not the people's lawyer. There is a very real possibility that no matter what the Russia probe probe finds, Barr will mischaracterize it as finding misbehavior by the FBI. This is what Trump wants, so that's what Barr will find. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Today Mueller read a brief 8 or 9 minute statement. He said that he is closing the Special Counsel's office, and that he is resigning from the DOJ and returning to private life. He also summarized the two volumes of his report. His statement can be found here: Text of Mueller Statement
About Volume I, Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, he said they found broad and conclusive evidence of that interference and that the American people should not ignore this continuing threat. Concerning the Trump campaign response to Russian activity he said there was "insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy." About Volume II, the obstruction charges, he was completely clear and transparent where Barr was not. He said if they could have cleared Trump they would have, but that what they found made that impossible. He said that from the beginning they recognized that they could not charge a sitting president, but that they could conduct an investigation while minds were fresh and evidence warm in case others were guilty of obstruction, and because "the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing," i.e., impeachment. This was a rather stunning rejection of Barr's decision to absolve Trump of all obstruction charges. What's most important here is not what Mueller said, because this is what those who understand simple English have been saying all along, including hundreds of prosecutors. What's most important is who said it. Mueller stood with the side that possesses adequate reading comprehension skills. What Mueller doesn't seem to grasp is the ease with which his report is being successfully misrepresented to large segments of the American public. Many actually believe that the Mueller report absolved Trump of both conspiracy and obstruction charges. Mueller's role is unique because he wrote the report. Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer and so forth can tell the American people what the report actually says until they are blue in the face, it doesn't seem to help. They are impotent in the face of the misinformation campaign being staged by Trump and his accomplices. Only Mueller telling the American people what he wrote in the report has a chance of being believed. One very important issue not addressed by Mueller or by any politician or by any reporting I've seen is the extent to which the finding of insufficient evidence of conspiracy with Russia was due to the obstruction of justice efforts. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Here are two brief videos of prosecutors (first video) and lawyers who have served in high office (second video) making the case for impeachment of Trump:
They're short and worth watching, helpful in crafting concise arguments for impeaching Trump. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Attorney General William Barr again lied about his use of the word "spying" in his recent CBS interview (Barr Interview with CBS).
As many recall, in his April 10th, 2019, congressional testimony before the Senate Appropriations Committee Barr said, "I think spying did occur, yes," on the Trump campaign. He later on numerous occasions defended his use of the word "spying." Today in the CBS interview he did so again:
quote: Barr is lying through his teeth. There is almost no one whose chest puffs out with pride when accused of spying and of being a spy. That "spying" is a pejorative term in most contexts, including this one, cannot be denied. When Barr said he believed spying on the Trump campaign did occur, he obviously did not mean surveillance occurred because no one doubts the Trump campaign was surveilled. Everyone knows it was. It's an established fact. We even have the (redacted) text of the Carter Page FISA warrant. There is no question that the FBI performed surveillance upon the Trump campaign. The question is whether the surveillance was properly authorized. So when Barr said he believed spying occurred he was stating his belief that the surveillance was unauthorized and illegitimate. His later defenses of his use of the term all ring hollow. When it comes to lying, Trump and Barr are like peas in a pod. Their lies are equally bold, the only difference being Barr's greater command of nuance and subtlety. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Typo.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Trump now has an Attorney General enabling his most terrifying impulses. Read all about it: In Terrifying Interview, William Barr Goes Full MAGA
”Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Mueller and Barr had differing interpretations of the OLC (DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel) opinion about whether a sitting president could be indicted. Mueller saw little difference between an indictment and stating an opinion on whether laws had been broken. Barr saw little problem with rendering such an opinion.
I have located two copies of that September 24, 1973, OLC opinion:
I found the first one easier on the eyes. The second one, a PDF of the original typewritten memo, does not appear to have been typed on a quality typewriter of the period, such as an IBM Selectric. The first part provides a great deal of legal background. I skipped the parts about case law but found the parts explaining their thinking fascinating, such as the conclusion that impeachment must precede any criminal preceding. The relevant section begins on page 30. This paragraph argues that the negative effects of criminal proceedings argue against them:
quote: And the next paragraph argues that it makes more sense for impeachment via the House and Senate to precede any criminal proceedings:
quote: The memo next describes the incongruities of a jury trial of a president, then concludes that impeachment before criminal proceedings makes much more sense:
quote: It can be difficult to identify the conclusion amongst all the back and forth arguments the memo considers, but here they make clear that they are "suggesting that an impeachment proceeding is the only appropriate way to deal with a President while in office":
quote: Anyone taking the time and trouble to read and understand the memo can easily see that Attorney General William Barr has stepped outside its guidance. Its opinion is that the DOJ should not hamstring a president by burdening him with criminal accusations. Mueller properly followed OLC guidelines in his investigation and report, and Barr did not in declaring the president innocent of any wrongdoing. It is not the DOJ's place to stand in judgment of the president. That's Congress' job. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
The intro to Connect the Dots to See Where Trump’s Taking Us, an opinion piece in today's New York Times, asks the right rhetorical question about Trump's misguided positions on issues related to climate change:
quote: --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
On Wednesday President Trump said he'd accept information about campaign opponents from Russia or other foreign governments. Some reporting, like this very article, said that while accepting foreign money was illegal, accepting information was "murkier."
But I have always said that it isn't "murkier." Campaign law says:
quote: Many apparently have doubt about whether information is a "thing of value," but there can be no doubt. Information is obviously a "thing of value." People pay for news, and campaigns pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for opposition research. Information is obviously and unambiguously a "thing of value." Today Federal Election Commission (FEC) Chairwoman Ellen Weintraub released a statement that was obviously a response to Trump's comments and that makes the law unambiguously clear to everyone:
quote: Even after this announcement some in the media still expressed doubt about whether information constitutes a "thing of value." I cannot for the life of me figure out where their doubt is coming from. The Trump campaign considered damaging information on Hillary Clinton so valuable that they sent Donald Trump Jr, Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort (and others) to a meeting in Trump Tower with Russians offering such information. And that they understood the illegality of it is made clear by the fact that they later lied about the nature of the meeting. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
marc9000 writes: My guess is that their doubt comes from a fear that not only Hillary, but the entire Democratic National Committee could be called into question for doing the exact same thing that is the latest Trump attack. Trump and many people on his campaign had dealings with Russia. The Clinton campaign wanted to know if there was anything about these dealings that would be helpful to the campaign, and so they decided to investigate. They contracted out this opposition research, which all presidential candidates do. The research required seeking evidence and information from those who would know about it, which would mostly be Russians. Trump, on the other hand and for just a couple examples, sent top campaign officials to a meeting in Trump Tower with Russians offering dirt on Hillary Clinton, and Manafort met with a Russian who had Russian intelligence connections where he shared internal Trump polling data so that Russian intelligence agencies could better target their social media election-influencing efforts. Please explain how these are "the exact same thing." An absence of evidence was not why Mueller declined to raise any indictments for conspiracy. There was plenty of evidence. He charged no indictments only because he felt the bar for conviction was higher than the available evidence could justify. He also said that obstruction efforts played a role in keeping the evidence below a conviction-worthy level. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Fix grammar mistake, and improve the clarity of the first two sentences of the last paragraph.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Trump has ordered that the number of science advisory committees be reduced by a third across all federal agencies.
Clinton reduced the number of all types of advisory committees by a third in 1993, not just science advisory committees. The number of advisory committees grew only slightly during the Bush and Obama years, and Trump already reduced them by 20% during the first year of his presidency (and the membership by 14%). Many committees are not science related (many are focused on things like economics or foreign policy), so this represents a comparatively severe reduction in the amount of informed and knowledgeable input the government will receive on science based issues. To put this in perspective, the total number of advisory committees numbered around a thousand near the end of 2016, which does seem like a great many. It is Trump's targeting of science committees that is concerning. Source: Trump's order to slash number of science advisory boards blasted by critics as 'nonsensical' --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
A Washington Post opinion/analysis piece describes how Trump silenced critics and blew his own horn in order to create the myth of a wealthy and successful businessman. Some interesting excerpts:
quote: --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
marc9000 writes: This paragraph seems to imply that all of Hillary's foreign dealings... Hillary Clinton's campaign had no "foreign dealings" that anyone has ever reported.
...were a reaction to Trump's peoples dealings with Russia. All presidential campaigns always do opposition research. Hillary Clinton's campaign would have conducted opposition research on Trump no matter what, just as the Trump campaign conducted opposition research on Hillary Clinton. That Trump was so involved with Russia no doubt came up in discussions with Fusion GPS about what to focus attention on.
She was accepting foreign donations back during the Obama administration when Democrats were doing little more than laughing at the color of Trump's hair. From my above (Washington Post) link;
quote: The Clinton Foundation is a charitable organization, not a political campaign. No money from the Clinton Foundation ever leaked into a Hillary Clinton political campaign. The Clinton Foundation continues to engage in charitable work throughout the world, while the Trump Foundation was found to have engaged in "persistently illegal conduct" and was shut down by the state of New York where the investigation continues and could result in criminal charges against Trump after he leaves office.
But the cause for latest Democrat hysteria is Trump's response to Stephanopoulos's gotcha question, which Trump couldn't possibly answer without setting Democrats / mainstream media into a frenzy. He said "he'd listen", and we see what's happening. Even many Republicans, such as staunch Trump supporters Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and John Kennedy (R-LA), have made clear they understand that Trump's answer is a violation of the law. Everyone but Trump seems to understand that accepting foreign help in a political campaign is illegal.
Please explain how these are "the exact same thing." You're right, they probably aren't much the same, what Hillary did was probably far worse. You'll have to explain your logic. How is doing opposition research, engaged in by both the Clinton and Trump campaigns, far worse than taking meetings with Russians to get dirt on a political opponent and to help Russian intelligent services engage in social media campaigns to influence the US election?
But as is rightly pointed out by Democrats, Hillary isn't president and has no power. Not much of anything is going to come of any of this, other than what the voters are seeing. I think a significant number of voters who voted in this current Democrat house were expecting them to address a few things other than a hatred of Trump, a movement to get him out of office before his first term is up. I think a few of them had things like healthcare costs, some bipartisan action on the southern border, etc. on their minds. They're not seeing much of that, are they? I don't know why you would say this. House Democrats have, for example, passed bills to reduce prescriptions drug prices, to protect preexisting conditions, and to address veterans issues, and when they tried to present their infrastructure plan to Trump a few weeks ago he walked out of the meeting.
An absence of evidence was not why Mueller declined to raise any indictments for conspiracy. There was plenty of evidence. He charged no indictments only because he felt the bar for conviction was higher than the available evidence could justify. I wasn't aware that this "bar" varied all around in its height - who is in charge of moving this bar around? I suspect that this bar is at the same height all the time, and this available evidence was too flimsy to hold up in proper legal scrutiny. You should read what I said again. There's nothing about a moving bar. The bar for conviction on conspiracy charges is always very high. The evidence was insufficient to meet that bar, but there was still a great deal of evidence. The Mueller report wouldn't have been over 400 pages long if there hadn't been a great deal of evidence.
He also said that obstruction efforts played a role in keeping the evidence below a conviction-worthy level. But he couldn't prove them. So case closed. You should read the report again. It says that Justice Department guidelines state that a sitting president cannot be indicted, so the report only lays out the evidence without drawing any conclusions, except to say that in the face of that evidence it was impossible to exonerate the president. William Barr seriously erred when he declared the president exonerated. The Justice Department, as Mueller layed out in his report, does not have the power to do that. Only Congress has that power. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
JonF writes: Trump is, of course, ignorant of the fact that a good part of the dossier was paid for by the conservative Washington Free Beacon. I don't think Steele was retained by Fusion GPS until the Clinton campaign hired them after the Beacon ceased employing their services. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024