Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House The Trump Presidency

Summations Only

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Trump Presidency
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2814 of 4573 (850372)
04-06-2019 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 2812 by NosyNed
04-06-2019 6:28 PM


Re: Fake News
NosyNed writes:
As for what Faith thinks is fake news; how the heck can I tell?
Oh, okay, I misunderstood.
So why would anyone talk to her?
Good question.
However, some Trump supporters may cry "fake news" to any hints that he has cheated on his taxes,...
But there's nothing fake in reporting that Richard A. Neal (D-MA), chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, requested six years of Trump's tax returns, or in reporting anything that Democrats or Republicans said or think about the request or about Trump's returns themselves. That news (from the New York Times, for example: House Democrat Demands Six Years of Trump Tax Returns From I.R.S.) is completely accurate. There's nothing fake about it.
...that he is as rich as he claims...
But there's nothing fake in reporting that Michael Cohen said that Trump consistently overstated the value of his properties to banks while understating it to property tax authorities, or that the Southern District of New York intends to investigate Cohen's accusations.
...or that his father wasn't born in Germany...
It is a fact that Fred Trump was born in the Bronx. There's nothing fake about reporting facts.
I'm just looking for actual examples of fake news.
The threshold for using "fake news" is obviously very, very low.
I don't think they're using a low threshold for fake news but are just calling fake any news they don't like.
Since the supporters are unable to tolerate the idea he may lie about such things they need a universal fact blocker so they use it and I might understand a little of why they do.
They don't mind saying things that aren't true if it makes them feel better?
A bit of humor - here's Trump trying to talk about the origins of the Mueller investigation:
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2812 by NosyNed, posted 04-06-2019 6:28 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2820 of 4573 (850648)
04-11-2019 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 2818 by PaulK
04-11-2019 12:09 PM


Re: Julian Assange Arrested
PaulK writes:
We can’t expect Trump to show gratitude - but it is possible that Assange knows something that Trump wants kept under wraps.
In Message 2805 I said:
quote:
But once in the US Assange could also be served subpoenas for issues relating to the Russia probe, if only the Russia probe still existed. This means he will instead be subpoenaed to testify before various House committees about his role in the theft and release of emails from the DNC and from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta in an attempt to establish whether Trump and Russia were merely fellow travelers or actual co-conspirators.
Because of this possibility, I think it likely that Trump will order the DoJ (i.e., newest Trump lapdog Attorney General William Barr) not to request extradition of Assange to the United States.
Back to your post:
Personally I hope Assange goes to Sweden to face the charges there.
Sweden dropped the charges long ago because of the passage of time.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2818 by PaulK, posted 04-11-2019 12:09 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2821 by PaulK, posted 04-12-2019 8:16 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2822 of 4573 (850699)
04-12-2019 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 2821 by PaulK
04-12-2019 8:16 AM


Re: Julian Assange Arrested
I wouldn't have thought an extradition request could be made without charges, but apparently in the case of a European Arrest Warrant it can (Q&A: Julian Assange and the law):
quote:
In Sweden, charging comes much later in the process of a criminal investigation than it does in many other countries.
...
Despite the lack of formal charges, in its judgement in May 2012, the UK Supreme Court found that the Swedish public prosecutor was a judicial authority capable of issuing the warrant, in the same way as a judge or a court would be.
Contradictorily from an article back in 2010 (Q&A: Julian Assange allegations):
quote:
But Gemma Lindfield, for the Crown Prosecution Service, said in court that the European Arrest Warrant "quite clearly states [Assange] is wanted for prosecution".
Mr Justice Ouseley, the head of the administrative court who rejected the appeal against Assange's bail, acknowledged the dispute in his judgment: "There is a debate, which may yet be had elsewhere, over whether the warrant is a warrant for questioning or a warrant for trial." He was proceeding, he said, on the basis that it was an extradition warrant for trial. A charge by the requesting country is a prerequisite for a valid EAW.
One account I read said that Assange left Sweden in September of 2010 after agreeing to return in October for more questioning, then reneged on that agreement, so Sweden issued a European Arrest Warrant in November.
I also read that Assange will have to serve any British jail time for skipping bail before being extradited. If Sweden issues another extradition request and Assange is extradited to Sweden then he could still eventually end up in the US with whom Sweden has an extradition agreement. Before Assange is extradited anywhere there will be a protracted court battle, so it will be years.
For me the biggest mystery is why Assange chose to imprison himself for years over charges he and his lawyers say are trumped up. Some speculate that his real fear was extradition from Sweden to the US.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2821 by PaulK, posted 04-12-2019 8:16 AM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2823 by Theodoric, posted 04-12-2019 4:26 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 2860 by Percy, posted 05-13-2019 7:16 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 2824 of 4573 (850715)
04-13-2019 10:25 AM


Big Bulba
You've heard of Big Pharma? Well now there's Big Bulba. Let me explain.
This is, of course, about light bulbs. A 100 watt incandescent light bulb that is used an average two hours a day where electricity costs 12.6 cents/kilowatt-hour (the average in the US) will cost $9.20 to run over the course of a year. Replacing the 100 watt incandescent bulb with an equivalent 14 watt LED bulb would reduce the annual cost to only $1.29, a savings of $7.91. A 14 watt LED bulb costs anywhere from $$3-$4 (I'm looking at multipacks from Amazon Prime). An LED light bulb pays for itself in less than half a year, and after that it's all gravy.
But it gets better. The average lifetime of an incandescent bulb is only 1250 hours, an LED around 50,000 hours. At 2 hours a day you would have to replace the incandescent bulb every 20 months, the LED every 68 years. If you live in a house with this bulb for ten years you will never have replaced the LED bulb, but you'd have replaced the incandescent bulb six times. Incandescent bulbs are too cheap to worry much about the price, but it adds up, then there's the cost of transportation for the trip to the store, and then there's the annoyance.
The average house has around 40 light bulbs. If just five of them are used 2 hours a day then the total savings that first year is ($7.91 - $4) * 5, or around $20. After that first year the annual savings is around $40. If you live in a state where the electricity is more expensive like I do (around 16 cents/kilowatt-hour) then the first year savings is $30, and the annual savings in subsequent years is around $50.
The example of savings for my own house is substantial just on the outside alone. We have an intelligent light switch that turns on the outside lights (for driveway and front walk) around sunset and keeps them on until around 10 PM. How many hours they're on each day varies by time of year, but winters are long here in New Hampshire, so let's say it averages about 3 hours a day. There are 20 fixtures at 60 watts each for a total of 1200 watts, so it costs $210 annually to run these lights. Replacing them all with LEDs reduces the annual cost to $25, an annual savings of $185. A lot of these lights are candle-style, which are a little more expensive and make the initial outlay more, but they still pay for themselves in less than a year.
Now that I've bored people to death with how much money one can save with LED light bulbs, it's time talk about Big Bulba. Incandescent bulbs are cheaper to make, have a higher profit margin, and people have to buy them more often, so the light bulb industry, Bib Bulba, has little motivation to switch to LED light bulbs. Government standards put in place years ago require the higher efficiency that LED bulbs provide, but only for normal light bulbs. Three-way, reflector, globe-shaped or candelabra-style bulbs were not part of the standard until the Obama administration added them in 2017, with a deadline in 2020.
Now the Trump administration, under pressure from Big Bulba, has proposed rolling back this modification to the standards, which, according to the Appliance Standard Awareness Project and the National Resources Defense Council, will require us to keep and maintain 25 more 500-megawatt power plants than we would otherwise need, costing us more and contributing greatly to the greenhouse gases causing climate change.
The proposed change comes from the Department of Energy. The public has until May 3, 2019, to register their concerns. You can do this by either of these methods (from Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for General Service Lamps):
My own comment:
quote:
I don't believe the 2017 revisions misconstrued existing law. Please do not roll back the revisions. Please continue to encourage the light bulb industry to make highly efficient light bulbs widely available.
Tracking Number: 1k3-99bq-ka7a
Source: Thomas Edison Would Not Be Happy
--Percy

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 2826 of 4573 (850775)
04-14-2019 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 2825 by Phat
04-14-2019 10:38 AM


Re: Who Controls Whom?
Independent of the accuracy of the information in the video, be aware that the music, images and narrator's tone are all manipulative. Your reaction would likely have been different (e.g., you wouldn't have posted at all) had the same information been neutrally presented in a series of text-only powerpoint slides.
That being said, Directive 51 seems like a good idea when you have good presidents like Bush and Obama and a bad idea when you have a president like Trump.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Typo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2825 by Phat, posted 04-14-2019 10:38 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2827 of 4573 (851063)
04-18-2019 7:38 PM


Link to the Mueller Report
The public version of the Mueller report can be found here: Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election
It is split into two volumes, both contained in the above PDF. Volume I's last page is 199 on PDF page 207. Volume II begins immediately after on PDF page 208.
Volume I is about possible coordination between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government in the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential campaign. Volume II is about obstruction of justice.
AbE: The New York Times has created A Searchable Version of the Mueller Report.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : AbE.

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2828 of 4573 (851069)
04-18-2019 8:47 PM


Barr Letter Doesn't Accord with Mueller Report
The Barr letter exonerating Trump of obstruction of justice does not accord with the Mueller report. Mueller decided not to make a "traditional prosecutorial judgment" because of the OLC's (Office of Legal Counsel) finding that "the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions" in violation of "the constitutional separation of powers." (see PDF page 213 of The Mueller Report).
The Mueller decision not to exonerate or charge Trump had nothing to do with the sufficiency or lack thereof of the evidence, but upon Justice Department policy. Mueller makes clear that were it not for this policy that a "traditional prosecutorial judgment" would have been made.
Barr, governed by the same OLC findings, cannot personally declare Trump exonerated, and in any case has provided no legal justification for that judgment.
Congress could still impeach, and the Justice Department could still bring charges after Trump leaves office.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 2853 by Percy, posted 05-01-2019 3:27 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 2831 of 4573 (851090)
04-19-2019 7:07 AM


Sarah Sanders Lied about the Comey Firing
PDF page 284 of The Mueller Report covers Sarah Sanders role in the firing of James Comey.
After FBI Director James Comey was fired on May 9, 2017, Sarah Sanders met with President Trump and then briefed reporters on two separate occasions:
  • On the first occasion Sarah Sanders stated that "most importantly, the rank and file of the FBI had lost confidence in their director." The Mueller report says, "When a reporter indicated that the 'vast majority' of FBI agents supported Comey, Sanders said, 'Look, we’ve heard from countless members of the FBI that say very different things.' But the Mueller report continues, "Sanders told this Office that her reference to hearing from “countless members of the FBI 'was a 'slip of the tongue.'"
  • On the second occasion the Mueller report says that Sarah Sanders "also recalled that her statement in a separate press interview that rank-and-file FBI agents had lost confidence in Comey was a comment she made 'in the heat of the moment that was not founded on anything.'"
In other words, Sarah Sanders lied to reporters, and knew she was lying to reporters, on two occasions when she stated that Comey had lost the confidence of rank-and-file FBI members.
Sarah Sanders next appearance before reporters should be an interesting one.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 2832 by Taq, posted 04-19-2019 2:52 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 2834 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-19-2019 4:53 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 2836 by Percy, posted 04-19-2019 6:28 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2836 of 4573 (851116)
04-19-2019 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 2831 by Percy
04-19-2019 7:07 AM


Re: Sarah Sanders Lied about the Comey Firing
Sarah Sanders is covering up her lies with slander and more lies. Interviewed earlier today by George Stephanopoulos, Sanders again said that it was a mere "slip of tongue" when she said that the FBI rank and file had lost faith in then FBI director James Comey, the same characterization she provided in her Mueller testimony. Stephanopoulos challenged Sanders claim, saying that it couldn't be a slip of the tongue since she had repeated the same claim multiple times in the days following, continuing:
quote:
You said it was a ”slip of the tongue’ when you talked about ”countless FBI members,’ yet you repeated it twice the very next day. That’s not a slip of the tongue, Sarah, that’s a deliberate false statement.
Sanders excused her false statements by telling more lies:
quote:
I’m sorry I wasn’t a robot like the Democratic Party that went out for two-and-a-half years and stated time and time again that there was definitely Russian collusion between the president and his campaign, that they had evidence to show it, and that the president and his team deserved to be in jail. That he shouldn’t be in office, when really they were the ones that were creating the greatest scandal in the history of our country.
There were undoubtedly some immoderate voices among the Democrats, but by and large the Democrats have been fairly moderate in their characterization and analysis of the publicly available evidence as it became known, so it is worth enumerating Sarah Sanders' additional lies:
  • ...the Democratic Party...for two-and-a-half years...stated time and again that there was definitely Russian collusion between the president and his campaign,...
    The Democratic Party itself took no such position, and most Democrats only believed that because there were so many contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia, and because lies were told about those contacts so often, that it deserved investigation.
  • ...that they had evidence to show it,...
    The Democratic Party made no such claim. Most Democrats were saying to wait for the Mueller report.
  • ...and that the president and his team deserved to be in jail.
    The Democratic Party made no such statement. But a number of people associated with the Trump campaign *did* deserve to be in jail, as they have either pled guilty or been found guilty or both. Some have served their time, some are currently serving their time, some have yet to serve their time, and some have been charged but not yet tried.
  • That he shouldn’t be in office,...
    This is true. Most Democrats have made no secret of their feelings that Trump is unfit for office.
  • ...when really they were the ones that were creating the greatest scandal in the history of our country.
    It's unclear what scandal Sanders is referring to.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2831 by Percy, posted 04-19-2019 7:07 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2837 by Coragyps, posted 04-19-2019 7:24 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2838 of 4573 (851129)
04-20-2019 7:16 AM


Mueller Report Lays Groundwork for Impeachment and Post-Presidency Prosecutions
Concerning obstruction of justice, here are a couple important quotes from The Mueller Report. This one's about prosecutions (volume 2, page 1, PDF page 213):
quote:
The OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] opinion also recognizes that a President does not have immunity after he leaves office. And if individuals other than the President committed an obstruction offense, they may be prosecuted at this time. Given those considerations, the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system, we conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available.
Restating this more concisely, a thorough investigation was conducted now because everyone but the president can be prosecuted now while the president may be prosecuted after he leaves office.
This one's about impeachment (volume 2, page 8, PDF page 220):
quote:
With respect to whether the President can be found to have obstructed justice by exercising his powers under Article II of the Constitution, we concluded that Congress has authority to prohibit a President's corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice.
This is pretty straightforward. It says that Congress has responsibility for protecting the country from the corrupt use of presidential power, an indirect reference to impeachment.
Impeachment now makes no sense because conviction in the Senate isn't even a remote possibility. High-profilers advocating impeachment are Elizabeth Warren and AOC. It isn't clear to me why they believe impeachment without conviction would be a better path to the truth than the investigations already initiated in the House.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 2839 by Diomedes, posted 04-20-2019 11:06 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2840 of 4573 (851237)
04-21-2019 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 2839 by Diomedes
04-20-2019 11:06 AM


Re: Mueller Report Lays Groundwork for Impeachment and Post-Presidency Prosecutions
Diomedes writes:
But if I play Devil's Advocate for a moment: the primary focus in the Mueller investigation was the prospect of collusion with a foreign power. I.e. Russia. That seems to have been thoroughly debunked.
Thoroughly debunked? Quoting the Mueller report, Volume I, page 1, PDF page 9:
quote:
The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.
I don't myself see "thoroughly debunked" and "did not establish" as close in meaning, especially when the latter appears after a statement about the "numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign."
If the Democrats now utilize Congress to continue investigations or push for an impeachment, they may end up playing into Trump's hands and reinforcing the narrative that it's all a 'witch hunt'.
Impeachment seems a futile exercise given Republican control of the Senate and the requirement of a 2/3 majority for conviction, but about incidents like the Trump Tower meeting and the sharing of polling data the Mueller report gives legalistic arguments for not delivering indictments having to do with the difficulty of establishing intent and the value of certain information. And then there are all the obstruction incidents.
The Democrats might get a modestly improved benefit from impeachment if at the outset they clearly outline goals stating that they understand conviction isn't a realistic possibility but that they want to heed their constitutional responsibilities and also establish what really happened to the extent possible. But it would still be, as has been said, a political rather than judicial exercise.
If I look at the Clinton impeachment in the [late] 90s, that massively backfired for the Republicans.
This is often said but is not something I understand. Two years later the Republicans were in the White House, and now they're in it again. They've controlled the House for 20 of the last 26 years, and the Senate for 16.
I don't actually have a preference for which party controls Congress or is in the White House. My preferences are much more related to competence, professionalism, experience, and the ability to work across the aisle. Unfortunately both parties often behave reprehensibly, more so when in power. Anyone desiring a representational role in government at the state or federal level should be viewed suspiciously.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2839 by Diomedes, posted 04-20-2019 11:06 AM Diomedes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2841 by Diomedes, posted 04-23-2019 9:05 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 2842 of 4573 (851382)
04-23-2019 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 2841 by Diomedes
04-23-2019 9:05 AM


Re: Mueller Report Lays Groundwork for Impeachment and Post-Presidency Prosecutions
Diomedes writes:
I don't myself see "thoroughly debunked" and "did not establish" as close in meaning, especially when the latter appears after a statement about the "numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign."
Poor choice of words on my part. However, 'did not establish' is essentially stating that the evidence acquired did not seem to indicate willing collusion between Trump and Russia.
When Russians offered dirt on Hillary Clinton Trump Jr.'s responded, "If it's what you say I love it." I don't see how that isn't a crime if followed through on, which he did by setting up and attending the Trump Tower Meeting. It's illegal to accept foreign campaign assistance, including anything of value (I quoted that particular law somewhere upthread, I can dig it out again if it's important). The Mueller report described difficulty in determining what was of value, but as Adam Schiff, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said this weekend, opposition research is very valuable to campaigns. Trump Jr. tried to obtain something of great value to the Trump campaign (dirt on Hillary Clinton) from a foreign power, and that's illegal.
Mueller defined criminality as conspiracy to coordinate with the Russian government in their election interference efforts. The Russian government offered dirt on Clinton, Trump Jr. set up the meeting, and they had the meeting. That is coordination. Mueller demurred to charge a crime because:
  • Trump Jr. didn't know that accepting assistance from foreign governments was a crime (since when did ignorance of the law become an excuse?), causing Mueller to conclude that demonstrating intent would be a problem.
  • Trump Jr. didn't obtain anything of value to the campaign. This I truly don't understand. If you try and fail to murder someone, you've still committed a crime. It seems to me that trying but failing to obtain assistance from a foreign government is still a crime.
But based on the collusion portion, what Mueller is essentially stating is that the burden of proof is not met.
That's what Mueller thinks, but Schiff thinks the burden of proof *is* met. Who's right? Schiff's position makes far more sense to me than Mueller's, so I'll be closely following the committee's investigation.
The Dems could potentially just start hearings and maybe even subpoena other individuals like Don Jr. or Jared Kushner. See if anything sticks there.
By "hearings" I think you mean impeachment hearings? If so, I don't think impeachment hearings are necessary. I think the investigations the House committees already have planned are sufficient. I assume they'll subpoena people like Trump Jr. and Kushner and so on. The outcomes of the investigation will help inform any decisions on impeachment.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2841 by Diomedes, posted 04-23-2019 9:05 AM Diomedes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2843 by Diomedes, posted 04-23-2019 10:22 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2844 of 4573 (851384)
04-23-2019 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 2843 by Diomedes
04-23-2019 10:22 AM


Re: Mueller Report Lays Groundwork for Impeachment and Post-Presidency Prosecutions
Diomedes writes:
Schiff is a Democratic Congressman. I am not picking sides and have no love for Trump, but I hardly think Schiff is approaching this in an unbiased fashion.
If I'm interpreting you correctly, this seems an argument for ignoring any politician. Schiff is a Democrat, Democrats are biased, therefore the opinions of Democrats should discounted. And by the same argument Republican opinions should be discounted.
I don't think I can go along with that. I will listen to anyone bringing rational arguments based upon established facts.
If the Dems start undermining Mueller's interpretations of the events or understanding of the law, then the entire situation is going to devolve into a 'he said, she said' between attorneys across party lines. Don't think that will help things and will just reinforce the Trump 'witch hunt' narrative.
Expectations of concurrence on events and the law might arguably not be practical. As I said previously, Schiff's position on the Trump Tower meeting makes sense to me, Mueller's doesn't. I can be persuaded I'm wrong, but I need to know what is wrong with Schiff's argument, and how my assessment of Mueller's argument is wrong.
My concern is still the political fallout. Which is why I am wearing two hats here. One is looking at the evidence resulting from the Mueller investigation and determining the legal ramifications. And the other is trying to gauge the political ramifications and fallout from investigative or potential impeachment proceedings.
Some Democrats are running from their own shadows. They have to leave the political ramifications aside and let them fall where they may. They should do their jobs and follow the evidence where it leads.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2843 by Diomedes, posted 04-23-2019 10:22 AM Diomedes has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2846 of 4573 (851397)
04-23-2019 5:11 PM


Searchable/copyable Mueller Report

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(3)
Message 2849 of 4573 (851418)
04-24-2019 10:23 AM


Trump Ignores Russian Threat to 2020 Election
According to a New York Times article (In Push for 2020 Election Security, Top Official Was Warned: Don’t Tell Trump), former Department of Homeland Security head Kirstjen Nielsen was stymied in her efforts to protect the country from Russian interference in the 2020 election by Trump's disinterest.
White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney instructed Nielsen not to raise the issue to Trump, saying that Trump still considered attaching any importance to Russian interference questioned the legitimacy of his presidency. Nielsen was unable to hold high level meetings:
quote:
Even though the Department of Homeland Security has primary responsibility for civilian cyberdefense, Ms. Nielsen eventually gave up on her effort to organize a White House meeting of cabinet secretaries to coordinate a strategy to protect next year’s elections.
...
While American intelligence agencies have warned of the dangers of new influence campaigns penetrating the 2020 elections, Mr. Trump and those closest to him have maintained that the effects of Russia’s interference in 2016 was overblown.
...
One senior official described homeland security officials as adamant that the United States government needed to significantly step up its efforts to urge the American public and companies to block foreign influence campaigns. But the department was stymied by the White House’s refusal to discuss it, the official said.
As a result, the official said, the government was failing to adequately inform Americans about continuing influence efforts.
...
“We continue to expect a pervasive messaging campaign by the Russians to undermine our democratic institutions,” Mr. Masterson said in an interview. “We saw it in 2018, continue to see it and don’t expect it to subside.”
Conspiracy through coordination with Russians in the 2016 election combined with obstruction of efforts to investigate that conspiracy are not the only impeachable offenses. Failing to protect the country from foreign threats also seems like a treasonable and impeachable offense.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : It wasn't an opinion piece - it was a news article.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2850 by Chiroptera, posted 04-24-2019 10:33 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024