|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Trump Presidency | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
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: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
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: Contradictorily from an article back in 2010 (Q&A: Julian Assange allegations):
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
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: Source: Thomas Edison Would Not Be Happy --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
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: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
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:
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
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: Sanders excused her false statements by telling more lies:
quote: 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:
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
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: 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: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
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: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
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:
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Link to searchable/copyable Mueller report.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
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: 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024