Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


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: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2853 of 4573 (851756)
05-01-2019 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 2828 by Percy
04-18-2019 8:47 PM


Re: Barr Letter Doesn't Accord with Mueller Report
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:
As we stated in our meeting of March 5 and reiterated to the Department early in the afternoon of March 24, the introductions and executive summaries of our two-volume report accurately summarize this Office's work and conclusions. The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office's work and conclusions. We communicated that concern to the Department on the morning of March 25. There is new public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations. See Department of Justice, Press Release (May 17, 2017).
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2828 by Percy, posted 04-18-2019 8:47 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2860 of 4573 (852528)
05-13-2019 7:16 AM
Reply to: Message 2822 by Percy
04-12-2019 2:36 PM


Re: Julian Assange Arrested
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2822 by Percy, posted 04-12-2019 2:36 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2861 by vimesey, posted 05-13-2019 8:52 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2862 of 4573 (852582)
05-14-2019 7:52 AM


Barr Appoints Prosecutor to Investigate Russia Probe Origins
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

Replies to this message:
 Message 2863 by Chiroptera, posted 05-14-2019 10:03 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2875 of 4573 (853616)
05-29-2019 1:21 PM


Mueller Speaks
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

Replies to this message:
 Message 2876 by dwise1, posted 05-29-2019 1:51 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 2877 by Taq, posted 05-29-2019 2:18 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 2880 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-30-2019 12:15 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2881 of 4573 (853693)
05-30-2019 8:28 PM


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: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2882 of 4573 (853720)
05-31-2019 9:57 AM


Barr Lies In CBS Interview
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:
Yeah, I mean, I guess it has become a dirty word somehow. It hasn't ever been for me. I think there is nothing wrong with spying, the question is always whether it is authorized by law.
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: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 2884 of 4573 (853809)
05-31-2019 10:15 PM


Barr is Possibly More Scary Than Trump
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: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2885 of 4573 (853824)
06-01-2019 9:43 AM


Mueller and Barr Disagree on the OLC Opinion
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:
This may be an overstatement, but surely it contains a kernel of truth, namely that the President is the symbolic head of the Nation. To wound him by a criminal proceeding is to hamstring the operation of the whole governmental apparatus, both in foreign and domestic affairs. It is not to be forgotten that the modem Presidency, under whatever party, has had to assume a leadership role undreamed of in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. The spectacle of an indicted President still trying to serve as Chief Executive boggles the imagination.
And the next paragraph argues that it makes more sense for impeachment via the House and Senate to precede any criminal proceedings:
quote:
Perhaps this thought is best tested by considering what would flow from the reverse conclusion, i.e., an attempted criminal trial of the President. A President after all is selected in a highly complex nationwide effort that involves most of the major socio-economic and political forces of our whole society. Would it not be incongruous to bring him down, before the Congress has acted, by a jury of twelve, selected by chance "off the street” as Holmes put it? Surely the House and Senate, via impeachment, are more appropriate agencies for such a crucial task, mads unavoidably political by the nature of the "defendant.”
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:
A President who would face jury trial rather than resign could be expected to persist to the point of appealing an adverse verdict. The process could then drag out for months. By contrast the authorised process of impeachment is well-adapted to achieving a relatively speedy and final resolution by a nation-based Senate trial. The whole country Is represented at the trial, there is no appeal from the verdict, and removal opens the way for placing the political system on a new and more healthy foundation.
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:
In suggesting that an impeachment proceeding is the only appropriate way to deal with a President while in office, we realize that there are certain drawbacks, such as the running of a statute of limitations while the President is in office, thus preventing any trial for such offenses.
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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2892 by Taq, posted 06-03-2019 6:26 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2894 of 4573 (854821)
06-13-2019 7:13 AM


Trump and Climate Change
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:
Just when you think you’ve seen and heard it all from Donald Trump, he sinks to a new low that leaves you speechless and wondering: Is he crazy, is he evil, is he maniacally committed to unwinding every good thing Barack Obama did, or is he just plain stupid?
I mean, what president would try to weaken emission standards so American-made cars could pollute more, so our kids could breathe dirtier air in the age of climate change, when clean energy systems are becoming the next great global industry and China is focused on dominating it?
Seriously, who does that?
But that’s the initiative Trump has embarked upon of late ” an industrial policy to revive all the dirty industries of the past and to undermine the clean industries of the future.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 2895 by vimesey, posted 06-13-2019 7:53 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2898 of 4573 (854942)
06-14-2019 8:01 AM


Trump's Embrace of Foreign Interference Draws FEC Response
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:
It shall be unlawful for a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
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:
Let me make something 100% clear to the American public and anyone running for public office: It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election. This is not a novel concept. Electoral intervention from foreign governments has been considered unacceptable since the beginnings of our nation. Our Founding Fathers sounded the alarm about "foreign Interference, Intrigue, and Influence." They knew that when foreign governments seek to influence American politics, it is always to advance their own interests, not America's. Anyone who solicits or accepts foreign assistance risks being on the wrong end of a federal investigation. Any political campaign that receives an offer of a prohibited donation from a foreign source should report that offer to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
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

Replies to this message:
 Message 2899 by marc9000, posted 06-14-2019 6:10 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 2900 of 4573 (855027)
06-15-2019 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 2899 by marc9000
06-14-2019 6:10 PM


Re: Trump's Embrace of Foreign Interference Draws FEC Response
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2899 by marc9000, posted 06-14-2019 6:10 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2903 by marc9000, posted 06-15-2019 9:21 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2905 of 4573 (855077)
06-16-2019 7:57 AM


Trump Slashes Science Advisory Boards
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: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2906 of 4573 (855078)
06-16-2019 8:33 AM


Trump Talks His Way Into Being a Billionaire
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:
How did Donald Trump, a self-serving promoter who lost billions of dollars for his investors, convince the world that he is a financial genius? It wasn’t just by fabricating tales of his success. It was also by bullying and silencing people who could have stopped those deceits ” particularly reporters and Wall Street analysts ” forcing all but a very few into a conspiracy of silence.
...
Journalists told me how he’d tried to block their reporting on his empire ” by making up ethical scandals about them, furnishing fake documents and, in one case, threatening to expose the private life of a closeted media executive. Wall Street analysts witnessed a campaign of intimidation that began when Trump got one of them fired for (correctly) doubting his casinos’ ability to pay off their debts.
Even while he was suffering tremendous financial setbacks ” and precisely because he was suffering those setbacks ” these efforts show Trump in the desperate act of spinning a mythology about himself (rich) that would sweep aside the facts (broke). And he did it by imperiling the livelihood of his doubters, silencing them and inducing a chilling effect both in the press and among the very people who are supposed to protect investors from terrible gambles like Trump’s businesses. If this self-promotion scheme had failed, Trump would never have become a reality-TV-starring symbol of business acumen. He would have skulked off into anonymity or ignominy, just another failed real estate developer and speculator.
...
It made a man with limited business savvy and less money than he claimed into someone famous for having a surfeit of both. These early (and shockingly impudent) fabrications built one of the greatest brands in American history ” one that made Trump a household name and, eventually, president.
...
The next year, 1990, would prove to be the year the facade collapsed. But with an eye toward salvaging his future reputation, Trump waged a startlingly effective campaign to suppress the truth about his failures as a businessman. That effort took several forms.
...
Besides neutralizing media reports that would have imperiled his brand as a business genius, Trump also set his sights on a tough-minded documentary directed by Ned Schnurman called “Trump: What’s the Deal?” Schnurman had hired me to report on Trump’s net worth, which is when I learned that he had lied to Forbes for seven years about the number of apartments his family really owned...In a September 1989 New York magazine cover story that detailed Trump’s efforts to stop the harshly critical documentary, Schnurman, who is now deceased, said Trump was “threatening litigation before, during, and after the airing of the program.” He believed that Trump pressured TV syndicator LBS Communications to withdraw from its agreement to sell the film, and he told the New York Times that the syndication effort failed because Trump “made an enormous effort to kill the program.” LBS went out of business two years later.
Other broadcasters were too intimidated by Trump to touch the project, according to reporting in New York magazine, and it was not released to the public until it became available online in 2015.
Trump had blocked a broadcast that would have endangered his long-term reputation.
...
lsewhere, Trump’s bullying was even more brazen ” and the consequences even more dire. In March 1990, Marvin Roffman, one of the nation’s leading casino industry stock analysts, told Wall Street Journal reporter Neil Barsky that Trump might not be able to gross the $1.3 million per day he needed to keep the Taj Mahal going. Trump retaliated. He called Roffman’s boss at Janney Montgomery Scott and threatened to sue unless the firm fired Roffman or printed a letter from him saying, in Roffman’s telling, “that sonofabitch reporter Barsky misquoted” him and that “the Taj Mahal was going to be the greatest success ever.” Roffman, a 17-year veteran analyst, resisted and was fired the next day. The following year, not long before the Taj went belly up, Roffman won a $750,0000 arbitration decision against his former firm. Soon after that, he settled a defamation suit, for an undisclosed sum, against Trump.
Still, the firing didn’t go unnoticed on Wall Street, and other observers began to moderate what they told investors about Trump’s stocks and bonds, even though they were clearly terrible investments.
...
One might think that after the 1991 bankruptcy, which caused lenders to lose billions of dollars, analysts would warn their clients against buying Trump’s stock or junk bonds. Yet in searching news reports from those years, I could not find a single Wall Street analyst who told the media anything negative about Trump’s new public company. Trump’s finances were a mess: His Taj Mahal casino had lost more than $136 million during the four previous years, and he was just weeks from defaulting on his own loans when the stock debuted in 1995. But Wall Street was careful not to criticize.
...
rump had waged a relentless, vindictive campaign to build his own myth by suppressing the facts: Between the collapse of his empire in 1991 and the issuance of more than $1 billion in Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts stock and junk bonds by 1996, he’d compromised the truth-telling capacity of Forbes magazine, the Wall Street Journal, TV broadcasters, Arthur Andersen and casino analysts on Wall Street. By the time Trump resigned in 2009 as chairman of the public company he founded, he had paid himself an estimated $82 million in personal compensation, while the company’s stocks and bonds had become nearly worthless.
...
Trump’s greatest and most cynical skill, honed during the 1980s and 1990s, was learning how to win by silencing truth-tellers and suppressing the truth when it matters most.
--Percy

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(3)
Message 2909 of 4573 (855126)
06-16-2019 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 2903 by marc9000
06-15-2019 9:21 PM


Re: Trump's Embrace of Foreign Interference Draws FEC Response
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 accepted millions of dollars from seven foreign governments during Hillary Rodham Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, including one donation that violated its ethics agreement with the Obama administration, foundation officials disclosed Wednesday.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2903 by marc9000, posted 06-15-2019 9:21 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2915 by marc9000, posted 06-16-2019 8:43 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2912 of 4573 (855143)
06-16-2019 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 2910 by JonF
06-16-2019 5:49 PM


Re: Trump's Embrace of Foreign Interference Draws FEC Response
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2910 by JonF, posted 06-16-2019 5:49 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2913 by JonF, posted 06-16-2019 8:12 PM Percy has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024