The Right Side of the News

I see now that you were talking about the judge, not the plaintiffs. Reading to the end it's clear you have no idea whether the judge is a never Trumper or not. He's all over the news now, and if he'd ever made any public expressions about his feelings about Trump it would already have made headlines. You're just like your hero. Whenever he says "They say" or "I hear" you know he's making it up. In this case I know it's not you who is making it up, but why are you investing any credibility in an obviously made-up claim. The only mechanism by which anyone could know whether any lost emails were classified is if they had access to them. But if there are people with access to them then the emails aren't lost. That would be stunning news.But there's never been any such news, because the emails are really lost. Any claims that the lost emails were classified is just somebody making things up, and you're falling for it.But go ahead, keep arguing that's it's possible to know the content of lost emails. No one's claiming the redacted parts contain information that would call into question Barr's memo and statements about the Mueller report. It's whether they do or not that we want to find out. People who should be protected? Not to change the subject, but you mean like whistleblowers?Anyway, yes, protecting identities is one good reason for redaction. National security is another. Soon we'll know if the redaction criteria were properly followed. Assumptions are not a way to know anything. You're merely assuming that Barr properly followed redaction procedures.Mueller raised serious objections to Barr's memo about the report, the memo isn't consistent with the redacted report, and Barr dismissed Mueller's position that DoJ policy prohibits indicting a sitting president. These facts raised eyebrows at the time, and eyebrows are still raised. That episode seemed to reveal Barr as a Trump partisan rather than an objective administer of justice. Insuring that the redactions support Barr seems a good thing to pursue. Barr should want this because it has the potential to put questions about his objectivity to rest. This is just another assumption about something of which you have no knowledge driven by your proclivity for casting aspersions at anyone and anything you disagree with. You needed a reason for dismissing the judge's statements in court, so you made one up.--Percy

Traditional conservative policies have long embraced fiscal sanity, free trade, realistically facing the threats posed by the world's bad players like Russia and North Korea, and character. Let me guess: your views are the proper originalist interpretations. And a number of them would view slavery as right and proper, and the letting of blood as an effective medical treatment. They probably supported the first amendment, too. The revisionism is all yours. The constitutional framers held no expectation that future interpreters would be guided by what could be divined of their intent. In other words, seek other opinions until you find one you like. Original intent is not a founding principle, in fact, the opposite, else the Constitution wouldn't provide for its own amending. It's an explicit expression of the principle that the original Constitution should not be held inerrant and sacred. The founders were not gods, just people. It would be much more clear if you would tell us the views you're thinking of. If the press isn't free then why is it they have no trouble writing things you and Trump don't like? Ah, yes, the time honored, "No I'm not, you are."There's no embarrassment or shame in Trump but plenty of racism and misogyny. You only have to listen to what Trump says to know the nature of the man. I think your judgment is blinded by your hate. The reality of what Trump is doing to American institutions is very apparent. I'm afraid not. Don't worry, if Bernie gets elected he'll send your grandkids to college for free. Well, lucky us that we have you to warn us about it. Yeah, that "love your fellow man" stuff is going to be the death of us.--Percy

Yeah, those people he appointed himself were especially annoying.--Percy

We're talking about lost emails, not deleted emails that were recovered from other computers and backups. Who are these "sources," and why would you trust them when they're saying something nonsensical? It's not possible to know the nature of emails no one can read. You're blathering interminably about baloney. Barr released his memo a few weeks before releasing the redacted report, and even in redacted form it was clearly obvious to all that Barr had misrepresented the report. Mueller himself in a private letter to Barr said as much (READ: Robert Mueller's Letter To William Barr On Special Counsel's Report : NPR):

quote:

---

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...There is now 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.
...
Release [of enclosed summary materials] at this time would alleviate the misunderstandings that have arisen and would answer congressional and public questions about the nature and outcome of our investigation.

---

What you're describing is not anything Barr or Mueller wrote or said but what a Barr Department of Justice spokeswoman said about a phone conversation between Barr and Mueller (Mueller complained that Barr’s letter did not capture ‘context’ of Trump probe):

quote:

---

In a cordial and professional conversation, the Special Counsel emphasized that nothing in the Attorney General’s March 24 letter was inaccurate or misleading. But, he expressed frustration over the lack of context and the resulting media coverage regarding the Special Counsel’s obstruction analysis.

---

This characterization is likely as misleading as Barr's memo, which we already know was misleading after comparing it to the redacted report, and because of Mueller's letter of complaint. We have no indication from Mueller that he agrees with the Barr spokeswoman's characterization, including in his testimony before the House Judiciary Committee where he wasn't asked about it.No, Barr did not dismiss that position. He said that the DoJ policy should not have prevented Mueller from stating which criminal acts deserved indictments. Except that's all you can do is cast disparaging remarks. You can't come up with any actual information or reasoning. You can read the Mueller report and the Barr memo and see the discrepancies for yourself. As Mueller stated during his congressional testimony, the obstructions of justice described in the report remain indictable after Trump leaves office and is no longer president. The Mueller investigation was not an investigation of Trump personally but of the Trump campaign. Mueller indicted plenty of people, just not Trump who while president is not indictable. Since they found nothing then I guess nobody's in jail. Oh, wait, people are in jail at this very moment based on what was found. I mentioned above that this was a point on which Barr and Mueller disagreed. Mueller stated in the report that they could not exonerate Trump on obstruction of justice, only present what was done:

quote:

---

Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President
clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the
applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we
obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from
conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does
not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

---

Barr disagreed, feeling that Mueller could have concluded whether the evidence warranted indictment. Volume II of the report describes the obstructions of justice: The Mueller ReportYou're making no sense. People are in jail due to information in the report. Barr has raised more than mere suspicion that he is a Trump partisan, behaving more like the president's attorney and defender than an objective administer of justice. The Barr handling of the Mueller report is just one instance. I've read both the Barr memo and the Mueller report and would be happy to discuss their content with you if you would like. If you think there are smears in the Mueller report then read it and tell us about them. I've brought facts and reasoning to the table, you've only brought an ugly cesspool of nastiness. While I do think Barr's honesty, especially with himself about what he is doing, should also be questioned I feel this is less an issue of honesty than of integrity. The evidence that you're turning a blind eye toward strongly suggests that Barr, like his employer, is not a man of integrity.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Trump trusts his appointees up until the point where he feels they're exhibiting too much integrity and backbone for his taste. Commentators are tracing the Mulvaney firing back to his assertion last year of a Trump quid pro quo with the Ukraine, but they forget that just a few weeks ago in Ireland he declared that the United States needed more immigration. My guess is that this was the final straw.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

How McCarthyesque of you!Your fiscal concerns are both smokescreen and excuse for the hatred and contempt you hold for your fellow man. There are people hurting in this country and around the world, and instead of asking what we can do for them that is within our resources you summarily turn your back on them.Since you brought up Barr's honesty in a recent post, let's talk about your own, specifically about your little fib about your financial situation that I noted in (Message 5185), which you ignored. You stated that you're one of the people who need help and that you dream of ways of making more money (Message 4721), and you've contrarily stated that you you're doing fine (Message 5174). Which is it? And the larger point: How can anyone trust anything you say?--PercyEdited by Percy, : Add parentheses.

The United States is not bankrupt. A country is only bankrupt when it is unable to pay its debts. US Treasury Bonds are rated AAA (the highest rating), and the US is having no trouble making payments on them. They are backed by the full power and authority of the US government and its ability to tax. The percent of the US budget dedicated to debt service is around 10.1% right now.It would be much more accurate to say that we owe a great deal of money to our bondholders. The national debt is now $23.3 trillion, but it is not a record relative to GDP. This graph shows the national debt form 1940 to 2016 and is adjusted for inflation: Under the Trump administration the annual deficit has increased rapidly, unusual in a healthy economy: The annual deficit decreased in 6 out of 8 of the Obama years. It has increased each year of the Trump presidency.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Google search returned a UK image for a US search, fixed it.

Is the intent to say so many absurd things that no one can keep up?--Percy

Why are you singling me out? Everyone finds what you say twisted. No, that isn't what I said. I referred to your fiscal concerns, where you said that love for your fellow man would bankrupt the country. I said that you're just using fiscal concerns as a smokescreen and excuse for your hatred and contempt for your fellow man. Well, I guess we've found the witch hunt. You seem to be misinformed about McCarthyism. No one is favoring communism, you're just accusing them of it. The former is not McCarthyism, the latter is.--Percy

It's like you have a manic drive to be wrong. You have many, many more posts than me, both generally and in this thread: The length is dictated by what is required to make a given point, providing whatever evidence and rationale is necessary. The extreme brevity of most of your posts is due to the absence of any substance, relying almost exclusively on ad hominem. You overlook most of most posts. It explains the ignorance, a great deal of which is of the actual discussion itself. Your response to most posts pays no attention to what was said but instead just repeats your fact free boilerplate scolds. People's longer responses to you, the ones where people have taken the time and effort to provide facts and explanations, tend to be the most inconvenient to your point of view, so you just ignore them. So much easier. The brazenness of your lack of respect for the efforts of others working hard to provide facts and reasoned argument is breathtaking. You've responded to the side comment and completely ignored the main point. You claimed trickle down works. It doesn't. It *does* happen, but it's a minor effect.What *is* true is that workers will be exploited unless they band together to negotiate higher wages. Unions were largely responsible for the increasing wages of the twentieth century, a record of progress that halted during the Reagan administration and that was most memorably marked by the decertification of PATCO (Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization). Unions have become progressively weaker and wage growth has stagnated ever since. You changed your story according to the point you were making. When you were explaining to JonF why you accepted Social Security and Medicare you explained that you needed the help. You provided your monthly Social Security income, and said you dreamed of ways to make money. Things were tough.But your story changed when you later claimed you were benefiting from Republican policies. Now suddenly the story was about your "really nice apartment" and how you have "all the food and medical help I need," and that you could apply for even more but that you don't need it. Things were wonderful.You still haven't explained your claim that you're benefiting from Republican policies. You were, I presume, in the same apartment collecting Social Security and using Medicare under Obama, and that hasn't changed under Trump.--Percy

This is dead wrong. In 1790 the divergence of city/rural attitudes was far in the future, so there was no fear of domination of the vote by citified opinions.Also, in 1790 cities were nowhere near as large as they are today. Back then the population of the country was more than a hundred times that of its largest city (New York), while today it's only 38 times.--Percy

You're wrong again: Voter suppression in the United States - Wikipedia This is true. Hopefully we agree that all gerrymandering is wrong and that district boundaries should be drawn by independent commissions. Republicans comprise 53% of the Senate but represent only 45% of the people. Each Republican senator represents about 2.8 million people, each Democrat about 3.8 million. Providing an example, this means that Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court was passed by representatives of 30 million fewer people than those opposed.--Percy

Me three days ago in Message 5175 while commenting about some people marooned on the Grand Princess cruise ship being wealthy: CNN today: Grand Princess: A couple is suing Princess Cruise Lines for $1 million over its handling of coronavirus | CNN--Percy

Yes, obviously. That's your permanent state, having no idea, because you don't read most of what is written to you but reply anyway.What I was referring to was very clear, read it again: "Your fiscal concerns..." If that's not a reference to your fiscal concerns then what the hell else could it be?Could you stop wasting people's time by making them say the same thing over and over again just because you can't be bothered to read what was said the first time? Read what people actually say and only then reply. That's revisionism. No one mentioned communist utopias, including you. You accused the left of holding "utopian idealisms" when they only believe that a compassionate government cares about its people and provides things like retirement income and healthcare and disaster relief and competent management of public health threats. This isn't hard to understand. Bush II understood it when he coined the term "compassionate conservatism." What you're doing is as obvious as all get out. You're painting the left with a communist brush. In this country the right are not fascists and the left are not communists. Stop cheapening the dialogue here with your spurious and false accusations.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

You spun your situation as marginal in one context and wonderful in another. Those weren't statistics but actual exact counts of the number of messages from me and you as calculated by the board software. These numbers are available to you. Look at any one of your posts and there in the left hand margin immediately beneath your avatar is your post count, currently 34,831. And if you go to the top of any thread and click on the Thread Details link on the right near the top you'll see a summary of the number of posts from each contributor to that thread, which in this thread is currently 1462 for you. Not statistics, just raw numbers. My posts are longer than yours because they contain facts and argumentation. If you can't deal with that then you shouldn't be here. It's more that you don't like it when anyone holds up a mirror to your cold, hateful and error-filled comments.You still haven't explained your claim that you're benefiting from Republican policies. You were, I presume, collecting Social Security and using Medicare under Obama, so that hasn't changed. Did you move to your current apartment after Trump was elected? Is that what has changed? If so, what Republican policy provided rent relief? You do realize that Republicans regularly raise the possibility of cutting back on entitlements?--Percy