quote:In an interview with NBC News, Michigan Trump voter Cathy Garnaat said that she went to Rep. Justin Amash’s (R-MI) town hall this week to challenge his view that Trump should be impeached ” and she got caught off guard when he directly quoted from the Mueller report to justify his views.
“I was surprised to hear there was anything negative in the Mueller report at all about President Trump,” she admitted. “I hadn’t heard that before.”
Garnaat went on to explain that none of the news shows she watches or listens to have ever gone into depth about the contents of the Mueller report.
“I’ve mainly listened to conservative news and I hadn’t heard anything negative about that report and President Trump has been exonerated,” she explained.
The real reason for wanting to add a citizenship question to the Census is to increase the effectiveness of anti-liberal gerrymandering.
quote: The challengers in the census citizenship case informed the Supreme Court on Thursday of an evidence issue ” in the form of new documents suggesting the question was added to boost GOP electoral advantages ” being dealt with currently at the trial court level.
“The new evidence reveals that Dr. Thomas Hofeller, a longtime redistricting specialist, played a significant role in orchestrating the addition of the citizenship question to the 2020 Decennial Census in order to create a structural electoral advantage for, in his own words, ”Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites,’ and that Petitioners obscured his role through affirmative misrepresentations,” the letter from the challengers in the case said....
According to the documents released Thursday, Hofeller ” a go-to gerrymandering expert for the GOP who died last August ” was commissioned in 2015 by a Republican mega-donor to do a study on the effect of excluding noncitizens from redistricting. The study, which was never made public, concluded that such a redistricting overhaul “would be advantageous to Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites” and “would clearly be a disadvantage for the Democrats,” using the Texas legislature as a case study. It warned, however, that such an overhaul would be “unworkable” without a citizenship question being added to the census.
That study and other key Hofeller documents were only obtained by the challengers because his estranged daughter found his back-up hard drives while going through his belongings after his death.
Re: Mueller lied either in that statement or to Barr
Mueller is not on record in discussions with Barr saying that in no way did the policy against indicting a sitting President enter into the judgments in the report.. Barr is on record claiming that, but he has no credibility after that letter about the Mueller report. Quote or link to your support for this claim.
They did not commit to not bringing charges against the rest of his organizations, and they brought many. On the obstruction issue they decided to impartially collect evidence but make no determinations, trusting authorized others (hint:Congress) to interpret that evidence. As we have been saying for days.
(BTW, there is some question whether Barr is an "authorized other". Why isn't he bound by the DoJ policy too?
There would have been nothing to stop Mueller from documenting whatever criminal behavior they did discover on Trump's part whether or not they could indict. Clearly he wants to encourage the Democrats to proceed with impeachment on the utter lack of any proof of criminal activity at all, so if he'd found any actual criminal acts he would have given them more ammunition if he'd stated them.
He did document whatever criminal behavior they did discover on Trump's part. He documented ten incidents with sufficient evidence to indict, as attested by nearly a thousand former Federal prosecutors of all stripes. There's strong evidence for indictment.
The U.S. imported $372 billion worth of products from Mexico in 2018, more than our trade total with Canada. "U.S. trade with Mexico is basically all about cars," said one expert, with the U.S. importing $93 billion worth of cars or car parts last year, including $22 billion worth of car engines, $5 billion in car seats and $5 billion in chassis.
Second to cars is tech equipment, including $26 billion of computers and computer parts, semiconductors and software.
Americans also imported $6.7 billion worth of vegetables and $5.3 billion of fruit and nuts from Mexico.
quote: Experts, including White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow, say American consumers can expect to pay the price as U.S. businesses pass on increased costs. The U.S. imported $346.5 billion worth of goods from Mexico in 2018, according to government data, meaning a 5% tariff will cost over $17 billion.
Stocks plunged Friday after Trump’s announcement. The Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped 300 points, the S&P 500 fell 1.2% and the Nasdaq Composite was down 1.3%....
Top imports from Mexico, according to the government, include vehicles (including passenger cars), machinery (including flat-screen TVs), mineral fuels and medical instruments. Mexico is also the U.S.’s largest agricultural importer, which means the following foods will likely become more expensive:
Fresh vegetables, including asparagus, cauliflower, celery, kale and lettuce Fresh fruit, including avocados, berries, dates, figs, kiwis, pineapples and tomatoes Wine and beer Snack foods Processed fruit and vegetables
Business Insider reports that the tariffs could have significant impact on the avocado trade, with the U.S. importing 85% of its Hass avocados from Mexico last year. Chipotle stock dropped 3% on Friday, as investors worried about how the restaurant chain would be impacted by the increased avocado costs.
Mark Hamrick, senior economic analyst at Bankrate.com, says imposing tariffs to fix an immigration problem is akin to “fielding a baseball team for a football game. It doesn’t compute and is likely counter-productive.”
quote: Here’s what Barr told Senators during his May 1st testimony:
quote: “We were frankly surprised that they were not going to reach a decision on obstruction and we asked them a lot about the reasoning behind this. Mueller stated three times to us in that meeting, in response to our questioning, that he emphatically was not saying that but for the OLC opinion he would have found obstruction.”
That's Barr going on record. Mueller’s not on record, Barr's on record claiming what Mueller said. As I said.
Re: Mueller lyed either in that statement or to Barr
WHY ON EARTH THERE WAS AN INVESTIGATION AT ALL SINCE INVESTIGATING THE CLAIM OF CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR IS SUPPOSEDLY THE WHOLE POINT OF SUCH AN INVESTIGATION.
Mueller investigated criminal behavior. That was the point.
With all the innuendo, however, insinuating criminality where he'd found none,
No innuendo. Facts. Undeniable criminal behavior. And a policy that Mueller felt prevented him from acting on that undeniable criminal behavior.
Re: Mueller lyed either in that statement or to Barr
McConnell would never allow a trial in the Senate. But impeachment could bring out many more incriminating facts that would sway some undecideds without affecting Faith and her ilk at all.
quote:Senior Republican lawmakers are openly discussing the prospect of impeaching Hillary Clinton should she win the presidency, a stark indication that partisan warfare over her tenure as secretary of state will not end on Election Day.
Chairmen of two congressional committees said in media interviews this week they believe Clinton committed impeachable offenses in setting up and using a private email server for official State Department business.
And a third senior Republican, the chairman of a House Judiciary subcommittee, told The Washington Post he is personally convinced Clinton should be impeached for influence peddling involving her family foundation. He favors further congressional investigation into that matter.
quote:First, in the most direct way, raising tariffs on Mexico will mean a tax increase of up to 25% on American families and businesses purchasing any products from Mexico, one of the U.S.' leading trade partners.
Secondly, this threat comes as the Trump administration was jump-starting the approval process for the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement that Trump previously touted as a major trade victory, but that has yet to be officially ratified. This will surely disrupt that process.
Thirdly, the whole justification for the previous administration's [should be "administration's previous "-- JonF] tariffs has been that they were all part of a broader strategy to negotiate better trade deals. Yet in this case, Trump is trying to lump trade in with cracking down on illegal immigration, which is a separate issue even if it could be argued there is a relationship between the two.
Fourthly, it's difficult to see how this would facilitate containing illegal Mexican immigration. The surest way that Mexico has to reducing the desire of Mexicans to leave for America is to improve the Mexican economy, which would be immensely more difficult in the midst of a trade war with the U.S.
Fifthly, it's unclear what the metric will be for determining whether "the Illegal Immigration problem is remedied." Does that mean no illegal immigration from Mexico? A reduction by a certain percentage? I suppose we'll have to leave that to the White House staffers tasked with translating Trump's insane tweets into official policy language.
All direct quotes.
ABE in fact NAFTA, which is still in force, forbids these tariffs. But Trump is hell-bent on convincing the world that the US cannot be trusted to honor commitments.
it seems worth it to me to apply some kind of pressure on Mexico to stop the flood of illegals.
Legal asylum seekers mostly.
What do you expect Mexico to do in a month? In two? In six?
™ Version 4.2
(1)
