The Trump Presidency - how I stopped worrying and learned to love the Hair

JimCorrigan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2011
Messages
4,030
Location
Pacific Rim
Car(s)
HMCS Velvet Glove; The Last Samurai
You picked Vice and Stephen Colbert, not exactly unbiased sources here...
Yeah, but decisions based on sophomoric attempts at media journalism appears consistent with modern Democratic mien, sadly.

(That’s a shot at the Dem Party, not GRtak)

GRtak... you were making the legal case for the AG to break a particular law. Therefore, you should have no problem offering legal sources (not baseless opinion pieces) to prove it.
 
Last edited:

JimCorrigan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2011
Messages
4,030
Location
Pacific Rim
Car(s)
HMCS Velvet Glove; The Last Samurai
Not one second of that piece was devoted to discussing Congress’s request for redacted information.

Here’s what was said, though.

Andrew Neopolitano:
- said that the word collusion entered the political discourse courtesy of Rudy Guiliani, blatantly ignoring the last 2 years of leftist propaganda (yes, Andrew... Rudy framed the argument using a non-legal term which fooled everyone into not looking at conspiracy.... right)

- claimed Trump is guilty of obstruction because he ordered his aides to do something they actually didn’t do (and many, including myself, have said that had they followed their boss’ demands, the case for obstruction would then be far more likely)

- this demands repeating: Neopolitano actually said that Barr’s definition of obstruction was too narrow, because it demanded that one commit obstruction to be guilty of obstruction. He then disingenuously claims that Barr stated since there was no conspiracy, there can be no obstruction. Again, since Mueller punted on obstruction, Barr was left having to conclude Mueller’s findings, which is exactly what he did. Barr did not, as Neopolitano claims, “override” his prosecutor’s findings on obstruction.

If Neopolitano were intellectually honest, he’d surely be asking why didn’t Mueller force Barr’s hand? Why didn’t Mueller recommend indictment on obstruction? Because if he did that, then the Dems would get what they do desperately wanted (Trump facing charges) OR then Barr would legitimately be facing obstruction if he then were to go against his prosecutor’s wishes.

Again: everything that is currently unfolding hinges on Mueller’s impotence at rendering a definitive re: obstruction.

- Neopolitano then misrepresents the obstruction case of a judge in Massachusetts. I posted about that in another thread. Here are the details.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/judge-charged-with-obstruction-for-allegedly-helping-man-evade-ice/

- claims Mueller was supposed to ask for permission from Barr to ask for an indictment. This is bullshit of the highest order. All Mueller had to do was recommend indictment, which he punted, and only after he sunk his own campaign by claiming his hands were tied by an OLC statement (something Mueller didn’t bother prefacing for the volume on collusion/conspiracy)

- Goes on to leverage his perch as a former judge (he hasn’t been on the bench in over 20 years!) to malign the character of Barr with only an anecdote of something that was written during the HW Bush admin about the merits of warrantless surveillance... he doesn’t actually state what Barr’s final position was, or even attempt to dissect the nuance... which is the hallmark of any reasonable intellectual, let alone a judge!

TL;DR - Are you planning on providing even a scintilla of actual source documentation that backs up your assertion that Barr is allowed to break the law in this case?

Also, TL; DR- if it isn’t clear, I despise people who use their positions of supposed authority (in this case a former judge) as a replacement for cogent arguments. It’s why I also have no respect for Dr. Oz. Appeal to expert authority is only valid if the arguments put forth are themselves valid.
 
Last edited:

GRtak

Forum Addict
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
18,351
Location
Michigan USA
I have never claimed to be an expert, I am just watching the show unravel. We seem to see it from completely different angles.

The legal interpretation you posted seems to be about disclosing information to the president, the NSC, and other lawyers that are working on a case that is related to the investigation. Those are all far different than Congress.

Once again, from what I have read and watched, Congress got info from the grand jury on approval from the judge that was in charge of it. A similar thing happened during the Clinton investigation. The last happened after the interpretation you posted.

During the Barr contempt hearing, there was several republicans that brought up the 6e clause. There was one democrat that read the section that appears to allow the disclosure of the restricted info to Coongress too.

Even if Barr felt he could not disclose all the info congress wanted, he should have shown up to say so. Instead he is acting as if he is Trump's attorney. That is not the AG's job.
 

SirEdward

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2008
Messages
1,726
Location
Bologna, Italy
Car(s)
VW Golf MkV
Why all this discussion about Trump?

Do you really need the political stamp on the matter to see what has happened?

Trump runs and operates for himself before anything else, even before his country, like any real egomaniac would. He has no problems in lying, deceiving, disregarding his own words, and he knows when he does. A part of what he wants also benefits the US, but he does it because it benefits himself first. Never in his mind is the US before him. Do not forget.

During the campaign, he accepted any help he thought could help him. As any good egomaniac, he does not look too far in the future if the present gain/loss is high enough, and he doesn't take too much into consideration what other people may want (this is why he stinks at foreign politics), so when he saw that shady people from foreign countries were helping him, he let them do with no doubts. Regardless of the means used. He does not care about "unfair" or "not right", as long as it benefits him.

He knew he was getting that kind of help, and this was ok to him. And he used this knowledge to further his own cause, without thinking of the consequences. I don't think he is a puppet of Russia, but he was glad that Russia helped him because he wouldn't consider the covert implications. Also, Putin is good at this: he knows that if you pet a conflated ego in the right way, that ego will love you back; he did the same with Berlusconi, back in the days. Berlusconi genuinely thought he was a personal friend of Putin. Anyone with a grain of salt knows this is not the case. Trump works the same as Berlusconi, as it has the same underlying ego problem.

Trump got elected, and this was what Russia wanted; we should all think about why, because that's what really matters. Trump knows that he owe part of his victory to shady russian propaganda, and he doesn't care a bit. But he knows that public opinion does care, so he REALLY doesn't want the news of how much he did know to become public, and he tried multiple times to avoid it. The means he used are tied to his nature: he is first and foremost an egomaniac, not a psycho, so he doesn't want to taint himself or the image he has of himself, or maybe is just a bit cowardly, and he tried to convince other people to do the dirty job themselves.

This hasn't worked, because most of those working for him do it for money, interest and adulation, not for zealotry.

So here we are:

Has it conspired with Russia? No. It was a case of mutual interests (even if that's scary)
Did he know of the thing? Yes.
Did he know that this kind of help wasn't good? Yes, and he was ok with that.
Did he try to keep it secret? Yes, because he knew the public wouldn't like it.
Did he try to persuade some of his staff to obstruct the investigation? Yes.
Did he manage to get the investigation obstructed? Mostly not, because his entourage is composed of people who would refuse to bathe in sh*t for him.


[...]
I have no problem in principle with Twatter/Facegram/Instabook banning whoever they want, because to your point, they are still private entities, but the problem is they aren't consistent. They don't even follow their own terms of service. That most of the bans are only one one side of the ideological spectrum makes this even more suspect.
[...]
If they want to be left wing sites... fine, let them be left wing sites... just have the courage to outright SAY so.
[...]
But no, they can't. Because like mainstream media, they want to pretend they're unbiased, centrist organizations, which is complete bullshit. And when they do ban people on the left, they (or other media, see WaPo or NY Times) try and pass it off as someone from the right (Louis Farrakhan).
I have to agree, here, although things are not exactly as clearly specular: left extremism leads to idiocy and hate and violence in a much less obvious path than the right extremism, because the left start from peace and non-violence and then twists them madly, while the right goes towards violence altogether: it's easier to spot, recognize and refuse right-wing extremists than it is left-wing's. Many left-wing extremists do think they are peaceful and Gandhianly non-violent even as they are being jailed for beating people up.

The public opinion do the same: it sees right-wing hate well before left-wing hate, and the media try to please the public, so they'll be way more lenient towards left nutjobs than towards right nutjobs.
 

mpicco

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
5,307
Location
Portugal
Car(s)
R19
To those of you who hate Trump with every fiber of your body what has he legitimately done that has personally affected you or someone you know. I see that most of his strongest critics on this site live on the other side of the world. Is he going around in the middle of the night personally burning down villages??
He's appointed a climate change denier as the head of the fucking environment protection agency. He's in the pocket of the coal lobbies. He's trying with all his might to prevent the replacement of polluting energy sources for clean ones.
In a world where tension is going up, where Russia can occupy and invade parts of other countries unopposed, where NK has successfully tested nukes, he chooses to create drama in NATO and put a wedge between the US and its historic allies, at the same time being a whipping boy for Puting and KJU. Don't even get me started on China.

This fat idiot is not the leader of just a country, the US has been the 'leader of the free world' since WW2 ended. Like it or not, what the US president does affects a lot more than just US citizens.
 

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
12,507
He's appointed a climate change denier as the head of the fucking environment protection agency. He's in the pocket of the coal lobbies. He's trying with all his might to prevent the replacement of polluting energy sources for clean ones.
In 2017 the US had largest decline in CO2 emissions in the world. China and India had the largest increases. Maybe you should direct your climate change anger at those two instead.



In a world where tension is going up, where Russia can occupy and invade parts of other countries unopposed, where NK has successfully tested nukes...
That was all under Obama. Russia hasn't invaded anyone since Trump because President and NK went from launching rockets over Japan to ZERO nuclear tests.


...at the same time being a whipping boy for Puting and KJU. Don't even get me started on China.
Russia supports KJU, Trump opposes him. Russia supports Maduro, Trump opposes him. Trump opposes Russia's Nord Stream 2. Honestly, idk if Trump has done anything at all that fits Putin's interests. Now please do get started with China - I'd love to hear how Trump is a "whipping boy" for Xi.
 

SirEdward

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2008
Messages
1,726
Location
Bologna, Italy
Car(s)
VW Golf MkV
Russia supports KJU, Trump opposes him. Russia supports Maduro, Trump opposes him. Trump opposes Russia's Nord Stream 2. Honestly, idk if Trump has done anything at all that fits Putin's interests.
Russia did favour (and worked to achieve) Trump's election. That is a fact. Russia did it for its own purposes.

The question, and it is an honest question, is what were they doing it for? What was that Russia found desirable in Trump, over Clinton?

We surely know that on NK Trump got played quite well: the tension rose and rose, and then NK suddenly opened towards South Korea, which couldn't and wouldn't refuse the offer. That was clearly thought strategically to put Trump in a position of weakness. And it worked perfectly. The USA showed they can't avoid Kim playing the madman and throwing rockets around, or they do by boasting, like kids in school, while other, more savvy allied of NK managed to change Kim's mind without too much of a hassle. Who is the best ally against NK now? Is it still the US, or is there anyone who could make things easier without risking nuking up Seoul by pushing the crazy northman towards the edge?

Or take the EU and the US distance which grows towards historical allies who are abundantly rich but politically divided and militarily weak. Taking them away from the US sphere of influence, even bit by bit, is a wet dream for many.

Could it be that this kind of things were what other Power looked for and why they helped Trump get elected?
 

JimCorrigan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2011
Messages
4,030
Location
Pacific Rim
Car(s)
HMCS Velvet Glove; The Last Samurai
I have never claimed to be an expert, I am just watching the show unravel. We seem to see it from completely different angles.
I wasn’t accusing you of being a so called expert. That particular vitriol was directed towards the “judge.” I then took that opportunity to editorialize about so called experts in general.

The legal interpretation you posted seems to be about disclosing information to the president, the NSC, and other lawyers that are working on a case that is related to the investigation. Those are all far different than Congress.
Correct, but my point was that unless you know of documentation that supplements/contradicts what I posted, it remains against the law for the AG to provide grand jury material to congress under any circumstance.

Once again, from what I have read and watched, Congress got info from the grand jury on approval from the judge that was in charge of it. A similar thing happened during the Clinton investigation. The last happened after the interpretation you posted.
I’ll have to look at this more when I have some time tonight. I’ll get back to you.

During the Barr contempt hearing, there was several republicans that brought up the 6e clause. There was one democrat that read the section that appears to allow the disclosure of the restricted info to Coongress too.
Any links to these videos?

Even if Barr felt he could not disclose all the info congress wanted, he should have shown up to say so. Instead he is acting as if he is Trump's attorney. That is not the AG's job.
He is not acting as Trump’s attorney by accurately summarizing Mueller’s findings, or lack thereof (according to no less than Mueller himself).

He endured 5 hours of testimony. He was willing to go back for more (just not with legal aides present to witness sensitive information or ask him questions).

He offered Mueller a chance to review his summary prior to its release, but Mueller declined.

He made the redacted report available to the public. He made all redactions working with Mueller’s team.

He made a less redacted report available to key members of Congress who refused to look at it.

I said it myself before it became a large talking point on the right this week. Mueller including a lot of salacious material on the president where no indictment was forthcoming (in the obstruction volume) was damning. His refusal to commit to a decision on what to do with obstruction was damning (and he told Barr directly that the OLC decision had nothing to do with it). The letter he sent to Barr the day after Barr’s summary complaining not about its contents, but how the press are covering it, especially after he refused Barr’s offer to review the letter prior to its release, is extremely bizarre. That this letter leaked to the press the night before Barr’s testimony is almost certainly not by coincidence.

Calling Barr “Trump’s attorney” is a disingenuous talking point brought forth by angry leftist media and politicians. It has yet to be demonstrated by these same people how else he was supposed to conduct himself, apart from just handing over everything they requested without any concern for the law.

Again, it bears asking:

- why did Congress insist on the presence of legal aides for the next round of Barr testimony?

- why are members of Congress refusing to even look at a less redacted report (in which only the grand jury testimony is still blocked out) before going forward wrh their demands for the naked report?

- why the rush to bring Barr a second time before they bring in Mueller?

- why did Mueller refuse to review Barr’s summary, only to then write a letter complaining about “it”.. it not being the summary itself?

Someone’s protecting something, but it’s not Barr/Trump.
 
Last edited:

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
12,507
The answer to your questions is literally just "oRaNgE mAn BaD". This whole shitshow was never about the law or the truth (if Democrats cared about that they would go after Hillary); this is simply about getting rid of Trump by any means necessary.

The left is lying to people about Trump's accomplishments and they keep blindly pushing this fake news narrative - first collusion, then obstruction. The mental gymnastics are incredible and unprecedented - hell, we just had a member on here claim that Trump is NK's puppet when the reality is that under Obama NK was launching rockets over Japan but under Trump they haven't done any tests and they're actively cooperating with us and our allies.
 

GRtak

Forum Addict
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
18,351
Location
Michigan USA
The Napoliano video was posted because he includes a definition of Obstruction.

Why was a prosecutor brought in to question a witness at the Kavanaugh hearings?

I watched the Barr hearing live and have not seen the portion of it I mentioned.

The Senate and House have different jobs in their oversight rolls. They both have a right to question the same witness.
 

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
12,507
Of course Barr doesn't want to be questioned by lawyers - who would? They can easily phrase questions in such a way as to make you inadvertently perjur yourself.
 

JimCorrigan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2011
Messages
4,030
Location
Pacific Rim
Car(s)
HMCS Velvet Glove; The Last Samurai
The Napoliano video was posted because he includes a definition of Obstruction.
Fine. Too bad he applied it incorrectly.

Why was a prosecutor brought in to question a witness at the Kavanaugh hearings?
  1. Blasie-Ford was the one who came forth with an unfounded, 35 year old accusation against a then Supreme Court candidate
  2. Blasie-Ford's lawyer didn't object
  3. Blasie-Ford wasn't disclosing confidential information
  4. Blasie-Ford wasn't interviewed by legal AIDES
  5. Just because BF agreed to it doesn't mean Barr has to.
Translation: Apples and oranges.

I watched the Barr hearing live and have not seen the portion of it I mentioned.
Sorry, what?

The Senate and House have different jobs in their oversight rolls. They both have a right to question the same witness.
They also have an expectation to go about their business with integrity... something that Nadler and his camp are sorely lacking, as per what I outlined in my previous post.
 

GRtak

Forum Addict
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
18,351
Location
Michigan USA
Of course Barr doesn't want to be questioned by lawyers - who would? They can easily phrase questions in such a way as to make you inadvertently perjur yourself.

If you tell the truth, you can't be tricked into perjury.
 

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
12,507

jack_christie

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2006
Messages
4,134
The AG can go to the judge at the head of the grand jury to okay the release of some, or all of the info. There is even a president for this, Waregate. The only block to this is Barr.
Trump said the report vindicated him, then he when on his victory tour and he wants to block it.

University of California Berkeley Law Professor John Yoo, the author of George W. Bush era “torture memos,” opined in the New York Times that President Donald Trump is taking executive authority too far with his response to congressional oversight.
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/torture-memos-author-trumps-blanket-refusal-of-congressional-subpoenas-would-be-unprecedented/

“The thing that’s unusual is the blanket refusal,” Professor Yoo said. “It would be extraordinary if the president actually were to try to stop all congressional testimony on subpoenaed issues. That would actually be unprecedented if it were a complete ban.”

“He’s treating Congress like they’re the Chinese or a local labor union working on a Trump building,” he said.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/07/us/politics/trump-democrats.html


Senate Democrats ask Graham to bring Mueller to testify

Democrats are seeking to increase pressure on Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) to call special counsel Robert Mueller to testify, sharing 60 questions they think Mueller could help answer.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), the top Democrat on the Judiciary panel, led other Democrats on the committee in sending Graham a letter Wednesday saying they thought the panel would "benefit greatly" from having Mueller testify.
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/442816-senate-democrats-ask-graham-to-bring-mueller-to-testify

60 questions for Mueller
https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/e/1/e16e2ac0-f084-4c88-901b-c2651d7149c3/5783E587D2BCC9B14868D0D71B6A232C.2019.05.08-jud-dems-to-chairman-graham-re-mueller-hearing-attachments-.pdf
 
Top