I know you’ve been desperately waiting for my distillation of the Mueller report but you’ll have to wait til tomorrow as it is over 400 pages.

Couple of points though:

Attorney General Barr mischaracterised the report as not being able to determine whether or not the President committed obstruction of justice.

The report details explicitly how the President obstructed justice, but the authors made it clear that they would not be making any recommendations of prosecution because of the FBI’s long standing principle that a sitting President cannot be prosecuted. There’s no sense at all in the report that it was not possible to determine whether or not the President obstructed justice.

Barr entered this arena with a good reputation but it seems as though Trump’s reverse-Midas touch has destroyed that already.

The report also covers that White House staff simply refused to accept the President’s instructions, or accepted the instructions and then did not carry them out, in order to prevent the President from potentially breaking the law. It also covers White House spokespersons Sarah Huckabee-Sanders’s admission to authorities that she’d lied in the White House press briefing about Trump’s reasons for firing Comey.

An interesting note about Donald Trump Jr. and other campaign members who met with Russians on June 9 2016 (my bolding):

This series of events could implicate the federal election-law ban on contributions and donations by foreign nationals . . . Specifically, Goldstone passed along an offer purportedly from a Russian government official to provide “official documents and information” to the Trump campaign for the purposes of influencing the presidential election. Trump Jr. appears to have accepted that offer and to have arranged a meeting to receive those materials. Documentary evidence in the form of e-mail chains supports the inference that Kushner and Manafort were aware of that purpose and attended the June 9 meeting anticipating the receipt of helpful information to the Campaign from Russian sources.

The Office considered whether this evidence would establish a conspiracy to violate the foreign contributions ban . . . solicitation of an illegal foreign-source contribution; or the acceptance or receipt of “an express or implied promise to make a contribution” . . . There are reasonable arguments that the offered information would constitute a “thing of value” within the meaning of these provisions, but the Office determined that the government would not be likely to obtain and sustain a conviction for two other reasons: first, the Office did not obtain admissible evidence likely to meet the government’s burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these individuals acted “willfully,” i.e. with general knowledge of the illegality of their conduct; and, second, the government would likely encounter difficulty proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the value of the promised information exceeded the threshold for a criminal violation.

The second part seems reasonable but I’m curious about the first reason. I’m not a lawyer but my lay understanding was always that ignorance of the law was no defence. Also, someone acting a senior member of a political campaign should reasonably be expected to familiarise themselves with the law with regard to political campaigns.

It does appear that Democrats are not going to pursue impeachment, which is probably pragmatic as they don’t have a reasonable chance of succeeding and might even prefer their chances in 2020 with Trump as the candidate. Republicans have mostly been “no comment” but a couple have popped their heads out of the trench. Senator Mitt Romney said, “I am sickened at the extent and pervasiveness of dishonesty and misdirection by individuals in the highest office of the land, including the president. Reading the report is a sobering revelation of how far we have strayed from the aspirations and principles of the founders.” Senator Rob Portman said the report “documents a number of actions taken by the president or his associates that were inappropriate” but that the President should not be charged.

Official comments appear to indicate that part of the redaction has been to protect ongoing investigations whose existence are not public knowledge so that’s interesting.

Bring in the Mind Reading Machine !

Lets then see their responses on FMRI scans in the Court.

That’s the only way to work out complex networked stuff like that

Compare that to hundreds of people saying he said, she said, he lied, she lied, they did that, they didn’t do that etc.

The mind reading machine is the only way to get to the truth.

Trust no one.

I’m nowhere near as invested in this as you are, deevs; there’s bugger all chance that I’m going to read the whole thing, but I do retain a keen interest in a horrified outsider type view.

Saying that I think the dems would be off their rocker to g down the impeachment route, although it looks like Warren want to go the whole hog. I like Glen Greenwalds take on it. The dems really, really tried to hang Trump for collusion. Absolutely no evidence of this could be found and now some are trying to hang their hat on obstruction. Problem being is that when you’ve told people for 18 months that there’s collusion and people are going to gaol, and then that just isn’t going to happen then your balloon has burst.

Here I’ll use Greenwald’s own words as he’s obviously far smarter than I am:

And again, as I said, you can just throw up your hands and say, “Well, maybe Mueller just didn’t find the evidence.” I mean, how do you argue with somebody like that? Yeah, of course, I mean, maybe Robert Mueller, after 22 months, didn’t find all the smoking guns that are out there. But we can only deal with the reality that we have, which is the reality that was produced after an incredibly comprehensive investigation, a sweeping, invasive, powerful one, that was exactly what the Democrats said they wanted. And that evidence simply did not produce the evidence to substantiate the conspiracy theories we’ve been hearing for three years. And that reality will never, ever change

I’ve decided to change into jeans and a long sleeve short, before sunset. Might even have to get the heater out later on.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Bring in the Mind Reading Machine !

Lets then see their responses on FMRI scans in the Court.

That’s the only way to work out complex networked stuff like that

Compare that to hundreds of people saying he said, she said, he lied, she lied, they did that, they didn’t do that etc.

The mind reading machine is the only way to get to the truth.

Trust no one.

(Shrugs) there doesn’t seem to be any dispute about the facts of the case so I’m sure what use a mind reading machine would be.

So they all saw the smoke from the smoking gun and then they all watched the smoke drift away.

Then there was no smoke at all.

Tau.Neutrino said:

So they all saw the smoke from the smoking gun and then they all watched the smoke drift away.

Then there was no smoke at all.

The investigation determined that there was no gun.

sibeen said:

. The dems really, really tried to hang Trump for collusion. Absolutely no evidence of this could be found

Okay so that’s the opposite of true. The report makes it plain collusion between members of Trump’s campaign took place. But collusion isn’t illegal, and in the opinion of Attorney General William Barr the activities did not meet the threshold of being prosecutable for criminal conspiracy.

Note that obstruction was always a major plank of the investigation since Special Counsel Mueller was only hired after Trump admitted, in interview, on camera, that he fired Comey to halt the Russia investigation.

“you’ve told people for 18 months that there’s collusion and people are going to gaol”

6 members of Trump’s campaign and transition team and cabinet have indeed gone to gaol. It is completely unprecedented.

dv said:

sibeen said:

. The dems really, really tried to hang Trump for collusion. Absolutely no evidence of this could be found

Okay so that’s the opposite of true. The report makes it plain collusion between Russian officials and members of Trump’s campaign took place. But collusion isn’t illegal, and in the opinion of Attorney General William Barr the activities did not meet the threshold of being prosecutable for criminal conspiracy.

Note that obstruction was always a major plank of the investigation since Special Counsel Mueller was only hired after Trump admitted, in interview, on camera, that he fired Comey to halt the Russia investigation.

“you’ve told people for 18 months that there’s collusion and people are going to gaol”

6 members of Trump’s campaign and transition team and cabinet have indeed gone to gaol. It is completely unprecedented.

Sorry, edited, bolded new words

sibeen said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

So they all saw the smoke from the smoking gun and then they all watched the smoke drift away.

Then there was no smoke at all.

The investigation determined that there was no gun.

They used imaginary smoke!

I blame Trumps lawyers!

Trump knows the value of imaginary smoke.

dv said:

The report makes it plain collusion between members of Trump’s campaign took place. But collusion isn’t illegal, and in the opinion of Attorney General William Barr the activities did not meet the threshold of being prosecutable for criminal conspiracy.

So the TL;DR version is “Yes, there was collusion, but we can’t do anything about it because it’s not illegal”.

What charges are the imprisoned people guilty of?

dv said:

dv said:

sibeen said:

. The dems really, really tried to hang Trump for collusion. Absolutely no evidence of this could be found

Okay so that’s the opposite of true. The report makes it plain collusion between Russian officials and members of Trump’s campaign took place. But collusion isn’t illegal, and in the opinion of Attorney General William Barr the activities did not meet the threshold of being prosecutable for criminal conspiracy.

Note that obstruction was always a major plank of the investigation since Special Counsel Mueller was only hired after Trump admitted, in interview, on camera, that he fired Comey to halt the Russia investigation.

“you’ve told people for 18 months that there’s collusion and people are going to gaol”

6 members of Trump’s campaign and transition team and cabinet have indeed gone to gaol. It is completely unprecedented.

Sorry, edited, bolded new words

Sorry, I used the word collusion where I should have said conspiracy. My bad.

Now, as to the gaoling, how many have gone because of a direct result of this investigation – err, that’s put badly because the answer would probably be all – I mean how many have been put in gaol because of something to do directly with this investigation, and how many of those went because they told porkies to the FBI? Apparently that’s a gaolable offense which I find very strange, but that’s another issue.

Divine Angel said:

dv said:

The report makes it plain collusion between members of Trump’s campaign took place. But collusion isn’t illegal, and in the opinion of Attorney General William Barr the activities did not meet the threshold of being prosecutable for criminal conspiracy.

So the TL;DR version is “Yes, there was collusion, but we can’t do anything about it because it’s not illegal”.

What charges are the imprisoned people guilty of?

Lying to the FBI and fraud.

This for me is always the weird part … I mean people know that lying to the FBI is serious shit, so I have to assume that there is something very serious that they were covering up, but I accept that isn’t tantamount to proof.

It’s very hard for the average punter to follow and I’m a very average punter.
What happened with the Steel dossier, he was an ex MI6 operative that the Dems paid for information on Trump, is that still a goer?
Then there’s his tax returns, he’s the only President in history who has not made them public although he promised to do so. Then there’s the hookers.
However his cronies who have gone to gaol were indicted for crimes other than collusion etc.
The dems need to select a target that they can win on, forget all the media speculation and target one thing that they know they’ve got him on and know the end game, know that if their case is strong they’ll get the Republican senators on side, they don’t like him either, because if they keep trying to nail him and keep failing the punters will stop listening if they haven’t already.

Also:
Divine Angel said:

“Yes, there was collusion, but we can’t do anything about it because it’s not illegal”.

Well they can do something about it which is make a political issue of it and let voters decide in 2020. No matter how you slice it it is not a good look for a President, and independent voters and quite a few Republicans take a negative view of all this.

Here Are All of the Indictments, Guilty Pleas and Convictions From Robert Mueller’s Investigation

2 Russian shell companies and 13 Russian nationals with charges unlikely

12 Russian military intelligence officers with charges unlikely

Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort: Sentenced to seven and a half years in prison for financial crimes

Konstantin Kilimnik: Charged with obstruction of justice.

Trump confidant Roger Stone: Charged with lying to Congress

Former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn: Pleaded guilty to lying to investigators

Former Trump campaign aide Rick Gates: Pleaded guilty to lying to investigators

Former Trump personal lawyer Michael Cohen: Pleaded guilty to tax and bank charges, campaign finance violations and lying to Congress

Former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos: Served 12 days in prison for lying to investigators

Alex van der Zwaan: Served 30 days in prison for lying to investigators

Richard Pinedo: Sentenced to six months in prison for identity theft

Sam Patten: Pleaded guilty to failing to register as a foreign lobbyist

Bijan Kian and Skim Alptekin: Charged with conspiring to violate lobbying laws

Gregory Craig, Vin Weber and Tony Podesta: Referred to New York prosecutors

Peak Warming Man said:

It’s very hard for the average punter to follow and I’m a very average punter.
What happened with the Steel dossier, he was an ex MI6 operative that the Dems paid for information on Trump, is that still a goer?
Then there’s his tax returns, he’s the only President in history who has not made them public although he promised to do so. Then there’s the hookers.
However his cronies who have gone to gaol were indicted for crimes other than collusion etc.
The dems need to select a target that they can win on, forget all the media speculation and target one thing that they know they’ve got him on and know the end game, know that if their case is strong they’ll get the Republican senators on side, they don’t like him either, because if they keep trying to nail him and keep failing the punters will stop listening if they haven’t already.

No way that is going to happen. There are some for whom the other side of politics are the enemy and will support their team no matter what. Jesus could return and denounce Trump and would simply be written off as a stooge for the Dems.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Here Are All of the Indictments, Guilty Pleas and Convictions From Robert Mueller’s Investigation

2 Russian shell companies and 13 Russian nationals with charges unlikely

12 Russian military intelligence officers with charges unlikely

Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort: Sentenced to seven and a half years in prison for financial crimes

Konstantin Kilimnik: Charged with obstruction of justice.

Trump confidant Roger Stone: Charged with lying to Congress

Former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn: Pleaded guilty to lying to investigators

Former Trump campaign aide Rick Gates: Pleaded guilty to lying to investigators

Former Trump personal lawyer Michael Cohen: Pleaded guilty to tax and bank charges, campaign finance violations and lying to Congress

Former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos: Served 12 days in prison for lying to investigators

Alex van der Zwaan: Served 30 days in prison for lying to investigators

Richard Pinedo: Sentenced to six months in prison for identity theft

Sam Patten: Pleaded guilty to failing to register as a foreign lobbyist

Bijan Kian and Skim Alptekin: Charged with conspiring to violate lobbying laws

Gregory Craig, Vin Weber and Tony Podesta: Referred to New York prosecutors

TRUMPS WALL OF LIARS.

Easy to hide behind then.
.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Here Are All of the Indictments, Guilty Pleas and Convictions From Robert Mueller’s Investigation

2 Russian shell companies and 13 Russian nationals with charges unlikely

12 Russian military intelligence officers with charges unlikely

Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort: Sentenced to seven and a half years in prison for financial crimes

Konstantin Kilimnik: Charged with obstruction of justice.

Trump confidant Roger Stone: Charged with lying to Congress

Former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn: Pleaded guilty to lying to investigators

Former Trump campaign aide Rick Gates: Pleaded guilty to lying to investigators

Former Trump personal lawyer Michael Cohen: Pleaded guilty to tax and bank charges, campaign finance violations and lying to Congress

Former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos: Served 12 days in prison for lying to investigators

Alex van der Zwaan: Served 30 days in prison for lying to investigators

Richard Pinedo: Sentenced to six months in prison for identity theft

Sam Patten: Pleaded guilty to failing to register as a foreign lobbyist

Bijan Kian and Skim Alptekin: Charged with conspiring to violate lobbying laws

Gregory Craig, Vin Weber and Tony Podesta: Referred to New York prosecutors

Half of this relates to paying off Stormy doesn’t it?

I hope she was sensational root.

party_pants said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Here Are All of the Indictments, Guilty Pleas and Convictions From Robert Mueller’s Investigation

2 Russian shell companies and 13 Russian nationals with charges unlikely

12 Russian military intelligence officers with charges unlikely

Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort: Sentenced to seven and a half years in prison for financial crimes

Konstantin Kilimnik: Charged with obstruction of justice.

Trump confidant Roger Stone: Charged with lying to Congress

Former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn: Pleaded guilty to lying to investigators

Former Trump campaign aide Rick Gates: Pleaded guilty to lying to investigators

Former Trump personal lawyer Michael Cohen: Pleaded guilty to tax and bank charges, campaign finance violations and lying to Congress

Former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos: Served 12 days in prison for lying to investigators

Alex van der Zwaan: Served 30 days in prison for lying to investigators

Richard Pinedo: Sentenced to six months in prison for identity theft

Sam Patten: Pleaded guilty to failing to register as a foreign lobbyist

Bijan Kian and Skim Alptekin: Charged with conspiring to violate lobbying laws

Gregory Craig, Vin Weber and Tony Podesta: Referred to New York prosecutors

Half of this relates to paying off Stormy doesn’t it?

I hope she was sensational root.

I find it really, really strange that you can have a law in place making it illegal to lie to the wallopers.

Peak Warming Man said:

It’s very hard for the average punter to follow and I’m a very average punter.
What happened with the Steel dossier, he was an ex MI6 operative that the Dems paid for information on Trump, is that still a goer?
Then there’s his tax returns, he’s the only President in history who has not made them public although he promised to do so. Then there’s the hookers.
However his cronies who have gone to gaol were indicted for crimes other than collusion etc.
The dems need to select a target that they can win on, forget all the media speculation and target one thing that they know they’ve got him on and know the end game, know that if their case is strong they’ll get the Republican senators on side, they don’t like him either, because if they keep trying to nail him and keep failing the punters will stop listening if they haven’t already.

Nah, there is no reason at all for them to pick “one thing”. Voters have many concerns but different voters put more value of different things so they need to just make sure they are targeting well.

All of the things you’ve mentioned and more have combined to make him the least popular president since Nixon so maybe the Dems should keep o keeping on.

sibeen said:

party_pants said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Here Are All of the Indictments, Guilty Pleas and Convictions From Robert Mueller’s Investigation

2 Russian shell companies and 13 Russian nationals with charges unlikely

12 Russian military intelligence officers with charges unlikely

Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort: Sentenced to seven and a half years in prison for financial crimes

Konstantin Kilimnik: Charged with obstruction of justice.

Trump confidant Roger Stone: Charged with lying to Congress

Former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn: Pleaded guilty to lying to investigators

Former Trump campaign aide Rick Gates: Pleaded guilty to lying to investigators

Former Trump personal lawyer Michael Cohen: Pleaded guilty to tax and bank charges, campaign finance violations and lying to Congress

Former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos: Served 12 days in prison for lying to investigators

Alex van der Zwaan: Served 30 days in prison for lying to investigators

Richard Pinedo: Sentenced to six months in prison for identity theft

Sam Patten: Pleaded guilty to failing to register as a foreign lobbyist

Bijan Kian and Skim Alptekin: Charged with conspiring to violate lobbying laws

Gregory Craig, Vin Weber and Tony Podesta: Referred to New York prosecutors

Half of this relates to paying off Stormy doesn’t it?

I hope she was sensational root.

I find it really, really strange that you can have a law in place making it illegal to lie to the wallopers.

Well, you can’t lie in an affidavit or similar type written statement. I’m guessing they made sworn statements on issues, not just a quiet chat over a cup of tea.

party_pants said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Here Are All of the Indictments, Guilty Pleas and Convictions From Robert Mueller’s Investigation

2 Russian shell companies and 13 Russian nationals with charges unlikely

12 Russian military intelligence officers with charges unlikely

Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort: Sentenced to seven and a half years in prison for financial crimes

Konstantin Kilimnik: Charged with obstruction of justice.

Trump confidant Roger Stone: Charged with lying to Congress

Former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn: Pleaded guilty to lying to investigators

Former Trump campaign aide Rick Gates: Pleaded guilty to lying to investigators

Former Trump personal lawyer Michael Cohen: Pleaded guilty to tax and bank charges, campaign finance violations and lying to Congress

Former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos: Served 12 days in prison for lying to investigators

Alex van der Zwaan: Served 30 days in prison for lying to investigators

Richard Pinedo: Sentenced to six months in prison for identity theft

Sam Patten: Pleaded guilty to failing to register as a foreign lobbyist

Bijan Kian and Skim Alptekin: Charged with conspiring to violate lobbying laws

Gregory Craig, Vin Weber and Tony Podesta: Referred to New York prosecutors

Half of this relates to paying off Stormy doesn’t it?

I hope she was sensational root.

No none of those relate to Stormy Daniels except for Michael Cohen and it was only a small part of his troubles.

God … I’m not sure whether some of those people are dumb or just despo but Cohen confessed to lying to investigators, cut a deal … but then lied to investigators again so the deal was invalidated. Worst of both worlds: he’s not going to get a pardon because he flipped on Trump but he still went away for many years. If you’re going to flip, flip the whole way.

party_pants said:

sibeen said:

party_pants said:

Half of this relates to paying off Stormy doesn’t it?

I hope she was sensational root.

I find it really, really strange that you can have a law in place making it illegal to lie to the wallopers.

Well, you can’t lie in an affidavit or similar type written statement. I’m guessing they made sworn statements on issues, not just a quiet chat over a cup of tea.

If that was the case then everybody who get formally interviewed by the police for an incident, claims “nothing to do with me, gov”, signs statement as such, gets charged and subsequently found guilty should also then be further charged. I’ve never heard of that happening.

party_pants said:

sibeen said:

party_pants said:

Half of this relates to paying off Stormy doesn’t it?

I hope she was sensational root.

I find it really, really strange that you can have a law in place making it illegal to lie to the wallopers.

Well, you can’t lie in an affidavit or similar type written statement. I’m guessing they made sworn statements on issues, not just a quiet chat over a cup of tea.

Lying to federal prosecutors is considered tantamount to perjury.

dv said:

party_pants said:

sibeen said:

I find it really, really strange that you can have a law in place making it illegal to lie to the wallopers.

Well, you can’t lie in an affidavit or similar type written statement. I’m guessing they made sworn statements on issues, not just a quiet chat over a cup of tea.

Lying to federal prosecutors is considered tantamount to perjury.

But wasn’t the charges relating to lying to the FBI as the investigators? I may certainly be wrong on this count.

dv said:

Peak Warming Man said:

It’s very hard for the average punter to follow and I’m a very average punter.
What happened with the Steel dossier, he was an ex MI6 operative that the Dems paid for information on Trump, is that still a goer?
Then there’s his tax returns, he’s the only President in history who has not made them public although he promised to do so. Then there’s the hookers.
However his cronies who have gone to gaol were indicted for crimes other than collusion etc.
The dems need to select a target that they can win on, forget all the media speculation and target one thing that they know they’ve got him on and know the end game, know that if their case is strong they’ll get the Republican senators on side, they don’t like him either, because if they keep trying to nail him and keep failing the punters will stop listening if they haven’t already.

Nah, there is no reason at all for them to pick “one thing”. Voters have many concerns but different voters put more value of different things so they need to just make sure they are targeting well.

All of the things you’ve mentioned and more have combined to make him the least popular president since Nixon so maybe the Dems should keep o keeping on.

Nup, it will hurt them, either drop it altogether or as I say go after one they can win an indisputable case of malfeasance, they may just get a two thirds majority in the senate with that one.

However no president has ever been successfully impeached so it’s going to be hard.

dv said:

party_pants said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Here Are All of the Indictments, Guilty Pleas and Convictions From Robert Mueller’s Investigation

2 Russian shell companies and 13 Russian nationals with charges unlikely

12 Russian military intelligence officers with charges unlikely

Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort: Sentenced to seven and a half years in prison for financial crimes

Konstantin Kilimnik: Charged with obstruction of justice.

Trump confidant Roger Stone: Charged with lying to Congress

Former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn: Pleaded guilty to lying to investigators

Former Trump campaign aide Rick Gates: Pleaded guilty to lying to investigators

Former Trump personal lawyer Michael Cohen: Pleaded guilty to tax and bank charges, campaign finance violations and lying to Congress

Former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos: Served 12 days in prison for lying to investigators

Alex van der Zwaan: Served 30 days in prison for lying to investigators

Richard Pinedo: Sentenced to six months in prison for identity theft

Sam Patten: Pleaded guilty to failing to register as a foreign lobbyist

Bijan Kian and Skim Alptekin: Charged with conspiring to violate lobbying laws

Gregory Craig, Vin Weber and Tony Podesta: Referred to New York prosecutors

Half of this relates to paying off Stormy doesn’t it?

I hope she was sensational root.

No none of those relate to Stormy Daniels except for Michael Cohen and it was only a small part of his troubles.

God … I’m not sure whether some of those people are dumb or just despo but Cohen confessed to lying to investigators, cut a deal … but then lied to investigators again so the deal was invalidated. Worst of both worlds: he’s not going to get a pardon because he flipped on Trump but he still went away for many years. If you’re going to flip, flip the whole way.

We have a poodle that flips, flips multiple times too, also says he likes fixing things.

I think America has flipped and is really is in some sort of MORAL MESS, maybe things can change when Americans vote properly.

Peak Warming Man said:

Nup, it will hurt them

But it ain’t. It’s helped them. People don’t like it. The publically available, undisputed information about Trump’s behaviour is damning. It would be silly not to mention it.

dv said:

party_pants said:

sibeen said:

I find it really, really strange that you can have a law in place making it illegal to lie to the wallopers.

Well, you can’t lie in an affidavit or similar type written statement. I’m guessing they made sworn statements on issues, not just a quiet chat over a cup of tea.

Lying to federal prosecutors is considered tantamount to perjury.

I think a lot of people are getting off lightly.

Trump included, hiding behind his wall of liars who fell on their swords for him.

dv said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Nup, it will hurt them

But it ain’t. It’s helped them. People don’t like it. The publically available, undisputed information about Trump’s behaviour is damning. It would be silly not to mention it.

Shrug, for someone who’s been in more trouble than Al Capone his numbers are not bad.
The Dems and the liberal media have not handled Trump well, they are just shooting wildly in every direction and hitting nothing.
I hope they pick Joe Biden as their next candidate, if they pick some mouth frothing conspiracy nutter were going to get another 4 years of this shit.

Peak Warming Man said:

dv said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Nup, it will hurt them

But it ain’t. It’s helped them. People don’t like it. The publically available, undisputed information about Trump’s behaviour is damning. It would be silly not to mention it.

Shrug, for someone who’s been in more trouble than Al Capone his numbers are not bad.
The Dems and the liberal media have not handled Trump well, they are just shooting wildly in every direction and hitting nothing.
I hope they pick Joe Biden as their next candidate, if they pick some mouth frothing conspiracy nutter were going to get another 4 years of this shit.

peers over glasses

Don’t you know that Biden has been caught hugging people?

Actually the Gran had an article earlier in the week that was complementary about Biden. I nearly lost ny bran flakes.

sibeen said:

Peak Warming Man said:

dv said:

But it ain’t. It’s helped them. People don’t like it. The publically available, undisputed information about Trump’s behaviour is damning. It would be silly not to mention it.

Shrug, for someone who’s been in more trouble than Al Capone his numbers are not bad.
The Dems and the liberal media have not handled Trump well, they are just shooting wildly in every direction and hitting nothing.
I hope they pick Joe Biden as their next candidate, if they pick some mouth frothing conspiracy nutter were going to get another 4 years of this shit.

peers over glasses

Don’t you know that Biden has been caught hugging people?

Actually the Gran had an article earlier in the week that was complementary about Biden. I nearly lost ny bran flakes.

He’s good, he’s steady and he’s honest and impartial.
There’s a good clip on youtube of him sitting down some radical Dems trying to dispute the mid term results without a scintilla of evidence, he quietly said “It’s over”

I’m having some nice pickled onions and Cheddar Shapes for supper, I’ll be farting like a brewery horse tomorrow.

dv said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Nup, it will hurt them

But it ain’t. It’s helped them. People don’t like it. The publically available, undisputed information about Trump’s behaviour is damning. It would be silly not to mention it.

Christ, he was called out for pussy grabbing in the last election. It was a lay down misere as he was recorded saying it. He still won.

sibeen said:

dv said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Nup, it will hurt them

But it ain’t. It’s helped them. People don’t like it. The publically available, undisputed information about Trump’s behaviour is damning. It would be silly not to mention it.

Christ, he was called out for pussy grabbing in the last election. It was a lay down misere as he was recorded saying it. He still won.

We’ll see next year how well Trump performs against a candidate who hopefully doesn’t have as much baggage as Hillary did.

Witty Rejoinder said:

sibeen said:

dv said:

But it ain’t. It’s helped them. People don’t like it. The publically available, undisputed information about Trump’s behaviour is damning. It would be silly not to mention it.

Christ, he was called out for pussy grabbing in the last election. It was a lay down misere as he was recorded saying it. He still won.

We’ll see next year how well Trump performs against a candidate who hopefully doesn’t have as much baggage as Hillary did.

I do hope he gets smashed, but I’m fearful that the dems are going to rip themselves to shreds before the cut up victor of their primary gets to face Trump. The Guardian having 7 articles in 8 days that were anti Biden as just a case in point. Probably their best hope and one of the world’s leading left wing newspapers is laying into him.

Witty Rejoinder said:

sibeen said:

dv said:

But it ain’t. It’s helped them. People don’t like it. The publically available, undisputed information about Trump’s behaviour is damning. It would be silly not to mention it.

Christ, he was called out for pussy grabbing in the last election. It was a lay down misere as he was recorded saying it. He still won.

We’ll see next year how well Trump performs against a candidate who hopefully doesn’t have as much baggage as Hillary did.

sibeen, none of that means that they shouldn’t discuss Trump’s copious negatives. He’s pegging on 41% approval now. Anything could happen between now and next November but mentioning that Trump’s team worked with Russian officials to influence the election and that he made numerous attempts to obstructed justice should be among the Democrats’ talking points. It’s a thing. You wouldn’t want to base the whole campaign on it but there’s no need to ignore it completely.

sibeen said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

sibeen said:

Christ, he was called out for pussy grabbing in the last election. It was a lay down misere as he was recorded saying it. He still won.

We’ll see next year how well Trump performs against a candidate who hopefully doesn’t have as much baggage as Hillary did.

I do hope he gets smashed, but I’m fearful that the dems are going to rip themselves to shreds before the cut up victor of their primary gets to face Trump. The Guardian having 7 articles in 8 days that were anti Biden as just a case in point. Probably their best hope and one of the world’s leading left wing newspapers is laying into him.

I dunno about Biden. He’s even older than Trump. I’d like to see someone in their 50s. Thankfully not many people pay much heed to what passes for commentary in the Guardian. :-)

Witty Rejoinder said:

sibeen said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

We’ll see next year how well Trump performs against a candidate who hopefully doesn’t have as much baggage as Hillary did.

I do hope he gets smashed, but I’m fearful that the dems are going to rip themselves to shreds before the cut up victor of their primary gets to face Trump. The Guardian having 7 articles in 8 days that were anti Biden as just a case in point. Probably their best hope and one of the world’s leading left wing newspapers is laying into him.

I dunno about Biden. He’s even older than Trump. I’d like to see someone in their 50s. Thankfully not many people pay much heed to what passes for commentary in the Guardian. :-)

If Biden gets the candidacy then you can be assured that the republicans would be plastering every one of the Gran articles on every metaphorical lamp post that they could find.

Witty Rejoinder said:

sibeen said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

We’ll see next year how well Trump performs against a candidate who hopefully doesn’t have as much baggage as Hillary did.

I do hope he gets smashed, but I’m fearful that the dems are going to rip themselves to shreds before the cut up victor of their primary gets to face Trump. The Guardian having 7 articles in 8 days that were anti Biden as just a case in point. Probably their best hope and one of the world’s leading left wing newspapers is laying into him.

I dunno about Biden. He’s even older than Trump. I’d like to see someone in their 50s. Thankfully not many people pay much heed to what passes for commentary in the Guardian. :-)

I don’t have any particular opinion on it. Yeah he’s old but he really is well-regarded. Probably be a good idea if he had a youngish Vice Presidential candidate.

I just hope that anyone to the left of Hitler remembers to toddle along and vote for whoever the Democrat candidate is

sibeen said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

sibeen said:

I do hope he gets smashed, but I’m fearful that the dems are going to rip themselves to shreds before the cut up victor of their primary gets to face Trump. The Guardian having 7 articles in 8 days that were anti Biden as just a case in point. Probably their best hope and one of the world’s leading left wing newspapers is laying into him.

I dunno about Biden. He’s even older than Trump. I’d like to see someone in their 50s. Thankfully not many people pay much heed to what passes for commentary in the Guardian. :-)

If Biden gets the candidacy then you can be assured that the republicans would be plastering every one of the Gran articles on every metaphorical lamp post that they could find.

Sibs is a bit obsessed with The Guardian. I wonder what other journalistic outlets he consults.

sibeen said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

sibeen said:

Christ, he was called out for pussy grabbing in the last election. It was a lay down misere as he was recorded saying it. He still won.

We’ll see next year how well Trump performs against a candidate who hopefully doesn’t have as much baggage as Hillary did.

I do hope he gets smashed, but I’m fearful that the dems are going to rip themselves to shreds before the cut up victor of their primary gets to face Trump. The Guardian having 7 articles in 8 days that were anti Biden as just a case in point. Probably their best hope and one of the world’s leading left wing newspapers is laying into him.

Has anybody over there even heard of the Guardian, let alone read it?

dv said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

sibeen said:

Christ, he was called out for pussy grabbing in the last election. It was a lay down misere as he was recorded saying it. He still won.

We’ll see next year how well Trump performs against a candidate who hopefully doesn’t have as much baggage as Hillary did.

sibeen, none of that means that they shouldn’t discuss Trump’s copious negatives. He’s pegging on 41% approval now. Anything could happen between now and next November but mentioning that Trump’s team worked with Russian officials to influence the election and that he made numerous attempts to obstructed justice should be among the Democrats’ talking points. It’s a thing. You wouldn’t want to base the whole campaign on it but there’s no need to ignore it completely.

Wait, where is the proof that Trump, or any of his aides conspired with the Russians? There isn’t any. There’s maybe obstruction of the investigation, granted, but absolutely no evidence of a conspiracy.

kii said:

sibeen said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

I dunno about Biden. He’s even older than Trump. I’d like to see someone in their 50s. Thankfully not many people pay much heed to what passes for commentary in the Guardian. :-)

If Biden gets the candidacy then you can be assured that the republicans would be plastering every one of the Gran articles on every metaphorical lamp post that they could find.

Sibs is a bit obsessed with The Guardian. I wonder what other journalistic outlets he consults.

Yeah, reading a left wing newspaper as your main sorce of news really is so fucking 60s, eh.

party_pants said:

sibeen said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

We’ll see next year how well Trump performs against a candidate who hopefully doesn’t have as much baggage as Hillary did.

I do hope he gets smashed, but I’m fearful that the dems are going to rip themselves to shreds before the cut up victor of their primary gets to face Trump. The Guardian having 7 articles in 8 days that were anti Biden as just a case in point. Probably their best hope and one of the world’s leading left wing newspapers is laying into him.

Has anybody over there even heard of the Guardian, let alone read it?

Has anyone here heard of it?

sibeen said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

sibeen said:

I do hope he gets smashed, but I’m fearful that the dems are going to rip themselves to shreds before the cut up victor of their primary gets to face Trump. The Guardian having 7 articles in 8 days that were anti Biden as just a case in point. Probably their best hope and one of the world’s leading left wing newspapers is laying into him.

I dunno about Biden. He’s even older than Trump. I’d like to see someone in their 50s. Thankfully not many people pay much heed to what passes for commentary in the Guardian. :-)

If Biden gets the candidacy then you can be assured that the republicans would be plastering every one of the Gran articles on every metaphorical lamp post that they could find.

I don’t think anything is going to change the vote of the rusted on Trump supporters regardless of who wins the Dem nomination. It’s all about the voters who basically want a president who isn’t a moron and i feel they’d be discerning enough to not be overly troubled by the rough and tumble of the primaries and any flaws that may surface. Then again i hope to see a good centrist candidate and if we get an extreme left nominee like Sanders or Warren the silly Dems probably deserve to lose.

sibeen said:

kii said:

sibeen said:

If Biden gets the candidacy then you can be assured that the republicans would be plastering every one of the Gran articles on every metaphorical lamp post that they could find.

Sibs is a bit obsessed with The Guardian. I wonder what other journalistic outlets he consults.

Yeah, reading a left wing newspaper as your main sorce of news really is so fucking 60s, eh.

Huh?

Witty Rejoinder said:

sibeen said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

I dunno about Biden. He’s even older than Trump. I’d like to see someone in their 50s. Thankfully not many people pay much heed to what passes for commentary in the Guardian. :-)

If Biden gets the candidacy then you can be assured that the republicans would be plastering every one of the Gran articles on every metaphorical lamp post that they could find.

I don’t think anything is going to change the vote of the rusted on Trump supporters regardless of who wins the Dem nomination. It’s all about the voters who basically want a president who isn’t a moron and i feel they’d be discerning enough to not be overly troubled by the rough and tumble of the primaries and any flaws that may surface. Then again i hope to see a good centrist candidate and if we get an extreme left nominee like Sanders or Warren the silly Dems probably deserve to lose.

.
Too many ifs.

kii said:

sibeen said:

kii said:

Sibs is a bit obsessed with The Guardian. I wonder what other journalistic outlets he consults.

Yeah, reading a left wing newspaper as your main sorce of news really is so fucking 60s, eh.

Huh?

I find it surprising that you are having a go at me for reading a left wing newspaper. I also read teh ABC news site( Australian) and the NYT.

sibeen said:

Wait, where is the proof that Trump, or any of his aides conspired with the Russians?

I did not use the word conspired, which is a legal term of art.

There were 101 points of contact between Trump’s team and Russian officials, including 23 meetings and phone calls. Sixteen Trump officials were in contact with Russian government agents or Russian-government linked persons (spies, oligarchs, hackers) .

More in next post.

sibeen said:

kii said:

sibeen said:

Yeah, reading a left wing newspaper as your main sorce of news really is so fucking 60s, eh.

Huh?

I find it surprising that you are having a go at me for reading a left wing newspaper. I also read teh ABC news site( Australian) and the NYT.

Why are you surprised?

kii said:

sibeen said:

kii said:

Huh?

I find it surprising that you are having a go at me for reading a left wing newspaper. I also read teh ABC news site( Australian) and the NYT.

Why are you surprised?

You’d prefer I read Andrew Bolt?

dv said:

sibeen said:

Wait, where is the proof that Trump, or any of his aides conspired with the Russians?

I did not use the word conspired, which is a legal term of art.

There were 101 points of contact between Trump’s team and Russian officials, including 23 meetings and phone calls. Sixteen Trump officials were in contact with Russian government agents or Russian-government linked persons (spies, oligarchs, hackers) .

More in next post.

And if any of them could be found to be illegal then Mueller would have been all over it like flies on shit. The indictments would have been flying thick and fast.

Rachel at 24 minutes gets noisy about the statutes of limitations and why Trump needs to win a second term.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zja0h1G6jxM

sibeen said:

kii said:

sibeen said:

I find it surprising that you are having a go at me for reading a left wing newspaper. I also read teh ABC news site( Australian) and the NYT.

Why are you surprised?

You’d prefer I read Andrew Bolt?

It is not about what I prefer.
You just always mention the guardian.

kii said:

sibeen said:

kii said:

Why are you surprised?

You’d prefer I read Andrew Bolt?

It is not about what I prefer.
You just always mention the guardian.

Because it is one of my major news sources. I also think that it does its ‘own side’ a huge disservice on many matters. When I see that I may point it out on a relevant discussion over here.

sibeen said:

Wait, where is the proof that Trump, or any of his aides conspired with the Russians?

I did not use the word conspired, which is a legal term of art.

There were 101 points of contact between Trump’s team and Russian officials, including 23 meetings and phone calls. Sixteen Trump officials were in contact with Russian government agents or Russian-government linked persons (spies, oligarchs, hackers) .

More in next post.

There’s a lot, a hundred points of contact, but some of the highlights. Read them in their entirety to get best context, rather than responding to each item one by one. It’s not evidence of collusion; it is collusion. The below is uncontested public information.

March 2016, Michael Cohen negotiates with Kremlin-linked Felix Sater on a plan to allow Russia to retain control of Crimea

On March 14 2016, Trump’s Foreign Policy Adviser George Papadopoulos met in Rome with Kremlin-linked academic Joseph Mifsud to discuss how Mifsud could help the Trump campaign. Joseph Mifsud then visited Russia and met with Papadopoulos again in London, saying that he had dirt on Hillary Clinton, and to discuss setting up a meeting between Trump and Putin.

April 2016, Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort shares internal data with Kremlin linked consultant Konstantin Kilimnik,

June 3-7 2016, Donald Trump Jr has conversations with a representative of Emin Agalarov, who has close ties to Putin, regarding damaging information on Hillary Clinton. The representative said Emin had “very high level and sensitive information” to “incriminate Hillary” and was a part in “Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” Don Junior said, “If it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer.” Immediately after these exchanges, Donald Trump promised to give a speech about bombshell information on the crimes of Hillary Clinton.

June 9 2016, Donald Trump Jr, Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafort met with Russian attorney and Kremlin affiliate Natalia Veselnitskaya, as well as a four other people affiliated with Russia in Trump Tower in Manhattan. The stated reason for the Trump team’s involvement in the meeting was to obtain assistance with the Trump campaign in the form of damaging information on Hillary Clinton, but it was not forthcoming as the Russians pressed the Trump team members on lifting sanctions against individuals involved in human rights abuses.

April 2016, Trump campaign foreign policy advisor George Papadopoulos has further contact with Ivan Timofeev.

July 2016, Trump campaign foreign policy advisor panelist Carter Page travels to Russia to deliver an address, and met with Russian deputy prime minister Arkady Dvorkovich.

July 2016, Trump campaign members Jeff Sessions, J.D. Gordon, and Carter Page all met with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak to discuss the US sanctions on Russia. Sessions and Page later lied to officials about these meetings.

July 2016, Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort offers private briefings on the Trump campaign to Kremlin-linked oligarch Oleg Deripaska.

August 2016, Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and Kremlin linked consultant Konstantin Kilimnik have several meetings.

August 2016, Trump campaign advisor Roger Stone direct messages Russian hacker Guccifer 2.0, who was involved obtaining information on Hillary Clinton by hacking and providing it to Wikileaks, to say “Glad to see you are re-instated”. Guccifer 2.0 replied “please tell me if i can help u anyhow”.

September/October 2016 , Trump campaign aide Rick Gates began a series of conversations with a Russian intelligence official. The contents of these conversations haven’t been released as they are relevant to an ongoing investigation, but Gates has been convicted of one count of conspiracy against the United States and one count of lying to the FBI.

September 2016, Jeff Sessions (later Attorney General) met with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in his office to discuss Kislyak’s concerns on terrorism and the US response on the Ukraine. This is not illegal, but it is considered unusual for a campaign member to be negotiating with Russian Ambassadors before obtaining office but more curious is that Sessions lied under oath about the conversation later.

September 2016, Russian hacker Guccifer 2 has a conversation with Trump team advisor Roger Stone regarding hacked Florida voter data.

Starting September 20 2016, Donald Trump Junior began a five week communication with Wikileaks regarding the information that Wikileaks held that was obtained by Russian hackers.

In October 2016, Trump team national security advisor Gordon met with and had email contact several times with Russian spy Maria Butina, who last year was convicted of conspiring to act as unregistered foreign agent on behalf of Russian interests.

On October 13 2016, Trump team advisor Roger Stone communicates with Wikileaks, directly this time, to discuss Wikileaks’ behaviour after their dump of information on Hillary Clinton that was provided to Wikileaks by Russian hackers. His private messages to Wikileaks read as follows:

Stone (Oct 13) “Since I was all over national TV, cable and print defending wikileaks and assange against the claim that you are Russian agents and debunking the false charges of sexual assault as trumped up bs you may want to rexamine the strategy of attacking me- cordially R.”
Wikileaks (Oct 13) “We appreciate that. However, the false claims of association are being used by the democrats to undermine the impact of our publications. Don’t go there if you don’t want us to correct you.”
Stone (Oct 15) “Ha! The more you ‘correct’ me the more people think you’re lying. Your operation leaks like a sieve. You need to figure out who your friends are.”
Wikileaks (Nov 9, ie immediately after the election) “Happy? We are now more free to communicate.”

In December 2016, Jared Kushner and Michael Flynn met with Ambassador Kislyak to discuss setting up a secret and secure channel of communication between Putin and Trump that would not be monitored by US intelligence agencies. Kushner suggested using Russian facilities, equipment and diplomatic spaces within the USA to facilitate this back channel.

December 29, 2016, Trump’s transition aide and future National Security Advisor (!) Michael Flynn met with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak to reassure him that Trump would undo US sanctions against Russia. Given that at that stage Trump was not yet president it was considered quite irregular that he should send his aides to negotiate with Russian officials. He later lied about this to the FBI. Actually, you can probably put “he later lied about this to the FBI” against most of these meetings.

On January 9 2017, Trump’s personal attorney Michael Cohen spoke with Kremlin-linked oligarch Viktor Vekselberg in Trump Tower to discuss strengthening Russia-US ties. Immediately afterward, Vekselberg’s associate gave Michael Cohen 1 million dollars.

On January 11 2017 Erik Prince, the brother of Trump’s Education secretary, met with Kirril Dmitriev, a Russian oligarch that the US Treasury has under sanction, to discuss establishing a covert means of communication between Trump and Putin.
The report mentions that “the meeting was not only planned in advance, but was part of an effort to create an unmonitored back channel between the White House and the Kremlin.”

On January 17 2017, Anthony Scaramucci (then a member of Trump’s transition team and later White House Press Sec) also met with Dmitriev. Immediately after the meeting, Scaramucci gave a press conference decrying US sanctions against Russia.

sarahs mum said:

Rachel at 24 minutes gets noisy about the statutes of limitations and why Trump needs to win a second term.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zja0h1G6jxM

An alternative strategy would be to resign and allow Pence to become President, on the basis that Pence would pardon Trump.

The role of digital technologies in mobilizing the alt-right

oops

So yeah: the report gives very good coverage of the fact that the Trump team worked with Russian officials to influence the election and claims otherwise are by people who have either not read the report or are dishonest.

There’s also a fairly pointed remark in the report about the applicability of laws to the case.

“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 conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President’s corrupt exercise of the power of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.”

Read the last paragraph

dv said:

So yeah: the report gives very good coverage of the fact that the Trump team worked with Russian officials to influence the election and claims otherwise are by people who have either not read the report or are dishonest.

There’s also a fairly pointed remark in the report about the applicability of laws to the case.

“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 conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President’s corrupt exercise of the power of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.”

I wonder how many people in the World have actually read the whole report.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

So yeah: the report gives very good coverage of the fact that the Trump team worked with Russian officials to influence the election and claims otherwise are by people who have either not read the report or are dishonest.

There’s also a fairly pointed remark in the report about the applicability of laws to the case.

“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 conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President’s corrupt exercise of the power of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.”

I wonder how many people in the World have actually read the whole report.

Not even me yet but I’ve been through Vol 1, which pertains to the interference and collusion. Vol 2 pertains to the obstruction of justice, which I’ve started on.

The Rev Dodgson said:

I wonder how many people in the World have actually read the whole report.

One of my heroes is Isidor Feinstein Stone, who was more often known as just I.F. Stone. I let you search for him.

One of his tenets was ‘read all of the documents – it’s all in there somewhere’, referring to how even the most damning of facts are often clearly stated in reports and similar documents, but that the authors often rely on people not having the stamina to read the whole thing, and giving up early or just skimming through it all.

dv said:

So yeah: the report gives very good coverage of the fact that the Trump team worked with Russian officials to influence the election and claims otherwise are by people who have either not read the report or are dishonest.

A sticking point seems to be that these shenanigans with the Russians were perpetrated with an ignorance of the fact that it is only collusion if the perpetrators know that their actions are against the law. So not only were they not knowingly colluding with the Russians but they were also completely ignorant of the fact that help from the Russians was illegal in the first place.

Then you have the Russians who possibly had no idea either and possibly expected their actions to be easily covered up by a compliant Trump administration after the fact when instead they should have known that the truth would eventually out.

If Trump was arrested and taken away would it be like Dairy of a Mad Man? I mean god could be testing him to see if he is strong enough to be the King of Spain by killing 168 million people in some shitty country.

https://www.theage.com.au/world/north-america/trumps-legal-team-breathes-a-sigh-takes-a-victory-lap-20190421-p51fya.html

Witty Rejoinder said:

https://www.theage.com.au/world/north-america/trumps-legal-team-breathes-a-sigh-takes-a-victory-lap-20190421-p51fya.html

How odd.

It’s sort of like a sports team winning a match because the referee either didn’t spot their cheating, or wasn’t able to find evidence of it, or decided it was too much trpouble to follow up, and then a bunch of people who just watched nervously from the sidelines claiming the credit for the win.

Free audio book of Mueller Report.

dv said:

Also:
Divine Angel said:

“Yes, there was collusion, but we can’t do anything about it because it’s not illegal”.

Well they can do something about it which is make a political issue of it and let voters decide in 2020. No matter how you slice it it is not a good look for a President, and independent voters and quite a few Republicans take a negative view of all this.

He lost the popular vote in 2016, and still got elected. What’s to say he won’t collude with the Russians even more to ensure a second term?

kii said:

Free audio book of Mueller Report.

Damn, there’s quite a selection now

J.W. Verret was a member of Trump’s transition team in 2016. He’s a life-long Republican, in the Reagan-GHWBush model, and was also in Romney and Bush junior’s campaign teams.

Here is an article he wrote in favour of Securities and Exchange Commission reform in December 2016, spruiking a policy that Trump later forgot about:

It’s time for a Trump-Reagan revolution at the SEC

Yesterday he came out in favour of commencing impeachment procedings.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/04/gop-staffer-advocates-trumps-impeachment/587785/
The Mueller Report Was My Tipping Point
I was a Trump transition staffer, and I’ve seen enough. It’s time for impeachment.
8:22 AM ET
J. W. Verret
Professor of law at George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School

I wanted to share my experience transitioning from Trump team member to pragmatist about Trump to advocate for his impeachment, because I think many other Republicans are starting a similar transition. Politics is a team sport, and if you actively work within a political party, there is some expectation that you will follow orders and rally behind the leader, even when you disagree. There is a point, though, at which that expectation turns from a mix of loyalty and pragmatism into something more sinister, a blind devotion that serves to enable criminal conduct.

The Mueller report was that tipping point for me, and it should be for Republican and independent voters, and for Republicans in Congress. In the face of a Department of Justice policy that prohibited him from indicting a sitting president, Mueller drafted what any reasonable reader would see as a referral to Congress to commence impeachment hearings.

Depending on how you count, roughly a dozen separate instances of obstruction of justice are contained in the Mueller report. The president dangled pardons in front of witnesses to encourage them to lie to the special counsel, and directly ordered people to lie to throw the special counsel off the scent.

This elaborate pattern of obstruction may have successfully impeded the Mueller investigation from uncovering a conspiracy to commit more serious crimes. At a minimum, there’s enough here to get the impeachment process started. In impeachment proceedings, the House serves as a sort of grand jury and the Senate conducts the trial. There is enough in the Mueller report to commence the Constitution’s version of a grand-jury investigation in the form of impeachment proceedings.

(much more in link)

Sorry to be posting such a long article in full, but it is paywalled and some of you may not be able to access it

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/04/18/mueller-report-reads-like-an-impeachment-referral/?utm_term=.24642b1e8e20
The Mueller report reads like an impeachment referral

After having spent hours reading the redacted version of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s report, I can see why President Trump was so eager to discredit the investigators — and why Attorney General William P. Barr, who has revealed himself to be a Trump toady, felt compelled to convene a news conference to spin the results in advance. And it’s not because the report proves, as Trump tweeted, “No Collusion – No Obstruction!” It’s because the report proves the very opposite.

The best news for Trump, already previewed by Barr, is that Mueller concluded there was insufficient evidence to charge the president or his aides with criminally conspiring with Russia in “its election interference activities.” This, however, does not absolve the campaign of “collusion” — a nonlegal term outside the scope of Mueller’s inquiries.

Mueller uncovered “numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign.” He also found a commonality of purpose between the campaign and the Kremlin: “The investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.” Not only did Trump publicly ask the Russians to hack Hillary Clinton’s emails, Mueller writes, but also “by the late summer of 2016, the Trump Campaign was planning a press strategy, a communications campaign, and messaging based on the possible release of Clinton emails by WikiLeaks.” Trump even told his deputy campaign manager “that more releases of damaging information would be coming” — but he didn’t tell the FBI. In short, Trump acted unpatriotically, if not illegally, by eagerly accept Russian help to win.

The news gets far worse for Trump in the second volume of the report, concerning obstruction of justice. Mueller methodically lists 10 incidents of possibly obstructive behavior by the president, from firing FBI Director James B. Comey to dangling pardons before Trump’s former aides. The report then analyzes each incident to determine whether it meets the three-part test for obstruction of justice: Was there “an obstructive act,” “a nexus between the obstructive act and an official proceeding,” and “corrupt intent”? And time after time Mueller finds that the answer is yes — Trump’s conduct met all three standards.

Mueller reveals fresh evidence of obstruction, mainly involving former White House counsel Donald McGahn, who spent some 30 hours testifying. He provided details of how Trump tried to pressure him into firing the special counsel and then asked him to lie about having done so. Mueller also shows that Trump was not just asking in public for Attorney General Jeff Sessions to un-recuse himself; he also did so privately on numerous occasions, with a mixture of threats and blandishments, in the apparent hope that Sessions would protect him from the special counsel.

Mueller then systematically demolishes Trump’s defenses, one by one. Trump, for instance, has denied asking Comey for his personal loyalty and for an end to the investigation of national security adviser Michael Flynn. Mueller sides with Comey, writing that “substantial evidence corroborates Comey’s account.” To cite but one instance: “While the President said he ‘hope’ Comey could ‘let Flynn go,’ rather than affirmatively directing him to do so, the circumstances of the conversation show that the President was asking Comey to close the FBI’s investigation into Flynn.”

Mueller concludes: “Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations. … The President’s efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests.” Mueller then proceeds to deconstruct, through careful legal analysis, the far-fetched claim put forward by Trump’s lawyers (and endorsed by Barr!) that “the President cannot obstruct justice by exercising his constitutional authority to close Department of Justice investigations or terminate the FBI Director.”

The Mueller report conveys a strong sense that if Trump were attorney general rather than president, he would already have been indicted on a charge of obstruction of justice. But the Justice Department insists that a president can’t be criminally charged, and for that reason, Mueller refused to broach the possibility even in internal memorandums. He did add, however, that “we concluded that Congress has authority to prohibit a President’s corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice.”

This is practically an invitation for Congress to launch impeachment proceedings. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is right to be reluctant, because not even the damning evidence compiled by Mueller is likely to shake the support Trump enjoys among the Fifth Avenue Republicans. Sadly, this is one coverup that may work — at least in the sense of protecting Trump from any judgment before Nov. 3, 2020.

dv said:

Sorry to be posting such a long article in full, but it is paywalled and some of you may not be able to access it

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/04/18/mueller-report-reads-like-an-impeachment-referral/?utm_term=.24642b1e8e20
The Mueller report reads like an impeachment referral

After having spent hours reading the redacted version of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s report, I can see why President Trump was so eager to discredit the investigators — and why Attorney General William P. Barr, who has revealed himself to be a Trump toady, felt compelled to convene a news conference to spin the results in advance. And it’s not because the report proves, as Trump tweeted, “No Collusion – No Obstruction!” It’s because the report proves the very opposite.

The best news for Trump, already previewed by Barr, is that Mueller concluded there was insufficient evidence to charge the president or his aides with criminally conspiring with Russia in “its election interference activities.” This, however, does not absolve the campaign of “collusion” — a nonlegal term outside the scope of Mueller’s inquiries.

Mueller uncovered “numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign.” He also found a commonality of purpose between the campaign and the Kremlin: “The investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.” Not only did Trump publicly ask the Russians to hack Hillary Clinton’s emails, Mueller writes, but also “by the late summer of 2016, the Trump Campaign was planning a press strategy, a communications campaign, and messaging based on the possible release of Clinton emails by WikiLeaks.” Trump even told his deputy campaign manager “that more releases of damaging information would be coming” — but he didn’t tell the FBI. In short, Trump acted unpatriotically, if not illegally, by eagerly accept Russian help to win.

The news gets far worse for Trump in the second volume of the report, concerning obstruction of justice. Mueller methodically lists 10 incidents of possibly obstructive behavior by the president, from firing FBI Director James B. Comey to dangling pardons before Trump’s former aides. The report then analyzes each incident to determine whether it meets the three-part test for obstruction of justice: Was there “an obstructive act,” “a nexus between the obstructive act and an official proceeding,” and “corrupt intent”? And time after time Mueller finds that the answer is yes — Trump’s conduct met all three standards.

Mueller reveals fresh evidence of obstruction, mainly involving former White House counsel Donald McGahn, who spent some 30 hours testifying. He provided details of how Trump tried to pressure him into firing the special counsel and then asked him to lie about having done so. Mueller also shows that Trump was not just asking in public for Attorney General Jeff Sessions to un-recuse himself; he also did so privately on numerous occasions, with a mixture of threats and blandishments, in the apparent hope that Sessions would protect him from the special counsel.

Mueller then systematically demolishes Trump’s defenses, one by one. Trump, for instance, has denied asking Comey for his personal loyalty and for an end to the investigation of national security adviser Michael Flynn. Mueller sides with Comey, writing that “substantial evidence corroborates Comey’s account.” To cite but one instance: “While the President said he ‘hope’ Comey could ‘let Flynn go,’ rather than affirmatively directing him to do so, the circumstances of the conversation show that the President was asking Comey to close the FBI’s investigation into Flynn.”

Mueller concludes: “Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations. … The President’s efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests.” Mueller then proceeds to deconstruct, through careful legal analysis, the far-fetched claim put forward by Trump’s lawyers (and endorsed by Barr!) that “the President cannot obstruct justice by exercising his constitutional authority to close Department of Justice investigations or terminate the FBI Director.”

The Mueller report conveys a strong sense that if Trump were attorney general rather than president, he would already have been indicted on a charge of obstruction of justice. But the Justice Department insists that a president can’t be criminally charged, and for that reason, Mueller refused to broach the possibility even in internal memorandums. He did add, however, that “we concluded that Congress has authority to prohibit a President’s corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice.”

This is practically an invitation for Congress to launch impeachment proceedings. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is right to be reluctant, because not even the damning evidence compiled by Mueller is likely to shake the support Trump enjoys among the Fifth Avenue Republicans. Sadly, this is one coverup that may work — at least in the sense of protecting Trump from any judgment before Nov. 3, 2020.

Thanks DV.

I’m not satisfied. But it’s not about me.

I’m increasingly worried about the gulf between readers and non-readers. I don’t mean illiterate folks: I kean people who just cbf reading something more than a few sentences long.

A 400 page report was released detailing dozens of acts of cooperation between Trump campaign officials and Russian operatives in order to influence an election, and ten identified instances of obstruction of justice by the president, with a conclusion that it is not DOJ policy to charge a sitting president but that it is appropriate for Congress to take action concernimg the “President’s corrupt exercise”.

So conservative media and conservative folks just chant over and over that the team found no evidence of collusion or obstruction. They don’t want to know. They don’t want to read. Maybe the major political divide of the future will be between the well-informed and the wilfully ignorant.

dv said:

I’m increasingly worried about the gulf between readers and non-readers. I don’t mean illiterate folks: I kean people who just cbf reading something more than a few sentences long.

A 400 page report was released detailing dozens of acts of cooperation between Trump campaign officials and Russian operatives in order to influence an election, and ten identified instances of obstruction of justice by the president, with a conclusion that it is not DOJ policy to charge a sitting president but that it is appropriate for Congress to take action concernimg the “President’s corrupt exercise”.

So conservative media and conservative folks just chant over and over that the team found no evidence of collusion or obstruction. They don’t want to know. They don’t want to read. Maybe the major political divide of the future will be between the well-informed and the wilfully ignorant.

Do you think like Warren that they should begin impeachment proceedings now or do you think the ongoing house investigations are enough at this point?

The American President is corrupt, he has damaged America.

He has removed various people in OFFICE.

He has directly interfered with and obstructed justice.

He is surrounded by a wall of liars who fell on their swards to protect him.

They are getting away with serious crimes.

95 percent of Americans are stupid, corrupt and greedy.

If he doesn’t turn up and decides to ditch the meeting and go out on the town with friends, we’ll hear

Mueller ?

Mueller ?

Mueller ?

Mueller ?

Mueller ?

The report details explicitly how the President obstructed justice, but the authors made it clear that they would not be making any recommendations of prosecution because of the FBI’s long standing principle that a sitting President cannot be prosecuted. There’s no sense at all in the report that it was not possible to determine whether or not the President obstructed justice.

Why not

Is it because we don’t want to be embarrassed we voted a traitor into power
I’d think it would show he’s been compromised and is a danger

Tau.Neutrino said:

The American President is corrupt, he has damaged America.

He has removed various people in OFFICE.

He has directly interfered with and obstructed justice.

He is surrounded by a wall of liars who fell on their swards to protect him.

They are getting away with serious crimes.

95 percent of Americans are stupid, corrupt and greedy.

God you’re an idiot. 51% of Americans voted for Hillary.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

The American President is corrupt, he has damaged America.

He has removed various people in OFFICE.

He has directly interfered with and obstructed justice.

He is surrounded by a wall of liars who fell on their swards to protect him.

They are getting away with serious crimes.

95 percent of Americans are stupid, corrupt and greedy.

God you’re an idiot. 51% of Americans voted for Hillary.

So you’re saying it was only 51% of Americans who are stupid?

Cymek said:

The report details explicitly how the President obstructed justice, but the authors made it clear that they would not be making any recommendations of prosecution because of the FBI’s long standing principle that a sitting President cannot be prosecuted. There’s no sense at all in the report that it was not possible to determine whether or not the President obstructed justice.

Why not

Is it because we don’t want to be embarrassed we voted a traitor into power
I’d think it would show he’s been compromised and is a danger

I think the Prez can’t be charged with federal crimes as his office means he he is the source of all authority. The means to end a presidency is through congress not the federal justice system.

sibeen said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

The American President is corrupt, he has damaged America.

He has removed various people in OFFICE.

He has directly interfered with and obstructed justice.

He is surrounded by a wall of liars who fell on their swards to protect him.

They are getting away with serious crimes.

95 percent of Americans are stupid, corrupt and greedy.

God you’re an idiot. 51% of Americans voted for Hillary.

So you’re saying it was only 51% of Americans who are stupid?

Stupid but not deplorable.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Cymek said:

The report details explicitly how the President obstructed justice, but the authors made it clear that they would not be making any recommendations of prosecution because of the FBI’s long standing principle that a sitting President cannot be prosecuted. There’s no sense at all in the report that it was not possible to determine whether or not the President obstructed justice.

Why not

Is it because we don’t want to be embarrassed we voted a traitor into power
I’d think it would show he’s been compromised and is a danger

I think the Prez can’t be charged with federal crimes as his office means he he is the source of all authority. The means to end a presidency is through congress not the federal justice system.

It’s not a good idea to let one person have such decision making power what if they are an idiot

Assigning a mass bloc of people to idiocy because of how they vote is an indication of idiocy but not in the way intended.

AwesomeO said:

Assigning a mass bloc of people to idiocy because of how they vote is an indication of idiocy but not in the way intended.

What percentage voted I wonder

AwesomeO said:

Assigning a mass bloc of people to idiocy because of how they vote is an indication of idiocy but not in the way intended.

You have to admit CN is a bit of an expert on stupid.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

The American President is corrupt, he has damaged America.

He has removed various people in OFFICE.

He has directly interfered with and obstructed justice.

He is surrounded by a wall of liars who fell on their swards to protect him.

They are getting away with serious crimes.

95 percent of Americans are stupid, corrupt and greedy.

God you’re an idiot. 51% of Americans voted for Hillary.

Hillary is one of 95 %.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

The American President is corrupt, he has damaged America.

He has removed various people in OFFICE.

He has directly interfered with and obstructed justice.

He is surrounded by a wall of liars who fell on their swards to protect him.

They are getting away with serious crimes.

95 percent of Americans are stupid, corrupt and greedy.

God you’re an idiot. 51% of Americans voted for Hillary.

Hillary is one of 95 %.

Another way to look at it is that 26.9% of eligible voters voted for Clinton, 25.7% voted for Trump, 1.8% voted for Libertarian Gary Johnson, 0.6% voted for Green Jill Stein, 0.3% voted for Independent Evan McMullin, some 0.4% voted for others, and 44.3% didn’t vote.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Cymek said:

The report details explicitly how the President obstructed justice, but the authors made it clear that they would not be making any recommendations of prosecution because of the FBI’s long standing principle that a sitting President cannot be prosecuted. There’s no sense at all in the report that it was not possible to determine whether or not the President obstructed justice.

Why not

Is it because we don’t want to be embarrassed we voted a traitor into power
I’d think it would show he’s been compromised and is a danger

I think the Prez can’t be charged with federal crimes as his office means he he is the source of all authority. The means to end a presidency is through congress not the federal justice system.

Yeah … the Dems are in a bit of a bind about this because the polling indicates most Americans over all do not want impeachment. In particular, unregistered voters, whom they would like to win, do not.

At the same time they can’t exactly let this slide. The President committed crimes: it’s a topic.

dv said:

Another way to look at it is that 26.9% of eligible voters voted for Clinton, 25.7% voted for Trump, 1.8% voted for Libertarian Gary Johnson, 0.6% voted for Green Jill Stein, 0.3% voted for Independent Evan McMullin, some 0.4% voted for others, and 44.3% didn’t vote.

Ok… so Trump lost the popular vote, colluded with Russia and got elected. How does the average American ensure Trump doesn’t get a second term? Clearly voting for the Democrats isn’t the only answer.

Witty Rejoinder said:

dv said:

I’m increasingly worried about the gulf between readers and non-readers. I don’t mean illiterate folks: I kean people who just cbf reading something more than a few sentences long.

A 400 page report was released detailing dozens of acts of cooperation between Trump campaign officials and Russian operatives in order to influence an election, and ten identified instances of obstruction of justice by the president, with a conclusion that it is not DOJ policy to charge a sitting president but that it is appropriate for Congress to take action concernimg the “President’s corrupt exercise”.

So conservative media and conservative folks just chant over and over that the team found no evidence of collusion or obstruction. They don’t want to know. They don’t want to read. Maybe the major political divide of the future will be between the well-informed and the wilfully ignorant.

Do you think like Warren that they should begin impeachment proceedings now or do you think the ongoing house investigations are enough at this point?

There are actually several ongoing investigations by various bodies, none of which were started by the Democrats, as well as some mysterious grand jury cases that required redaction from the report. Maybe just kick back and see what else rolls in for a while.

dv said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Cymek said:

The report details explicitly how the President obstructed justice, but the authors made it clear that they would not be making any recommendations of prosecution because of the FBI’s long standing principle that a sitting President cannot be prosecuted. There’s no sense at all in the report that it was not possible to determine whether or not the President obstructed justice.

Why not

Is it because we don’t want to be embarrassed we voted a traitor into power
I’d think it would show he’s been compromised and is a danger

I think the Prez can’t be charged with federal crimes as his office means he he is the source of all authority. The means to end a presidency is through congress not the federal justice system.

Yeah … the Dems are in a bit of a bind about this because the polling indicates most Americans over all do not want impeachment. In particular, unregistered voters, whom they would like to win, do not.

At the same time they can’t exactly let this slide. The President committed crimes: it’s a topic.

According to Woodward, impeachment is a political not a criminal process. If there isn’t a large enough consensus it won’t happen.

AwesomeO said:

dv said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

I think the Prez can’t be charged with federal crimes as his office means he he is the source of all authority. The means to end a presidency is through congress not the federal justice system.

Yeah … the Dems are in a bit of a bind about this because the polling indicates most Americans over all do not want impeachment. In particular, unregistered voters, whom they would like to win, do not.

At the same time they can’t exactly let this slide. The President committed crimes: it’s a topic.

According to Woodward, impeachment is a political not a criminal process. If there isn’t a large enough consensus it won’t happen.

True enough.

The Gutter Twins – Who Will Lead Us?

The Rev Dodgson said:

I wonder how many people in the World have actually read the whole report.

I’m about 1/2 way through, it’s pretty dry reading, but yeah, imho it nails trump to the wall, Mueller couldn’t lay charges against him due to existing DOJ standing procedures, but that’s the only thing that stopped him, and his final recommendations basically say it’s a slamdunk (I admit I jumped to them first lol)- the question is would the Republican controlled Senate block it anyway?

Two major and one minor newsbreaks today so assume brace position.

Special Counsel Mueller criticised Attorney General Barr’s summary of the report and asked for a second clarifying summary:

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.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/mueller-complained-that-barrs-letter-did-not-capture-context-of-trump-probe/2019/04/30/d3c8fdb6-6b7b-11e9-a66d-a82d3f3d96d5_story.html?utm_term=.e58d7db7d801

Democrats in Congress can move ahead with their lawsuit against President Trump alleging that his private business violates the Constitution’s ban on gifts or payments from foreign governments, a federal judge ruled Tuesday.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/congressional-democrats-emoluments-lawsuit-targeting-president-trumps-private-business-can-proceed-judge-says/2019/04/30/ae2ae6be-5b9f-11e9-a00e-050dc7b82693_story.html?utm_term=.7c0f999cc4a2

The Mueller report documents at least 77 specific instances where President Donald Trump’s campaign staff, administration officials and family members, Republican backers and his associates lied or made false assertions(sometimes unintentionally) to the public, Congress, or authorities, according to a new CNN analysis. The plurality of lies came from Trump himself, and most of them took place while he was president.

https://edition-m.cnn.com/2019/04/30/politics/mueller-report-trump-team-lies-falsehoods/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fedition.cnn.com%2F

boppa said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I wonder how many people in the World have actually read the whole report.

I’m about 1/2 way through, it’s pretty dry reading, but yeah, imho it nails trump to the wall, Mueller couldn’t lay charges against him due to existing DOJ standing procedures, but that’s the only thing that stopped him, and his final recommendations basically say it’s a slamdunk (I admit I jumped to them first lol)- the question is would the Republican controlled Senate block it anyway?

Most people will be relying on the summary, but the summary provided by the Attorney General was, basically, dishonest.

dv said:

boppa said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I wonder how many people in the World have actually read the whole report.

I’m about 1/2 way through, it’s pretty dry reading, but yeah, imho it nails trump to the wall, Mueller couldn’t lay charges against him due to existing DOJ standing procedures, but that’s the only thing that stopped him, and his final recommendations basically say it’s a slamdunk (I admit I jumped to them first lol)- the question is would the Republican controlled Senate block it anyway?

Most people will be relying on the summary, but the summary provided by the Attorney General was, basically, dishonest.

Certainly Trump supporters all across the Internet seem to firmly believe that the report totally exonerated Trump and his team of any wrongdoing whatsoever.

At least they say they do.

dv said:

Two major and one minor newsbreaks today so assume brace position.

I have avoided much news today. It’s just creeping in around the edges.

dv said:

the major divide of the future will be between the well-informed and the wilfully ignorant.

there has always been such

Separately: if other (former) presidents had been held under such scrutiny, how would they compare ¿

Tau.Neutrino said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

The American President is corrupt, he has damaged America.

He has removed various people in OFFICE.

He has directly interfered with and obstructed justice.

He is surrounded by a wall of liars who fell on their swards to protect him.

They are getting away with serious crimes.

95 percent of Americans are stupid, corrupt and greedy.

God you’re an idiot. 51% of Americans voted for Hillary.

Hillary is one of 95 %.

seems fair, i always thought that
1. all Peruvians and Chileans are at most 2 of {stupid, corrupt, greedy}, and
2. all other Americans are all 3 of these

SCIENCE said:

dv said:

the major divide of the future will be between the well-informed and the wilfully ignorant.

there has always been such

Separately: if other (former) presidents had been held under such scrutiny, how would they compare ¿

Not much of a history buff eh?

All Presidents and Presidential campaigns are subject to intense scrutiny.

The level of scrutiny is normal: actually less than normal since every other President or Presidential nominee voluntarily handed over their tax and financial records. Once Trump does that, he’ll be under a normal level of scrutiny (barring in ongoing effects of his obstruction of justice).

What’s abnormal is for a Presidential campaign to enlist the aid of a foreign adversary, for there to have been over 100 points of contact between a Presidential campaign and Russian agents and oligarchs, for a President to overtly obstruct justice more than 10 times within a year of taking office, for a President to continue to operate businesses internationally in contradiction of the Emoluments clause of the US constitution, to perversely defend that foreign adversary in public and official pronouncements, to tell over 10000 lies in public and official pronouncements withing 3 years of office.

Because this has been ticking on for a while there is a risk of becoming enured to it and lose sighr of how very abnormal all of this is. Nixon did a fraction of this: basically he obstructed justice twice. Once it came to light, the people in his own party turned against him on a dime. This time around, they seem willing to ride it out.

The only foreign entity that has been found guilty of sending paid operatives to the US to try an influence the result is the Australian Labor Party.
A party led by Bill Shorten, a former union organiser and numbers man who now wants to be Prime Minister.

Attorney General William Barr faced a grilling in the Senate yesterday regarding the findings in the Mueller Report, and has since announced that he is not going to attend his scheduled session with the House Judiciary Commitee Hearing tomorrow, because of the HJC’s plans to have attorneys directly question Barr. It would be pretty weird for the House of Reps to have to subpeona a US Attorney General but apparently it is possible. Barr described Mueller’s criticism of Barr’s

I say a “grilling” but some of the Republican Senators went in rather a different direction. Lindsay Graham was literally talking about whether Clinton’s staff used hammers to smash cellphones and email servers.

dv said:

Attorney General William Barr faced a grilling in the Senate yesterday regarding the findings in the Mueller Report, and has since announced that he is not going to attend his scheduled session with the House Judiciary Commitee Hearing tomorrow, because of the HJC’s plans to have attorneys directly question Barr. It would be pretty weird for the House of Reps to have to subpeona a US Attorney General but apparently it is possible. Barr described Mueller’s criticism of Barr’s

I say a “grilling” but some of the Republican Senators went in rather a different direction. Lindsay Graham was literally talking about whether Clinton’s staff used hammers to smash cellphones and email servers.

Did they do it to the tune of Johnny Works With One Hammer

Cymek said:

dv said:

Attorney General William Barr faced a grilling in the Senate yesterday regarding the findings in the Mueller Report, and has since announced that he is not going to attend his scheduled session with the House Judiciary Commitee Hearing tomorrow, because of the HJC’s plans to have attorneys directly question Barr. It would be pretty weird for the House of Reps to have to subpeona a US Attorney General but apparently it is possible. Barr described Mueller’s criticism of Barr’s

I say a “grilling” but some of the Republican Senators went in rather a different direction. Lindsay Graham was literally talking about whether Clinton’s staff used hammers to smash cellphones and email servers.

Did they do it to the tune of Johnny Works With One Hammer

Yes

Hillary Clinton: ‘I’m Living Rent Free Inside Of Donald Trump’s Brain’ | Rachel Maddow

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUeu72fWuYk

Hillary Clinton: Mueller Report Shows That The Russians Were Successful | Rachel Maddow

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqfQ_kDOrIY

sarahs mum said:

Hillary Clinton: ‘I’m Living Rent Free Inside Of Donald Trump’s Brain’ | Rachel Maddow

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUeu72fWuYk

Rent space wise, I reckon she thinks more of losing an election to Trump and the deplorables than Donald does of her.

sarahs mum said:

Hillary Clinton: Mueller Report Shows That The Russians Were Successful | Rachel Maddow

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqfQ_kDOrIY

Having read the report …

I don’t think that’s true, assuming that their goal was to swing the election. They certainly had a massive campaign on social media and their hacking and provision of information to Wikileaks might or might not have had some kind of influence but the reality is that there were all kinds of US-born effects, and causality is complex. “An argument could be made” but the Mueller Report does not “show” this and also doesn’t claim this.

On the other hand things did end up alright with them: got a President who will stand before the world and repeat Putin’s talking points, soft-pedal on Ukraine and got sanctions lifted on some of their oligarchs. Could have gone worse for them.

dv said:

sarahs mum said:

Hillary Clinton: Mueller Report Shows That The Russians Were Successful | Rachel Maddow

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqfQ_kDOrIY

Having read the report …

I don’t think that’s true, assuming that their goal was to swing the election. They certainly had a massive campaign on social media and their hacking and provision of information to Wikileaks might or might not have had some kind of influence but the reality is that there were all kinds of US-born effects, and causality is complex. “An argument could be made” but the Mueller Report does not “show” this and also doesn’t claim this.

On the other hand things did end up alright with them: got a President who will stand before the world and repeat Putin’s talking points, soft-pedal on Ukraine and got sanctions lifted on some of their oligarchs. Could have gone worse for them.

Not to mention denigrating NATO, backing Brexit etc.

Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi appears to have crossed the Rubicon somewhat, plainly saying the the Attorney General committed a crime in lying to a Congressional hearing. Lying under oath to Congress is considered tantamount to perjury.

I hope she’s done her homework.

She has also stated that the White House’s failure to respond to subpoenas was a serious matter and noted that failure to respond to Congressional impeachment was one of the articles impeachment for Nixon.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5991061-BUZZFEED-MUELLER-REPORT-FOIA.html

A New Version Of The Mueller Report Has Been Released In Response To A BuzzFeed News Lawsuit

kii said:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5991061-BUZZFEED-MUELLER-REPORT-FOIA.html

A New Version Of The Mueller Report Has Been Released In Response To A BuzzFeed News Lawsuit

Shit I only just finished the first one.

450 former Justice Department prosecutors, from both Republican and Democratic administrations, have signed a statement that President Donald Trump would have been charged with obstruction of justice if he were anyone other than the president.

https://www.apnews.com/6c869ddcada14421a5c1141b95f672bf

In the letter, the former prosecutors say special counsel Robert Mueller’s report “describes several acts that satisfy all of the elements for an obstruction charge.” Those actions include Trump’s efforts to have Mueller fired and to conceal it after the fact; his attempts to limit the scope of the Russia investigation; and the president’s tweets and public statements aimed at discouraging aides from cooperating with prosecutors.

“In our system, every accused person is presumed innocent and it is always the government’s burden to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt,” the letter states. “But, to look at these facts and say that a prosecutor could not probably sustain a conviction for obstruction of justice — the standard set out in Principles of Federal Prosecution — runs counter to logic and our experience.”

Mueller examined nearly a dozen acts by the president for potential obstruction of justice. He ultimately reached no conclusion on whether Trump had criminally obstructed justice, citing in part an opinion from the department’s Office of Legal Counsel that says a sitting president cannot be indicted.

Attorney General William Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein then stepped in and determined Mueller’s evidence was insufficient for an obstruction charge. Barr has said the OLC opinion played no role in his conclusion, and Trump has used the attorney general’s finding to claim that the report found no obstruction.

But the ex-prosecutors make clear that in their view the evidence leans heavily in the other direction.

“As former federal prosecutors, we recognize that prosecuting obstruction of justice cases is critical because unchecked obstruction — which allows intentional interference with criminal investigations to go unpunished — puts our whole system of justice at risk,” the letter states.

“We believe strongly that, but for the OLC memo, the overwhelming weight of professional judgment would come down in favor of prosecution for the conduct outlined in the Mueller Report,” it says.

dv said:

kii said:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5991061-BUZZFEED-MUELLER-REPORT-FOIA.html

A New Version Of The Mueller Report Has Been Released In Response To A BuzzFeed News Lawsuit

Shit I only just finished the first one.

This one might have a colouring in section.

Shit eh. Wednesday was a pretty big day in the USA.

Attorney General William Barr Held In Contempt Of Congress
Senate Intelligence Committee subpoenas Donald Trump Jr.
House Intelligence Committee subpoenas Barr for counterintelligence information from Russia probe
Trump asserts executive privilege over Mueller report

——
Attorney General William Barr Held In Contempt Of Congress
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/08/politics/barr-contempt-vote-house-judiciary-committee/index.html
The House Judiciary Committee voted Wednesday to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress, escalating the looming constitutional collision over the Mueller report between congressional Democrats and the Trump administration.

The committee voted along party lines, 24 to 16, to hold Barr in contempt.
This morning before the vote, President Donald Trump asserted executive privilege over special counsel Robert Mueller’s report and its underlying evidence, following through on a threat the Justice Department made the night before if the committee moved forward with the contempt vote.The contempt vote and the invocation of executive privilege adds more fuel to the simmering feud between House Democrats and the administration over Democratic investigations. The President has vowed to oppose all Democratic subpoenas, and Democrats have responded by suggesting that the President’s obstruction of congressional investigations could prompt them to consider impeachment.

Barr would be the first Trump administration official held in contempt by the Democratic-led House. The matter now moves to the full House for a vote — and then is surely heading to a courtroom showdown between House Democrats and the Justice Department in Democrats’ push to obtain the unredacted Mueller report and evidence.

——

Senate Intelligence Committee subpoenas Donald Trump Jr.
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/08/politics/trump-jr-subpoena-senate-intelligence/index.html
The Senate Intelligence Committee has subpoenaed Donald Trump Jr. for him to return and testify again, and the committee is now at a standoff with President Donald Trump’s eldest son, according to sources familiar with the matter.

——

House Intelligence Committee subpoenas Barr for counterintelligence information from Russia probe
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/08/politics/adam-schiff-house-intelligence-mueller/index.html
House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff issued a subpoena Wednesday to the Justice Department for “counterintelligence and foreign intelligence” from special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.

——
Trump asserts executive privilege over Mueller report
https://edition.cnn.com/politics/live-news/barr-contempt-mueller-report/index.html

——

dv said:

Shit eh. Wednesday was a pretty big day in the USA.

Attorney General William Barr Held In Contempt Of Congress
Senate Intelligence Committee subpoenas Donald Trump Jr.
House Intelligence Committee subpoenas Barr for counterintelligence information from Russia probe
Trump asserts executive privilege over Mueller report

——
Attorney General William Barr Held In Contempt Of Congress
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/08/politics/barr-contempt-vote-house-judiciary-committee/index.html
The House Judiciary Committee voted Wednesday to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress, escalating the looming constitutional collision over the Mueller report between congressional Democrats and the Trump administration.

The committee voted along party lines, 24 to 16, to hold Barr in contempt.
This morning before the vote, President Donald Trump asserted executive privilege over special counsel Robert Mueller’s report and its underlying evidence, following through on a threat the Justice Department made the night before if the committee moved forward with the contempt vote.The contempt vote and the invocation of executive privilege adds more fuel to the simmering feud between House Democrats and the administration over Democratic investigations. The President has vowed to oppose all Democratic subpoenas, and Democrats have responded by suggesting that the President’s obstruction of congressional investigations could prompt them to consider impeachment.

Barr would be the first Trump administration official held in contempt by the Democratic-led House. The matter now moves to the full House for a vote — and then is surely heading to a courtroom showdown between House Democrats and the Justice Department in Democrats’ push to obtain the unredacted Mueller report and evidence.

——

Senate Intelligence Committee subpoenas Donald Trump Jr.
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/08/politics/trump-jr-subpoena-senate-intelligence/index.html
The Senate Intelligence Committee has subpoenaed Donald Trump Jr. for him to return and testify again, and the committee is now at a standoff with President Donald Trump’s eldest son, according to sources familiar with the matter.

——

House Intelligence Committee subpoenas Barr for counterintelligence information from Russia probe
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/08/politics/adam-schiff-house-intelligence-mueller/index.html
House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff issued a subpoena Wednesday to the Justice Department for “counterintelligence and foreign intelligence” from special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.

——
Trump asserts executive privilege over Mueller report
https://edition.cnn.com/politics/live-news/barr-contempt-mueller-report/index.html

——

And Rachel thought Monday was going to be a bit exciting. And then Monday wasn’t as exciting as predicted. Wednesday was a lot more exciting.

The last Rachel I watched was about Trump’s tax returns last century. It is really hard to believe you can get away with that shit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGiplxhEsCM

Senate Judiciary Democrats Submit Question List For Robert Mueller | Rachel Maddow

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9D-kiUdBC5g

Trump v Congress, part 8
Donald Trump’s war on oversight

What’s happening now could reshape the relationship between Congress and the presidency

Print edition | United States
May 9th 2019 | WASHINGTON, DC

James wilson—the one who signed the Declaration of Independence and took one of the Supreme Court’s first six seats, rather than the Scottish hatmaker who founded The Economist—believed that “the House of Representatives form the grand inquest of the state. They shall diligently inquire into grievances.” Many years later Woodrow Wilson, then a young scholar of government, wrote that for a legislature “vigilant oversight” is “quite as important as legislation”. Many Supreme Court decisions have affirmed that Congress enjoys vast investigative and oversight powers to check the executive branch.

Partisanship influences how those powers are used. A Democratic Congress investigated Richard Nixon. During the Clinton administration, the Republican-led House issued more than 1,000 subpoenas and held hearings on the Clintons’ Christmas-card list. Presidents have rebuffed requests, but none has done what Donald Trump has: declare “We’re fighting all the subpoenas”, sue to block them and instruct officials to ignore them. He seems to feel that partisanship renders oversight illegitimate. That view is dangerous.

Congressional oversight power is not limitless. In 1954 the House Un-American Activities Committee convicted John Watkins, a union organiser, of contempt of Congress for refusing to testify about people who had left the Communist Party (he was candid about his own past). The Supreme Court sided with Watkins, holding that Congress cannot “expose the private affairs of individuals without justification”, and that “no inquiry is an end in itself; it must be related to, and in furtherance of, a legitimate task of Congress.”

Steven Mnuchin, the treasury secretary, hinted at this exception when, on May 6th, he declined to release six years of Mr Trump’s personal tax returns to Richard Neal, who chairs the House Ways and Means Committee. A law passed in 1924 states that America’s Internal Revenue Service (irs) “shall furnish…any return or return information” to that committee, when “specified by written request”. Mr Neal wrote requesting them; Mr Mnuchin “determined that the committee’s request lacks a legitimate legislative purpose.”

Mr Neal says that his committee must examine whether the irs has properly audited Mr Trump. Some may find that justification thin, but the Supreme Court ruled that congressional investigations enjoy a presumption of legitimacy. A recent report from the non-partisan Congressional Research Service noted the privacy concerns inherent in releasing Mr Trump’s tax returns (which would probably leak), but those are counterbalanced by what the Supreme Court has called the “indispensable ‘informing function of Congress’”. A federal court will weigh this dispute.

The courts are adjudicating others, too. On April 29th Mr Trump, along with three of his children and several of his business entities, sued Deutsche Bank and Capital One, another bank, to stop their compliance with “congressional subpoenas that have no legitimate or lawful purpose.” That came a week after Mr Trump and several of his businesses sued Elijah Cummings, who chairs the House Oversight Committee, to block Mazars, an accounting firm, from complying with Mr Cummings’s subpoena for records. Mr Trump argues that these subpoenas “have no legitimate or lawful purpose” and “were issued to harass” him.

Many presidents feel that way. They have the right to keep some things secret, just as Congress has the right to investigate. Those rights often conflict when Democrats control one branch of government and Republicans the other. “What’s different here,” says Margaret Taylor of the Brookings Institution, “is the full frontal stiff-arm of the House’s oversight efforts.”

That makes reaching an accommodation hard. As one former counsel to a Republican president explains, “It’s not uncommon for a president to say, ‘No way, no how, am I going to share that information with Congress—they just want to hurt me.’ Often from that point you can manoeuvre to a point of agreement. the current situation doesn’t seem to have any of the hallmarks of compromise.”

Nor is this battle only taking place in the courts. On May 7th the White House blocked Don McGahn, a former White House counsel, from surrendering documents subpoenaed by the House Judiciary Committee because of concerns about executive privilege. Mr McGahn complied with the White House, but as a former rather than current official, his compliance was voluntary. One day later, the White House also claimed executive privilege over the unredacted version of Robert Mueller’s report, after the House Judiciary Committee voted to hold William Barr, the attorney-general, in contempt for failing to deliver it to Congress in response to a subpoena.

These claims may not survive in court. Judges rejected both George W. Bush’s claim that executive privilege blocks aides from appearing before Congress (though it may prevent them from answering specific questions), and Barack Obama’s protest over information that had already been revealed. But court challenges take time, which helps Mr Trump. He can portray them as motivated by partisan spite, while running down the clock until after the next election, when the subpoenas expire, or at least until public attention moves on.

What if Mr Trump faces no consequences for ignoring congressional subpoenas—an action that formed the basis for the third article of impeachment against Nixon? A private citizen who ignores a subpoena can be jailed. But though some Democrats have mooted dusting off Congress’s power to detain contemnors, that is unlikely to happen soon.

Since Watergate, presidents have felt obliged to at least appear to comply with Congress’s oversight power, even as they negotiated the most favourable possible terms. Mr Trump feels no such pressure. If he succeeds, the age-old system of checks and balances will break down. When the president’s party controls Congress, it will line up behind him; when it does not, he can just ignore its toothless demands. As the former Republican White House counsel says, “The next president and the next one after that and so on would have an additional precedent to say ‘Subpoenas? Contempt? That’s just a vote. That’s just a political act. Nothing for me to worry about’.”

https://www.economist.com/united-states/2019/05/09/donald-trumps-war-on-oversight

Witty Rejoinder said:

Trump v Congress, part 8
Donald Trump’s war on oversight

What’s happening now could reshape the relationship between Congress and the presidency

Print edition | United States
May 9th 2019 | WASHINGTON, DC

…

Since Watergate, presidents have felt obliged to at least appear to comply with Congress’s oversight power, even as they negotiated the most favourable possible terms. Mr Trump feels no such pressure. If he succeeds, the age-old system of checks and balances will break down. When the president’s party controls Congress, it will line up behind him; when it does not, he can just ignore its toothless demands. As the former Republican White House counsel says, “The next president and the next one after that and so on would have an additional precedent to say ‘Subpoenas? Contempt? That’s just a vote. That’s just a political act. Nothing for me to worry about’.”

https://www.economist.com/united-states/2019/05/09/donald-trumps-war-on-oversight

I thought corruption of congress was a given. It’s mentioned in hundreds of jokes.

bump.

Trexit

sarahs mum said:

bump.

Rachel Maddow reports on the House Intelligence Committee’s scrutiny of the role of Trump lawyers in shaping the lie Michael Cohen told Congress about the Trump Tower Moscow project and the extent to which that may have been criminal activity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_K2GycYTJYU

‘A Presidential “pre-pardon”, “global pardon”. pardon or other pardon related concept..’ (around six minutes in.)

sarahs mum said:

bump.

There remains an impasse with the White House refusing to comply with Congressional subpoenas: an unprecedented course of action.

Mueller has been called to testify directly to Congress. There are steps that the President can take to limit this testimony. We’ll see how that plays out.

The Senate Intelligence committee subpoenad Don Junior and he has agreed to comply under certain conditions limiting the number of topics and the length of the session.

dv said:

sarahs mum said:

bump.

There remains an impasse with the White House refusing to comply with Congressional subpoenas: an unprecedented course of action.

Mueller has been called to testify directly to Congress. There are steps that the President can take to limit this testimony. We’ll see how that plays out.

The Senate Intelligence committee subpoenad Don Junior and he has agreed to comply under certain conditions limiting the number of topics and the length of the session.

What about when he’s no longer president, can they get him then?

Bubblecar said:

dv said:

sarahs mum said:

bump.

There remains an impasse with the White House refusing to comply with Congressional subpoenas: an unprecedented course of action.

Mueller has been called to testify directly to Congress. There are steps that the President can take to limit this testimony. We’ll see how that plays out.

The Senate Intelligence committee subpoenad Don Junior and he has agreed to comply under certain conditions limiting the number of topics and the length of the session.

What about when he’s no longer president, can they get him then?

Yes.

dv said:

Bubblecar said:

dv said:

There remains an impasse with the White House refusing to comply with Congressional subpoenas: an unprecedented course of action.

Mueller has been called to testify directly to Congress. There are steps that the President can take to limit this testimony. We’ll see how that plays out.

The Senate Intelligence committee subpoenad Don Junior and he has agreed to comply under certain conditions limiting the number of topics and the length of the session.

What about when he’s no longer president, can they get him then?

Yes.

Indeedy. Why do you think he’ll be opting for the president for life thing that China did?

Nice to see he’s not busting a gut to protect Junior lol

dv said:

Nice to see he’s not busting a gut to protect Junior lol

FFS. When did he ever think about what came from him?

Robert Mueller Reveals New Unredacted Information Re: Obstruction | The Last Word | MSNBC

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrRiPPn-XVw

Judge Orders Flynn-Related Redactions Removed From Mueller Report | Rachel Maddow

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLtirP3duxc

Republican Congressman Justin Amash has called for the impeachment of President Trump, and has said that Attorney General William Barr misled the public.

Amash’s comments recommending Congress pursue obstruction of justice charges against Trump were the first instance of a sitting Republican in Congress calling for Trump’s impeachment.

In a Twitter thread on Saturday, Amash said he believed “few members of Congress even read” special counsel Robert Mueller’s report and that the report itself established “multiple examples” of Trump committing obstruction of justice.

“Contrary to Barr’s portrayal, Mueller’s report reveals that President Trump engaged in specific actions and a pattern of behavior that meet the threshold for impeachment,” Amash said in a string of messages on Twitter.

Amash’s comments on Saturday with regard to impeachment went further than even many members of House Democratic leadership. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said last Thursday that “every day gives grounds for impeachment,” while at the same time arguing that she doesn’t want to impeach, though she did not rule out the possibility.

https://edition-m.cnn.com/2019/05/18/politics/justin-amash-trump-impeachable-conduct/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fedition.cnn.com%2F

Federal Judge upholds Congress’s subpoena of Trump documents: “This court is not prepared to roll back the tide of history”
https://youtu.be/mq-sKSTEm8c

I’ve only just caught up on the full case for impeachment being made by ultraconservative Republican Congressman Justin Amash.

It’s quite cogent and matter of fact: he’s making a better case than any of the Democrats.

President Donald Trump Losses Mount As Cracks Form In Dam Of Secrecy | Rachel Maddow

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vislS7-3p1o

—————-

Rachel did a nice bit of comparison as to how much stuff Nixon and Clinton got through Congress while they were in the process of being impeached. Neither of them had a tantrum and said they wouldn’t play government unless the impeaching just backed off.

dv said:

I’ve only just caught up on the full case for impeachment being made by ultraconservative Republican Congressman Justin Amash.

It’s quite cogent and matter of fact: he’s making a better case than any of the Democrats.

Maybe it needs to be a Republican that starts the ball rolling.

Worth a thread

dv said:

Worth a thread

Yeah, call it something like Mueller Report.

Peak Warming Man said:

dv said:

Worth a thread

Yeah, call it something like Mueller Report.

No, we need a new thread to discuss if there should be a thread called Mueller Report.

It could be called something like Mueller Report.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Peak Warming Man said:

dv said:

Worth a thread

Yeah, call it something like Mueller Report.

No, we need a new thread to discuss if there should be a thread called Mueller Report.

It could be called something like Mueller Report.

Id be inclined to call it the Mueller Project.

But if Mueller followed the guide lines for a Report then use that.

dv said:

I’ve only just caught up on the full case for impeachment being made by ultraconservative Republican Congressman Justin Amash.

It’s quite cogent and matter of fact: he’s making a better case than any of the Democrats.

I haven’t read much of anything for a day or so, just squinted at headlines and things to maybe read later. I get the impression that all the “traps” are set and he is cornered and he knows the only way out is if they bring in the 25th amendment – then he gets out with “more”? dignity.

Robert Mueller appeared in public on Wednesday to speak on the report. His office was tight as a drum in terms of leaks and he did not give any public statements at all in the last 19 months so this was really the first time the public heard directly from him.

Effectively it just reiterated the report highlights, but he also added that he’s resigning from the DOJ and returning to private life. He said it was not his plan to testify to Congress, and that if he were called to, his Congressional testimony would basically be the same as this speech.

He reiterated that the only reason he did not present a decision on whether to press charges against the President was that the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel position that a sitting president cannot be charged. He covered this at some length, and it contradicts Attorney General William William Barr’s congressional testimony that Mueller could have given a recommendation.

He pointedly said that “If we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that”, and reminded the audience that there exists “a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing.” 

Transcript of Mueller’s remarks
https://edition-m.cnn.com/2019/05/29/politics/mueller-full-remarks/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fedition.cnn.com%2F

Analysis: Mueller’s message: Congress, it’s your turn
https://edition-m.cnn.com/2019/05/29/opinions/mueller-testify-publicly-opinion-honig/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fedition.cnn.com%2F

dv said:

Robert Mueller appeared in public on Wednesday to speak on the report. His office was tight as a drum in terms of leaks and he did not give any public statements at all in the last 19 months so this was really the first time the public heard directly from him.

Effectively it just reiterated the report highlights, but he also added that he’s resigning from the DOJ and returning to private life. He said it was not his plan to testify to Congress, and that if he were called to, his Congressional testimony would basically be the same as this speech.

He reiterated that the only reason he did not present a decision on whether to press charges against the President was that the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel position that a sitting president cannot be charged. He covered this at some length, and it contradicts Attorney General William William Barr’s congressional testimony that Mueller could have given a recommendation.

He pointedly said that “If we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that”, and reminded the audience that there exists “a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing.” 

Transcript of Mueller’s remarks
https://edition-m.cnn.com/2019/05/29/politics/mueller-full-remarks/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fedition.cnn.com%2F

Analysis: Mueller’s message: Congress, it’s your turn
https://edition-m.cnn.com/2019/05/29/opinions/mueller-testify-publicly-opinion-honig/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fedition.cnn.com%2F

I would not expect this to shift the needle much. Most Congressional Republicans are going to continue to feign ignorance.

dv said:

dv said:

Robert Mueller appeared in public on Wednesday to speak on the report. His office was tight as a drum in terms of leaks and he did not give any public statements at all in the last 19 months so this was really the first time the public heard directly from him.

Effectively it just reiterated the report highlights, but he also added that he’s resigning from the DOJ and returning to private life. He said it was not his plan to testify to Congress, and that if he were called to, his Congressional testimony would basically be the same as this speech.

He reiterated that the only reason he did not present a decision on whether to press charges against the President was that the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel position that a sitting president cannot be charged. He covered this at some length, and it contradicts Attorney General William William Barr’s congressional testimony that Mueller could have given a recommendation.

He pointedly said that “If we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that”, and reminded the audience that there exists “a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing.” 

Transcript of Mueller’s remarks
https://edition-m.cnn.com/2019/05/29/politics/mueller-full-remarks/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fedition.cnn.com%2F

Analysis: Mueller’s message: Congress, it’s your turn
https://edition-m.cnn.com/2019/05/29/opinions/mueller-testify-publicly-opinion-honig/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fedition.cnn.com%2F

I would not expect this to shift the needle much. Most Congressional Republicans are going to continue to feign ignorance.

I think that Trump is banking on it.

dv said:

dv said:

Robert Mueller appeared in public on Wednesday to speak on the report. His office was tight as a drum in terms of leaks and he did not give any public statements at all in the last 19 months so this was really the first time the public heard directly from him.

Effectively it just reiterated the report highlights, but he also added that he’s resigning from the DOJ and returning to private life. He said it was not his plan to testify to Congress, and that if he were called to, his Congressional testimony would basically be the same as this speech.

He reiterated that the only reason he did not present a decision on whether to press charges against the President was that the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel position that a sitting president cannot be charged. He covered this at some length, and it contradicts Attorney General William William Barr’s congressional testimony that Mueller could have given a recommendation.

He pointedly said that “If we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that”, and reminded the audience that there exists “a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing.” 

Transcript of Mueller’s remarks
https://edition-m.cnn.com/2019/05/29/politics/mueller-full-remarks/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fedition.cnn.com%2F

Analysis: Mueller’s message: Congress, it’s your turn
https://edition-m.cnn.com/2019/05/29/opinions/mueller-testify-publicly-opinion-honig/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fedition.cnn.com%2F

I would not expect this to shift the needle much. Most Congressional Republicans are going to continue to feign ignorance.

>>>He pointedly said that “If we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that”, and reminded the audience that there exists “a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing.”

===

If the presidents staff all told the truth then impeachment would have happened.

They all lied so the legal process could not reach its conclusion.

Tau.Neutrino said:

dv said:

dv said:

Robert Mueller appeared in public on Wednesday to speak on the report. His office was tight as a drum in terms of leaks and he did not give any public statements at all in the last 19 months so this was really the first time the public heard directly from him.

Effectively it just reiterated the report highlights, but he also added that he’s resigning from the DOJ and returning to private life. He said it was not his plan to testify to Congress, and that if he were called to, his Congressional testimony would basically be the same as this speech.

He reiterated that the only reason he did not present a decision on whether to press charges against the President was that the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel position that a sitting president cannot be charged. He covered this at some length, and it contradicts Attorney General William William Barr’s congressional testimony that Mueller could have given a recommendation.

He pointedly said that “If we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that”, and reminded the audience that there exists “a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing.” 

Transcript of Mueller’s remarks
https://edition-m.cnn.com/2019/05/29/politics/mueller-full-remarks/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fedition.cnn.com%2F

Analysis: Mueller’s message: Congress, it’s your turn
https://edition-m.cnn.com/2019/05/29/opinions/mueller-testify-publicly-opinion-honig/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fedition.cnn.com%2F

I would not expect this to shift the needle much. Most Congressional Republicans are going to continue to feign ignorance.

>>>He pointedly said that “If we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that”, and reminded the audience that there exists “a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing.”

===

If the presidents staff all told the truth then impeachment would have happened.

They all lied so the legal process could not reach its conclusion.

Trump personally selected those who would do so.

Tau.Neutrino said:

dv said:

dv said:

Robert Mueller appeared in public on Wednesday to speak on the report. His office was tight as a drum in terms of leaks and he did not give any public statements at all in the last 19 months so this was really the first time the public heard directly from him.

Effectively it just reiterated the report highlights, but he also added that he’s resigning from the DOJ and returning to private life. He said it was not his plan to testify to Congress, and that if he were called to, his Congressional testimony would basically be the same as this speech.

He reiterated that the only reason he did not present a decision on whether to press charges against the President was that the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel position that a sitting president cannot be charged. He covered this at some length, and it contradicts Attorney General William William Barr’s congressional testimony that Mueller could have given a recommendation.

He pointedly said that “If we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that”, and reminded the audience that there exists “a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing.” 

Transcript of Mueller’s remarks
https://edition-m.cnn.com/2019/05/29/politics/mueller-full-remarks/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fedition.cnn.com%2F

Analysis: Mueller’s message: Congress, it’s your turn
https://edition-m.cnn.com/2019/05/29/opinions/mueller-testify-publicly-opinion-honig/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fedition.cnn.com%2F

I would not expect this to shift the needle much. Most Congressional Republicans are going to continue to feign ignorance.

>>>He pointedly said that “If we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that”, and reminded the audience that there exists “a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing.”

===

If the presidents staff all told the truth then impeachment would have happened.

They all lied so the legal process could not reach its conclusion.

That’s not how it is.

The report contains ample grounds for impeachment. There is no reason in the world for impeachment hearings to not commence tomorrow.

dv said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

dv said:

I would not expect this to shift the needle much. Most Congressional Republicans are going to continue to feign ignorance.

>>>He pointedly said that “If we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that”, and reminded the audience that there exists “a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing.”

===

If the presidents staff all told the truth then impeachment would have happened.

They all lied so the legal process could not reach its conclusion.

That’s not how it is.

The report contains ample grounds for impeachment. There is no reason in the world for impeachment hearings to not commence tomorrow.

The Democrats will be working on it as fast as possible.

dv said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

dv said:

I would not expect this to shift the needle much. Most Congressional Republicans are going to continue to feign ignorance.

>>>He pointedly said that “If we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that”, and reminded the audience that there exists “a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing.”

===

If the presidents staff all told the truth then impeachment would have happened.

They all lied so the legal process could not reach its conclusion.

That’s not how it is.

The report contains ample grounds for impeachment. There is no reason in the world for impeachment hearings to not commence tomorrow.

ok, its a bit more complicated than I thought.

roughbarked said:

dv said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

>>>He pointedly said that “If we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that”, and reminded the audience that there exists “a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing.”

===

If the presidents staff all told the truth then impeachment would have happened.

They all lied so the legal process could not reach its conclusion.

That’s not how it is.

The report contains ample grounds for impeachment. There is no reason in the world for impeachment hearings to not commence tomorrow.

The Democrats will be working on it as fast as possible.

Does’t seem to be so.

Amash seems to be on a roll.

Republican Calls For Impeachment After Reading Mueller Report | Rachel Maddow | MSNBC
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RK0url2zH8

roughbarked said:

dv said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

>>>He pointedly said that “If we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that”, and reminded the audience that there exists “a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing.”

===

If the presidents staff all told the truth then impeachment would have happened.

They all lied so the legal process could not reach its conclusion.

That’s not how it is.

The report contains ample grounds for impeachment. There is no reason in the world for impeachment hearings to not commence tomorrow.

The Democrats will be working on it as fast as possible.

I hope so.

Having a manic President does not make America look great, it make its look politically incompetent.

Tau.Neutrino said:

roughbarked said:

dv said:

That’s not how it is.

The report contains ample grounds for impeachment. There is no reason in the world for impeachment hearings to not commence tomorrow.

The Democrats will be working on it as fast as possible.

I hope so.

Having a manic President does not make America look great, it make its look politically incompetent.

Having a maniac President does not make America look great, it make America look politically incompetent.

Trump has damaged America.

I hope they make a James Bond movie using Trump as the bond villain!

I cant wait for it.

Tau.Neutrino said:

dv said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

>>>He pointedly said that “If we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that”, and reminded the audience that there exists “a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing.”

===

If the presidents staff all told the truth then impeachment would have happened.

They all lied so the legal process could not reach its conclusion.

That’s not how it is.

The report contains ample grounds for impeachment. There is no reason in the world for impeachment hearings to not commence tomorrow.

ok, its a bit more complicated than I thought.

You need a mind-map…

Witty Rejoinder said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

dv said:

That’s not how it is.

The report contains ample grounds for impeachment. There is no reason in the world for impeachment hearings to not commence tomorrow.

ok, its a bit more complicated than I thought.

You need a mind-map…

Yep.

A little tit-bit I found out the other day. Trump was knocked back from building a casino/hotel in Sydney in the 1980s because of his connections to organised crime.

It was on an old doco about the Sydney monorail I found on YouTube. A casino was supposed to be one of the main attractions that would get passengers using the thing as a means of transport.

party_pants said:

A little tit-bit I found out the other day. Trump was knocked back from building a casino/hotel in Sydney in the 1980s because of his connections to organised crime.

It was on an old doco about the Sydney monorail I found on YouTube. A casino was supposed to be one of the main attractions that would get passengers using the thing as a means of transport.

Good thing he’s never been given a job of any importance

party_pants said:

A little tit-bit I found out the other day. Trump was knocked back from building a casino/hotel in Sydney in the 1980s because of his connections to organised crime.

It was on an old doco about the Sydney monorail I found on YouTube. A casino was supposed to be one of the main attractions that would get passengers using the thing as a means of transport.

Trump probably used shady lawyers and others to act as middle people as the bridge to organised crime.

Looks like he still has links to crime.

party_pants said:

A little tit-bit I found out the other day. Trump was knocked back from building a casino/hotel in Sydney in the 1980s because of his connections to organised crime.

It was on an old doco about the Sydney monorail I found on YouTube. A casino was supposed to be one of the main attractions that would get passengers using the thing as a means of transport.

Huh!

party_pants said:

A little tit-bit I found out the other day. Trump was knocked back from building a casino/hotel in Sydney in the 1980s because of his connections to organised crime.

It was on an old doco about the Sydney monorail I found on YouTube. A casino was supposed to be one of the main attractions that would get passengers using the thing as a means of transport.

I dimly remember that.

party_pants said:

A little tit-bit I found out the other day. Trump was knocked back from building a casino/hotel in Sydney in the 1980s because of his connections to organised crime.

It was on an old doco about the Sydney monorail I found on YouTube. A casino was supposed to be one of the main attractions that would get passengers using the thing as a means of transport.

I remember when that happened. I also remember when it was brought up in an article or something after he conned his way into the presidency.

Mr Trump attacked Mr Mueller’s character, accused him of bias and described the investigation team as “some of the worst human beings on earth”.

https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/world/2019/05/31/donald-trump-russia-rant/

It’s time to go, Donald.

party_pants said:

It’s time to go, Donald.

He and Assange might end up in adjacent cells.

party_pants said:

It’s time to go, Donald.

Not a chance.

sibeen said:

party_pants said:

It’s time to go, Donald.

Not a chance.

Unfortunately FOX was on the teev at the doctor’s. Ugh.

President Donald Trump expressed bewilderment on Thursday at the prospect that House Democrats could even consider moving to oust him from office, calling impeachment a “dirty, filthy, disgusting word.”

“I don’t see how they can because they’re possibly allowed, although I can’t imagine the courts allowing it. I’ve never gone into it,” Trump told reporters of potential impeachment proceedings while leaving the White House on Thursday. “I never thought that would even be possible to be using that word. To me, it’s a dirty word — the word impeach. It’s a dirty, filthy, disgusting word.”

Circling back to whether he thought he would be impeached, he told reporters, “I don’t think so, because there was no crime.”

He returned to a flawed argument he and his backers have long put forth to dismiss the threat of Trump’s impeachment.

“You know, it’s high crimes and, not with — or — it’s high crimes and misdemeanors,” he said. “There was no high crime and there was no misdemeanor. So how do you impeach based on that?”

—
How do you impeach a Republican President for a crime that was committed by the Democrats? WITCH-HUNT!

—

Methinks he protesteth too much.

Ian said:

President Donald Trump expressed bewilderment on Thursday at the prospect that House Democrats could even consider moving to oust him from office, calling impeachment a “dirty, filthy, disgusting word.”

“I don’t see how they can because they’re possibly allowed, although I can’t imagine the courts allowing it. I’ve never gone into it,” Trump told reporters of potential impeachment proceedings while leaving the White House on Thursday. “I never thought that would even be possible to be using that word. To me, it’s a dirty word — the word impeach. It’s a dirty, filthy, disgusting word.”

Circling back to whether he thought he would be impeached, he told reporters, “I don’t think so, because there was no crime.”

He returned to a flawed argument he and his backers have long put forth to dismiss the threat of Trump’s impeachment.

“You know, it’s high crimes and, not with — or — it’s high crimes and misdemeanors,” he said. “There was no high crime and there was no misdemeanor. So how do you impeach based on that?”

—
How do you impeach a Republican President for a crime that was committed by the Democrats? WITCH-HUNT!

—

Methinks he protesteth too much.

There is puerile double down thing. When people called him a liar he called people liars.

Now he is saying people are being treasonous which leads me to believe he knows what he did.

I hope everybody has had a look at ogmog’s YouTube link.

The Rev Dodgson said:

I hope everybody has had a look at ogmog’s YouTube link.

S/he’s been around for years and may have posted more than one.

sibeen said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I hope everybody has had a look at ogmog’s YouTube link.

S/he’s been around for years and may have posted more than one.

This one:

A Very Stable Genius

From today’s brand new thread.

The Rev Dodgson said:

sibeen said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I hope everybody has had a look at ogmog’s YouTube link.

S/he’s been around for years and may have posted more than one.

This one:

A Very Stable Genius

From today’s brand new thread.

It’s very good.

The Rev Dodgson said:

sibeen said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I hope everybody has had a look at ogmog’s YouTube link.

S/he’s been around for years and may have posted more than one.

This one:

A Very Stable Genius

From today’s brand new thread.

It’s old.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

sibeen said:

S/he’s been around for years and may have posted more than one.

This one:

A Very Stable Genius

From today’s brand new thread.

It’s very good.

From a couple of days ago.

JUST IMPEACH HIM – Randy Rainbow Song Parody
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mZYd3DrX-c

The Rev Dodgson said:

I hope everybody has had a look at ogmog’s YouTube link.

puts hand up
I haven’t.

sarahs mum said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

This one:

A Very Stable Genius

From today’s brand new thread.

It’s very good.

From a couple of days ago.

JUST IMPEACH HIM – Randy Rainbow Song Parody
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mZYd3DrX-c

:)

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

sibeen said:

S/he’s been around for years and may have posted more than one.

This one:

A Very Stable Genius

From today’s brand new thread.

It’s very good.

Yes.
I hate him.

Peak Warming Man said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I hope everybody has had a look at ogmog’s YouTube link.

puts hand up
I haven’t.

Easy fixed. Have a squiz.

Tax payers made money on the Mueller report.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnDlLFHoQXg

sarahs mum said:

Tax payers made money on the Mueller report.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnDlLFHoQXg

I also hadn’t realised that Mueller is ongoing.

sarahs mum said:

sarahs mum said:

Tax payers made money on the Mueller report.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnDlLFHoQXg

I also hadn’t realised that Mueller is ongoing.

He isn’t dead yet.

Bernie Sanders has flipped over the last 24 hours and now thinks impeachment is the way to go.

It’s a risky area hospital food, costs screwed down and a large captive sick audience, one dodgy egg salad…

AwesomeO said:

It’s a risky area hospital food, costs screwed down and a large captive sick audience, one dodgy egg salad…

Apologies, I return you to your scheduled program.

It must be easier to watch FOX news and vote for Donald than it is to actually work out what the fuck.

The Rachel Maddow Show 6 /3/19
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8tTwc6kX_g

sarahs mum said:

It must be easier to watch FOX news and vote for Donald than it is to actually work out what the fuck.

The Rachel Maddow Show 6 /3/19
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8tTwc6kX_g

I have decided that the world does not operate on the basis of truth. Those who value truth are a minority.

party_pants said:

sarahs mum said:

It must be easier to watch FOX news and vote for Donald than it is to actually work out what the fuck.

The Rachel Maddow Show 6 /3/19
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8tTwc6kX_g

I have decided that the world does not operate on the basis of truth. Those who value truth are a minority.

Those of us who can readily discern the truth tend to forget what a major set of basic skills and knowledge that requires. Lots of people are missing out on acquiring these tools.

That’s probably always been the case but the internet age is making it more obvious.

party_pants said:

sarahs mum said:

It must be easier to watch FOX news and vote for Donald than it is to actually work out what the fuck.

The Rachel Maddow Show 6 /3/19
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8tTwc6kX_g

I have decided that the world does not operate on the basis of truth. Those who value truth are a minority.

It does seem true that they can’t handle the truth as its often unpalatable, I’d rather the truth however unpleasant than a lie

Bubblecar said:

party_pants said:

sarahs mum said:

It must be easier to watch FOX news and vote for Donald than it is to actually work out what the fuck.

The Rachel Maddow Show 6 /3/19
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8tTwc6kX_g

I have decided that the world does not operate on the basis of truth. Those who value truth are a minority.

Those of us who can readily discern the truth tend to forget what a major set of basic skills and knowledge that requires. Lots of people are missing out on acquiring these tools.

That’s probably always been the case but the internet age is making it more obvious.

I think this is the down side of social media. For all its promises I don’t think social media has delivered a nett positive upon the world.

Also, it seems to be the medium of choice if you want to engage with those people who disagree most strongly with your point of view.

party_pants said:

Bubblecar said:

party_pants said:

I have decided that the world does not operate on the basis of truth. Those who value truth are a minority.

Those of us who can readily discern the truth tend to forget what a major set of basic skills and knowledge that requires. Lots of people are missing out on acquiring these tools.

That’s probably always been the case but the internet age is making it more obvious.

I think this is the down side of social media. For all its promises I don’t think social media has delivered a nett positive upon the world.

Also, it seems to be the medium of choice if you want to engage with those people who disagree most strongly with your point of view.

Social media just from what I have seen, I withdrew from it all, seems to be bragging rights, being a dick to strangers and creating any kooky group you like and its then legitimate

party_pants said:

sarahs mum said:

It must be easier to watch FOX news and vote for Donald than it is to actually work out what the fuck.

The Rachel Maddow Show 6 /3/19
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8tTwc6kX_g

I have decided that the world does not operate on the basis of truth. Those who value truth are a minority.

Certainly seems like it.

party_pants said:

Bubblecar said:

party_pants said:

I have decided that the world does not operate on the basis of truth. Those who value truth are a minority.

Those of us who can readily discern the truth tend to forget what a major set of basic skills and knowledge that requires. Lots of people are missing out on acquiring these tools.

That’s probably always been the case but the internet age is making it more obvious.

I think this is the down side of social media. For all its promises I don’t think social media has delivered a nett positive upon the world.

Also, it seems to be the medium of choice if you want to engage with those people who disagree most strongly with your point of view.

GSEOH.

sarahs mum said:

It must be easier to watch FOX news and vote for Donald than it is to actually work out what the fuck.

The Rachel Maddow Show 6 /3/19
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8tTwc6kX_g

bump.

Check out the end of Maddow’s show. Around 34:40ish

Democrats in the House flexing oversight power against President Trump announcing new hearings on the Mueller report and a new, separate vote to hold Attorney General Bill Barr in contempt of Congress. This action coming as Democrats debate how to punish Trump aides stonewalling investigations — even calling for arrests.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKr_cHFshZY

The film clippage of the campaign crowds yelling ‘Lock er up’ in regard to Hillary’s emails. It is all still bizarre and weird to me that you can have this much shit going down and still blame Hillary. (or Labor.)

6 minute PBS Newshour summary of the Mueller Report Findings
https://youtu.be/V-noRviIzZI

https://youtu.be/UbT8OtP0FLg

Blankety Blanks: a Federal Judge has ordered that the FBI must show the public more of Comey’s memos, removing several key redactions. Also, newly unredacted FBI interviews with Michael Flynn show more extensive contacts between Flynn and the Russian authorities

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Maddow

LOL: Hannity Says “Lock Him Up” Calls Are “Despicable”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gs-3hfpK2o

Former Republican White House Counsel, John Dean, has testified before the House Judiciary Committee on the contents of the Mueller Report.

Worth watching, this is 5 minutes long
WATCH: John Dean’s full opening statement on Mueller report

Text here
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/10/full-text-watergate-john-dean-trump-obstruction-1358916

The Mueller Report addresses the question of whether President Trump dangled pardons or offered other favorable treatment to Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Michael Cohen and Roger Stone (whose name is redacted so I assume it is him based on educated conjecture) in return for their silence or to keep them from fully cooperating with investigators. The Mueller Report offers a powerful legal analysis that, notwithstanding the fact the pardon power is one of the most unrestricted of presidential powers, it cannot be used for improper purposes. (See “Separation-of-Powers Principles Support the Conclusion that Congress May Validly Prohibit Corrupt Obstructive Acts Carried Out Through the President’s Official Powers,” MUELLER REPORT, PP. 171-181). Mueller refutes the dubious contention that when the president exercises his Constitutional powers, he is not subject to federal criminal laws.

The House Judiciary Committee held hearings today on the Mueller report and its devastating findings of the Trump campaign efforts to collude with Russia, and Trump’s obstruction of justice thereof. The Republican message, articulated by ranking member Doug Collins, is that this is all in the distant past — the Mueller report came out in early spring; it’s already late spring — and we should focus on the future. “We’re not bringing Russians front and center,” he complained. “If we were attacked, then the priorities should be to go on the battlefields and not to the sideshow.”

Funny thing about that: There actually are a lot of bills to safeguard the 2020 elections from the next Russian attack. Mitch McConnell is blocking all of them.

The New York Times reported a few days ago that McConnell is refusing to bring to a vote any bill to safeguard the elections from foreign attack. There’s a Democratic bill to provide election funding to state and local governments. There’s a bipartisan Senate bill to “codify cyberinformation-sharing initiatives between federal intelligence services and state election officials, speed up the granting of security clearances to state officials, and provide federal incentives for states to adopt paper ballots.” McConnell won’t allow any of them to come to a vote.

The threat from Russian election interference is actually quite severe. Russian intelligence breached at least one Florida county computer system and planted malware in a manufacturer of vote-tabulating machines, according to the Mueller report. While the probability that Russian hackers could actually change the outcome of the next election is low, the consequences would be extraordinarily high — especially if they do so by actual vote-rigging rather than mere information warfare.

Exactly why McConnell is so blasé about this threat is impossible to say, but the next time McConnell takes some action that sacrifices his partisan interests for the greater good will be the first.

Of course, Collins’s whole notion that guarding against the next Russian political operation requires halting all investigation of the last one is obviously disingenuous in the first place. The Mueller report shows in detail that Trump and almost everybody working for him welcomed Russian help, legal or otherwise. The reason the government isn’t doing more to protect our democracy from the next attack is that the people who cooperated with the last attack don’t want to.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/06/mcconnell-blocking-plans-to-prevent-russian-election-attack.html?utm_content=buffer5b7dd&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=thegoodlordabove&utm_campaign=bloomjoy&fbclid=IwAR1kXCWkh3rdWzYkkXO_jgaesf4CGzXk7UQbBG-kwwRxHfPlWwvFbpbpZ_k

sarahs mum said:

The House Judiciary Committee held hearings today on the Mueller report and its devastating findings of the Trump campaign efforts to collude with Russia, and Trump’s obstruction of justice thereof. The Republican message, articulated by ranking member Doug Collins, is that this is all in the distant past — the Mueller report came out in early spring; it’s already late spring — and we should focus on the future. “We’re not bringing Russians front and center,” he complained. “If we were attacked, then the priorities should be to go on the battlefields and not to the sideshow.”

Funny thing about that: There actually are a lot of bills to safeguard the 2020 elections from the next Russian attack. Mitch McConnell is blocking all of them.

The New York Times reported a few days ago that McConnell is refusing to bring to a vote any bill to safeguard the elections from foreign attack. There’s a Democratic bill to provide election funding to state and local governments. There’s a bipartisan Senate bill to “codify cyberinformation-sharing initiatives between federal intelligence services and state election officials, speed up the granting of security clearances to state officials, and provide federal incentives for states to adopt paper ballots.” McConnell won’t allow any of them to come to a vote.

The threat from Russian election interference is actually quite severe. Russian intelligence breached at least one Florida county computer system and planted malware in a manufacturer of vote-tabulating machines, according to the Mueller report. While the probability that Russian hackers could actually change the outcome of the next election is low, the consequences would be extraordinarily high — especially if they do so by actual vote-rigging rather than mere information warfare.

Exactly why McConnell is so blasé about this threat is impossible to say, but the next time McConnell takes some action that sacrifices his partisan interests for the greater good will be the first.

Of course, Collins’s whole notion that guarding against the next Russian political operation requires halting all investigation of the last one is obviously disingenuous in the first place. The Mueller report shows in detail that Trump and almost everybody working for him welcomed Russian help, legal or otherwise. The reason the government isn’t doing more to protect our democracy from the next attack is that the people who cooperated with the last attack don’t want to.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/06/mcconnell-blocking-plans-to-prevent-russian-election-attack.html?utm_content=buffer5b7dd&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=thegoodlordabove&utm_campaign=bloomjoy&fbclid=IwAR1kXCWkh3rdWzYkkXO_jgaesf4CGzXk7UQbBG-kwwRxHfPlWwvFbpbpZ_k

Yeah

Watching Rachel Maddow.

It made me think.

The is a thing in the comments on most stories about Hobart at the moment. A bunch of people saying to get on and build it. There are no plans in. There is nothing for council to approve. We are up to drilling in a boulder field and that bit is tricky enough to do politically. Got a state enabling act. And even though it would be against all council laws and it is an awful idea…some rowdies say well just build it.

I’m a bit there with the Trump. Just impeach him. You have more than enough. He is awful and he just causes more chaos every day. But there is a reason to be meticulous Sarah’s Mum. It seems like they are going to catch a lot of rats in this sinking ship.

I still can’t fathom why the ship hasn’t already sunk.

sarahs mum said:

Watching Rachel Maddow.

It made me think.

The is a thing in the comments on most stories about Hobart at the moment. A bunch of people saying to get on and build it. There are no plans in. There is nothing for council to approve. We are up to drilling in a boulder field and that bit is tricky enough to do politically. Got a state enabling act. And even though it would be against all council laws and it is an awful idea…some rowdies say well just build it.

I’m a bit there with the Trump. Just impeach him. You have more than enough. He is awful and he just causes more chaos every day. But there is a reason to be meticulous Sarah’s Mum. It seems like they are going to catch a lot of rats in this sinking ship.

I still can’t fathom why the ship hasn’t already sunk.

I have to say that this has to be one of the most successful misinformation campaigns I’ve seen. Events played out in real time, more or less in plain sight, a very prominent report came out listing the instances of obstruction of justice, and pointedly saying that the prosecution of the president is to be handled by Congress. But there are seemingly millions of people who think that the report did not find evidence of obstruction of justice. We live in an age of unprecedented ease of communication. All any of those people would have to do is open the report, or glimpse the Congressional testimony, to find out about it. Simply by not taking those options, by only watching Fox News and believing whatever the President says unconditionally, they protect themselves from some of the most important political information that has existed in the USA since the Nixon administration. It’s terrible but also fascinating. People wonder how it is that the Chinese government suppressed information about the Tiananmen Square massacre: how did it not just get out through word of mouth? Answer seems to be that people are content to just ignore information they don’t want to be aware of.

sarahs mum said:

Watching Rachel Maddow.

It made me think.

The is a thing in the comments on most stories about Hobart at the moment. A bunch of people saying to get on and build it. There are no plans in. There is nothing for council to approve. We are up to drilling in a boulder field and that bit is tricky enough to do politically. Got a state enabling act. And even though it would be against all council laws and it is an awful idea…some rowdies say well just build it.

I’m a bit there with the Trump. Just impeach him. You have more than enough. He is awful and he just causes more chaos every day. But there is a reason to be meticulous Sarah’s Mum. It seems like they are going to catch a lot of rats in this sinking ship.

I still can’t fathom why the ship hasn’t already sunk.

The outrage is all happening inside a media bubble, the average punters in the US couldn’t give toss.
DJT is still there, still tweeting, still being a clown, still prodding the media bubble with a stick as they wail and lash out in every direction shining lights into black holes.

dv said:

sarahs mum said:

Watching Rachel Maddow.

It made me think.

The is a thing in the comments on most stories about Hobart at the moment. A bunch of people saying to get on and build it. There are no plans in. There is nothing for council to approve. We are up to drilling in a boulder field and that bit is tricky enough to do politically. Got a state enabling act. And even though it would be against all council laws and it is an awful idea…some rowdies say well just build it.

I’m a bit there with the Trump. Just impeach him. You have more than enough. He is awful and he just causes more chaos every day. But there is a reason to be meticulous Sarah’s Mum. It seems like they are going to catch a lot of rats in this sinking ship.

I still can’t fathom why the ship hasn’t already sunk.

I have to say that this has to be one of the most successful misinformation campaigns I’ve seen. Events played out in real time, more or less in plain sight, a very prominent report came out listing the instances of obstruction of justice, and pointedly saying that the prosecution of the president is to be handled by Congress. But there are seemingly millions of people who think that the report did not find evidence of obstruction of justice. We live in an age of unprecedented ease of communication. All any of those people would have to do is open the report, or glimpse the Congressional testimony, to find out about it. Simply by not taking those options, by only watching Fox News and believing whatever the President says unconditionally, they protect themselves from some of the most important political information that has existed in the USA since the Nixon administration. It’s terrible but also fascinating. People wonder how it is that the Chinese government suppressed information about the Tiananmen Square massacre: how did it not just get out through word of mouth? Answer seems to be that people are content to just ignore information they don’t want to be aware of.

Maybe its whose more foolish the fool or the fools that voted for him and to admit it means they have to admit how stupid and wrong they were/are

Peak Warming Man said:

sarahs mum said:

Watching Rachel Maddow.

It made me think.

The is a thing in the comments on most stories about Hobart at the moment. A bunch of people saying to get on and build it. There are no plans in. There is nothing for council to approve. We are up to drilling in a boulder field and that bit is tricky enough to do politically. Got a state enabling act. And even though it would be against all council laws and it is an awful idea…some rowdies say well just build it.

I’m a bit there with the Trump. Just impeach him. You have more than enough. He is awful and he just causes more chaos every day. But there is a reason to be meticulous Sarah’s Mum. It seems like they are going to catch a lot of rats in this sinking ship.

I still can’t fathom why the ship hasn’t already sunk.

The outrage is all happening inside a media bubble, the average punters in the US couldn’t give toss.
DJT is still there, still tweeting, still being a clown, still prodding the media bubble with a stick as they wail and lash out in every direction shining lights into black holes.

Still on 40% approval …

As a trickle of Republicans starts to find the testicular fortitude to state the obvious, I kind of wonder what’s on the mind of the others. Eventually they are going to have to leap from the train: if they go too early, they’ll be viewed as disloyal and punished by Republicans in the primary elections. If they go too late though they’ll ride that train right into the ravine.

dv said:

Peak Warming Man said:

sarahs mum said:

Watching Rachel Maddow.

It made me think.

The is a thing in the comments on most stories about Hobart at the moment. A bunch of people saying to get on and build it. There are no plans in. There is nothing for council to approve. We are up to drilling in a boulder field and that bit is tricky enough to do politically. Got a state enabling act. And even though it would be against all council laws and it is an awful idea…some rowdies say well just build it.

I’m a bit there with the Trump. Just impeach him. You have more than enough. He is awful and he just causes more chaos every day. But there is a reason to be meticulous Sarah’s Mum. It seems like they are going to catch a lot of rats in this sinking ship.

I still can’t fathom why the ship hasn’t already sunk.

The outrage is all happening inside a media bubble, the average punters in the US couldn’t give toss.
DJT is still there, still tweeting, still being a clown, still prodding the media bubble with a stick as they wail and lash out in every direction shining lights into black holes.

Still on 40% approval …

As a trickle of Republicans starts to find the testicular fortitude to state the obvious, I kind of wonder what’s on the mind of the others. Eventually they are going to have to leap from the train: if they go too early, they’ll be viewed as disloyal and punished by Republicans in the primary elections. If they go too late though they’ll ride that train right into the ravine.

Politics hey human stupidity at its worse

Basically the media have lost their cred.
I was very pleased with Leigh Sales when interviewed about her gong yesterday.
When asked about accusations of media bias she didn’t give the answer expected.
She basically said that she was disappointed with the way journalism is going these days, they are more a cheers squad for one side or another and don’t just give the facts and let the punters make up their own mind, instead they give opinions, their own opinions as fact.
5 Stars for Leigh.

Peak Warming Man said:

Basically the media have lost their cred.
I was very pleased with Leigh Sales when interviewed about her gong yesterday.
When asked about accusations of media bias she didn’t give the answer expected.
She basically said that she was disappointed with the way journalism is going these days, they are more a cheers squad for one side or another and don’t just give the facts and let the punters make up their own mind, instead they give opinions, their own opinions as fact.
5 Stars for Leigh.

Nah, with a bit of nous you can work out which outlets are reliable. They give references, details, primary sources. Take the case that I’m talking about. I actually read the report: I know what it says so I’m in a position to know which outlets have faithfully represented its contents. The Guardian and the BBC have represented the matter accurately. The Fox News website has not. Simples.

Most news items are not subjective. Either the reporting is accurate or it is inaccurate.

dv said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Basically the media have lost their cred.
I was very pleased with Leigh Sales when interviewed about her gong yesterday.
When asked about accusations of media bias she didn’t give the answer expected.
She basically said that she was disappointed with the way journalism is going these days, they are more a cheers squad for one side or another and don’t just give the facts and let the punters make up their own mind, instead they give opinions, their own opinions as fact.
5 Stars for Leigh.

Nah, with a bit of nous you can work out which outlets are reliable. They give references, details, primary sources. Take the case that I’m talking about. I actually read the report: I know what it says so I’m in a position to know which outlets have faithfully represented its contents. The Guardian and the BBC have represented the matter accurately. The Fox News website has not. Simples.

Most news items are not subjective. Either the reporting is accurate or it is inaccurate.

Rupert started the death tax thing.

sarahs mum said:

dv said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Basically the media have lost their cred.
I was very pleased with Leigh Sales when interviewed about her gong yesterday.
When asked about accusations of media bias she didn’t give the answer expected.
She basically said that she was disappointed with the way journalism is going these days, they are more a cheers squad for one side or another and don’t just give the facts and let the punters make up their own mind, instead they give opinions, their own opinions as fact.
5 Stars for Leigh.

Nah, with a bit of nous you can work out which outlets are reliable. They give references, details, primary sources. Take the case that I’m talking about. I actually read the report: I know what it says so I’m in a position to know which outlets have faithfully represented its contents. The Guardian and the BBC have represented the matter accurately. The Fox News website has not. Simples.

Most news items are not subjective. Either the reporting is accurate or it is inaccurate.

Rupert started the death tax thing.

He isn’t an Australian.

sarahs mum said:

sarahs mum said:

dv said:

Nah, with a bit of nous you can work out which outlets are reliable. They give references, details, primary sources. Take the case that I’m talking about. I actually read the report: I know what it says so I’m in a position to know which outlets have faithfully represented its contents. The Guardian and the BBC have represented the matter accurately. The Fox News website has not. Simples.

Most news items are not subjective. Either the reporting is accurate or it is inaccurate.

Rupert started the death tax thing.

He isn’t an Australian.

Does Packer own media or did he swap it for gambling interests

Cymek said:

sarahs mum said:

sarahs mum said:

Rupert started the death tax thing.

He isn’t an Australian.

Does Packer own media or did he swap it for gambling interests

Packer doesn’t hold major media interests now, though I did read recently that he is going to sell down his stake in Crown to “diversify” .

sarahs mum said:

dv said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Basically the media have lost their cred.
I was very pleased with Leigh Sales when interviewed about her gong yesterday.
When asked about accusations of media bias she didn’t give the answer expected.
She basically said that she was disappointed with the way journalism is going these days, they are more a cheers squad for one side or another and don’t just give the facts and let the punters make up their own mind, instead they give opinions, their own opinions as fact.
5 Stars for Leigh.

Nah, with a bit of nous you can work out which outlets are reliable. They give references, details, primary sources. Take the case that I’m talking about. I actually read the report: I know what it says so I’m in a position to know which outlets have faithfully represented its contents. The Guardian and the BBC have represented the matter accurately. The Fox News website has not. Simples.

Most news items are not subjective. Either the reporting is accurate or it is inaccurate.

Rupert started the death tax thing.

I have a pretty broad media intake, the ABC, the Guardian, Rupert and shock jocks.
I’d never heard of the death tax thing until after the election.
I received two calls from sources during the election both from Libs, one from my local member Ross Vasta and one from Scott Morrison, there was no mention of a death tax in their spiels.

Peak Warming Man said:

sarahs mum said:

dv said:

Nah, with a bit of nous you can work out which outlets are reliable. They give references, details, primary sources. Take the case that I’m talking about. I actually read the report: I know what it says so I’m in a position to know which outlets have faithfully represented its contents. The Guardian and the BBC have represented the matter accurately. The Fox News website has not. Simples.

Most news items are not subjective. Either the reporting is accurate or it is inaccurate.

Rupert started the death tax thing.

I have a pretty broad media intake, the ABC, the Guardian, Rupert and shock jocks.
I’d never heard of the death tax thing until after the election.
I received two calls from sources during the election both from Libs, one from my local member Ross Vasta and one from Scott Morrison, there was no mention of a death tax in their spiels.

I’m a bit the same, although I’ll admit to being blind to the Murdoch media, but I never heard a peep about Death Taxes until after the election. Has anyone got a link to an article that mentions death taxes that predates the election?

sibeen said:

Has anyone got a link to an article that mentions death taxes that predates the election?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-09/money-pumped-into-federal-election-death-tax-scare-campaign/11092802

https://www.smh.com.au/federal-election-2019/bizarre-tricks-labor-hit-by-new-fake-news-media-release-stirring-death-tax-fears-20190513-p51mue.html

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/apr/22/its-a-lie-chris-bowen-calls-on-coalition-to-disavow-claim-labor-will-bring-in-death-tax

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/death-by-a-thousand-posts-in-social-media-wild-west/news-story/11e146b344c5d795eef05f8555ecabaa

In all fairness, the Murdoch press, and other mainstream press elements, fairly reported that the Death Tax policy was mythological.

It was a social media campaign. I don’t honestly know where it started. Hanson, Christensen and some of Palmer’s crew spoke about it as though it was real but the Coalition leadership kind of ignored it.

Peak Warming Man said:

sarahs mum said:

dv said:

Nah, with a bit of nous you can work out which outlets are reliable. They give references, details, primary sources. Take the case that I’m talking about. I actually read the report: I know what it says so I’m in a position to know which outlets have faithfully represented its contents. The Guardian and the BBC have represented the matter accurately. The Fox News website has not. Simples.

Most news items are not subjective. Either the reporting is accurate or it is inaccurate.

Rupert started the death tax thing.

I have a pretty broad media intake, the ABC, the Guardian, Rupert and shock jocks.
I’d never heard of the death tax thing until after the election.
I received two calls from sources during the election both from Libs, one from my local member Ross Vasta and one from Scott Morrison, there was no mention of a death tax in their spiels.

I read something a few days ago that tracked it back to the Telegraph and it was then Twittered by Christensen? and then it was shared widely on Facebook. It’s been around before in regards to the Greens and I said many times before the election that this was not a thing with the Greens or Labor.

dv said:

sibeen said:

Has anyone got a link to an article that mentions death taxes that predates the election?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-09/money-pumped-into-federal-election-death-tax-scare-campaign/11092802

https://www.smh.com.au/federal-election-2019/bizarre-tricks-labor-hit-by-new-fake-news-media-release-stirring-death-tax-fears-20190513-p51mue.html

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/apr/22/its-a-lie-chris-bowen-calls-on-coalition-to-disavow-claim-labor-will-bring-in-death-tax

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/death-by-a-thousand-posts-in-social-media-wild-west/news-story/11e146b344c5d795eef05f8555ecabaa

In all fairness, the Murdoch press, and other mainstream press elements, fairly reported that the Death Tax policy was mythological.

It was a social media campaign. I don’t honestly know where it started. Hanson, Christensen and some of Palmer’s crew spoke about it as though it was real but the Coalition leadership kind of ignored it.

The first I heard about it was a few days after the election. SWMBO told me that the rumour had spread through building sites in Melbourne and all the young tradies were convinced it was a thing.

You’d think “President of the United States announces willingness to commit federal crimes” would be a bigger story but I guess we are all past that now.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/id-exclusive-interview-trump-listen-foreigners-offered-dirt/story?id=63669304

President Donald Trump may not alert the FBI if foreign governments offered damaging information against his 2020 rivals during the upcoming presidential race, he said, despite the deluge of investigations stemming from his campaign’s interactions with Russians during the 2016 campaign.

dv said:

You’d think “President of the United States announces willingness to commit federal crimes” would be a bigger story but I guess we are all past that now.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/id-exclusive-interview-trump-listen-foreigners-offered-dirt/story?id=63669304

President Donald Trump may not alert the FBI if foreign governments offered damaging information against his 2020 rivals during the upcoming presidential race, he said, despite the deluge of investigations stemming from his campaign’s interactions with Russians during the 2016 campaign.

And even though it more than probably is a crime why don’t we make sure and pass a law. Na. We couldn’t legislate that.

Yesterday afternoon, the Office of Special Counsel advised that President Trump fire Kellyanne Conway, counselor to the president, after several violations of the Hatch Act. This law limits the abilities of any federal employee to engage in political activity, such as influencing an election, while in office.

“As a highly visible member of the Administration, Ms. Conway’s violations, if left unpunished, send a message to all federal employees that they need not abide by the Hatch Act’s restrictions,” the federal watchdog group wrote in a letter to President Trump. “Her actions erode the principal foundation of our democratic system⁠—the rule of law.”

https://lifehacker.com/what-is-the-hatch-act-and-how-did-kellyann-conway-viola-1835495464?IR=T

The United States Office of Special Counsel(OSC) is a permanent independent federal investigative and prosecutorial agency whose basic legislative authority comes from four federal statutes: the Civil Service Reform Act, the Whistleblower Protection Act, the Hatch Act, and the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA). OSC’s primary mission is the safeguarding of the merit system in federal employment by protecting employees and applicants from prohibited personnel practices (PPPs), especially reprisal for “whistleblowing.”

sarahs mum said:

dv said:

You’d think “President of the United States announces willingness to commit federal crimes” would be a bigger story but I guess we are all past that now.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/id-exclusive-interview-trump-listen-foreigners-offered-dirt/story?id=63669304

President Donald Trump may not alert the FBI if foreign governments offered damaging information against his 2020 rivals during the upcoming presidential race, he said, despite the deluge of investigations stemming from his campaign’s interactions with Russians during the 2016 campaign.

And even though it more than probably is a crime why don’t we make sure and pass a law. Na. We couldn’t legislate that.

Accepting in-kind foreign aid in election campaign is a federal campaign fimance law violation. The legislation is already in place.

dv said:

sarahs mum said:

dv said:

You’d think “President of the United States announces willingness to commit federal crimes” would be a bigger story but I guess we are all past that now.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/id-exclusive-interview-trump-listen-foreigners-offered-dirt/story?id=63669304

President Donald Trump may not alert the FBI if foreign governments offered damaging information against his 2020 rivals during the upcoming presidential race, he said, despite the deluge of investigations stemming from his campaign’s interactions with Russians during the 2016 campaign.

And even though it more than probably is a crime why don’t we make sure and pass a law. Na. We couldn’t legislate that.

Accepting in-kind foreign aid in election campaign is a federal campaign fimance law violation. The legislation is already in place.

Yep. Fucking Labor party!

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/jan/31/australian-labor-fined-14500-over-campaign-push-to-stop-trump

:)

dv said:

sarahs mum said:

dv said:

You’d think “President of the United States announces willingness to commit federal crimes” would be a bigger story but I guess we are all past that now.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/id-exclusive-interview-trump-listen-foreigners-offered-dirt/story?id=63669304

President Donald Trump may not alert the FBI if foreign governments offered damaging information against his 2020 rivals during the upcoming presidential race, he said, despite the deluge of investigations stemming from his campaign’s interactions with Russians during the 2016 campaign.

And even though it more than probably is a crime why don’t we make sure and pass a law. Na. We couldn’t legislate that.

Accepting in-kind foreign aid in election campaign is a federal campaign fimance law violation. The legislation is already in place.

Yet yesterday a Republican (sorry I can’t keep up with the cast ) suggested a new law just to make sure.

sarahs mum said:

dv said:

sarahs mum said:

And even though it more than probably is a crime why don’t we make sure and pass a law. Na. We couldn’t legislate that.

Accepting in-kind foreign aid in election campaign is a federal campaign fimance law violation. The legislation is already in place.

Yet yesterday a Republican (sorry I can’t keep up with the cast ) suggested a new law just to make sure.

Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell is ensuring no bill on legislation protecting the USA from foreign election interference are voted on in the senate.

Good steady start from the big bronzed aussie and his diminutive partner.

Following up their 6 minute summary, PBS has produced a somewhat more comprehensive account. (It concludes with the old 6 minute summary, so the new material is about 22 minutes long).

PBS: Mueller Report findings

Russian agents organised a number of Trump rallies in Florida, Texas and elsewhere, and Trump campaign members such as Kellyanne Conway retweeted the Russian agent’s announcements. Mueller did not conclude that they knew the were retweeting Russian agents.

dv said:

Following up their 6 minute summary, PBS has produced a somewhat more comprehensive account. (It concludes with the old 6 minute summary, so the new material is about 22 minutes long).

PBS: Mueller Report findings

Russian agents organised a number of Trump rallies in Florida, Texas and elsewhere, and Trump campaign members such as Kellyanne Conway retweeted the Russian agent’s announcements. Mueller did not conclude that they knew the were retweeting Russian agents.

Good thing Americans seem to be over the whole Reds Under The Beds, now that the reds are in bed with the Repubs.

bump

google advanced search

site or domain: https://tokyo3.org/forums/holiday/

exact word or phrase: Mueller Report

ta boris.
—-

sarahs mum said:

I don’t know where the Mueller report thread is. I have been watching Rachel and she has been chatting about the infiltration of russian agents into defense positions. And I am grokking that getting rid of Trump perhaps isn’t the important bit and why various departments won’t tell Trump what is happening.

‘It’s Just Insane!’ MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow BREAKS DOWN Trump Administration’s Latest Russia Scandal
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kdsyOnbZeY
—

Also I get the sense in watching this that history is telling a story. We’ll look back sometime and we’ll all say, ‘Well that makes sense now.’

sarahs mum said:

ta boris.
—-

sarahs mum said:

I don’t know where the Mueller report thread is. I have been watching Rachel and she has been chatting about the infiltration of russian agents into defense positions. And I am grokking that getting rid of Trump perhaps isn’t the important bit and why various departments won’t tell Trump what is happening.

‘It’s Just Insane!’ MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow BREAKS DOWN Trump Administration’s Latest Russia Scandal
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kdsyOnbZeY
—

Also I get the sense in watching this that history is telling a story. We’ll look back sometime and we’ll all say, ‘Well that makes sense now.’

History generally does make sense. The trick is to try and put yourself in the players place and also played out against a background. Most momentous events are rational responses by intelligent people, even events we make think are stupid in retrospect have ordinary beginnings and sometimes there is no option than the choice between bad options.

AwesomeO said:

sarahs mum said:

ta boris.
—-

sarahs mum said:

I don’t know where the Mueller report thread is. I have been watching Rachel and she has been chatting about the infiltration of russian agents into defense positions. And I am grokking that getting rid of Trump perhaps isn’t the important bit and why various departments won’t tell Trump what is happening.

‘It’s Just Insane!’ MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow BREAKS DOWN Trump Administration’s Latest Russia Scandal
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kdsyOnbZeY
—

Also I get the sense in watching this that history is telling a story. We’ll look back sometime and we’ll all say, ‘Well that makes sense now.’

History generally does make sense. The trick is to try and put yourself in the players place and also played out against a background. Most momentous events are rational responses by intelligent people, even events we make think are stupid in retrospect have ordinary beginnings and sometimes there is no option than the choice between bad options.

My old shrink used to tell me that not everything made sense.

The President. Him. Has given Hope Hicks a life time immunity. This covers her time before working in the Whitehouse…during her time in the Whitehouse…and all the time to come.

Some people are questioning this.

MUELLER REPORT

How to Watch the Live Reading of the Mueller Report By Hollywood Stars

If you’re waiting for a cinematic adaptation of the Mueller Report, you likely have a long wait ahead of you. If, however, you want to hear some of Hollywood’s biggest actors give their take on the special counsel‘s investigation of Donald Trump and interference in the 2016 election, today is your lucky day.

Monday night, June 24 at 9 p.m. E.T., a gaggle of stars will give a live performance of the report, which will be live streamed on the website of Law Works, a group that is hoping to raise the public’s awareness of the report’s contents and “expose current threats to core American values and electoral systems.”

The Investigation: A Search for the Truth in Ten Acts, as the reading is called, was organized by Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright Robert Schenkkan, who also earned an Emmy for his HBO series The Pacific in 2010.

Among the actors who will participate in the reading are Annette Bening, Kevin Kline, John Lithgow, Sigourney Weaver, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Mark Hamill, Justin Long, Piper Perabo, Michael Shannon, and Zachary Quinto.

The reading is being produced by Susan Disney Lord, Abigail Disney, and Timothy Disney, the grandchildren of Roy Disney and grandnieces and grandnephew of Walt Disney.

http://fortune.com/2019/06/24/mueller-report-live-reading-hollywood-stars/

https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-26/us-special-counsel-robert-mueller-to-testify-before-house-panel/11248114

Robert Mueller will comply with subpoenas to appear before House of Representatives Judiciary commitee and the House Intelligence Committees on July 17.

Watching the latest Rachel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UI-6xTaJZu4

I can’t help but compare what Trump is doing with the kids to what we have been doing to refugees for years. I want to get angry about America’s mass child abuse stuff…and I am…but…

sarahs mum said:

Watching the latest Rachel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UI-6xTaJZu4

I can’t help but compare what Trump is doing with the kids to what we have been doing to refugees for years. I want to get angry about America’s mass child abuse stuff…and I am…but…

Let’s be real. Things might not be great on Manus but children there have beds, rooms, toiletries, clothes.

dv said:

sarahs mum said:

Watching the latest Rachel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UI-6xTaJZu4

I can’t help but compare what Trump is doing with the kids to what we have been doing to refugees for years. I want to get angry about America’s mass child abuse stuff…and I am…but…

Let’s be real. Things might not be great on Manus but children there have beds, rooms, toiletries, clothes.

I am being real. I know it is not as bad. It is another step to badder. Trump wants it to be worse. Can’t have Australia winning the bad game.

sarahs mum said:

dv said:

sarahs mum said:

Watching the latest Rachel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UI-6xTaJZu4

I can’t help but compare what Trump is doing with the kids to what we have been doing to refugees for years. I want to get angry about America’s mass child abuse stuff…and I am…but…

Let’s be real. Things might not be great on Manus but children there have beds, rooms, toiletries, clothes.

I am being real. I know it is not as bad. It is another step to badder. Trump wants it to be worse. Can’t have Australia winning the bad game.

Turnbull: Okay, I will explain why.

It is not because they are bad people. It is because in order to stop people smugglers, we had to deprive them of the product.

So we said if you try to come to Australia by boat, even if we think you are the best person in the world, even if you are a Nobel Prize-winning genius, we will not let you in. Because the problem with the people —

Trump: That is a good idea. We should do that too. You are worse than I am.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-04/donald-trump-malcolm-turnbull-refugee-phone-call-transcript/8773422

https://youtu.be/8zUblhfv6GI
The Investigation: A Search For Truth In 10 Acts has been uploaded to Youtube, which might work better than the original website

Zing

Here’s a list of the 77 members of House who now favor an impeachment inquiry on Donald Trump

https://boingboing.net/2019/06/24/then-there-were-77.html

A few more to go.

dv said:

https://youtu.be/8zUblhfv6GI
The Investigation: A Search For Truth In 10 Acts has been uploaded to Youtube, which might work better than the original website

I almost enjoyed that. The comment ticker was a bit distracting. It was being hammered by trolls and idiots.

_“John Bolton Is A Bureaucratic Tapeworm!” _

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAlJv7PDi5w

Many may be surprised at this. I certainly was. Tucker from Fox laying the boots into John Bolton. It really is boots and all. Came up in my suggested youtube feed, I was pleasantly surprised when watching.

sibeen said:

_“John Bolton Is A Bureaucratic Tapeworm!” _

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAlJv7PDi5w

Many may be surprised at this. I certainly was. Tucker from Fox laying the boots into John Bolton. It really is boots and all. Came up in my suggested youtube feed, I was pleasantly surprised when watching.

Certain voices at Fox News (Shep Smith and Chris Wallace) have been increasingly open in their criticism of the Trump admin.

Eg the other day:

Fox’s Shep Smith Torches Trump: We Treat Migrant Children Worse Than Prisoners of War

’Fox’s Shep Smith Torches Trump: We Treat Migrant Children Worse Than Prisoners of War

 

Fox News anchor Shepard Smith on Tuesday strongly objected to President Donald Trump’s assertion that migrant children detained in border detention centers are being treated “very well,” pointing out that the conditions these children face would be in violation of the Geneva Convention.

After his acting Customs and Border Protection chief John Sanders revealed he resigned from his position amid furor over reports of squalid and filthy conditions at overcrowded detention camps, the president insisted to reporters that he is “very concerned” with the issue. At the same time, he claimed the conditions were “much better than they were under President Obama.”

Shortly after Trump made his comments, Smith told Fox News viewers that because Trump said “we’re treating the children very well,” he was going to provide actual reporting on “how those children are being treated.”

Highlighting the “horrendous conditions” at a detention facility in Clint, Texas, the Fox News anchor noted that one lawyer said children less than 10 years of age were taking care of infants and toddlers.

“Their clothes covered in snot,” Smith added. “No access to toothbrushes or toothpaste or soap. Basic necessities for any of us and all the more so for children.”

Referencing a segment from his Monday broadcast, Smith went on to highlight just how awful these kids’ living conditions were.

“We reported accurately here yesterday that were these prisoners of war instead of innocent children, those withholding of those items would be violations of the Geneva Convention,” he declared. “That is what the president considers treating well, the children of migrants that came across the border without documents.”

Smith concluded by reporting that despite the Clint facility being incapable of providing children toothbrushes and soap, 100 children that were transferred elsewhere had been returned to the center.

“Those are the facts,” the anchor added.

Mueller to testify publicly on July 17 following a subpoena
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/06/25/politics/robert-mueller-will-testify/index.html

7 key questions Congress needs to ask Robert Mueller
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/06/26/politics/robert-mueller-congress-testify-donald-trump-russia/index.html

sarahs mum said:

sarahs mum said:

dv said:

Let’s be real. Things might not be great on Manus but children there have beds, rooms, toiletries, clothes.

I am being real. I know it is not as bad. It is another step to badder. Trump wants it to be worse. Can’t have Australia winning the bad game.

Turnbull: Okay, I will explain why.

It is not because they are bad people. It is because in order to stop people smugglers, we had to deprive them of the product.

So we said if you try to come to Australia by boat, even if we think you are the best person in the world, even if you are a Nobel Prize-winning genius, we will not let you in. Because the problem with the people —

Trump: That is a good idea. We should do that too. You are worse than I am.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-04/donald-trump-malcolm-turnbull-refugee-phone-call-transcript/8773422

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1144033134129758208

‘Very substantial evidence’ Trump is ‘guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors,’ House Judiciary Chair says
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/21/politics/mueller-investigation-nadler-says-evidence-trump-guilty-high-crimes-misdemeanors/index.html

Washington (CNN)House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler on Sunday said Robert Mueller’s report presents “very substantial evidence” that President Donald Trump is “guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors” — an impeachable offense.
“We have to … let Mueller present those facts to the American people, and then see where we go from there, because the administration must be held accountable,” Nadler, whose committee would lead impeachment proceedings, said on “Fox News Sunday.”

more…

Tau.Neutrino said:

‘Very substantial evidence’ Trump is ‘guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors,’ House Judiciary Chair says
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/21/politics/mueller-investigation-nadler-says-evidence-trump-guilty-high-crimes-misdemeanors/index.html

Washington (CNN)House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler on Sunday said Robert Mueller’s report presents “very substantial evidence” that President Donald Trump is “guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors” — an impeachable offense.
“We have to … let Mueller present those facts to the American people, and then see where we go from there, because the administration must be held accountable,” Nadler, whose committee would lead impeachment proceedings, said on “Fox News Sunday.”

more…

So rupert is getting ready to knife Trump? He will make money from that.

Tau.Neutrino said:

‘Very substantial evidence’ Trump is ‘guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors,’ House Judiciary Chair says
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/21/politics/mueller-investigation-nadler-says-evidence-trump-guilty-high-crimes-misdemeanors/index.html

Washington (CNN)House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler on Sunday said Robert Mueller’s report presents “very substantial evidence” that President Donald Trump is “guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors” — an impeachable offense.
“We have to … let Mueller present those facts to the American people, and then see where we go from there, because the administration must be held accountable,” Nadler, whose committee would lead impeachment proceedings, said on “Fox News Sunday.”

more…

Yeah, I was going to point to that this morning. Surprised dv hasn’t been all over it.

Ian said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

‘Very substantial evidence’ Trump is ‘guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors,’ House Judiciary Chair says
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/21/politics/mueller-investigation-nadler-says-evidence-trump-guilty-high-crimes-misdemeanors/index.html

Washington (CNN)House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler on Sunday said Robert Mueller’s report presents “very substantial evidence” that President Donald Trump is “guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors” — an impeachable offense.
“We have to … let Mueller present those facts to the American people, and then see where we go from there, because the administration must be held accountable,” Nadler, whose committee would lead impeachment proceedings, said on “Fox News Sunday.”

more…

Yeah, I was going to point to that this morning. Surprised dv hasn’t been all over it.

Are the republicans going to go for it?

AwesomeO said:

Ian said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

‘Very substantial evidence’ Trump is ‘guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors,’ House Judiciary Chair says
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/21/politics/mueller-investigation-nadler-says-evidence-trump-guilty-high-crimes-misdemeanors/index.html

Washington (CNN)House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler on Sunday said Robert Mueller’s report presents “very substantial evidence” that President Donald Trump is “guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors” — an impeachable offense.
“We have to … let Mueller present those facts to the American people, and then see where we go from there, because the administration must be held accountable,” Nadler, whose committee would lead impeachment proceedings, said on “Fox News Sunday.”

more…

Yeah, I was going to point to that this morning. Surprised dv hasn’t been all over it.

Are the republicans going to go for it?

What do you reckon?

Ian said:

AwesomeO said:

Ian said:

Yeah, I was going to point to that this morning. Surprised dv hasn’t been all over it.

Are the republicans going to go for it?

What do you reckon?

I reckon no, which as usual makes discussion of impeachment pointless.

AwesomeO said:

Ian said:

AwesomeO said:

Are the republicans going to go for it?

What do you reckon?

I reckon no, which as usual makes discussion of impeachment pointless.

Maybe. Could help the dem’s electoral chances tho.

Ian said:

AwesomeO said:

Ian said:

What do you reckon?

I reckon no, which as usual makes discussion of impeachment pointless.

Maybe. Could help the dem’s electoral chances tho.

Maybe, though I read in the Guardian his latest antics re those four women. I won’t call it a tactic because I don’t think it is but it might end up being unplanned crazy smart because attention has also turned to what the women have said in the past and linking them indelibly to the democrats.

AwesomeO said:

Ian said:

AwesomeO said:

I reckon no, which as usual makes discussion of impeachment pointless.

Maybe. Could help the dem’s electoral chances tho.

Maybe, though I read in the Guardian his latest antics re those four women. I won’t call it a tactic because I don’t think it is but it might end up being unplanned crazy smart because attention has also turned to what the women have said in the past and linking them indelibly to the democrats.

And he always has a war up his sleeve.

sarahs mum said:

AwesomeO said:

Ian said:

Maybe. Could help the dem’s electoral chances tho.

Maybe, though I read in the Guardian his latest antics re those four women. I won’t call it a tactic because I don’t think it is but it might end up being unplanned crazy smart because attention has also turned to what the women have said in the past and linking them indelibly to the democrats.

And he always has a war up his sleeve.

Been more restrained so far than I suspect Hilary would have been.

List: The 88 House Democrats calling for an impeachment inquiry into Trump
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/23/politics/democrats-impeachment-whip-list/index.html

88 now.

It was 80 a few weeks ago.

> President Donald Trump is “guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors”.

Well duh, but that was before he was elected.

mollwollfumble said:

> President Donald Trump is “guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors”.

Well duh, but that was before he was elected.

Yes, a history of it.

AwesomeO said:

sarahs mum said:

AwesomeO said:

Maybe, though I read in the Guardian his latest antics re those four women. I won’t call it a tactic because I don’t think it is but it might end up being unplanned crazy smart because attention has also turned to what the women have said in the past and linking them indelibly to the democrats.

And he always has a war up his sleeve.

Been more restrained so far than I suspect Hilary would have been.

maybe hilary wouldn’t have pulled out of the nuclear deal with Iran so the possibility of war would never have arisen.

ChrispenEvan said:

AwesomeO said:

sarahs mum said:

And he always has a war up his sleeve.

Been more restrained so far than I suspect Hilary would have been.

maybe hilary wouldn’t have pulled out of the nuclear deal with Iran so the possibility of war would never have arisen.

That’s something we’ll never know now but I’d like to think the same.

Trumps replies to Mueller’s questions.

20 questions. 30 ‘I do not recall’ or ‘I do not remember.’

( SPECIAL SHOW) The Rachel Maddow Show 7/21/19
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6lX1aLPlBA

Tau.Neutrino said:

List: The 88 House Democrats calling for an impeachment inquiry into Trump
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/23/politics/democrats-impeachment-whip-list/index.html

88 now.

It was 80 a few weeks ago.

And they’re only the opposition, just imagine when all the Republican do the same.

PermeateFree said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

List: The 88 House Democrats calling for an impeachment inquiry into Trump
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/23/politics/democrats-impeachment-whip-list/index.html

88 now.

It was 80 a few weeks ago.

And they’re only the opposition, just imagine when all the Republican do the same.

ROFL

George-: The guns have stopped.
Baldrick-: Maybe the wars over.
Darling-: Oh hoorah, the great war of 1914-1917 is over.

“But Hillary!”

PermeateFree said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

List: The 88 House Democrats calling for an impeachment inquiry into Trump
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/23/politics/democrats-impeachment-whip-list/index.html

88 now.

It was 80 a few weeks ago.

And they’re only the opposition, just imagine when all the Republican do the same.

Momentum is growing.

That’s good.

sarahs mum said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

‘Very substantial evidence’ Trump is ‘guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors,’ House Judiciary Chair says
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/21/politics/mueller-investigation-nadler-says-evidence-trump-guilty-high-crimes-misdemeanors/index.html

Washington (CNN)House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler on Sunday said Robert Mueller’s report presents “very substantial evidence” that President Donald Trump is “guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors” — an impeachable offense.
“We have to … let Mueller present those facts to the American people, and then see where we go from there, because the administration must be held accountable,” Nadler, whose committee would lead impeachment proceedings, said on “Fox News Sunday.”

more…

So rupert is getting ready to knife Trump? He will make money from that.

I think Pelosi has pretty much laid her cards on the table, saying “I don’t want to see him impeached, I want to see him in prison.”

Pretty much the only way that he escapes prosecution is if he is impeached…

sarahs mum said:

Trumps replies to Mueller’s questions.

20 questions. 30 ‘I do not recall’ or ‘I do not remember.’

( SPECIAL SHOW) The Rachel Maddow Show 7/21/19
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6lX1aLPlBA

It was 44 minutes long and I have only just finished it.

I still don’t understand why the states seem unconcerned about what the Russians have done.

They know people in Trump’s team and family met with Russians and all. They can’t PROVE that Trump was involved.(although it is blindingly obvious he obstructed justice.

But..but…but..what about the Russians?

sarahs mum said:

sarahs mum said:

Trumps replies to Mueller’s questions.

20 questions. 30 ‘I do not recall’ or ‘I do not remember.’

( SPECIAL SHOW) The Rachel Maddow Show 7/21/19
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6lX1aLPlBA

It was 44 minutes long and I have only just finished it.

I still don’t understand why the states seem unconcerned about what the Russians have done.

They know people in Trump’s team and family met with Russians and all. They can’t PROVE that Trump was involved.(although it is blindingly obvious he obstructed justice.

But..but…but..what about the Russians?

It doesn’t matter to the average US punter, wages are good, unemployment is good, growth is good, their economy is strong.
They don’t give a shit about mouth frothing journalists who had their belief that they controlled the agenda shattered by Trump. They see them as nothing more than yesterdays heroes hell bent on revenge for their loss of importance.

Peak Warming Man said:

sarahs mum said:

sarahs mum said:

Trumps replies to Mueller’s questions.

20 questions. 30 ‘I do not recall’ or ‘I do not remember.’

( SPECIAL SHOW) The Rachel Maddow Show 7/21/19
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6lX1aLPlBA

It was 44 minutes long and I have only just finished it.

I still don’t understand why the states seem unconcerned about what the Russians have done.

They know people in Trump’s team and family met with Russians and all. They can’t PROVE that Trump was involved.(although it is blindingly obvious he obstructed justice.

But..but…but..what about the Russians?

It doesn’t matter to the average US punter, wages are good, unemployment is good, growth is good, their economy is strong.
They don’t give a shit about mouth frothing journalists who had their belief that they controlled the agenda shattered by Trump. They see them as nothing more than yesterdays heroes hell bent on revenge for their loss of importance.

grabs popcorn

Peak Warming Man said:

sarahs mum said:

sarahs mum said:

Trumps replies to Mueller’s questions.

20 questions. 30 ‘I do not recall’ or ‘I do not remember.’

( SPECIAL SHOW) The Rachel Maddow Show 7/21/19
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6lX1aLPlBA

It was 44 minutes long and I have only just finished it.

I still don’t understand why the states seem unconcerned about what the Russians have done.

They know people in Trump’s team and family met with Russians and all. They can’t PROVE that Trump was involved.(although it is blindingly obvious he obstructed justice.

But..but…but..what about the Russians?

It doesn’t matter to the average US punter, wages are good, unemployment is good, growth is good, their economy is strong.
They don’t give a shit about mouth frothing journalists who had their belief that they controlled the agenda shattered by Trump. They see them as nothing more than yesterdays heroes hell bent on revenge for their loss of importance.

Like any sane person I want to see Trump get his comeuppance but the media he defeated are not the people to do it, they still don’t know why they lost, they are living in a bubble.
A cool level headed traditionalist like Joe Biden is the man to do it.
He can touch the better angels of the American nature, I do hope he gets pre-selection.

Peak Warming Man said:

Peak Warming Man said:

sarahs mum said:

It was 44 minutes long and I have only just finished it.

I still don’t understand why the states seem unconcerned about what the Russians have done.

They know people in Trump’s team and family met with Russians and all. They can’t PROVE that Trump was involved.(although it is blindingly obvious he obstructed justice.

But..but…but..what about the Russians?

It doesn’t matter to the average US punter, wages are good, unemployment is good, growth is good, their economy is strong.
They don’t give a shit about mouth frothing journalists who had their belief that they controlled the agenda shattered by Trump. They see them as nothing more than yesterdays heroes hell bent on revenge for their loss of importance.

Like any sane person I want to see Trump get his comeuppance but the media he defeated are not the people to do it, they still don’t know why they lost, they are living in a bubble.
A cool level headed traditionalist like Joe Biden is the man to do it.
He can touch the better angels of the American nature, I do hope he gets pre-selection.

So do I.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jul/22/if-others-have-rifles-well-have-rifles-why-leftist-groups-are-taking-up-arms

I can see the above ending real well

SUCKERS – Randy Rainbow Song Parody

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wb219dz_NeA

Peak Warming Man said:

Peak Warming Man said:

sarahs mum said:

It was 44 minutes long and I have only just finished it.

I still don’t understand why the states seem unconcerned about what the Russians have done.

They know people in Trump’s team and family met with Russians and all. They can’t PROVE that Trump was involved.(although it is blindingly obvious he obstructed justice.

But..but…but..what about the Russians?

It doesn’t matter to the average US punter, wages are good, unemployment is good, growth is good, their economy is strong.
They don’t give a shit about mouth frothing journalists who had their belief that they controlled the agenda shattered by Trump. They see them as nothing more than yesterdays heroes hell bent on revenge for their loss of importance.

Like any sane person I want to see Trump get his comeuppance but the media he defeated are not the people to do it, they still don’t know why they lost, they are living in a bubble.
A cool level headed traditionalist like Joe Biden is the man to do it.
He can touch the better angels of the American nature, I do hope he gets pre-selection.

Are we talking about his groping?

DV…

Rachel at about 8 minutes in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSeRBqkrFc0

sarahs mum said:

DV…

Rachel at about 8 minutes in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSeRBqkrFc0

It will be interesting to see how this plays out

Last week, Trump told journalists “Nobody ever mentions Article II. It gives me all of these rights at a level that nobody has ever seen before.”

This was a bit baffling since Article 2 is over two hundred years old. Fuck knows what he meant. People have seen it before.

Yesterday, he addressed a group of schoolchildren at the Turning Point USA’s Teen Action Summit, and told them, “I have an Article 2, where I have the right to do whatever I want as president.”

https://theweek.com/speedreads/854487/trump-have-article-2-where-have-right-whatever-want-president

So maybe he literally has only just become familiar with Article 2 of the Constitution, maybe he fell asleep partway through reading Article 1. Having discovered it, he appears to have misunderstood the level of authority it gives him.

Meanwhile, it is not clear whether the DOJ’s advice to Robert Mueller will have any effect on today’s testimony, since he has not cleared his opening remarks with them. Last week, the DOJ sent Mueller a letter advising him that it is not usual for the DOJ to allow prosecutors to comment on unindicted third parties. But (shrugs) Mueller is not a DOJ employee anymore and it seems common opinion is that there would be nothing illegal for him to comment on the case. One of the major questions that will be asked is, “In the absence of the Counsel’s memo restricting the indictment of sitting presidents, would you have recommended charges?”

Wonder what kind of rights he thinks it gives him.

Divine Angel said:

Wonder what kind of rights he thinks it gives him.

The right to act like a complete dimwit.

the FBI director has not read the Mueller report.

‘I have reviewed it. I couldn’t say that I have read it.’

sarahs mum said:

the FBI director has not read the Mueller report.

‘I have reviewed it. I couldn’t say that I have read it.’

JFC

dv said:

sarahs mum said:

the FBI director has not read the Mueller report.

‘I have reviewed it. I couldn’t say that I have read it.’

JFC

That’s what the executive summary is for.

dv said:

sarahs mum said:

the FBI director has not read the Mueller report.

‘I have reviewed it. I couldn’t say that I have read it.’

JFC

Remind me. What did Clinton do to get impeached?

sarahs mum said:

dv said:

sarahs mum said:

the FBI director has not read the Mueller report.

‘I have reviewed it. I couldn’t say that I have read it.’

JFC

Remind me. What did Clinton do to get impeached?

Mislead congress. I think.

AwesomeO said:

sarahs mum said:

dv said:

JFC

Remind me. What did Clinton do to get impeached?

Mislead congress. I think.

I did not have sex with that woman.

sarahs mum said:

dv said:

sarahs mum said:

the FBI director has not read the Mueller report.

‘I have reviewed it. I couldn’t say that I have read it.’

JFC

Remind me. What did Clinton do to get impeached?

Articles if impeachment were raised against Clinton on the basis of lying under oath and obstruction of justice – both of which related to a claim of sexual harassment made against him by Paula Jones.

Watching Mueller’s testimony now:

His opening remarks were basically a brief rerun of his May comments with the exception that he pointedly noted that the investigation made no finding at all on the topic of collusion, which he mentioned is not a legal term of art, but that it did not establish a criminal conspiracy between Trump’s team and Russian persons to a level that would be likely to result in a conviction. On the other hand, the report did not make a similar finding on the topic of obstruction: if they had cleared the President of obstruction, they would have said so. He then reiterated the point that the OLC memo restricted him from laying charges against the president, or making recommendations thereof. He also said that the report was his testimony, and that he would be sticking to the language in the report.

The questions have thus been mainly getting him to repeat and confirm what is in the report, eg that the report found numerous instances in which the President used undue influence on the investigation, and both publically and privately attempted to silence witnesses to the investigation.

Mueller has also stated that he cannot answer any questions on the Steele Dossier as it is the subject of active investigations.

waits

sarahs mum said:

waits

For what?

He’s told everything he has in his report, there isn’t going to be any explosive reveals today. It’s just a chance for the democrats to try and tease out threads on the TV and for the repubs to pile into Mueller.

He’s starting to shut down. I dare say the Dems would prefer he would read from the report but instead he says “I refer you to the report”.

sibeen said:

sarahs mum said:

waits

For what?

He’s told everything he has in his report, there isn’t going to be any explosive reveals today. It’s just a chance for the democrats to try and tease out threads on the TV and for the repubs to pile into Mueller.

It’s hard to see this shifting the needle much but you never know.

For those playing at home: the Republicans saying that the investigation was unlawful because it could not meet its own standards because it could neither recommend nor decline charges are full of shit and I dare say know it. The OLC guidelines indicate that such investigations must go ahead to preserve evidence “while memories are fresh and documents available “ so that it can potentially be used in charges against the President once he leaves office.

Even the Gran is reporting that Mueller is not helping the cause in any way. If they are conceding that then I imagine the right wing sites must be cock-a-hoop.

It’s a topsy turvy world. The Republicans are going after him on the basis that he is on some motivated vendetta but he seems to be superhumanly straight-arrow and by the book

Okay they are asking him directly to read from the report now and he’s saying, “I’d be happy to have you read it”

Lieu: “The reason you did not indict Donald Trump… is because of the OLC decision. Is that correct?”
Mueller: “That is correct.”

I mean it is possible that people who are swing voters who haven’t been tracking the news but tuned in today will be learning some of these things for the first time.

Republicans have been trying to get comment on the Steele Dossier, but because Attorney General William Barr opened an investigation on it, Mueller can’t comment.

Rep. Demings: “Isn’t it fair to say written answers were not only inadequate and incomplete because he didn’t answer many of your questions, but where he did, his answers show that he wasn’t always being truthful?”

Mueller: “Generally.” 

https://youtu.be/pVX1xx53E3A

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-25/five-takeaways-from-the-mueller-hearings/11344610

dv said:

Rep. Demings: “Isn’t it fair to say written answers were not only inadequate and incomplete because he didn’t answer many of your questions, but where he did, his answers show that he wasn’t always being truthful?”

Mueller: “Generally.” 

https://youtu.be/pVX1xx53E3A

It requires some assembly. If someone wanted not to understand, they’d have some space to do that.

It boils down to

“Is it a crime to lie to federal prosecutors?”
- “Yes”
“If someone else, like me, or a Senator, lied to federal prosecutors, would they be indicted?”
- “Yes”
“Did the president lie to federal prosecutors?”
-“Yes”
“Did the President commit a crime”
- “I can’t comment on that”

No orange jumpsuit for the president at this stage.

I listen to it last night, I listened to his preamble speech.
He told them nothing new, he stuck to his report.
He said the Russian attempt to interfere in the 2016 election was sweeping.
He said there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians.
He said he and his team did not go down the path of investigating whether the President tried to obstruct the investigation because they couldn’t do anything about it anyway, it was left open.

That’s it.

Peak Warming Man said:

I listen to it last night, I listened to his preamble speech.
He told them nothing new, he stuck to his report.
He said the Russian attempt to interfere in the 2016 election was sweeping.
He said there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians.
He said he and his team did not go down the path of investigating whether the President tried to obstruct the investigation because they couldn’t do anything about it anyway, it was left open.

That’s it.

Mr Robot had the Dark Army do just that, get a fool elected as president so they could control him

Peak Warming Man said:

I listen to it last night, I listened to his preamble speech.
He told them nothing new, he stuck to his report.
He said the Russian attempt to interfere in the 2016 election was sweeping.
He said there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians.
He said he and his team did not go down the path of investigating whether the President tried to obstruct the investigation because they couldn’t do anything about it anyway, it was left open.

That’s it.

So you say that’s it, and dv says that’s not it.

At least one of you must be wrong.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Peak Warming Man said:

I listen to it last night, I listened to his preamble speech.
He told them nothing new, he stuck to his report.
He said the Russian attempt to interfere in the 2016 election was sweeping.
He said there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians.
He said he and his team did not go down the path of investigating whether the President tried to obstruct the investigation because they couldn’t do anything about it anyway, it was left open.

That’s it.

So you say that’s it, and dv says that’s not it.

At least one of you must be wrong.

Do they need an investigation into the Mueller report in case Russians are controlling it.
Say a investigation headed by Matthew Broderick, the Bueller Mueller report

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Peak Warming Man said:

I listen to it last night, I listened to his preamble speech.
He told them nothing new, he stuck to his report.
He said the Russian attempt to interfere in the 2016 election was sweeping.
He said there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians.
He said he and his team did not go down the path of investigating whether the President tried to obstruct the investigation because they couldn’t do anything about it anyway, it was left open.

That’s it.

So you say that’s it, and dv says that’s not it.

At least one of you must be wrong.

Do they need an investigation into the Mueller report in case Russians are controlling it.
Say a investigation headed by Matthew Broderick, the Bueller Mueller report

Dear oh dear.