US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[Mr Quatro]

Originally Posted by u crank

They simply want more political theatre. And they will probably get it. The truth is hard to admit. Robert Mueller failed to do what so many had hoped he would do. And he knew he was going to fail probably long before he was done with his investigation. So he did the only other thing he could do to fulfil his mandate. ...

This is so true .. Political quote of the year

[vienna]

Originally Posted by u crank

...

I watched most of the hearing live. It was a waste of time. Nothing we didn't already know was revealed. Despite the media spin, Barr handled himself very well.

...

I also watched the hearing (and downloaded the video) and was not at all impressed by Barr; he seemed furtive, kind of like a kid whose parent has caught them raiding the cookie jar and is trying to tap dance their way out of the dilemma and its consequences. In particular, the questioning of Barr by Harris was strangely fascinating; it would appear Barr made his conclusions on the Mueller report without even having reviewed the underlying evidence provided by the SC; in fact, there is a strong indication Barr hasn't even read the full report; I was almost expecting Barr to start to argue what "Is" is:





In the questioning by Hirono, Barr seemed to want to cite evidence he never reviewed as substantiation of his actions:





Barr keeps citing the rational for his actions as actions normal prosecutors do in common course; yet, I think a competent, thorough, and diligent prosecutor would have at least personally reviewed the evidence in a case, asked questions of the investigators, and be as fully knowledgeable about a case before rendering an opinion on the viability of prosecution. That is a minimum standard and Barr doesn't even come close to meeting the minimum...


Barr says he didn't review underlying evidence of Mueller report before making obstruction call --

https://thehill.com/policy/national-...mueller-report


Of course, it can only be expected Barr would give a half-baked, half-assed, half-hearted, and half-cocked accounting of himself and his actions given that he was appointed for a specific, self-serving purpose by a half-baked, half-assed, half-hearted, and half-cocked idiotic poor excuse for a president...

Originally Posted by u crank

...

Mueller on the other hand has not. First of all how did this letter get into the public sphere? Leakers gotta leak. It was Mueller not Barr who wanted to control the narrative. Mueller had his own summary which he wanted to get out to do just that. But the truth is that it was not Mueller's prerogative. He is not the AG, Barr is. The AG was having none of this political gamesmanship, which by the way reveals more about Mueller's motives than Barr's.

So what did exactly did Barr do that was so wrong? Apparently he didn't play Mueller's political game and Mueller got butt hurt over it. Barr has been accused of covering for Trump yet he released Mueller's report in full. It was something he did not have to do. What am I missing?

...

So, are you saying Mueller, himself leaked the letter? Got any, you know, , like, facts to back that up? Or is your claim your homage to the honesty and integrity of your hero, Trump?

Mueller has, by far, been the most closed-mouthed, retiring, and reclusive person in the whole investigative process. Is it possible one or some of those prosecutors and investigators who worked on the investigation is/are more than a bit irked by the attempts by Trumps and his minions, vocally supported by the Trumpettes, to twist the evidence and findings to save the political bacon of Trump and keep his broad ass out of jail; it is possible the leak came from that quarter; however, it is not out of the shadow of a doubt that some one in the Trump camp, with knowledge of the letter, say some one in the DOJ not part of the Mueller team may have finally said "Enough!" and leaked the letter....

Mueller was within his ethical rights to assert his opinion to Barr on the seeming attempt by Barr to recast the findings, which, again, Barr, self-admittedly had no complete knowledge, to match Trump's hoped for results. Barr, on the other hand, abdicated whatever meager ethical leadership he had by participating and engineering a gross deception. There is now obvious reason why Barr (and Trump) didn't want the SC's report made public, since it has run counter to the whitewash Team Trump tried to foist on the voters. Barr didn't release the Report as an altruistic gesture: he (and Trump) couldn't stop the report becoming public once it became obvious the Barr 'summary' was a tissue of deceit: they were caught next to the open cookie jar and, now, had to open their hands and show what really happened...

Originally Posted by u crank

...

The bottom line here is that you, the Dems and the left wing MSM are mad at Barr when they should be mad and disappointed with Mueller. Mueller could not dispite his best effort find a single American to charge with conspiracy with Russia in regards to the 2016 election. The Rachel Maddows and Adam Schiffs of the world got your hopes up but alas no payoff.

DOJ guidlines don't allow for an inditement of a sitting President. But it was within Mueller's authority to recommend prosecution on obstruction of justice. But he did not. Why? Because he knew there was no case. Instead he used his position to smear Trump politically with his findings. When Barr instead issued a statement explaining that no prosecution would take place Mueller got his feelings hurt. AG Barr did exactly what the Attorney General is supposed to do: avoid smearing unprosecutable people for unspecified crimes. But that is exactly what Mueller did.

...

I do not hate Barr and can't be lumped into your convenient 'grouping' and I know that rather much upsets your attempt at neat bow-tying, but that's a fact. Just like Trump, who I also don't hate, I only know what I can, on my own, find out about them. I didn't know much of Trump before he ran for office in 2016 other than he was a loud-mouthed, overly-boastful, self-promoting pop culture reality star and pop culture is full of them, like Trump's BFF Kanye. I didn't much care or think about him before he took office and I won't think or care much about him after he leaves office and faces indictment. The same for Barr: I knew he was a former, two-year AG under Bush who had a rather non-consequential tenure in that office and he came back again under Trump; I actually had a bit of hope for him, even knowing that he had openly lobbied for the AG post, initially losing it to Sessions, even going so far as to write an unsolicited, and factually unsupported 'opinion' on the legal status of matters pertaining to Trump; Barr actually did have a bit of earned respect in the DC legal and judicial circles, so I gave him a bit of slack and he failed. I don't hate Barr and I'm nt angry at him, but I am disappointed in his now failed attempt at political pandering; again, once Barr is gone, I'll neither think nor care about him...

The DOJ guidelines are just that: they are not enacted laws or even enacted regulations; there is no underlying act of Congress making the guidelines law of the land; the guidelines are, for all intents and purposes, opinions reached by various DOj administrations over many, many years and leaderships. If it were to be decided to actually indict a President, no legal defense could be mounted saying an indictment is a violation of Federal Law. What the 'no indictment policy' is is a sort of domestic governmental form of the "diplomatic immunity"; it doesn't mean that a President can never be indicted, just that the DOJ would rather not do so while the incumbent is in office, for various legal logistical reasons (it is also fairly certain that if the incumbent committed a heinous enough crime, the 'no indictment policy' would be very quickly ignored); and, like "diplomatic immunity', it only exists as long as the offender is covered by the immunity while holding their position; once a foreign diplomat or functionary is no longer in 'office', they are fair game for prosecution for crimes committed while under the shield of immunity; similarly, once Trump is out of office, he's going to face a slew of indictments, both Federal and State, and he will have to face prosecution. Nixon was famously the "Unindicted Co-Conspirator" in the Watergate indictments and was facing prosecution until he made the pardon deal. Trump is already the prominent "Individual One" in the Cohen campaign finance scandal and a court has already found there was a crime and accepted the guilty plea of Cohen; once Trump is out of office, that "Individual One" placeholder will bear his name...

Originally Posted by u crank

...

Oh I think you might be disappointed. Mueller has a lot to answer for. If and when he does take the stand it may be angry Democrats with the tough questions. They by the way they are the ones who insist that Mueller appear before Congress. Why? Is Mueller holding out? Of course not. They simply want more political theatre. And they will probably get it. The truth is hard to admit. Robert Mueller failed to do what so many had hoped he would do. And he knew he was going to fail probably long before he was done with his investigation. So he did the only other thing he could do to fullfil his mandate. Supply the impeachment crazy Dems and never Trumpers with material for impeachment. It is quite a system. If you can't do it legally you do it politically. Barr addressed this yesterday.


...

...

Of course they can't do it legally: there is no law regarding Presidential indictability. However, there is law that does allow for indictment or impeachment of a sitting President, its just that the DOJ has a ploicy, not a lwa, just a policy, against indicting Presidents and impeachment is in the hands of Congress, legally. Why did Mueller not indict? Well, there is that nagging little policy issue, and the Report indicates that but for the 'policy', Grand Jury indictments would have been handed down. This does not mean Trump or any other President in the same position is innocent, exonerated, or fully beyond the reach of law, just that a 'policy' exists, with no weight of law, as an impediment and not a bar. Mueller did absolutely the right thing: he put out the investigations findings and left the adjudication to the proper legal channels, i.e., the Congress and/or the courts. He also took the teeth out of the bit of Trump, his minions, and the Trumpettes: if Grand Jury indictment(s) were handed down against Trump, they would have filled their Pampers, risen up on their hind,legs, and howled about 'one man' making decisions about the conduct of law. Instead, the SC set the matter out for all to see and left it to the heavy guns to fight it out; it wasn't the SC's fight; he just presented the facts, as dispiriting and irksome to Trump, his minions, and the Trumpettes as the facts may be...

Originally Posted by u crank

...

That statement by Barr was aimed directly at these people. They will disregard it at their own peril. And make no mistake, there are people in the GOP who would be happy to play that game as well. Joe Biden is currently the Dem frontrunner for 2020. But Uncle Joe was in the Obama White House when all this shady stuff went down. Before 2020 Biden as the Dem candidate might find himself sitting in that same chair that Barr was in yesterday. You know what they say about karma....

Karma? Oh, you mean what's going to come back and take a big chunk out of Trump's behind when he's out of office?

As far as sitting in Barr's chair, remember, the GOP ruled both the House and the Senate for two whole years and did absolutely nothing about their long uttered threats and sabre-rattling about the Clinton's, Obama, et al. Why didn't they do anything they had the power, they had the votes, they controlled the process; hell, they even had a GOP president in the oval office and a GOP head of the Justice Dept. Where was their investigation, where were their indictments, where were their hearings? Two years of unbridled opportunity and they pissed it away. Was it because they knew they really had no case(s)? Was it because they feared a potential backlash? Were they afraid, since all their prior investigations and hearings into the Clintons, Obama, et al, in previous years had come to naught, that yhey'd have yet another embarrassing failure? Was the GOP Congress, for those two years just, plain afraid? To be fair, once the Mid-Terms were over, and the GOP realized their chance had dissolved, the GOP Senate did have two committees hold rushed, ill-planned hearings about their pet peeves; and, like the other GOP hearings before, they just rehashed the same, tired, rhetoric and, ultimately, couldn;t reach any conclusion(s); both committees, just called a joint press conference and announced they were referring their concerns to the DOJ...again...


All hat: No cattle...











<O>

[vienna]

If one read the SC's report, this would have been noted, but as for now, most of the public hasn't really heard about this aspect of the underlying evidence to the SC's report:


Watergate had the Nixon tapes. Mueller had Annie Donaldson’s notes. --

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.417fe3db3b43


It will be interesting to see if the GOP members of the Congressional committees will want to delve too deep into such documentation...

Somewhere Nixon's looking up and saying, "Yup, kharma..."...



A bit of "truth in jest"...

















<O>

[u crank]

Originally Posted by vienna

it would appear Barr made his conclusions on the Mueller report without even having reviewed the underlying evidence provided by the SC;

It doesn't 'appear' like it, Barr said he didn't. And why should he? What Harris is suggesting here is that somehow Mueller's evidence doesn't line up with Mueller's conclusions. I'm going to suggest that Barr trusts Mueller more than Harris does. There is no evidence that AG Barr does not trust or respect SC Mueller's work. And they are long time friends. Lawyers disagree on legal matters all the time. In this case each person has a different role. Mueller's ended when he submited his report. Harris's problem like so many others is that she doesn't like the conclusion. Here's a news flash...Barr wasn't the investigator, Mueller was. Barr didn't write the report, Mueller did. Barr released the entire report except redactions which Mueller agreed on. I am finding it hard to see what the problem is. Oh wait... I know what the problem is.

and was not at all impressed by Barr; he seemed furtive,

Barr is bored out of his mind with these idiots.

As for Sen. Harris she was being her usual rude, ignorant self but I can respect her as she is somewhat intelligent. Crazy Mazie on the other hand has the mental capacity of a gnat.

in fact, there is a strong indication Barr hasn't even read the full report; I was almost expecting Barr to start to argue what "Is" is:

Got any, you know, , like, facts to back that up?

So, are you saying Mueller, himself leaked the letter? Got any, you know, , like, facts to back that up?

If Mueller personally wasn't the leaker then someone on his team did. Barr speculated that his staffers wrote the letter and most likely they leaked it. Or did it just magically appear at The Washington Post? Or some other conspiracy theory.

Mueller was within his ethical rights to assert his opinion to Barr on the seeming attempt by Barr to recast the findings, which, again, Barr, self-admittedly had no complete knowledge, to match Trump's hoped for results. Barr, on the other hand, abdicated whatever meager ethical leadership he had by participating and engineering a gross deception.

I am completely mystified by this kind of reasoning. What is this 'gross deception' that you are talking about. Please be specific. Barr promised to release the SC's report. He did. He did not change a word of it. He asked Mueller if his summation was inaccurate. Mueller said it was not. The accusation that Barr somehow 'spun' the summation would only make sense if Barr refused to release the report or changed it in some way. We know that didn't happen. In fact the exact opposite happened. Barr's initial summation was made with the sure knowledge that the full report would be released as promised. Gross deception is pretty strong language. How about an explanation.

I fully understand the Dems and the lefty MSM hatred for Barr and their desire to smear him. The reason is they fear him. Barr has the confidence to almost taunt them. They are not use to that. What is now known about how Mueller's investigation got started is just the beginning of some very bad times for these people. The truth is out there, and Barr is threatening to reveal it.

I'm reminded of the last lines of that Queen song 'One Vision'.

'Just gimme gimme gimme
Fried chicken'

[Buddahaid]

"As for Sen. Harris she was being her usual rude, ignorant self but I can respect her as she is somewhat intelligent."

She made him look completely stupid and you know it! Tough, but relevant, questions he tried to deflect at every turn.

[em2nought]

Do you hear that sound? The Langoliers are coming!

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

She made him look completely stupid and you know it! Tough, but relevant, questions he tried to deflect at every turn.

I'm going to respectfully disagree. He actually seemed disinterested and most likely aware of her tactics. Harris has been admonished before for her rude behavior while questioning people.

During the Supreme Court confirmation hearing for Judge Brett Kavanaugh she interrupted the very first sentence of Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley’s (R-Iowa) opening statement. Pure showboating.

Harris interrupted Rod Rosenstein as he started to say there wasn’t enough time to explain the answer.

Homeland Security Secretary nominee John Kelly repeatedly asked Harris if she would let him answer her questions.

She had to be admonished for her questioning of Jeff Sessions.

And then there are her really silly questions asked purly as virtue signalling stunts. The best one was when she actually asked the CIA Director nominee Mike Pompeo about climate change at his confirmation hearing. The look on Pompeo's face was priceless.

I can understand why people would defend her but there is no excuse for rude behavior. Not very presidential.

[u crank]

While were on the subject of Kamala Harris some thoughts. I think that Harris has the best chance by far of being the first female US President. That being said I think it was a mistake to run in 2020. She would have been much wiser to wait until 2024. She would still not be 60 years old and by then would likely be the senior Senator from California. If she fails to win the nomination this time she can then be refered to as 'failed Presidential nominee' Harris. If she does happen to win the nomination she will be up against an incumbant President. If she loses, (a possibility) she will then be refered to as 'failed Presidential candidate' Harris.

In 2024 the three top candidates at present will be gone. To old or irrelevant. I also think it would be a mistake to accept a VP position on a ticket with Biden or Sanders. Stay far away from those losers.

In my opinion she has five years to raise her profile, soften that rude interrogator persona and stop associating herself with dumb policies. If she does that she would be almost unbeatable in 2024.

[Mr Quatro]

While were on the subject of Kamala Harris some thoughts. I think that Harris has the best chance by far of being the first female US President. That being said I think it was a mistake to run in 2020. She would have been much wiser to wait until 2024.

No I don't think so u crank ...

1 She's a woman
2. She's from California
3 She's black

Percentage wise she doesn't even have a chance and with 19 others to decide on for the democrats run for the WH ... she will get lost behind the front runners.

Besides it's Trump in 2020 and then he will turn the WH over to VP Pence

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Mr Quatro

No I don't think so u crank ...

1 She's a woman
2. She's from California
3 She's black

For some voters those are strong points. Well...not the California one.

[em2nought]

Originally Posted by Mr Quatro

Besides it's Trump in 2020 and then he will turn the WH over to VP Pence

Race Bannon as President?

[ikalugin]

http://time.com/5582867/mueller-repo...sia-sanctions/
This is going to go amasingly, isn't it?

[em2nought]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

http://time.com/5582867/mueller-repo...sia-sanctions/
This is going to go amasingly, isn't it?

After all other means have failed miserably, starting a nuclear war with Russia would be a small price to pay in order to finally make President Donald Trump look bad.

[August]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

http://time.com/5582867/mueller-repo...sia-sanctions/
This is going to go amasingly, isn't it?

This should include a national examination of “best practices” in our various state election systems; a mandatory, federally-evaluated test for each state to pass to be certified to hold elections; and drills conducted at the federal, state, and local level to actually test our readiness. Beyond this, we should also educate our children at the earliest age about what information is real and what is fake, especially in digital settings. Above all, we need to pass new laws that stop any campaign from seeking or benefiting from foreign influence

None of this would actually stop or even significantly inhibit foreign interference in national politics but it sure would mean a significant increase in the size and power of our government to create and administer all these these tests and education. This might even take a whole new government administration! Statists everywhere will rejoice.

[August]

Interesting question.

There’s no need for conversations when you can simply rewrite definitions.
But there is no question, no matter how many euphemisms they create or how many tortured word salads they toss, the intelligence community under the administration of Barack Obama used every tool they had at their disposal to spy on the Trump campaign.
They spent a year and a half running a “counterintelligence operation” that turned up nothing actionable. No arrests were made, no coordination with any foreign government occurred – nothing. They listened to phone calls, read emails, even sent in undercover agents to bait them, and zip.

So why, after all that does the Justice Department, as a result of manipulation by the then recently fired FBI Director through leaks of government material to the New York Times, launch a Special Counsel investigation into the very same thing they’d been working covertly for a year and a half? They’d found nothing while being knee-deep in the operations of the campaign while it was happening, what did they expect to find after the fact?
The truth is they knew they’d find nothing because they’d found nothing, at least on the idea of collusion. But they needed to damage the Trump administration, and nothing in politics does that like the whiff of scandal.

But acknowledging the dry well they’d already dug would not have allowed them the opportunity to manufacture process crimes – charges of lying to investigators during an investigation that came up dry when it was covert. They claimed a few scalps that way – General Michael Flynn and George Papadopoulos. They’d broken them financially and got them to agree to plead guilty to inconsequential “lies” in order to avoid the type of lifelong financial ruination only federal prosecutors can inflict.

Weird, considering the Justice Department knew everything those men had done, and that they hadn’t broken the law, because they were watching and listening the whole time.

https://townhall.com/columnists/dere...pying-n2545854