Author Topic: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)  (Read 1540440 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline JBS

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3967
  • If music be the food of love, play on!
  • Location: USA
Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
« Reply #15680 on: March 18, 2019, 09:50:53 AM »
With all due respect, but I feel that you don't have an accurate idea of the 'reality on the ground'. I spent my last five Summers in both Israël and some Palestinian territories (Westbank only, but travelled along the Gaza strip and visited some settlements at the border) and this is not what I saw and learnt. The occupation is real, its effects are catastrophic, also for Israeli Palestinians (living as I do in the North, where they are a demographic but not political majority and where the explosion probably will start, somewhere in the near future), Westbank settlers are developing into extremist groups and 'official' politics is deadlocked, doesn't foresee any compromise, is still aimed at dismantling any effective Palestinian leadership. The 'rejection' politics is now predominantly a onesided Israeli affair; a tragedy and one that will cost dearly.  :-X

I was painting a broad political picture.  In fact, of what you wrote, the only thing I disagree with is your belief that rejectionism is purely on the Israeli side.  Rejectionism dominates the Palestinian leadership, and because of that dismantling the Palestinian is more or less a sine qua non to reach any peaceful situation. 

Hollywood Beach Broadwalk

Offline JBS

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3967
  • If music be the food of love, play on!
  • Location: USA
Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
« Reply #15681 on: March 18, 2019, 05:36:08 PM »
Yesterday I said Ilhan Omar was all over the place regarding Israel since her election to Congress. This week, apparently, she decided she is for the two state solution, and an end to violence.
https://www.salon.com/2019/03/18/rep-ilhan-omar-calls-for-a-two-state-solution-to-israel-palestine-conflict-in-new-op-ed/

Hollywood Beach Broadwalk

Offline SimonNZ

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 8223
  • Location: Christchurch, NZ
« Last Edit: March 19, 2019, 01:27:02 AM by SimonNZ »

Ghost of Baron Scarpia

  • Guest
Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
« Reply #15683 on: March 19, 2019, 08:04:57 AM »
At the moment, all Palestinian institutions are controlled by those who are totally opposed to even the idea of Israel. It's hard to say what the actual Palestinian people think, since all dissent is crushed by the PA (meaning the current Abu Mazen regime) on the West Bank and even more brutally by Hamas in Gaza.  Perhaps it is ironic..but Palestinians who live in Israel proper are far more free than those who live under the rule of fellow Palestinians.  Both the PA and Hamas encourage and sometimes directly engage in violence against Israel, and maintain wiping out Israel is an inseperable part of Palestinian nationhood. When they talk about the Occupation, they mean not just the West Bank, but also Israel proper. To them, Tel Aviv and Eilat are occupied territories. The PA in dealing with Westerners tries to wiggle out of saying this directly, but they are not do discreet when talking to other Arabs. Hamas is much more open, and much more likely to initiate violence (which is why the Israeli treatment of the West Bank is different from its treatment of Gaza.)  But this maximalist stance means that discussion of legitimate grievances (and there are more than a few) is a waste of breath.

You seem to speak as though the idea that the government of Israel is not legitimate is an utter absurdity. I find it not so clear. If all of the people who were driven out of the land claimed by Israel could return to the place they consider their home and vote, it is likely that Jews would not be the majority. It would not be a Jewish state.  And recently Israeli laws has been altered to give non-Jews a lower status than Jews. Not that any of Israel's neighbors are legitimate democracies either. But I no longer see Israel has having a clear moral high-ground in this conflict. (I thought differently when Israel had leaders of the calibre of Yitzak Rabin.) Frankly, I see Likud, Hamas and the PA to be on the same moral plane. Israel has overwhelming military dominance, which forces the Palestinian entities to the level of insurgents and guerrilla fighters. And ordinary Palestinians have to contend with Israeli occupation and the oppression of their own leaders, it not being clear which is worse.

Offline SimonNZ

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 8223
  • Location: Christchurch, NZ
Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
« Reply #15684 on: March 19, 2019, 03:17:36 PM »
US official reveals Atlantic drilling plan while hailing Trump’s ability to distract public

"A top US official told a group of fossil fuel industry leaders that the Trump administration will soon issue a proposal making large portions of the Atlantic available for oil and gas development, and said that it is easier to work on such priorities because Donald Trump is skilled at sowing “absolutely thrilling” distractions, according to records of a meeting obtained by the Guardian.

Joe Balash, the assistant secretary for land and minerals management, was speaking to companies in the oil exploration business at a meeting of the International Association of Geophysical Contractors, or IAGC, last month.

“One of the things that I have found absolutely thrilling in working for this administration,” said Balash,“is the president has a knack for keeping the attention of the media and the public focused somewhere else while we do all the work that needs to be done on behalf of the American people.”

Offline SimonNZ

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 8223
  • Location: Christchurch, NZ
Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
« Reply #15685 on: March 19, 2019, 03:21:16 PM »
State Department bars press corps from Pompeo briefing unless they work for “faith-based media,” won't release list of attendees or transcript.

"The State Department on Monday said it would not be distributing a transcript or list of attendees from a briefing call with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo held that evening -- a call from which the department's press corps was excluded and only "faith-based media" allowed.

The afternoon phone briefing was to discuss "international religious freedom" with the secretary -- who rarely participates in such calls -- ahead of his trip to the Middle East. One member of the State Department press corps was invited, only to be un-invited after RSVPing. That reporter was told that the call was for "faith-based media only."

CNN also RSVP'd to organizers, asking to be included, but received no reply.

Despite repeated inquires and complaints from members of the press corps who are based at the department, the State Department on Monday night said they would not be providing a transcript of the call, a list of faith-based media outlets who were allowed to participate or the criteria to be invited."

Offline SimonNZ

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 8223
  • Location: Christchurch, NZ
Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
« Reply #15686 on: March 19, 2019, 03:31:22 PM »
The real reason the Trump administration is constantly losing in court

"Federal judges have ruled against the Trump administration at least 63 times over the past two years, an extraordinary record of legal defeat that has stymied large parts of the president’s agenda on the environment, immigration and other matters.

In case after case, judges have rebuked Trump officials for failing to follow the most basic rules of governance, including providing legitimate explanations for shifts in policy, supported by facts and, where required, public input.

[...]

“What they have consistently been doing is short-circuiting the process,” said Georgetown Law School’s William Buzbee, an expert on administrative law who has studied Trump’s record. In the regulatory cases, Buzbee said, “They don’t even come close” to explaining their actions, “making it very easy for the courts to reject them because they’re not doing their homework.”

Two-thirds of the cases accuse the Trump administration of violating the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), a 73-year-old law that forms the primary bulwark against arbitrary rule. The normal “win rate” for the government in such cases is about 70 percent, according to analysts and studies. But as of mid-January, a database maintained by the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law shows Trump’s win rate at about 6 percent.

Seth Jaffe, a Boston-based environmental lawyer who represents corporations and had been looking forward to deregulation under Trump, said he has been frustrated by the administration’s failure to deliver.

“I’ve spent 30 years in the private sector complaining about the excesses of environmental regulation,” Jaffe said, but “this administration has given regulatory reform a bad name.”

Some errors are so basic that Jaffe said he has to wonder whether agency officials are more interested in announcing policy shifts than in actually implementing them. “It’s not just that they’re losing. But they’re being so nuts about it,” he said, adding that the losses in court have “set regulatory reform back for a period of time.”

Contributing to the losing record has been Trump himself. His reported comments about “shithole countries,” for example, helped convince U.S. District Judge Edward Chen in San Francisco that the administration’s decision to end “temporary protected status” for hundreds of thousands of immigrants from Central America, Haiti and Sudan was motivated by racial and ethnic bias.

At least a dozen decisions have involved Trump’s tweets or comments.

Offline Rinaldo

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 1788
  • Cara sposa, dove sei?
    • aaraaf.net
  • Location: Prague
Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
« Reply #15687 on: March 21, 2019, 02:45:08 AM »

Offline BasilValentine

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 1177
Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
« Reply #15688 on: March 21, 2019, 02:54:27 PM »
Elizabeth Warren versus the current head of the Consumer Finance Protection Board, another Trump appointed scumbag:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAafy88VY7I



Offline drogulus

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 8438
  • Gypsy, 1970
  • Location: Watertown, MA
Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
« Reply #15691 on: March 21, 2019, 07:01:34 PM »

     25 States Are at Risk of Serious Flooding This Spring, U.S. Forecast Says

     I suppose there's a kind of justice that the heart of Trump country is devastated by the Chinese Hoax.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:56.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/56.0 Waterfox/56.2.13
      
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:64.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/64.0

Offline drogulus

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 8438
  • Gypsy, 1970
  • Location: Watertown, MA
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:56.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/56.0 Waterfox/56.2.13
      
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:64.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/64.0


Offline SimonNZ

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 8223
  • Location: Christchurch, NZ
Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
« Reply #15694 on: March 22, 2019, 04:47:33 PM »
Jared Kushner using WhatsApp to speak to foreign contacts, top Democrat says

"Jared Kushner, Donald Trump’s senior adviser and son-in-law, uses the online messaging service WhatsApp for official business – including communication with foreign contacts, according to a new letter from congressional investigators.

The letter, sent to the White House by the House oversight committee chairman, Elijah Cummings, on Thursday, also says Ivanka Trump, Kushner’s wife and the president’s daughter, is not preserving all of her official emails, as required by federal law.

The new disclosures came in the letter to the White House counsel Pat Cipollone, and demands documents related to the use of personal email and messaging accounts by White House aides.

“The White House’s failure to provide documents and information is obstructing the committee’s investigation into allegations of violations of federal records laws by White House officials,” Cummings, the Maryland Democrat, wrote.

The Presidential Records Act prohibits senior White House officials from using non-official email or messaging accounts for government business, unless they send copies of the messages to their official accounts.

Abbe Lowell, a lawyer for Kushner and Ivanka Trump, told the committee in December that Kushner was still using WhatsApp as part of his official duties at the White House, including for communications with people outside the United States.

Kushner is the Trump administration’s point man on Middle East policy. CNN reported last year he was communicating on WhatsApp with the Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman.

Lowell said that Kushner complied with the records law by taking screenshots of his messages in the app and sending them to his White House email, according to the letter. But he could not tell investigators whether Kushner had sent classified information through WhatsApp, saying: “That’s above my pay grade.”

Ivanka Trump has continued to receive email related to official business on her personal email account, and does not forward a message to her official account unless she replies to it, Lowell told the committee.

“This would appear to violate the Presidential Records Act,” Cummings wrote.

Other White House officials have also used personal email for official business, the letter says.

KT McFarland, when she was deputy national security adviser, used her personal AOL account, according to a document cited by the committee.

Trump’s former chief strategist Steve Bannon also received documents related to an effort to transfer nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia at a personal email address, the letter says.

Cummings said that when it was under Republican control in March 2017, his committee started investigating whether White House officials were using personal email and messaging accounts to conduct official business.

He said that Trump’s White House had so far failed to provide documents and information, and demanded that they turn over the information by 4 April. He asked for a list of all White House officials who have used personal email for official business."

Offline SimonNZ

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 8223
  • Location: Christchurch, NZ
Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
« Reply #15695 on: March 22, 2019, 05:06:09 PM »
A long unrolled thread, but worth reading in its entirety:

Seth Abramson

"(THREAD) BREAKING NEWS: Mueller has sent a report to DOJ that DOJ is representing is "comprehensive" and will shortly be publicly summarized. A lot of the reporting surrounding this major event is *wrong*—so I'll try to report things accurately. I hope you'll read on and retweet.

1/ At the risk of sounding like Mike Myers' famous SNL talk-show host Linda Richman, "Mueller's final Trump-Russia report" is neither "Mueller's," final, about "Trump-Russia" or a "report." So all the breathless "reporting" today suggesting otherwise is inaccurate and misleading.

2/ What we call the "Trump-Russia" investigation is a web of criminal, counterintelligence, and Congressional investigations that intersect with the work of the Special Counsel's Office. So there are three key "c"-words here—"criminal," "counterintelligence," and "Congressional."

3/ Special Counsel Mueller is part of the "criminal" investigation; Mueller's work *intersects* with the "counterintelligence" investigation; and his work feeds into and draws from the Congressional investigation. And here's the key: all three of these investigations are ongoing.

4/ As part of the "criminal" investigation, Mueller investigated some things his office then prosecuted; he investigated some things his office handed off to others; he investigated some things he chose not to prosecute; he investigated some things he is letting Congress handle.

5/ Mueller's "criminal" investigations—that is, the information he derived during his nearly 24 months of *criminal investigative work*—then fed directly into multiple "counterintelligence" investigations and will undoubtedly feed into many ongoing "Congressional" investigations.

6/ The news we got today is that Mueller will not *himself* be bringing any more indictments. That's it. That's *all* that has just happened. Any reporting that says the "Russia probe is done" is false. Any reporting that "Mueller's work is done" is false. It is only what I said.

7/ Focusing *exclusively* on what Mueller's office will be doing going forward and *exclusively* on the criminal investigation—so, a small part of what we somewhat misleadingly call the "Trump-Russia scandal"—we can see that Mueller may be done indicting (*maybe*) but that's it.

8/ As of today, Mueller had ten attorneys working for him (himself not included, I believe) down from seventeen originally. But we found out this week that certain attorneys who "left" his Office will *still be doing work for it*. Why? Because the Office has some work left to do.

9/ That Office, whether still formally constituted or not, will see its attorneys prosecute Roger Stone in November, eight months from now. It will see its cooperating witness Rick Gates participate in "multiple" ongoing federal criminal investigations. And that's just the start:

10/ The Office will see its cooperating witness Mike Flynn testify in the Kian trial in July (Kian was a NatSec official on Trump's transition team whose case intersects with all the other parts of the Trump-Russia investigation). Flynn is also involved in *multiple* other cases.

11/ The Office will continue to pursue grand jury testimony from a Roger Stone witness, and continue to pursue a substantial trove of documents (for its grand jury, which is seated through July as far as was last reported) from an as-yet unnamed state-owned foreign corporation.

12/ The Office has—it appears—referred to DOJ for prosecution at least one man it previously promised to prosecute (Corsi) and presumably has referred to DOJ for *possible* prosecution a whole host of "Trumpworld" figures who Congress has recently accused of perjuring themselves.

13/ We also heard from major media over the past few weeks that Bob Mueller's office was referring out an unknown number of new cases to other federal prosecutors, including presumably—based on past cooperation and information-sharing practices—prosecutors in SDNY, EDVA, and DC.

14/ We *also* know from major media that there are many ongoing cases for which Mueller's office conducted some of the investigation, all of the investigation, or shared information with the case's primary investigators, such as Cohen's SDNY cases and the Maria Butina case in DC.

15/ What some in the media decided—I do not know why—is that the only cases they would associate with Mueller would be (a) indictments Mueller's office brought, (b) that were completed before he issued any report to the DOJ, and (c) immediately (on their face) involved collusion.

16/ So you have reporters today blithely saying that "Mueller is done" when Mueller will be prosecuting Roger Stone for most of 2019. You have reporters saying "he's done" when cases he initiated are not only ongoing in multiple jurisdictions but may well provide new intel there.

17/ If Roger Stone decides to cooperate—before or after conviction—that's Mueller. The same is true for Kian. The same is even true for Manafort (who can cooperate to reduce his sentence for the next year). But the same is also true for the many cases Gates and Flynn are working.

18/ The same is true for Butina. And for indictments that arise from the ongoing counterintelligence investigation(s). Or any new criminal referrals that go from Congress to DOJ. The same is true for cases Mueller began—that then went elsewhere—that could lead to new indictments.

19/ The same is true for any cases that Mueller passed directly on to DOJ to let DOJ decide whether to prosecute them or not. In short, media can tell us today that *Mueller himself* will bring no new indictments—but even that might be conditioned by what happens in Stone's case.

19/ So Mueller has indicated not just all the charges he himself brought, but all those he sent elsewhere that we know of and all those he sent elsewhere that we *don't* know of. As for the "counterintelligence" investigation—quite possibly still ongoing—we'll get nothing at all.

20/ There may then be *another* category in what Mueller has submitted which includes cases he referred back to Main Justice. And a final category (possibly) that includes cases he suggests be referred to Congress because an indictment is impossible (e.g., cases involving Trump).

21/ As to what Mueller will do with one other category—inculpatory evidence he discovered involving potential offenses he regarded as outside his purview—I have no idea whether those will be in the report, were sent to other federal prosecutors, or will be given to Main Justice.

22/ What we have today are a large number of non-attorney journalists who don't understand what a *small part* of the big picture is being dealt with and discussed today because they want to believe they have a handle on a story they do *not* have a handle on. That's distressing.

23/ Imagine that tomorrow Bijan Kian says, "I saw things on the national security team during the transition—I want to talk." Imagine Stone says that. Imagine that any of the cases Mueller's cooperating witnesses are working on now—including Gates and Flynn—beget new indictments.

24/ Under those circumstances, what would today's too-oft-heard pronouncement—"no new indictments"—even mean? Or what would it mean if any of the cases Mueller referred to SDNY, EDVA, DC, state courts, or Main Justice—whether in the past or just recently—lead to new indictments?

25/ What if the counterintelligence cases that do not appear to have been subsumed by Mueller's investigation return to the criminal sphere in the future as new indictments? What if Congressional investigations spurred by Mueller's work produce new evidence, and then indictments?

26/ Thus—given all this—my statement that this investigation isn't "Mueller's." It now resides within—besides, still, Mueller's grand jury—the Stone case, the Kian case, Gates' cases, Flynn's cases, Cohen's cases, SDNY, EDVA, DC, NYCDA, NYAG, Main Justice, FBI, CIA, and Congress.

27/ And "new indictments" in *any* of those spheres may not be prosecuted by Mueller himself—but they will be the product of his work and the fact that his investigation has unleashed a snowstorm of legal hurt upon Donald Trump the likes of which no president has previously seen.

28/ This explains, too, why "final"—applied to today's "report"—is false. There is only a finality to Mueller himself bringing new indictments (with the exception that many things could happen that *would've* led to new indictments for Mueller that he'll now allow DOJ to handle).

29/ But Mueller did something else for America that we are only just beginning to appreciate: news stories tracking down what Mueller was working on informed us that what we call "Trump-Russia" isn't really "Trump-Russia" at all—that Trump's malfeasance goes *well* beyond Russia.

30/ That is, no matter the scope of what Mueller "reports," we know he investigated—and may have sent to other prosecutors outside Main Justice—data on pre-election Trump collusion with Saudi Arabia, Israel, UAE, Egypt, Bahrain, and Qatar: all intersecting with Russian collusion.

31/ The extent to which Mueller pursued these leads is partly mandate-based and partly due to the imposition of urgency upon his work by voters, media, politicians, possibly DOJ itself. Investigation of these other courses of collusion—many quite baroque—can't be wrapped up soon.

32/ So for instance, major media reported that Mueller was looking into Trump-Saudi collusion—and soon after Representative Schiff of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence picked up that thread, and will pursue it even if Mueller left it out of his "report" to DOJ.

33/ I keep putting "report" in quotes because what Mueller has made is a "report" by DOJ *regs* but not as we generally understand the term: it is not a conclusive statement that addresses all complexities of a given issue. It is a narrow perspective on a single subset of issues.

34/ DOJ can't charge someone with something *or discuss in much detail that they considered doing so*—or perhaps even *any* detail—unless they can prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt: with 90%+ certainty. But would a full "report" tell us there was 78% proof of conspiracy?

35/ To put this in concrete terms: If Mueller found 81% proof that Trump criminally conspired with the Kremlin, it's entirely possible you wouldn't find that anywhere in any "report" Mueller files. Would you then call that a full and final "report on conspiracy"? No—you wouldn't.

36/ Just so if Mueller had 78% proof Trump Jr. perjured himself. Or 86% proof Erik Prince did. Or 69% proof that Kushner committed espionage. That's all stuff you'd like to know—and that we'd expect in any "report" deserving that name on those topics—but you wouldn't see it here.

37/ To be clear, this isn't sour grapes—as the fact that this intel *won't* be in this "report" media is over-hyping only means that, instead, you will see this 78% (or 86%, or 69%) proof of harrowing federal felonies *paraded before Congress on your TV screen at home*. And more:

38/ It will *continue* to be—invisible to you and me—the subject of ongoing investigations by the FBI/CIA such that, if/when proof of Kushner committing espionage (say) goes from 69% to 90%, it *will* reappear in the criminal justice system as a "new indictment." You bet it will.

39/ So when I say "Mueller's final Trump-Russia report" is neither Mueller's, final, "Trump-Russia," or a report, I mean it—it isn't any of those things. That doesn't mean it's not an important milestone in an historic test of our rule of law, democracy, and civic fabric—it *is*.

40/ We're not jurors—we don't need 90%+ proof of conspiring with Russia to find a POTUS unfit or shun Kushner the rest of his life. My book PROOF OF COLLUSION—and upcoming book PROOF OF CONSPIRACY—establish these things at the high level of certainty informed citizenship demands.

41/ As for offenses underlying collusion and conspiracy—obstruction, witness tampering, perjury, bank fraud, wire fraud, money laundering, RICO and more—as to both Donald Trump *and* his family and aides I have every reason to believe such investigations and cases proceed onward.

42/ As for collusion and conspiracy—the latter a charge in itself, the former chargeable when it arises in conduct qualifying as conspiracy, aiding/abetting, bribery, fraud or even offenses like obstruction—there's *another* group that isn't jurors requiring 90%+ proof: Congress.

43/ PROOF OF COLLUSION and PROOF OF CONSPIRACY—taken together as a duology of Trump/Trumpworld treachery—make a fulsome case for impeachment in the context of the offenses alleged being national security threats no Congress can demand 90%+ proof of for an impeachment to proceed.

44/ And it's for this precise reason that *another* investigation will not be stopped should there not be found (by Mueller) 90%+ proof of conspiracy: the counterintelligence investigations that preceded Mueller's investigation and that are—as far as any of us know—still ongoing.

45/ In short, as to any offense which isn't a high crime or misdemeanor and involves Trump and his family, the investigation of such crimes continues; as to high crimes and misdemeanors, 90%+ proof not only won't be required and isn't expected, it *cannot* be set as the standard.

46/ I'd have liked Mueller to handle the prosecution of Don Jr., Prince, and others lying to Congress, but if others do so that's fine; I'd have liked Mueller to hold Kushner accountable for all that he's done with Russia, Saudi Arabia, and others, but have *no* doubt he will be.

47/ I'm sad that—for the sake of clicks, eyeballs, ratings, and the salaries of those who live by a breaking-news chyron—what happened today has wrongly been cast as the end of something rather than (as @neal_katyal wisely said) the beginning of something. But that's media today.

48/ The reason I often remind people that I was a practicing criminal attorney for years—and am still an attorney—and that I was trained as a criminal investigator at two universities and then practiced as a criminal investigator, is because I stand by my professional judgments.

49/ Trump is what I've said he is, and he's done what I've said he's done. Hundreds of hours of professional research for two books leave no doubt for me. Whatever we receive from Barr in the coming days—whether comprehensive and transparent or opaque and elusive—that remains so.

50/ You—whoever you are, reading this—want this to end *now*. I want it as much as you do—maybe far more. But it won't end anytime soon. What we see when we see Mueller's work will be the end of just *one* chapter of U.S. history's longest, most complex, most harrowing epic. /end

Offline lisa needs braces

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 1562
Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
« Reply #15696 on: March 23, 2019, 04:58:23 AM »
I am hoping that the Mueller report is a dud and the Clintonites who have spent the past two years trying to distract from their failure in 2016 will get embarrassed, and then the base will turn on them and Saint Bernie's faction will be anointed as the new leaders of the Dem party.


Offline lisa needs braces

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 1562
Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
« Reply #15697 on: March 23, 2019, 04:59:37 AM »
Obviously there is another possibility, one we must consider if the Mueller report is a dud:

Mueller was compromised by the Russians.

 :D

Offline drogulus

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 8438
  • Gypsy, 1970
  • Location: Watertown, MA
Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
« Reply #15698 on: March 23, 2019, 06:11:04 AM »

     It doesn't matter how dud-like the report is. What matters is the results of the investigation that have been undertaken and will continue for years.

Quote
47/ I'm sad that—for the sake of clicks, eyeballs, ratings, and the salaries of those who live by a breaking-news chyron—what happened today has wrongly been cast as the end of something rather than (as @neal_katyal wisely said) the beginning of something. But that's media today.

     It's funny how people who are informed by media reports, like me, don't get the "wrongly cast" bit at all. Among the explainers of what this report means is.....Neal Katyal. The media itself, for all the hype it also produces, tells you what the Mueller report is and isn't. If you don't process information well, and are so lazy that you allow bias, or "bias", to distract you from information gathering, it's your own fault.
     
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:56.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/56.0 Waterfox/56.2.13
      
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:64.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/64.0

Offline drogulus

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 8438
  • Gypsy, 1970
  • Location: Watertown, MA
Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
« Reply #15699 on: March 23, 2019, 06:26:39 AM »

     Access to Mueller’s report and evidence may be guided by Congress, Clinton email case    

Justice Department officials have worried that they will have a weak argument for withholding such materials, given how much information was turned over to Congress after the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of state.

When that investigation ended in 2016, then-FBI Director James B. Comey made public the reports of agents’ interviews with witnesses, gave public briefings to Congress and supplied additional information to lawmakers in private meetings.

Justice Department officials who cringed at that level of information-sharing and the disclosure of sensitive investigative documents did much the same after Trump fired Comey in May 2017. When Republican lawmakers demanded additional materials about both the Clinton and Russia probes, the White House squeezed the agency to comply. At one point, in early 2017, then-Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) refused to allow the nomination of Rod J. Rosenstein for deputy attorney general to go forward unless Grassley was provided a detailed briefing from the FBI about the Russia investigation.

Grassley got the briefing.


     
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:56.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/56.0 Waterfox/56.2.13
      
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:64.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/64.0