Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)

[SimonNZ]

That link to Fox doesn't work...happily.

To the quote: try reading the Mueller Report...or at least some precis of it that doesn't come from Fox, Barr or Trump. Or at least the Conclusions sections of the Report. After all this time why does that syll need to be said to anyone even semi-literate? Because Trump's twitter feed told you straight from the horse's mouth that he was "exonerated"?

Or if you really are just a troll-farm troll then keep up the good shitty work.

[SimonNZ]

The link didn't work, idiot. I got a message saying it didn't work. And you'll need to find a more credible source than Fox to get me to even click the link in future. Which should have been clear already. And is almost certainly true of everyone else here, no matter where they sit on the political spectrum, short of extreme MAGA Trumpist.

And yes, I "fault you for not reading" the actual Mueller Report or at the very least its conclusions, and just taking the spin at face value, given its massive importance.

[SimonNZ]

Washington Post again, quoting in full:

Pardoning Flynn would have looked bad. Dropping the charges is far worse.

"For months, President Trump has suggested that he might pardon retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, his former national security adviser, who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI. But now Trump won't have to worry about it: Attorney General William P. Barr filed a motion Thursday asking the federal court overseeing Flynn's case to dismiss the charges.

If he is successful, Barr will save Trump from the political fallout of pardoning a former close aide, while still clearing Flynn. A pardon might have seemed to be the ultimate perversion of justice — but Barr's maneuver is actually much, much worse.

Flynn lied to the FBI in early 2017 about a conversation he had with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak when Flynn was a member of the Trump transition team. Flynn's conversation involved mollifying Russia immediately after the Obama administration expelled 35 Russian spies and imposed sanctions as punishment for its interference in the 2016 election. When interviewed by the FBI about his conversation with Kislyak, Flynn lied, despite knowing — as he undoubtedly would, as the former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency — that doing so was a crime.

The fact that he would lie to the FBI, which is charged with protecting the country's national security, raised the concern that he might be compromised by a foreign power — a concern that Barr's current motion to the court claims that the FBI should have ignored. In fact, Barr's motion to the court echoes the request Trump made to the bureau's then-director, James B. Comey, in February 2017, when he asked Comey to "see [his] way clear to letting Flynn go" — a request that landed Trump in the middle of an investigation into obstruction of justice.

Since then, Trump has never discounted the possibility that he might use his pardon power to do what Comey wouldn't. But however ugly it might have looked, a pardon would be completely legal. The ability of the president to pardon criminals was one of the few monarchical powers that made its way into the Constitution. While the Framers debated whether to put this power into the hands of Congress, Alexander Hamilton believed it should remain at the discretion of a single person: "The benign prerogative of pardoning," he wrote in The Federalist No. 74, "should be as little as possible fettered or embarrassed."

Hamilton believed that pardons existed alongside, not in place of, the law, and his concept of pardons envisioned the law first taking its proper course. A pardon was appropriate "when the laws have once ascertained the guilt of the offender." Pardons, in his view, were an act of mercy, not justice: They accept as their premise that the offender is guilty, and in the process, they legitimize the law and administration of justice even as they overturn the outcome.

Of course, Hamilton also believed that the pardon power would rest in "a single man of prudence and good sense." This has not always been the case. Presidents have pardoned many people in the past who may not have deserved it: Gerald Ford unconditionally pardoned Richard Nixon for any crimes he had committed in office, and Bill Clinton pardoned people like Marc Rich, the ex-husband of one of his biggest donors. Because the power exists outside normal criminal law, there is no doubt that presidents have granted pardons for political, rather than merciful, ends.

But as controversial as pardons might be, at least they come with some accountability as the Framers designed them. The pardon power is enshrined in the Constitution, putting voters on notice that the character of the person they elect will no doubt influence how they wield this kingly authority. With the power clearly and unequivocally in the hands of just one person, a pardon leaves no doubt as to where the responsibility lies when a president absolves someone of a crime. A person who abuses the power may pay the price at the polls. This may be why most presidents have waited until the end of their second term or until after they have lost a reelection bid to use this authority. (Clinton's pardon of Rich came on his last day in office.)

But Barr's motion would blur the whole question of accountability. Trump couldn't have done anything wrong, because he has issued no pardon; Barr's argument, in fact, is that the FBI agents whom Flynn lied to and the prosecutors who brought the case are the ones to blame. Barr's legal sleight of hand attempts to shift the focus from Trump to the Justice Department that he himself oversees.

Yet Barr's justification — that there was no legal basis for Flynn's interview by the FBI, which means there was no legal basis to indict him for lying to agents — is belied by the process of Flynn's case. The investigation of Flynn was conducted by an independent special counsel and reviewed by the judicial branch. U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan accepted Flynn's guilty plea and even went so far as to tell Flynn in open court that "arguably, you sold your country out." Sullivan also rejected Flynn's attempt last year to have the prosecutors held in contempt of court for allegedly coercing him into pleading guilty.

Now Barr is saying Sullivan's orders and the whole process leading up to Flynn's conviction and sentencing was illegitimate. At least if Trump were to pardon Flynn, the basic premise that he had, in fact, lied to the FBI and pleaded guilty to it would not be up for dispute. If Barr prevails, though, the most fundamental building blocks of counterintelligence investigations — such as ensuring that the FBI can question people about contacts with hostile foreign agents and hold them accountable if they conceal them — are no longer things we can count on. Barr wants to create a twilight zone where such things can occur with legal impunity.

Sullivan can still reject Barr's motion, which would force Trump to pardon Flynn and accept the accountability that comes with the power, if the president really wants his man cleared. But even if Barr prevails, there may be a silver lining for those of us who believe in the rule of law: In usurping Trump's authority, Barr could still leave Flynn in potential legal jeopardy. That's because if the court does dismiss Flynn's case, Flynn will not have admitted guilt, nor will he have been "convicted" in a legal sense.

Without an acceptance of guilt, Trump has no crime to pardon. And Sullivan can accept Barr's motion "without prejudice," which would leave the door open for a new prosecution by the Department of Justice in a future administration. And either way, the voters can still hold this administration accountable in November."

[JBS]

A new prosecution would have major hurdles.  It would have to be done by Jan 2022 because of the statute of limitations, and the motion to dismiss could be used as grounds to dismiss on the basis that DOJ admitted no crime was done.

[SimonNZ]

So truth depends on which media outlet aligns with your political views? You wonder why I LOL at your comments; you're a hoot.

You apparently don't care about the conclusions in it since nothing happened from ol' Bobby spending 30 million and basically telling Congress "I can't tell, couldn't say, not enough evidence or no evidence at all."

Its time to break out this graphic yet again (click to enlarge):



To put it as simply as possible, if over-simply: choose one of the "skews right" column outlets if you want to persuade me of something if that's all you'll read - assuming you read at all. Choose one from the green-colored "News" box or one from the yellow-colored "Fair interpretation of the news box". But not one, like Fox, that sits astride "Extreme/Unfair interpretation of the news" and "Nonsense damaging to public discourse." And not from the "Hypertisan", which it also dissects, or "Extreme" columns

I'll say the same thing to anyone who quotes TYT, Daily Kos and Occupy Democrats from the other side of the graph (special pleading exception for Wonkette, however, who as a humor source shouldn't be listed, and who also link back to respected sources if anyone wants the serious version).

The Hill is what used to be known as conservative, and "skews right" and I consider it a regular reliable source, to give just one example.

You apparently don't care about the conclusions in it since nothing happened from ol' Bobby spending 30 million and basically telling Congress "I can't tell, couldn't say, not enough evidence or no evidence at all."

This is utterly and in every way false. And is exactly what you'll hear on Fox. Check those other "skews right" outlets for comparison. I assume "skews left" or even "neutral" is beyond the pale.

[JBS]

There's one show on Fox which is fairly informative, indepth and accurate, even if firmly biased to the GOP. "Special Report with Brett Baier". It runs 6-7 PM New York time.  Frankly, it's better than the shows on CNN and MSNBC that are in that time slot, since it doesn't confine itself to national politics like they often do.

But that's the only thing worth watching on Fox.

[SimonNZ]

And I believe that guy I always think is Robert Caro whenever I see a photo of him - Chris Wallace - has stacked up some rage-tweet responses from Trump for questioning the party line.

But that doesn't forgive the overwhelming tsunami of the cynical Murdoch agenda coming from there.

[JBS]

And I believe that guy I always think is Robert Caro whenever I see a photo of him - Chris Wallace - has stacked up some rage-tweet responses from Trump for questioning the party line.

But that doesn't forgive the overwhelming tsunami of the cynical Murdoch agenda coming from there.

Unfortunately he's on only one hour a week, on Sunday afternoons at 2 PM New York time. (They repeat the show at 7 PM and 2 AM Monday morning.  What time would that be in New Zealand?)

[SimonNZ]

US East Coast time is currently eight hours ahead of us (or, more exactly, sixteen hours behind).

I don't have a working tv so I'm not sure if its screened here - I suspect yes, but you'd have to pay for it as part of Sky.

I could probably stream it on my laptop, but that bandwidth is already assigned to Al Jazeera.

[71 dB]

Its time to break out this graphic yet again (click to enlarge):

This graph is quite silly. As if all these media outlets formed a symmetrical neat figure like this. The truth is much more messy and chaotic. This graph doesn't even take into account Overton Window! Bloomberg is "neutral"? Hah! TYT is much closer to neutral than Bloomberg. Also this up side down U-shape is ridiculous. The overall shape should be more fact based on the left, less fact based on the right, but again not a neat line. It's messy. Fact-based reporting isn't everything. What stories are not covered? CNN and MSNBC kept radio silence on Tara Reade's accusation when Bernie was still in the race, but when Bernie dropped out, they started talking about it. TYT talked about those accusations from DAY ONE! So you tell me which one is more reliable! If you say TYT would have kept silent about accusations against Bernie, you are wrong. TYT report news even when it's inconvenient to their agenda. Corporate media doesn't. That's the difference and this graph of your ignores things like this. Bloomberg might be fact-based about what they do cover, but what they cover is the issue. Oftentimes they don't cover stuff that is agianst corporate agenda. That's lying by omission.

[Herman]

good you're familiar with each and every one of these media.

[drogulus]

     In the early days of the pandemic, the U.S. government turned down an offer to manufacture millions of N95 masks in America

"We are the last major domestic mask company," he wrote on Jan. 23. "My phones are ringing now, so I don't 'need' government business. I'm just letting you know that I can help you preserve our infrastructure if things ever get really bad. I'm a patriot first, businessman second."

In the end, the government did not take Bowen up on his offer. Even today, production lines that could be making more than 7 million masks a month sit dormant.

Bowen's overture was described briefly in an 89-page whistleblower complaint filed this week by Rick Bright, former director of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority. Bright alleges he was retaliated against by Kadlec and other officials — including being reassigned to a lesser post — because he tried to "prioritize science and safety over political expediency." HHS has disputed his allegations.

Emails show Bright pressed Kadlec and other agency leaders on the issue of mask shortages — and Bowen's proposal specifically — to no avail. On Jan. 26, Bright wrote to a deputy that Bowen's warnings "seem to be falling on deaf ears."

[SimonNZ]

This graph is quite silly. As if all these media outlets formed a symmetrical neat figure like this. The truth is much more messy and chaotic. This graph doesn't even take into account Overton Window! Bloomberg is "neutral"? Hah! TYT is much closer to neutral than Bloomberg. Also this up side down U-shape is ridiculous. The overall shape should be more fact based on the left, less fact based on the right, but again not a neat line. It's messy. Fact-based reporting isn't everything. What stories are not covered? CNN and MSNBC kept radio silence on Tara Reade's accusation when Bernie was still in the race, but when Bernie dropped out, they started talking about it. TYT talked about those accusations from DAY ONE! So you tell me which one is more reliable! If you say TYT would have kept silent about accusations against Bernie, you are wrong. TYT report news even when it's inconvenient to their agenda. Corporate media doesn't. That's the difference and this graph of your ignores things like this. Bloomberg might be fact-based about what they do cover, but what they cover is the issue. Oftentimes they don't cover stuff that is agianst corporate agenda. That's lying by omission.

What you call the "neatness" is demonstrating one simple thing: that the further you get from original reporting and into exclusively opinion on the reporting of others the more extremely partisan and unreliable the outlet is.

I doubt you have any idea what Bloomberg is like as a news source beyond not liking it's owner. Or any media outside your tiny YT? Bubble so you're in no position to judge the graph or how "messy" it ought to be.


Also: Overton window was the buzzword I was missing!

BINGO!!

[Karl Henning]

This graph is quite silly.

Says the numbskull who thinks Kyle Kulinski "rocks."

[71 dB]

Says the numbskull who thinks Kyle Kulinski "rocks."

Kyle Kulinski in early 2016: Trump can become the nominee and win presidency! Hillary Clinton is weak in the rust belt!
Corporate Dems in early 2016: Trump can never be the nominee and even if he does, he can never beat Hillary Clinton!

Yeah, I'd say Kyle Kulinski rocks and corporate Dems suck.

[SimonNZ]

Ivanka Trump's personal assistant tests positive for coronavirus[/img]

following Pence's press secretary and Donald's valet

[BasilValentine]

You apparently don't care about the conclusions in it since nothing happened from ol' Bobby spending 30 million and basically telling Congress "I can't tell, couldn't say, not enough evidence or no evidence at all."

Mueller's conclusion was that there were ten instances of obstruction of justice for which all of the elements of the crime were clearly established. He pointedly noted that no one is above the law in the final pages and equally pointedly suggested that the remedy was impeachment. Since you are clueless about this we can safely assume you never even bothered to read the conclusions, let alone the report itself. Yet you insist on spewing ignorant nonsense.

[Todd]

Mueller's conclusion...

Still going on about the feted report that was to save the Republic?

[BasilValentine]

30 million dollars spent for him to conclude the report with that. 

Don't know when to quit, do you? Insist on having more of your ignorance exposed? Okay. As part of his plea agreement with the Mueller probe, Paul Manafort was required to give up $26.7 million of ill gotten assets. So the investigation nearly broke even while resulting in 30 odd indictments. Trump's golf outings cost far more.

Still going on about the feted report that was to save the Republic?

Dowder brought it up, spouting the same bullshit from Billy Barr you swallowed whole. When ignorant people too lazy to read the report stop citing it, I'll stop correcting them.

[Todd]

Don't know when to quit, do you? Insist on having more of your ignorance exposed? Okay. As part of his plea agreement with the Mueller probe, Paul Manafort was required to give up $26.7 million of ill gotten assets. So the investigation nearly broke even while resulting in 30 odd indictments. Trump's golf outings cost far more.

Dowder brought it up, spouting the same bullshit from Billy Barr you swallowed whole. When ignorant people too lazy to read the report stop citing it, I'll stop correcting them.

So, yes, you are still going on about the feted report that was to save the Republic.