The US Presidency 2019

[brihard]

I said nothing about being a victim.

I simply stated a truism.

As for ignore, it's my decision, I can apply and rescind as I see fit.

Now, what was that you were saying about putting words in people's mouths?

I’m speaking to the behaviour you constantly show us. You haven’t been quiet about trying to claim I and others are saying mean things about you, and when challenged with actual quotes from posts versus what you claim, you tend to stomp off and put us on ignore. This being your first reply to me in nine days, it’s quite clear that you’re trying to make a point here, and you leave the inference out for myself and others to make. Playing coy doesn’t fool anybody.

 

[Remius]

I take issue with any and all criminality, wheresoever it may be found. I don't care who the facts come out against so long as they're truthful.

You're attempting to bring another red herring into this with the reference to our own ongoing political tribulations. I have not referenced those here, nor have I suggested views on the one must necessarily dictate views on the other. In fact I agree with you saying thsoe two viewpoints are not contradictory, but then I have never claimed otherwise because I've never related those two subjects here, and in fact I very specifically steer pretty well clear of the latter of the two for reasons that are probably obvious. By trying to imply that I have, you're being disingenuous. What I said was, and I quote:

I don't insist on anyone else sharing my views. I do insist on people being truthful about what I have said or suggested. You are not doing that. You're merely trying to change the subject and move the goalposts when I called you out on your prior post.

The issue Brihard is that people lash out when they hear the truth or facts or whatever.  Especially when it is backed by sources.  Real sources and not what passes for sources in the vacuum so em people live in.  Like when people use words they don’t understand and decided to define it they way they want. 

The reason we can’t discuss in a civil manner here is that the usual suspects don’t like it when they are challenged.  They act like a version of snowflakes on the far right.

You brought up some good points and the rebuttal was TSD.  See the trend?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I’m speaking to the behaviour you constantly show us. You haven’t been quiet about trying to claim I and others are saying mean things about you, and when challenged with actual quotes from posts versus what you claim, you tend to stomp off and put us on ignore. This being your first reply to me in nine days, it’s quite clear that you’re trying to make a point here, and you leave the inference out for myself and others to make. Playing coy doesn’t fool anybody.

I'm sorry. Are you attempting to pull things off topic and move the goal posts? I was commenting on the discussion, but you obviously aren't. Hmmm. Please leave me out of it.

 

[brihard]

I'm sorry. Are you attempting to pull things off topic and move the goal posts? I was commenting on the discussion, but you obviously aren't. Hmmm. Please leave me out of it.

You quoted my post. If you’re done, that’s fine with me.

 

[mariomike]

Republicans block move by Democrats to pass resolution calling for Mueller report to be made public.

Multiple sources,
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22mitch+mcconnell%22+%22chuck+schumer%22+%22mueller+report%22&source=lnt&tbs=qdr:d&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiPx92DrJ7hAhXG34MKHf7bD74QpwUIJQ&biw=1280&bih=641

 

[dimsum]

Republicans block move by Democrats to pass resolution calling for Mueller report to be made public.

I mean, not even a week ago Trump publicly said for "ridiculous" report to be made public, and now the GOP wants to block it being made public. 

https://www.apnews.com/093727be24b649f7adad971e0b48878d

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I mean, not even a week ago Trump publicly said for "ridiculous" report to be made public, and now the GOP wants to block it being made public. 

https://www.apnews.com/093727be24b649f7adad971e0b48878d

Is it possible the GOP may want to peruse it for possible information to move to a Republican investigation and hold information back that might prejudice those investigations? Just a guess.

I think people confuse this a bit. Trump ran on the Republican ticket. I'm not sure, in his heart, what he really is. He also does not have overwhelming support in the party, congress or the senate. He has lots of enemies and RINOs out there. I think he has more support now, than what he had. Some like McConnell seem to have come grudgingly around. Perhaps when it all does come out, more of the GOP might be more forgiving and he wont have to fight them all the time.

 

[mariomike]

I mean, not even a week ago Trump publicly said for "ridiculous" report to be made public, and now the GOP wants to block it being made public. 

I just know what I read on here and in the papers. But, it left me with a few questions,

Why didn't Mueller talk to Trump in person?
Will the public ever see Trump's written answers?
There was this, "While the report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."
"The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." Did Mueller uncover any evidence of collusion?
If there was no collusion, why so many contacts between the Russians and the Trump campaign? Why did so many of them lie about it?
Will the public ever hear from Mueller himself about the report?

 

[Remius]

Republicans block move by Democrats to pass resolution calling for Mueller report to be made public.

Multiple sources,
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22mitch+mcconnell%22+%22chuck+schumer%22+%22mueller+report%22&source=lnt&tbs=qdr:d&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiPx92DrJ7hAhXG34MKHf7bD74QpwUIJQ&biw=1280&bih=641

Lovely.  All that will do is fuel speculation. 

Look at what keeping things under wraps is doing for Trudeau.

If Trump is totally vindicated then why not make it public?

 

[The Bread Guy]

Is it possible the GOP may want to peruse it for possible information to move to a Republican investigation and hold information back that might prejudice those investigations? Just a guess.

My  :2c::  Even if support from Republicans for #POTUS45 is far from unanimous, I don't see enough quite enough dissent to go for the yellow bit - many are likely scared that any such push'll lead them to being "mauled by Presidential Tweet".  Most involved on all sides may also be smart enough to hold back because of the green bit, though.

 

[dimsum]

Is it possible the GOP may want to peruse it for possible information to move to a Republican investigation and hold information back that might prejudice those investigations? Just a guess.

Honest question:  Mueller and Barr are both Republicans.  Doesn't this make it a Republican investigation by definition?

 

[Cloud Cover]

I'll wait to see until the final report comes out. There's a long gap between balance of probabilities and reasonable doubt and as usual, the devil's in the details.

Fair enough. Are the other legal actions civil or criminal? What is the standard of proof for a Congressional indictment? There appears to be 4 schools of thought! https://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-system/presidential-impeachment-the-legal-standard-and-procedure.html

 

[The Bread Guy]

Honest question:  Mueller and Barr are both Republicans.  Doesn't this make it a Republican investigation by definition?

Layman's terming it may oversimplify, but I'd call Mueller's work more of an investigation and Barr's work more of a review of a report resulting from an investigation. 

 

[Remius]

Honest question:  Mueller and Barr are both Republicans.  Doesn't this make it a Republican investigation by definition?

It was a law enforcement investigation.  Mueller was named by Rosenstein.  Who was a Trump appointee. 

 

[Brad Sallows]

>Why didn't Mueller talk to Trump in person?

Trump is a loose cannon, and US investigators are infamous for setting and using perjury traps.  Multiple prominent and respected lawyers and other thinking heads wrote articles advising Trump not to bypass any of his presidential privileges and submit to oral questioning.  Nothing sinister there.

>Will the public ever see Trump's written answers?

Who knows?  Idle speculation to pretend one way or the other.  I'd like to see Trump declassify absolutely everything and order its widespread release now that he can't be pre-emptively accused of "obstruction" by doing so (the investigation being ended).

>There was this, "While the report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

Hard to prove a negative.  Regardless, if an investigation ends without charges, the presumed innocent remain innocent.  It's already clear, though, that it's one of the straws Trump's critics are seizing on in efforts to spin away their abject misery.  (The other primary straw is the non-finding on obstruction.)

>If there was no collusion, why so many contacts between the Russians and the Trump campaign? Why did so many of them lie about it?

Please quantify "so many".  And in what way is it relevant?  Christopher Steele, working for the Clinton campaign to procure "opposition research" had multiple contacts with Russians, including paying some for the "information" he received.  I'm curious to know whether collusion between the Russians and the Clinton campaign is equally good/bad/indifferent.

>Will the public ever hear from Mueller himself about the report?

Not unless there is further degradation of the "democratic institutions" for which Trump is supposed to carry all the blame.  To borrow a theme, I've noticed that erosion of democracy is always descending on Trump's head, but landing on someone else's.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>Honest question:  Mueller and Barr are both Republicans.  Doesn't this make it a Republican investigation by definition?

Yes, but that's an example of "the truth" which is not "the whole truth".  Most of Mueller's staff were known to be Democrats by affiliation or sympathy; this was repeatedly reported.  The investigation was well-staffed by people well-motivated to take Trump down.  It's one of the reasons the fizzle has many anti-Trumpers so despondent - they can't blame it on the administration's lawyers looking after their own.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>Is it possible the GOP may want to peruse it for possible information to move to a Republican investigation and hold information back that might prejudice those investigations? Just a guess.

Some Republicans definitely would like to investigate the investigation - shine a light on the parts that look like they didn't pass muster according to how the "institutions of democracy" are supposed to behave when it comes to things like FISA warrants, surveillance of US citizens, unmasking of surveilled US citizens, partisan behaviour on the part of government employees, etc.

But I think it more likely that this is just politics.  Democrats want to go through the report immediately and turn everything that favours them into sound bites - the "lie travels around the world while the truth is getting its pants on" thing.  Republicans want to prevent that and throttle the information release in a way that doesn't detract from the opposing "nothingburger" message.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>The Mueller investigation still resulted in 34 individuals being charged.

So: the Obama administration had almost 8 months (from the time Trump locked down the primary in early June, to the inauguration the following January) to dig into Trump, and the Mueller investigation was 18 (?) months long.  The United States, and the United states government, has plenty of people who want to take Trump down; we can assume from what some of them have said on the record about Trump that a subset of those people is strongly motivated.  It is clear that people within government have been comfortable leaking information unfavourable to Trump, and it was clear during the previous administration that agencies (notably: the IRS) are staffed with some people generally hostile to Republicans and Republican causes and willing to act on a partisan basis.

With the full powers of the US government during the Obama administration's kick at the can, and all the power brought to bear by the not-Trump-sympathetic investigators on Mueller's team, and all the other people in the US government who might be able to get their hands on information (eg. transcripts of meetings, tax returns), and Trump's notoriously loose-lipped personality, and the threat of prison hanging over a handful of his close associates, etc, etc, all that squeezed out was a handful of process and other unrelated (eg. fraud) crimes.  And the election interference crimes occurred during the Obama administration's watch, and they admitted they knew about at least some of the attempts and elected to go soft.  But Trump is the one giving the Russians an easy pass, not Mr The-'80s-wants-its-foreign-policy-back, I'll-have-more-flexibility-after-my-re-election.  Some perspective is in order.

Some people may wish there's still a stone there to be turned over.

 

[kkwd]

"One Million Billion Dollars" I see a few noses are out of joint today.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/25/politics/pentagon-congress-new-wall-money/index.html

 

[Fishbone Jones]

My  :2c::  Even if support from Republicans for #POTUS45 is far from unanimous, I don't see enough quite enough dissent to go for the yellow bit - many are likely scared that any such push'll lead them to being "mauled by Presidential Tweet".  Most involved on all sides may also be smart enough to hold back because of the green bit, though.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I did not mean a GOP investigation of Trump, but a wide open investigation of all the stuff that happened on the democrat side. Schiff, Strozyk, Clinton, Obama, FBI, et al.