• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The US Presidency 2020

Status
Not open for further replies.
>Kindly highlight where Mueller complains about a late release.

No can do.  My recollection is wrong.  Mueller didn't complain about late release; another impression I had that he disagreed with Barr's summary is also wrong (Barr asked, and Mueller said he didn't).  Where my recollection stems from, I suspect, is Mueller's subsequent beef expressed as "did not fully capture the context, nature and substance", and that he was dissatisfied with media coverage.  I suppose he should have weighed in when offered the opportunity to review the memo.
 
>I don't understand how you are linking Barr's summary with Mueller's redactions.  They are mutually exclusive.

The connection is that Barr claimed he needed to produce the memo because the report would be delayed for redactions, and the memo became controversial because it didn't set a tone the investigators and some of the people reading it liked.  (Prompts the question: why should the opinion of the investigators matter?  For those who like to strip things down to what is legally required, all that matters is their recommendation to prosecute or not.)  Left unanswered is whether Barr would still have produced the memo if the grand jury redaction guide had been provided, since there were other redactions to be made.
 
>Are you done trying to link 6e redactions as precipitating Barr's letter?

If Barr always meant to produce the memo knowing the release would necessarily be delayed by the redaction process, then hanging it on the grand jury redactions alone is inaccurate (as I noted a short while ago above).  The specific linkage  isn't my idea; it lies with the way it was reported.  Either Barr himself made the mistake in remarks at some point or some commentators misinterpreted it.  So assume Barr would have produced the memo with or without only the requested redaction guide.
 
Brad Sallows said:
>Are you done trying to link 6e redactions as precipitating Barr's letter?

If Barr always meant to produce the memo knowing the release would necessarily be delayed by the redaction process, then hanging it on the grand jury redactions alone is inaccurate (as I noted a short while ago above).  The specific linkage  isn't my idea; it lies with the way it was reported.  Either Barr himself made the mistake in remarks at some point or some commentators misinterpreted it.  So assume Barr would have produced the memo with or without only the requested redaction guide.

I think you’re making a bit of a leap here.  Both Mueller and Barr acknowledge that the full report is still under review, both in Barr’s letter, and in Mueller’s response.

Nowhere does Barr indicate that his decision to provide a summary to Congress is linked to any delay due to redactions, review, or any other reason.

While your speculation is certainly plausible, I don’t see any supporting evidence - certainly not in the summary itself, where Barr states why he is supplementing his report with the summary.  See the quote provided a few responses ago.

Can you provide a quote, or any other evidence that supports your theory?  I would respectfully submit that I have quoted both Mueller’s and Barr’s letters, and neither of those documents seem to support your hypothesis.  Maybe I’m missing something.

I do indeed assume that AG Barr would have submitted his summary regardless of the status of any review or redaction.  That’s been my position all along.  And, logically, Mueller’s response to it also has nothing to do with redactions, reviews, or any associated delays.
 
From the principal conclusions memo:

"Although my review is ongoing, I believe that it is in the public interest to describe the report and to summarize the principal conclusions reached by the Special Counsel and the results of his investigation."

So the "why" is "I believe that it is in the public interest".  The next question is what made him believe that.  I'm content to assume it's because he was intelligent enough to know that three or four weeks of speculation and leaks in a vacuum would be unhelpful.  But you can write him and ask if you think it matters.
 
Brad Sallows said:
From the principal conclusions memo:

"Although my review is ongoing, I believe that it is in the public interest to describe the report and to summarize the principal conclusions reached by the Special Counsel and the results of his investigation."

So the "why" is "I believe that it is in the public interest".  The next question is what made him believe that.  I'm content to assume it's because he was intelligent enough to know that three or four weeks of speculation and leaks in a vacuum would be unhelpful.  But you can write him and ask if you think it matters.

Fully agree. 

No need to write AG Barr, as it is clear that his reason does not include any indication that Mueller's team caused any delay. 
 
I just want to once again commend everyone in this thread, but particularly Brad and Mick.  You both argued passionately, but with facts and lots of sources.  Even then, you never made your disagreement personal. I have learned a lot about both sides of this issue. This is the model of how internet debate should be done.
 
Agree!  Good debate, and it's definitely facilitated some learning on my part.  Researching and responding can really take up a lot of time though, even by current standards.
 
Andrew C. McCarthy calling balls and strikes in this article

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/07/roger-stone-commutation-judge-demands-clarification-from-president/
 
Yes, it's time consuming.  But memory is fallible, impressions are malleable with time, and just as with lesson plans, you have to keep going back to the sources to refresh your knowledge base.  You eat less crow that way.
 
Brihard said:
I would draw a distinction between being ‘smart’ and being possessed of the legal authority or political power to grant pardons, commute sentences, outright forbid subordinates from testifying, or otherwise cajole, coerce, or incentivize people to refrain from cooperating with, or outright obstruct congressional and criminal investigations. These are not powers most people have access to. Most people faced with judicial processes have to count on the facts and legal evidentiary exclusions being on their side. That is not a handicap the president suffers from.

Why not pardon himself in the final minutes before leaving the White House?

What if the commutation of Roger Stone sentence was only the first step towards that?

Deny the legitimacy of the Trump-Russia investigation by branding it a Democratically inspired “witch hunt.” Blame it on Ukraine, instead. Get Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) to hold Senate hearings. Tell Bill Barr to conduct his own Justice Department investigation. All underway.

Do whatever’s necessary to secure the loyalty of anybody on the inside who could tell the truth. Buy Roger Stone’s silence with a commutation. Promise a pardon to Michael Flynn, if he needs it. Fire the U.S. attorney for New York to keep Rudy Giuliani from having to testify under oath. Again, all underway.

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/507070-press-trumps-final-presidential-pardon-himself
























 
Small wonder people complain of depression and poor mental/emotional health "because of Trump".  They not only can't stop themselves from fretting over what Trump does, they torture themselves with bizarre fantasies of what he might do.

I predict that if Republicans lose the presidency and/or the senate, they'll do what Republicans always do: navel gaze and talk among themselves about how they failed to appeal to this demographic or that demographic.  Maybe have a small political civil war between the various sub-factions while lining up candidates for the next midterm elections.  (Trump will just leave and go do something else, while talking incessantly about what a great president he was.)

I predict that if Democrats fail to take the presidency or lose the House, they'll do what Democrats often do: blame the system and kick off all their schemes for electoral reform (again), after first exhausting all possible options of exploiting the system as it is in order to overturn results.
 
Brad Sallows said:
Small wonder people complain of depression and poor mental/emotional health "because of Trump". 

I'm not one of his internet cheerleaders. But, I sleep well because I'm healthy. Thank-you.

Brad Sallows said:
They not only can't stop themselves from fretting over what Trump does, they torture themselves with bizarre fantasies of what he might do.

Bizarre fantasy! He wouldn't dare!  :rofl:
https://www.google.com/search?rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-CA%3AIE-Address&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&sxsrf=ALeKk02ooOIIfjkTISnSuTRyD3cfDJ1cbw%3A1594948711578&ei=Z_wQX6H0IuyZjLsP4cqbsAk&q=trump+pardon+himself&oq=trump+pardon+himself&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQDFAAWABg25sBaABwAHgAgAEAiAEAkgEAmAEAqgEHZ3dzLXdpeg&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwjhw437jtPqAhXsDGMBHWHlBpYQ4dUDCAs#spf=1594948732131






 
Not you, MM.  I mean the people who write that stuff and take it to heart.  Every corner of the political map has its conspiracy nuts.
 
The legality of the whole self-pardon issue can be solved by quitting the day before the last day and letting Pence issue the pardon. Having your successor do it works pretty well as we've seen in 1974  ;D

:cheers:

 
Russiagate and it's origins.  More evidence the FBI knew the Steele Dossier was all fabrication yet still used it as evidence to obtain FISA warrants and smear a president.  The Clinton campaign/DNC, and top officials in the FBI/CIA/DOJ helped Russia sow misinformation about a presidential candidate during an election and continued to push it against a sitting president after.  This is the real Russian collusion. 

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/07/20/the_primary_subsources_guide_to_russiagate_as_told_to_the_fbi_124516.html

 
I half expect Trump to get accused of treason simply because he spoke to Putin on the phone for completely reasonable diplomatic reasons - discussing the pandemic,
 
Xylric said:
I half expect Trump to get accused of treason simply because he spoke to Putin on the phone for completely reasonable diplomatic reasons - discussing the pandemic,

He accuses others of Treason. At least a dozen.

Including, big surprise, President Obama.
https://www.google.com/search?bih=641&biw=1280&hl=en&sxsrf=ALeKk003c8CAR8ciBfHsTZ63jv0QnFgIIw%3A1595624372020&ei=tEsbX_Zml6TK0w_DuI3gCw&q=trump+treason+obama&oq=trump+treason+obama&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQAzoECCMQJzoCCABQwDhYtklg9UxoAHAAeACAAcoCiAHUDJIBBzAuMy4zLjGYAQCgAQGqAQdnd3Mtd2l6wAEB&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwj2kI7_4-bqAhUXknIEHUNcA7wQ4dUDCAs&uact=5#spf=1595624382889



 
mariomike said:
He accuses others of Treason. At least a dozen.

Including, big surprise, President Obama.
https://www.google.com/search?bih=641&biw=1280&hl=en&sxsrf=ALeKk003c8CAR8ciBfHsTZ63jv0QnFgIIw%3A1595624372020&ei=tEsbX_Zml6TK0w_DuI3gCw&q=trump+treason+obama&oq=trump+treason+obama&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQAzoECCMQJzoCCABQwDhYtklg9UxoAHAAeACAAcoCiAHUDJIBBzAuMy4zLjGYAQCgAQGqAQdnd3Mtd2l6wAEB&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwj2kI7_4-bqAhUXknIEHUNcA7wQ4dUDCAs&uact=5#spf=1595624382889

I know, I know. He's a real comedian.

We can only hope.

I think the biggest problem with throwing accusations of treason around is that eventually, it will stick to the wrong person and cause decades of political division which can only be solved by fatal confrontation on wide scale...

Hey, wait a minute.....
 
Trump now seems to believe that if the Republican Senate won't do what he wants then he'll just go his own way.

Trump directed controversial Pentagon pick into new role with similar duties after nomination failed

By Ryan Browne, CNN

Updated 10:10 PM ET, Sun August 2, 2020

A controversial Trump administration pick for a top Pentagon post has been placed into a senior role days after his nomination hearing was canceled amid bipartisan opposition to his nomination.

Retired Army Brig. Gen. Anthony Tata has formally withdrawn his nomination to be the Defense Department undersecretary of defense for policy and has been designated "the official Performing the Duties of the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Policy reporting to the Acting Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Dr. James Anderson," a Pentagon spokesperson said in a statement.

When the nomination hearing for Tata was canceled Thursday, President Donald Trump told aides the plan was to put him in a position he could have without a confirmation hearing, according to a source familiar with the discussions. The role he'll be in now is essentially the deputy of the role he had been nominated for.

It was previously reported that Trump had a call with Senate Armed Services Chairman Jim Inhofe the evening prior and that the Oklahoma Republican bluntly told the President his nominee was in trouble.

Tata was expected to face a tough nomination hearing on Thursday before the committee after CNN's KFile reported that he made numerous Islamophobic and offensive comments and promoted conspiracy theories.

"There are many Democrats and Republicans who didn't know enough about Anthony Tata to consider him for a very significant position at this time," Inhofe said last week.

A GOP aide to a lawmaker who previously expressed concern about Tata's nomination told CNN that the administration's move regarding Tata "was a matter of when, not if."

Withdrawing his nomination was legally necessary so he could be placed in a role to perform the duties.

Steve Vladeck, a CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law, said in a tweet Sunday the administration's move is "all a naked end-run around" the federal provision that bars Tata from being named to the same position he was nominated for -- unless he's spent 90 days as the first assistant to the position.

"That clock is now running," Vladeck said.

Sen. Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, decried Tata's placement as "an offensive, destabilizing move."
"Gen. Tata should not be appointed to a Senate-confirmed position," the Rhode Island Democrat said in a statement. "This method of appointment is an insult to our troops, professionals at the Pentagon, the Senate, and the American people."

House Armed Services Chairman Adam Smith, a Washington Democrat, also expressed opposition to the move in a statement Sunday.
"Our system of checks and balances exists for a reason and the Senate's role in the confirmation process for administration appointees ensures individuals at the highest levels of government are highly qualified," Smith said.

"If an appointee cannot gain the support of the Senate, as is clearly the case with Tata, then the President should not put that person into an identical temporary role. This evasion of scrutiny makes our government less accountable and prioritizes loyalty over competence."
Vladek echoed Smith's concern.

"What's especially ridiculous about Tata is that they *nominated* him to the position—and he's withdrawing *only* because he wasn't going to get confirmed," he continued.

"It's a pretty messed-up system when the guy who the Senate was about to nix can effectively end up with the same job anyway."
Tata has worked at the Pentagon since April as a "senior adviser" to Defense Secretary Mark Esper, though the Pentagon has declined to say what he has been advising on. He is one of eight Defense Department staff members who serve as "senior advisers" but is the only one who directly supports Esper.

In several tweets from 2018, Tata said that Islam was the "most oppressive violent religion I know of" and claimed former President Barack Obama was a "terrorist leader" who did more to harm the US "and help Islamic countries than any president in history." Following the publication of KFile's story, Tata deleted several of his tweets, screenshots of which were captured by KFile.

Tata, in one radio appearance, speculated the Iran deal was born out of Obama's "Islamic roots" in an attempt "to help Iranians and the greater Islamic state crush Israel."

He also lashed out at prominent Democratic politicians and the media on Twitter, such as California Reps. Maxine Waters and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who he said "have always been the same violent extremists." In another tweet, Tata called Waters a "vicious race baiting racist." He used a hashtag in a different tweet that insinuated CNN anchor Don Lemon was on "the liberal plantation."

:cheers:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top