I'm trying to read: 1. Ezra Klein in Vox, and 2. Christopher Buskirk in the NYT.
It's quite the cacophony.
Options: 1. Read a lot of commentary and see what strikes you as most convincing, 2. Note that there's plenty of opinion on the side where your feelings already are and move on, 3. Triangulate, 4. Don't look at any commentary, just read the report for yourself and make your own decision, 5. Reaffirm your aversion to politics and move on.
April 19, 2019
"The most generous reading of Robert Mueller’s report, the one pushed by President Donald Trump’s own defenders, is, in fact, profoundly damning"/"Barr Is Right About Everything. Admit You Were Wrong. After Trump’s vindication, the liberal media and its allies in government should face a reckoning. I’m not holding my breath."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
301 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 301 of 301DL: "I do not have a side, and do not know a Chuck. I voted for Bush, McCain, Obama (narrowly) in 2012, and supported Kasich in the primaries in 2016. Looking at Biden in 2020. But this has nothing, and should have nothing, to do with how one should respond to the report."
Well gee, just another "generally" LLR with a little dem here and there sprinkled in who happens to be Concern Trolling left and right.
Perhaps Chuck is your long lost twin?
I wish you two the best for your upcoming "reunion"......(wink wink)
Recall that Mueller selected a liberal lawfare dream team that included Bharara and Weissmann; recall that the team concluded there was no collusion, which is a determination it should take about 4-6 months to make, not close to two years (and past the midterms); recall that there was no reason for Volume II to have been produced as it's outside Mueller's mandate, and then ask how Trump could possibly have come out better than he did come out.
Complaining about the unfairness of something that is unfair, and far beyond unfair, is not obstruction, it's being human.
Whataboutism is not a defense. HRC is not the president, and Republicans should hold the president to a higher standard than HRC anyway."
Indeed. Former Presidents Clinton and Obama should be tried for their criminal acts. And lets not forget former Secretary Of State Hillary Clinton for her acts and former AG Loretta Lynch for her criminal acts and the former directors of the CIA and the NSA for their criminal acts. What about that DL?
DeVere: "Recall that Mueller selected a liberal lawfare dream team that included Bharara and Weissmann;"
I would need to recall the precise timeline, but I believe that the bulk of the 40 FBI investigators and the 18 hard core democrat partisan lawyers were already in place when Mueller waltzed in.
It's possible that Mueller was precisely the sort of "republican" needed to give this team of democrat partisan hacks the cover they needed to pull off whatever they wanted.
And it appears they were precisely correct, assuming, of course, that Comey/Mueller/Rosenstein didn't already have this worked out prior to Mueller's appointment.
For if that were the case, it might explain how just a few days into his tenure, Mueller and Rosenstein (and McCabe?) went over to speak with Trump and, whaddya know, Mueller "accidently" left his phone there.......
Of course, the phone, left in the oval office, was retrieved later.
Gee, I wonder how something like that happens.....
OK DL,
I took your advice and read an arbitrary page (250) deep enough into the report to be sure that it was in so-called volume 2. It was section 7. The entire section was recollection and single sourced. Chris Christie in the first half, and James Comey in the second. Even if accurate, none of it "appalled" me.
Can anybody cite a statute, cited by Mueller in his report, that Trump might have violated?
Thanks in advance.
How can people say Trump welcomed Russian interference when the report makes it clear they did not? Is it the joke about hacking the emails? People do know the Russians had been trying that for months before he said anything, right?
Is that politics now?
Yes. Next question.
I must disagree with Jim at.
This is how politics has always been.
DL (smear merchant) either is or pretends to be an historical illiterate.
Send us better trolls, Mr Soto's!
This is how politics has always been.
Not quite. DL is admonishing us because we're acting like Democrats.
We should sit back and enjoy the lies and smearing by the left like we always have. We should have principles or something like that.
We're no longer doing that. That's why it's politics now.
Rules for all or rules for none.
Rules for none is fine by me.
"I voted for Bush, McCain"
Assuming this is the truth, you voted for George W. Bush and watched him...
1. Get hundreds of thousands of people killed in a war for no good reason.
2. Authorize the spying on Americans without warrants.
3. Okay the torture of prisoners.
4. Lead this nation into the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression.
And then you still voted for the GOP nominee in 2008 instead of the first black President in U.S. history.
But now...NOW...Donald Trump is too much for you?
Mike
I choose door #6. I prefer to have other people do my thinking for me. Thinking is hard!
I do not have a side,
An obvious lie.
and do not know a Chuck.
You would write that if you do know the commentator of whom we speak, and you would write that if you didn’t.
I voted for Bush, McCain, Obama (narrowly) in 2012, and supported Kasich in the primaries in 2016. Looking at Biden in 2020.
And we care because why? Outside of the fact that supporting Obama and Kasich indicates an appalling lack of judgement.
But this has nothing, and should have nothing, to do with how one should respond to the report. Lying is always bad,
I assume you mean except when you do it.
and Democratic lying does not excuse Republican lying.
Actually , it certainly does. Fighting fire with fire and all that.
The report documents a lot of lying.
It documents nothing. The report consists of wall to wall unsupported allegations.
Start with Vol. II and read the first 40 pages. Or pick 30 pages at random. It's all horrifying. Or should be. I mean, I can give page numbers if that's what you really want, but even a cursory read validates everything I've written.
If you cannot point to page numbers it’s safe to assume that you have’t really read it yourself.
Seriously, literally every reply has mentioned a Democrat, and argued or implied how his conduct is fine because a Democrat has done something worse. Is that politics now?
Until Democrats surrender, it sure is. Welcome to a world where Republicans fight back.
Every politician is an amoral compulsive liar, and that's fine, as long as they're my side's amoral compulsive liar?
All Democrats, yes. And I note that John McCain ran very strongly against Obamacare but voted to sustain it intact. Your unproven allegations about Republicans are — unproven.
Can we not at least agree that there's plenty of terrible things in the report, even if you think we should excuse them on other grounds?
No, we cannot.
Mr Soros, damn it!
Big Mike,
Pay no attention to the smear merchant hiding in the Bushes.
Big Mike said...
And we care because why? Outside of the fact that supporting Obama and Kasich indicates an appalling lack of judgement.
Supporting Romney and McCain also denotes extremely poor judgment. Or any Bush.
I made a few bad judgments. We all did.
They were all terrible.
FWIW? Most working Americans are not paying attention to the Mueller report release... we've moved on, big time.
I think it's the people with a lot of free time on their hands, trying to spin gold from straw: the news media, old and new; pensioners and rentiers; students and activists; people who work for the government and non-profits. Others, who for one reason or another, do not work.
I hope the media, and the politicians, understand this as they begin to campaign for 2020. Workers vote too.
Unfreaking-believable:
The NYT, the day after the Mueller report farce kicks their conspiracy delusions to the curb, is suddenly, out of nowhere, somewhat concerned that perhaps, gee whiz, you know, that Steele dossier may NOT be all it was cracked up to be!!
LOL
Can you believe these POS "journalists"?
Too funny.
Check this out:
"Agents did not believe that either the source or Mr. Steele was deliberately inventing things, according to the former official. How the dossier ended up loaded with dubious or exaggerated details remains uncertain, but the document may be the result of a high-stakes game of telephone, in which rumors and hearsay were passed from source to source.
Another possibility — one that Mr. Steele has not ruled out — could be Russian disinformation. That would mean that in addition to carrying out an effective attack on the Clinton campaign, Russian spymasters hedged their bets and placed a few land mines under Mr. Trump’s presidency as well."
Not to worry lefties, the NYT is still spinning like crazy throughout the rest of this crap piece because the NYT and its lefty/LLR will not be able to quick Crazy Hoax Lie cold turkey. It will take time.
And indictments.
http://archive.is/tklfF#selection-467.0-477.291
Trump repeatedly stated that Sessions should not have recused himself, should unrecuse himself, and should suppress any investigations into him or the Campaign. Trump also wanted Sessions to begin a prosecution of Hillary Clinton. Sessions refused. (pp. 50ff, 78ff, 107ff)
Trump twice ordered McGahn to inform Rosenstein that Mueller must be fired. McGahn implied to Trump he would comply, but ignored the order. McGahn prepared to resign, but Trump did not follow through. Trump subsequently directed McGahn to deny that Trump had ever given this order, and threatened to fire him if he failed to comply. McGahn refused. (pp. 85ff, 113ff)
Trump twice instructed Lewandowski to transmit a directive to Sessions to significantly curtail the scope of the Mueller investigation. Lewandowski passed this directive on to Dearborn. Dearborn ignored this message. Trump failed to follow through. (pp. 90ff)
Trump orders a cover-up of the June 9, 2016 Trump Tower meeting. After press reports, Trump dictates a false account of that meeting for his son to disseminate to the public. After the damaging emails were published and proved the account false, Trump’s attorney repeatedly and falsely denies that Trump was personally involved in the public statement. Subsequently, Trump defended disseminating the false public statement, because it was only to the public, and not to a court. (pp. 98ff)
Trump directs Porter to contact Brand (who would assume control of the Russia investigation if Rosenstein left) to see if she was “on the team” and to dangle the possibility of becoming Attorney General. Porter understood that Trump wished Brand to fire Mueller. Although Trump followed up multiple times, Porter ignored the order. Trump failed to follow through. (pp. 107ff)
The Trump organization pursued a Trump hotel deal in Russia in 2015-2016. Trump repeatedly and falsely denied in public having any business connections to Russia while these hotel efforts continued. Cohen gave a number of false accounts of when those efforts ended, including under oath to Congress. Trump at the very least knew that these accounts by Cohen were false and failed to correct them, and may well have encouraged them. (pp. 134ff)
That's just chunks of Volume II.
But hey, if scorched earth politics means these are all these are just fine, because it's a Republican who did them and Democrats are evil, so anything goes, you can count me out. I'm with Mitt Romney on this one.
I'm with Mitt Romney on this one.
Remind us again how Romney did in 2012. Should be easy since you claim to have voted for the other guy.
But have you actually read any of the obstruction part of the report?
Yes, I have and I know who wrote it. The guy whose conviction of Arthur Anderson was reversed by a unanimous Supreme court decision.
When was the last unanimous decision ?
There was also FBI intimidation of witnesses, as we see here, too.
Democrats are evil, so anything goes, you can count me out. I'm with Mitt Romney on this one.
Bullshit. You and Bill Kristol are all in for the Democrat who emerges from the scrum.
DL: "But hey, if scorched earth politics means these are all these are just fine, ..."
Says the guy who is "all in" on Team Andrew Weissman.
LOL
Sell your schtick somewhere else fella.
What an achievement beating the Feds. Of course the President thought he was fucked. The Feds have a conviction rate above 90%. Ask Conrad Black.
Jeff Sessions should never have refused himself. He was not conflicted. He was the victim of a political operation, the goal of which was to control Sessions and remove accountability from Rosenstein. So Trump's demand that Sessions reverse his bad decision was a perfectly acceptable demand. Trump is the Executive and runs the Article II side of government. Deal with it.
McGahn might have operated in Trump's best political interests. But Mueller should never have been hired. Rosenstein should have been fired because he is a political operative who tried to foment a coup. Rosenstein should be tried, convicted, and executed for his offenses.
But somehow a Smear Merchant wants me to be upset that Trump properly wanted to exercise his Constitutional authority? I am going to pass, dumb ass. Get a new set of talking points, dipshit.
Michael,
It helps that Trump was innocent. And that the allegations were based on lies.
"Trump repeatedly stated that Sessions should not have recused himself, should unrecuse himself, and should suppress any investigations into him or the Campaign."
Sessions' recusal was a crock. His contact with the Russian ambassador was minimal. His recusal allowed Mueller et al. to drag the "investigation" out well past a reasonable duration. Without his replacement they would have dragged the sham investigation into the 2020 election. Thank God the Republicans held the Senate in 2018.
I think our Smear Merchant buddy would find more "success" peddling his drivel on Yahoo or something equivalent.
I hear Democrat Underground is a wonderfulndiscussion community...
When the Smear Merchant praises Maddow, the reveal will be complete.
Somebody disparage Da Nang Dick Blumenthal and see what happens.
But DL/Chuck is wholey incurious as to who perpetrated the Russian collusion hoax. It ws in the works before Trump took office. And it hasn't occurred to you that those V2 incidents were Trumps attempt to keep his presidency afloat.
You aren't very honest, are you?
At least a few people are mentioning substantive issues, rather than ad hominem attacks.
But is there a real argument to be made that that Trump never wanted Sessions to suppress the investigations, or to prosecute Hillary Clinton? It's fine to say that Sessions should not have recused himself, but the implication of that argument seems to be that in fact Sessions should have suppressed the investigations, and that he should have prosecuted Hillary Clinton. Which is in fact to argue that the Report is right, that the Department of Justice should have no independence, and that the President should be able to suppress investigations and begin prosecutions as he wishes. Certainly an extreme position for the rule of law (and a dangerous one, the next time a Democrat would become president), unless I have it wrong?
Are we also to conclude that longtime Trump ally Lewandowski perjured himself, and that his contemporary notes, kept in his safe, were also false, and a long-term plot to damage Trump? Same of Porter?
That Trump never was involved in the attempt to cover up the 2016 Trump Tower Meeting? That Hope Hicks, a main source for this account, perjured herself extensively to Mueller seeking to damage Trump? That the text messages she sent at the time were also falsely planted, and a long-term plot to damage the president?
That Trump in fact did not realize that Cohen was lying to the public about the Trump Moscow hotel, and that he simply forgot about the hotel when denying that he had any business connections in Russia?
At least the scorched earth approach--"this all may be true, but I don't care"--is honest, though I think appalling. But if there are real, factual defenses of the president to be argued here, I'd actually really like to hear them.
(I'm not a fan of Maddow. Too dogmatic, left-wing, insufficiently independently-minded, and loose with facts.)
DL - "That's just chunks of Volume II."
We've established that your moral sensibilities are highly questionable, so let's move on.
Do you believe everything in every indictment filed by a prosecutor is true? Why bother having trials, then? What you are referring to are called ALLEGATIONS. And if these ALLEGATIONS are true and as awful as you imply, why did Mueller refrain from accusing President Trump of obstruction of justice?
Mike
Smear Merchant,
Investigation of what, precisely?
What was the alleged predicate on which criminal investigation was started?
Name it or shut the fuck up.
And why, pray tell, should Hillary have avoided prosecution for her myriad criminal violations?
Smear away, Smear Merchant.
Impeachment proceedings will be ratings gold for MSNBC and CNN. Those Dems in the House don't make a move without first clearing it with Maddow and Anderson Cooper, and they're both pushing for impeachment. Expect impeachment. I don't know if the Dems want Nadler, Waters, and Schiff to be the tip of the spear in these proceedings, however. Nadler, in particular, hits the trifecta: fat, balding, and short. They really need some younger and more attractive people to put in the spotlight. I'd like to see AOC lead the charge. Or maybe Eric Swawell. He's got excellent hair. Not as good as O'Rourke or Buttigieg, but, still, great hair. A prime time anchor would be proud to have hair like that......I just hope the House leadership takes cognizance not just of the wishes and needs of our cable news hosts but also of the American people who don't want daily exposure to Nadler, Waters, and Schiff. Maybe they could hire Avenatti as the lead attorney for one of the committees. That guy's a bulldog, and one of the most charismatic bald headed men in America. He's had some problems recently, but prison reform means nothing if you're not willing to employ the indicted.
Also, Smear Merchant, show me where Article II creates a DOJ that has separate powers apart from the Executive.
I'll wait here, dumb ass.
You want appalling, DL? Hillary Clinton got rich selling her position as Secretary of State and hid the evidence with her illegitimate private server. Once caught she destroyed the evidence with the aid of Obama's DOJ and the supposed "watchdog" media. We already live in the world you fear.
Yes, Hillary Clinton belongs in jail.
DL, try putting on your "objective" hat and tell us why all those purported Trump lies were NOT "obstruction of justice".
Go ahead: if you were in a law class, your prof would make you argue for the other side.
So go ahead: make the case for Trump. After all, in the end Mueller did.
The business in Russia thing is a canard. Trump has no business interest in Russia. Period.
If you can find a quote of Trump saying "I neither have nor have ever sought business in Russia" then you might have a point.
You're not very bright talking point boy.
And, oh yes, DL: wanna "'splain why the statements in the Mueller report are assuredly the TRUTH, when they have never been tested in court?
JUST BECAUSE Mueller asserts X, does not mean that X is legally true. It takes a judge and jury to decide that
Got that?
DL: "I'm not a fan of Maddow."
LOL
Nice touch.
"Certainly an extreme position for the rule of law (and a dangerous one, the next time a Democrat would become president"
See, I was under the impression that Obama had already weaponised the White House, and that the Deep State fully approved. So I don't see that Trump is the one racheting things up here.
It's interesting how Trump's detractors often insist on comparing him to a personal Platonic ideal of The President, rather than to the previous inhabitants of the office, or to the other potential inhabitants. When I was much younger, I probably shared that sort of starry-eyed, fresh-out-of-the-convent naivety and idealism. The last 20 years have burned it away for good, I'm afraid.
That's actually just fine, if the argument is that the president should be able to begin and end investigations and prosecutions as he wishes--as I said that's a very extreme position, inconsistent with 250 years of Justice Department tradition and the rule of law, and potentially very dangerous next time a Democrat takes office. But you're perfectly right that it is a theoretically defensible reading of Article II. I just wanted to be clear what the argument was.
Oh I'll happily argue that these instances of presidential misconduct are borderline, and may not add up to criminal obstruction of justice. As I wrote in my first post: "This report may not contain the firm evidence required to determine the 'high crimes and misdemeanors' impeachable under the constitution. But the report does reveal a pattern of very serious misconduct that ought to be disqualifying for his renomination for President by a major political party, let alone his reelection to that office."
I was serious about factual defenses of the president on those issues by the way. The questions were skeptical but not snarky. Innocent until proven guilty is a very fine principle for allegations for criminal prosecutions. They are not for elections for president.
" Pause for a moment: A presidential candidate apparently directed a henchman to make contact with—perhaps collaborate with—an ongoing attack on American democracy.”
Mother Jones needs to tell us why this does not apply much more to the Clinton campaign, which we have absolute proof of doing just that with the fake dossier which fueled this whole expensive, distracting mess. She cheated, with lots of help, and SHE STILL LOST! What a maroon, and a traitor.
DL - "the president should be able to begin and end investigations and prosecutions as he wishes"
That is what the President can do. That is what the President has ALWAYS been able to do, except in the days when we had an Independent Counsel law. You really are not covering yourself in glory, here.
Mike
." But the report does reveal a pattern of very serious misconduct that ought to be disqualifying for his renomination for President by a major political party, let alone his reelection to that office."
No it doesn't. Clinton and Obama lowered that bar to just inches off the ground. Trump doesn't even come close.Nothing Trump has done disqualifies him from being president.
And I didnt make an ad homonim attack. I observed your lack of honesty and commented on it. You're not an honest broker.
Smear Merchant,
You will have to explain Article II to mean an independent DOJ. Does your copy of The Constitution mention the DOJ? They are a Cabinet-level organization and the president heads the Cabinet. The DOJ is under the president.
AG Lynch and Eric Holder confirm this point of view.
You're a fucking clown show, Smear Merchant.
Anonymous DL said...
That's actually just fine, if the argument is that the president should be able to begin and end investigations and prosecutions as he wishes--as I said that's a very extreme position, inconsistent with 250 years of Justice Department tradition and the rule of law, and potentially very dangerous next time a Democrat takes office. But you're perfectly right that it is a theoretically defensible reading of Article II. I just wanted to be clear what the argument was.
**************
Then tell us why DOJ underlings to the POTUS CAN and DID start and end prosecutions as they wish.
(Loretta Lynch and Comey and their treatment of Hillary immediately come to mind)
Not a very coherent argument on your part.
Rusty, that's a depressing argument, but an honest one. I find something vaguely admiring in an argument that all misconduct is fine, provided is not criminal. Or perhaps to take it a step further, and that there is no such no thing as misconduct, as distinct from criminal activity. Personally I am not quite so nihilistic. But I do like a good honest argument when I see one, even if I think extreme.
Birkel, I was agreeing with you. Applying the idea of the unitary executive, it's a perfectly defensible position to say that the DOJ and FBI should not be independent, but rather should be political arms of the president, investigating and prosecuting at the president's whim. It is an extreme argument, but it is an honest one.
Using the words misconduct (no definition) and criminal (in this telling also undefined) interchangeably is a tell.
Smear Merchant gotta smear.
DL said..."the Trump campaign often actively welcomed, and was receptive to, the assistance of the Russian government."
I've seen this talking point a lot today. What is the evidence backing up this claim?
Also, no. It is not extreme to say the Constitution means what it says. It is extreme to force your definition of the Constitution onto the words it actually contains.
Is English your second language, Smear Merchant?
"DOJ and FBI should not be independent"
Is somebody arguing for a fourth branch of government now?
DL - "it's a perfectly defensible position to say that the DOJ and FBI should not be independent"
Is boldly displaying your ignorance a new debating technique of which I am not aware?
Mike
Why does "Trump also wanted Sessions to begin a prosecution of Hillary Clinton" count as "misconduct" to you, DL?
that there is no such no thing as misconduct, as distinct from criminal activity."
"Politics ain't beanbag."
Discuss.
Do read Vol. I of the report, which has it all in gory, methodical detail. I summarized parts of Vol. II on a demand for evidence, with page numbers even, but then everyone ignored the substance of the summary, so I'm afraid I'll have to insist that you do the homework yourself this time.
If you think it isn't extreme to overturn two and a half centuries of tradition of DOJ independence and to turn the DOJ and FBI into a pure political arm of the president, then sure, you have me there. I'm a bit floored that this argument is being made at all, but it does at least have the virtue of being internally consistent.
How about one example, DL.
DL, you're not paying attention to the responses that you've gotten. You are arguing that what Trump is alleged to have done is uniquely new and bad. All the responses are telling you that it is, and has been, standard operating procedure.
And you seriously can't tell me why "Trump also wanted Sessions to begin a prosecution of Hillary Clinton" is "misconduct"? Even a one-sentance summary? I think you're the one that needs to do some homework.
Cite a single historical example of DOJ "independence" from the Executive Branch.
Start there and get crazy, dumb ass.
If you think it isn't extreme to overturn two and a half centuries of tradition of DOJ independence and to turn the DOJ and FBI into a pure political arm of the president, then sure, you have me there. I'm a bit floored that this argument is being made at all, but it does at least have the virtue of being internally consistent.
*****************
Your refusal to address the questions posed to you marks you as a flake. TELL US why Comey/Lynch's kiboshing of the Hillary investigation was OK.
TELL US why Trump cannot do what Obama's DOJ subordinates DID.
Ya think Obama had nothing to do with ending that investigation?
YA THINK????
DL - "then everyone ignored the substance of the summary"
You are the one ignoring things, namely every single argument being made in response to your comments. You just keep restating the same basic points over and over.
Mike
A Smear Merchant is not going to address arguments.
I think it is misconduct for a president or prime minister to attempt to order prosecutions of his political opponents--regardless of party or country--or to attempt cancel prosecutions of his political allies. This is a textbook abuse of power, incompatible with the rule of law, and typical only of banana republics. I mean, can you imagine if the Conservative Party in the UK could order the Crown Prosecution Service to begin prosecutions of Labour candidates and MPs every time it took power, and then Labour could do the reverse when it won power back? It would destroy any confidence in British democracy or the British legal system. How anyone could think such a state of affairs is acceptable, let alone desirable, I cannot possibly understand.
How about this? An excellent scholarly history of the prosecutorial independence. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3126856
So a Smear Merchant thinks running for president is a criminal get out of jail free card?
Fuck that lawlessness.
Congrats on citing an ahistorical Leftist NYC law prof.
Finding people like that who hate Trump and argue backward is pretty hard, I am taken to pretending to understand.
How about one example, DL.<
DL is a troll, probably close to if not identical with 4 w or once written.
DL - "I think it is misconduct for a president or prime minister to attempt to order prosecutions of his political opponents--regardless of party or country--or to attempt cancel prosecutions of his political allies."
1. Then why are you not concerned with the investigation of Donald Trump for "collusion" with Russia? How does that not fall under "attempt to order prosecution of his political opponents?"
2. Donald Trump was not interested in protecting his "political allies." As ROBERT MUELLER HIMSELF describes him, Donald Trump was an INNOCENT man being harassed and hounded by an investigation into unfounded allegations. That is the background you conveniently keep leaving out of your rather pitiful arguments. When viewed in that context, Trump's actions EVEN IF ACCURATELY DESCRIBED BY MUELLER have little connection with what you are attempting to claim.
Mike
Obama did not order the DOJ to investigate the Trump Campaign. If he had done, this would have been serious, and in my view impeachable, misconduct. (Though I suppose, to be consistent, you by contrast would need to argue that Obama would have been well within his rights to have ordered this investigation, if the DOJ and FBI should be a political arm of the president.) The decision was taken within the FBI. I suspect we will have further details of this origin and its propriety when Inspector General Horowitz issues his report. Whether he concludes that there was any misconduct within the FBI we will see, and I look forward to examining the facts when they come out.
Misconduct within the FBI/DOJ I s established.
Brennan/Clapper/Lynch/Yates/Holder/Comey and many more were complicit in an illegal scheme to deprive US citizens of 4th Amendment rights against government intrusion.
See how easy it is to cite a law that Obama likely violated?
And that his minions definitely violated?
Now, Smear Merchant, tell me what law Trump is alleged to have violated.
Howard: "Do your own homework, Fen. You argue like Elmer Fudd's ex-wife"
I've asked Chuck to support his vague assertions with facts. I'm not required to provide examples that back up your argument Howard, you are.
You refuse to do that and attack instead, because you don't have the facts on your side. Just more mumble mumble vague something mumble. You and Chuck and Inga, human centipede, ass to mouth, all recycling the same shit with a smile.
Chuck: my source is Volume II of Mueller's report, of which I have read large portions. Mueller' sources are carefully footnoted at the bottom of every page of the report. Seriously, it is worth a read and you can make up your own mind.
Fen: Give us specific examples instead of this vague mumble mumble crap. (1:44 EST)
Coming up on 8 HOURS now....
DL - "Obama did not order the DOJ to investigate the Trump Campaign."
How did we just spend two years and millions of dollars investigating "collusion" only to find there's NO EVIDENCE it happened? Can you name one other investigation of any kind, other than the original "October Surprise," that ever concluded by stating there was NO EVIDENCE that was it was supposed to investigate ever happened?
And in case you've forgotten, James Comey publicly admitted he leaked information to try and get a special counsel appointed and, as we now know, he did that despite NOT HAVING ANY ACTUAL EVIDENCE the President did anything wrong. https://www.cnn.com/2017/06/08/politics/james-comey-testimony-donald-trump/index.html
Mike
So, DL, the baseless "Russiagate" investigation of Trump, though started under Obama, was in no way Obama's responsibility?
Fen, see my post marked 4:59 pm. It was at your request, and you're welcome.
Birkel, please forgive me if I do not take your word for it, and wish to wait for Horowitz's report. But also, how could this be misconduct under your definition? If the DOJ and FBI are supposed to be political arms of the president, as you have said, and Obama was the president, then surely investigating Trump was in fact precisely appropriate?
Dang. I see I just repeated what several other commenters already said. Ok, here's something different. Some of us would argue that the United States already is well on its way to being a banana republic, that the Democrats are the primary (though not only) culprits, and that holding the Republicans to one set of standards while ignoring all "misconduct" on the part of Democrats is a big part of what got us here.
Yeah, the Fourth Amendment is law.
And a person operating under color of state authority cannot violate that law.
In no way does Article II allow a president to order violations of the Fourth Amendment.
You are a stupid fuck, Smear Merchant.
DL, you are twisting words. You, and only you, are responsible for saying "the DOJ and FBI are supposed to be political arms of the president", rather than that they are (as the Constitution intends them to be) part of the Executive Branch, subservient to the President.
Most special counsel investigations have lasted much longer, and brought many fewer prosecutions than the Mueller one. A nice chart:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/michael-cohen-is-the-33rd-person-mueller-has-charged-and-could-be-among-the-most-important/
Why is it "misconduct" for Trump to think that Hillary Clinton should be investigated, DL?
So an investigation that was predicated on no crime lasted for less time than ones predicated on actual crimes?
Huh!
And then we count all the indicted Russians in the numbers to boost the output?
Despite the fact they won't be tried?
Yeah, bro.
Sit this one out.
Smear Merchant ain't good at stuff.
But if it's fine for Trump to order a prosecution of Clinton, as you have said, surely it must also have been appropriate had Obama ordered an investigation of Trump?
Personally I think both are/would have been abominable. But we should be consistent.
DL - "But we should be consistent."
To be consistent, you would need to show some concern about that now-established fact that people have been lying about Donald Trump for 2 1/2 years. They've been smearing and defaming him. They've called him a traitor and said he and his family were going to be arrested. They attacked the legitimacy of his election. And it was all...EVERY BIT OF IT...based on nothing.
Yet, you show no concern over that. Hmm. It's almost like everything you post is just BS.
Mike
Investigation? No problem.
Lying to a court (by falsely claiming former FBI informant Carter Page was knowingly a Russian asset) to get a FISA warrant that allowed surveillance of American citizens (two hop rule) including the opposition political candidate, thereby violating the Fourth Amendment?
Yeah, that is apples to platypus different. You're not in the same ballpark. You're not in the same country or on the same planet. GTFOOH with that weak bull shit.
You're so partisan that you cannot understand how conservatives think about the law. Your ignorance is both a shield and a sword. And you are stabbing yourself to death with either one. Far be it from me to stop you, Smear Merchant.
Let me guess.
You've never been online with people who know facts and can return fire immediately, have you Smear Merchant?
What a maroon.
Fen, see my post marked 4:59 pm. It was at your request, and you're welcome.
No, you need to provide actual examples. Summarizing second-hand allegations is just more of your vague assertion habit. Back up your allegations with proof, use quotation marks and attrib them to the speaker.
The skill is a pre-req for law school, Chuck. The fact that you continually dodge my simple request tells me you don't have any actual facts to cite. Just innuendo and distortions and sophistry.
DL said...
But if it's fine for Trump to order a prosecution of Clinton, as you have said, surely it must also have been appropriate had Obama ordered an investigation of Trump?
Personally I think both are/would have been abominable. But we should be consistent.
************
But Obama AFA we know, did NOT order an "investigation" of Trump---his DOJ ordered a secret spying operation on Trump and his campaign.
There's a huge and fundamental difference.
Birkel, I'll wait for Horowitz's report before deciding on that. If it was as you say, that is certainly a very big problem. But I think we should wait for the report.
Sure, I grant that many attacks on Trump overstated the gravity of the case. The Mueller report demonstrates, as Romney aptly summarizes, that the Trump campaign "welcomed help from Russia--including information that had been illegally obtained; that none of them acted to inform American law enforcement; and that the campaign chairman was actively promoting Russian interests in Ukraine". So it was not quite "based on nothing", but you are right in that there was no criminal conspiracy, and any who had argued for the existence of such a conspiracy were irresponsible. They should have waited for the report.
No, Smear Merchant.
It is not an allegation that Obama's people falsely claimed Carter Page was Russian asset when they knew him to be a former FBI informant.
Carter Page walks the country, free.
So there can be no doubt that Obama Administration officials lies to the FISC.
There is simply no other reasonable explanation.
By the time Trump came to office, there were well-established grounds for investigating Clinton. The grounds for investigating Trump were far shakier (to put it politely). So I'm still not seeing the "misconduct".
"...campaign chairman..."
For six weeks of a nearly two year campaign.
Manafort's crimes happened a decade or so before his Trump involvement.
I hasten to say Manafort might have been an asset run at the Trump campaign.
He was, after all, a Podesta asset.
Its pretty obvious whats going on.
The dems/left/LLR-left had thus entire script choreographed a year ago and they are just going to plow ahead with impeachment.
The lefty billionaires are going to "flood the zone" on all popular blog sites with "Concern trolls" pretending to be "reasonable" moderates and/or LLR's to create the illusion of a preference cascade against Trump and timed to coincide with fake polls (see Reuters today) cooking the polls to give the appearance of crashing poll numbers for Trump and also timed with comments from the fake republicans, like Romney, who will signal that they will be happy to go along with impeachment.
This is of course combined with wall to wall continuing lefty/MSM lies about collusion and obstruction (yes they are still claiming collusion today!) And unfitness for office.
You will note that these trolls will all continue witj their FULL LLR Chuck act where clear and massive democrat crimes are minimized, downplayed or outright denied while non-existent and/or manufactured supposed transgressions by Trump are amplified to "11".
The question for conservatives is this: are there enough fake conservative republicans in the Senate who will be happy to vote the dems back into power for our lifetimes?
If you want to know why Romney ran, it was for this purpose alone: to be present in the senate when the democrats moved to impeach Trump so he would be a "yes" vote instead of a normal republican from Utah who would scoff at these dem lies and vote "no".
Of course, Romney, being a LLR Chuck-approved Surrender Monkey and Groveler At The Feet of Democrats, wasnt expecting the fight Trump has put up or the fight Trump will be bringing shortly.
As stated earlier today: The democrats lost an election they rigged, then lost an investigation they rigged.
Standby as they lose the impeachment they are rigging.
Drago,
I think you are correct in broad strokes.
Romney may be oblivious to the dangers he faces, if you are correct.
I dare say he has no idea.
Those who pretend to power have no idea how few it takes to truly resist.
They should look around.
The world is not static.
DL, you poor booby: you are accepting as FACT assertions made by Andrew Weissman, a rabid anti-Trumper and right-hand hatchet man for Mueller. It was he who wrote the second part of the Mueller report regaring obstruction.
As Mark Levin points out, those assertions are NOT legal facts. They haven't gone through the process of being subjected to the examination by a grand jury, let alone by a trial judge or jury.
Yet gullible you accepts them, w/o a second's thought.
Pitiful.
As for Trump wanting to do this or that, how about comparing him with King Henry II, who raged, "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?"
Well, someone *did* kill Thomas Becket, and King Henry stands accused by history of ordering a murder.
There's a huge difference between though and deed. Even if Trump raged about this or that, the Report itself says the in the end he and his administration fully cooperated with the investigation.
You're a dull tool, man , a dull tool.
I suspect you won't be coming back here with that particular nic, which reeks of a certain LLR.
Standby as they lose the impeachment they are rigging.
@Drago, there will be no impeachment, because Steny Hoyer counted votes and discovered that too many moderate Democrats who just flipped a red District last November realize that voting to impeach will almost certainly result in losing their reelection in 18 months.
If the standard is George Washington, Trump acted very badly, maybe even impeachably.
If the standard is Bill Clinton (and his 2-for-1 partner, Hillary Clinton), Trump did nothing remotely out of line.
We as a nation made some very big decisions when we elected Bill Clinton, re-elected him, and opposed his conviction when impeached. Basically, we decided that personal standards did not matter, and only outright criminal code violations are impeachable. Now the same people (and their ideological offspring) that led the way in 1992-2000, want to reverse everything they led us to. Nope, not having it.
I remember in 2016 some liberal pundits expressed sorrow that they had called Bush-43, McCain, and Romney "Nazis," because after 2000-04-08-12 the charge had lost its impact now that a REAL Nazi, Donald Trump, was at hand. (Which mostly showed that they wouldn't know a real Nazi if one showed up at their door.) Well, ditto for tolerating and even applauding Bill Clinton and his goon wife, Hillary. You all told us none of that matters, and we elected him (twice), and didn't find his Whitewater obstruction of justice to deserve impeachment--even as Susan McDougal sat in jail and expressed her confidence that he would eventually pardon her--which he did on his last day in office. We bought all of that.
So, I will just sigh that our political class is so bad that Donald J. Trump, for all his flaws, was a credible candidate because all (or almost all) the others were even worse. And that's the end of it.
But I don't think many others will see it that way.
Chuck, your actions may not rise to the level of a lewd conduct in the presence of minors, but your sick perversions have greatly contributed to the online pedophile community.
You cannot deny this is not true.
That's the kind of Wormtongue you've been slithering on this blog.
The fact that you had to adopt a sockpuppet to lecture about "decency" says everything.
I don't know if registering Chuck as a sex offender would prevent more child sexual abuse, but it certainly wouldn't hurt
Hey, I'm not accusing you, I simply said it wouldn't hurt. Is that not true? What's your social?
Notice the lack of specificity? The lack of hard facts and evidence? The passive effects like "contributing to x" that are impossible to contest. And yet, you are now associated with pedophilia. And the onus is on you to prove your innocence to the rest of us.
Good. Goose. Gander.
I think I'll start each day with a PSA about Chuck and pedophilia.
DL asserted.
The point being you have yet to establish that Trump engaged in any criminal or even unethical activity.
DL asserted.
The point being you have yet to establish that Trump engaged in any criminal or even unethical activity.
Post a Comment