monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

I don't think Trump can keep Mueller from testifying before the House Judiciary committee.

Perhaps, he had some money on Maximum Security to win, or he believed any of the horses were allowed into the race due to affirmative action.

I don't think Trump or anyone in the current Administration is at all reluctant to see Mueller testify before the House Judiciary committee, and don't know of any actions they have taken to prevent it. Perhaps you do.

The conclusions of Mueller's report are clear enough, and despite the somewhat hysterical interest of the leading Democrats to continue that investigation, it is, in fact over, and the legal conclusions about the absence of sufficient evidence for any prosecution for violation of law are undeniable.

In fact I suspect the Democrats on the House Committees aren't particularly interested in getting Mueller's testimony at all. Instead their current target is, and will likely continue to be AG Barr, precisely because of the soon-to-be released Justice Department IG Review, and the very likely further investigations that will inevitably follow from it. The Democrats appear to be in the grip of hysteria over this and a desperate need to continue the Trump investigation by any means possible, if for no other reason than to avoid accountability for their own actions.

Have you read this article? Honestly, it doesn't come off as "hysterical". At all.

I don't think anything shattering is going to come from it, the Dems mainly want him to testify to animate the report because an infinitesimal amount of the public has read it.

I had not read this before, but I have just finished reading it now.

My impressions are the article is a lengthy rationalization of a preconceived position.

We've heard little but accusations of "collusion" from Democrats the MSM for over two years. The article correctly points out that collusion is not a meaningful legal term, and that, while collusion of sorts may have occurred, it (reluctantly) acknowledges that no compelling evidence of criminal conspiracy was found.

The article states that as a matter of (unproven) fact that there is undeniable and ample evidence of a Russian effort to tilt the 2016 election towards Trump. I find that contrary to both the facts, and Putin's likely motivations & self-interest.
In the first place, I don't know of any systematic bias in the typical Russian efforts to sow public discord and mistrust in our country. In addition, there is a significant likelihood that much of their activity was anti-Trump. It is highly likely that Russian Intelligence services were, from the start, well aware of Steele's ongoing for hire investigative services while he lived and worked in Russia, and also of the sources he dug up for the anti Trump dossier he produced for and sold to the Clinton Campaign. How could they have allowed that if they were so interested in a Trump Victory ?
In the second place, from the Clinton "reset button" for our Russian relations, to the Clinton-enabled sale to Russians of North American Uranium Production sources, Clinton had facilitated Putin's interests rather consistently.. In stark contrast Trump's announced intention to make the U.S. a net exporter of Petroleum and natural gas was a direct and immediate threat to the principal source of income for a weak Russian economy.

I was a bit confused by the article's inconsistent and misleading treatment of the Obstruction issue. It first notes (correctly) that The President can be removed only by Impeachment by Congress and that no unrelated criminal action should take its place in that area. However it also ignores the President's continuing authority and responsibility to run the Executive Department and implies that Trump's amply justified dismissal of the FBI Director (recommended by the acting AG) was itself necessarily an act of obstruction. Lastly there is no clear evidence in the Mueller Report that the investigation found sufficient probable cause evidence for criminal obstruction. Mueller's duty was to find and report evidence warranting criminal action of any sort - something he did relentlessly with several witnesses in the investigation. However, despite this, the article asserts, without evidence, that Mueller indeed found sufficient evidence of criminal obstruction but chose to refrain from reporting a legal conclusion in the report, presumably out off a high minded regard for the Constitution. That proposition both inconsistent Mueller's behavior in the investigation and a bit hard to buy.

Honestly, george, that hasn't been the only accusation nor was it the sole concern. I actually heard more Trump supporters denying "collusion" than Democrats making the charge.

What did they use to get the FISA warrants? The Hillary/DNC funded Steele Dossier...

If he isn't reluctant, why is he saying he shouldn't testify? Why would he say anything at all?

Donald Trump Says Robert Mueller ‘Should Not Testify’ Before Congress

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-trump-robert-mueller_n_5ccf2cfce4b0548b735bd3d1

Just another republican marionette parroting the party line.

Ok, who spelled marionette for Rabel?😀

A Republican lie. And, were it even the case, that it was the sole reason for the warrant, it wouldn't excuse Manafort, Gates, Cohen, the Russian hackers, or anyone else. If I'm accused of running a meth lab in my basement by some busybody and the cops get a warrant and find that I'm actually processing raw opium, that doesn't mean I haven't broken another law.

Well, you've got me there. Probably foolish of me to forecast what Trump might or might not say.

However, apart from reciting a few unflattering details, there's not much Mueller can say against Trump, given (1) The law governing Special Counsels and the reports they ae required to make; and (2) The findings report he has already submitted (If Mueller had probable cause for prosecution fort obstruction, the law required him to report it: he did not do that.)

I suspect the House Democrats are motivated chiefly by their disappointment and denial about the Mueller Report findings, and also concern about what the forthcoming Justice Department IG report will reveal and any subsequent criminal investigations that might follow it. In these conditions it suits them to keep the collusion and obstruction conversations going - no matter how irrelevant they may be.

It is the case, and your horrible analogy doesn't fit the known facts. I haven't excused anything done by anyone who is guilty of their own crimes that had nothing to do with the Russian Collusion investigation. The only people you mention that had anything to do with the election were the Russians. You seem to have fallen for the Russian trap, thank you for making them successful in sowing division in this country. You can hate and dislike Trump all you want, but the Russian story is just that, a story. Trump had nothing to do with the Russians and their attempts to interfere in the election. You going to be using that excuse in Jan of 2021 if Trump is getting sworn in again

I never said he did. That's not even the issue. The investigation found ample evidence of widespread Russian interference in the '16 election. It would be ridiculous to think that Trump himself had anything to do with it. He didn't have to. That's the whole thing — Trump was the "innocent" beneficiary of an extensive preexisting Russian disinformation campaign to undermine the credibility of western democracy. He didn't have to do anything.

Of course "stoning" is off the table...


Brunei reverses death penalty for homosexuality rule
By DAVID MATTHEWS
| NEW YORK DAILY NEWS |
MAY 05, 2019 | 8:15 PM

Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah of Brunei extended a moratorium on the death penalty to include new legislation that would have made homosexuality a capital crime.

Following international backlash led by celebrities including Elton John and George Clooney, the sultan announced the tiny nation would not be stoning gay people to death after implementing new interpretations of Islamic law in April.

Brunei has been rolling out its new laws in phases since 2014 as part of what the country calls the Syariah Penal Code Order (SPCO).

The 440,000-population country has not executed anyone since the 1990s, according to the Independent.

However, after news of the new laws came into effect, many individuals in Brunei’s LGBT community fled the country.

“I am aware that there are many questions and misconceptions with regard to the implementation of the SPCO. However, we believe that once these have been cleared, the merit of the law will be evident,” the sultan said in a speech before the start of Ramadan on Sunday.

“As evident for more than two decades, we have practiced a de facto moratorium on the execution of death penalty for cases under the common law," he said. "This will also be applied to cases under the SPCO, which provides a wider scope for remission.”

Bolkiah said he had to balance law and individual privacy.

“Both the common law and the Syariah law aim to ensure peace and harmony of the country,” he said. “They are also crucial in protecting the morality and decency of the country as well as the privacy of individuals.”

The country made an unprecedented move in releasing an English translation of the sultan’s speech.

The sultan’s decision comes after international condemnation by the United Nations as well as boycotts by high-profile individuals and companies.

And when incrementalism leads to immobilism and mecanical thinking, it ought to be disqualified as well.

Kudlow: Mr. President, tariffs are really tax hikes

China Considers Delaying Next Trade Talks After Trump’s Tariff Threat

I don’t care if you believe in using the system or smashing it, it would be nice if there was an ‘ism’ or school of thought whose defining characteristic was just getting **** done. It’s too easy to slap a label on (incrementalist, radical) and ‘otherize’ someone who could be an ally.

Call it Trumpism. Despite your obvious bias, the prez is getting **** done.

It just doesn't happen to be the neoliberal agenda **** that you're expecting.