192
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
snood
 
  2  
Mon 6 May, 2019 08:52 am
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

Quote:
Trump Scared to Let Robert Mueller Testify, Despite ‘Exoneration’
https://nym.ag/2H69N4n

Well, yes, he does seem scared of something. I'm guessing the reason he's scared is because he simply doesn't wish to have Mueller repeat again that Trump has been fully exonerated and is fully innocent of anything untoward or criminal. That might look like Trump is bragging and he really hates braggarts. So he'd rather Mueller stays silent now.
That must be it.


Must be, must be. Just the same as why he doesn’t want financial or educational information revealed. Avoiding braggadocio.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  2  
Mon 6 May, 2019 08:54 am
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

Quote:
I don't think it's fair to judge people by what some of their supporters do. It's just another facile way to dismiss Sanders.
I was writing about supporters, not Sanders. But on the other hand, we need to see any candidate working to police his/her supporters through, if nothing else, strong public statements expressing distaste for and disagreement with such behaviors. Thus he has a responsibility here.


Although I too was addressing supporters, you make a good point. Every candidate has a responsibility to at least try to address egregious behavior by their supporters.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Mon 6 May, 2019 08:57 am
@snood,
No you are not. Not with me anyway. You keep agressing and insulting me. Either you calm down, or you'll be ignored.
Olivier5
 
  2  
Mon 6 May, 2019 08:59 am
@blatham,
Bitching about Sanders' supporters is divisive as well, especially when done with a hollier-than-you attitude.
blatham
 
  2  
Mon 6 May, 2019 09:05 am
@blatham,
Golly. Perhaps my thinking was wrong about Trump's motives in trying to silence Mueller. I have to accept this possibility.
Quote:
Trump’s new effort to muzzle Mueller gives away his big scam

President Trump and his advisers want you to believe that the conclusion of the Mueller investigation amounts to much more than just “total exoneration.” It will also help Trump get reelected, because it validated his argument that the probe was an illegitimate effort to remove him, allowing him to go on offense against the “deep state” cabal behind it.

As one top Trump campaign official is now boasting, “the investigators will be investigated,” and “the tables are turning,” which is something “the campaign will continue to point to.” Trump’s effort to unleash law enforcement on his political foes doesn’t just represent a newly aggressive push into authoritarianism. As Trump’s campaign is openly and casually proclaiming, it’s also key to his 2020 strategy.

It’s strange, then, that Trump does not want special counsel Robert S. Mueller III to appear before Congress. After all, if he did, Trump’s Republican allies could subject him to their typically withering cross-examination skills, mercilessly unmasking the truth about the man at the center of this deep-state plot for all the nation to see.

Why on Earth would Trump willingly pass up such a fabulous opportunity?

Trump unleashed two tweets on Sunday, calling on Mueller not to honor the Democratic request for his testimony. Trump claimed Mueller had found “NO COLLUSION” (a serious distortion) and “NO OBSTRUCTION” (a flat-out lie) — and said: “No redos for the Dems!”

Meanwhile, we just learned that Trump’s attorney general, William P. Barr, defied the deadline set by Democrats for releasing the full, unredacted Mueller report and underlying materials. Democrats are now preparing to hold Barr in contempt.

What ‘the tables are turning’ means

The idea that Trump is on offense against the investigators is encapsulated in the phrase “the tables are turning." This is a new Trumpworld talking point. Trump himself just used it, while claiming the only criminality involved in Russiagate was by Democrats.

Barr is apparently all in on this table-turning. Barr has has said he’s investigating the “spying” on Trump’s campaign, subtly propping up the idea that the probe was grounded in nefarious deep-state intent. Last week, Barr cast doubt on the investigation’s genesis and lent support to the idea that Hillary Clinton was the real colluder.

As Brian Beutler and Jonathan Chait detail, Barr’s past (backing up the Iran-contra pardons) and his willingness to validate Trump’s narratives (he blessed the fake Uranium One scandal) raise reasonable suspicions that Barr will willingly carry out Trump’s authoritarian designs, whether for instrumental purposes or as a true believer.

You’d think Mueller’s congressional testimony would provide a great opening to build the case for doing so. Indeed, the New York Times reports that some around Trump want Mueller to testify for precisely this reason:

Quote:
The special counsel, they say, would most likely face tough questions from Republicans about two F.B.I. officials, Lisa Page and Peter Strzok, who in text exchanges were deeply critical of Mr. Trump as they were investigating Russian interference in the election. Those questions would undercut Mr. Mueller’s investigation, those close to the president say, and allow them to paint it as a partisan attack on Mr. Trump.


But the reality is that if and when Mueller does testify, it will all but certainly fortify the investigation’s legitimacy in the public mind, not undermine it. And it will likely deal another massive blow to Trumpworld’s alt-narrative.

Opposition to Mueller testimony gives away the game

Trump probably can’t stop Mueller from testifying. Barr has previously said he’s open to it — only days ago, Trump even said this was up to Barr to decide — but even if Barr shifted, Mueller soon will no longer be a Justice Department employee, meaning he’d likely be free to testify.

Indeed, Robert Bauer, the White House counsel under Barack Obama, pointed out to me that Trump has not said he’s directing Barr to prevent Mueller’s testimony, suggesting he sees the writing on the Capitol wall.

“I would assume his lawyers will be, or are, telling him (1) that he cannot put his attorney general, whom he would not want to lose, in the impossible position of having committed that Mueller would testify, only to be overruled by Trump and 2) resistance is futile, because eventually Mueller will testify,” Bauer emailed me.

If so, Trump’s tweets urging Mueller not to testify appear more feckless and panicky than anything else. But beyond this, Trump’s very opposition itself gives away the game.

If and when Mueller does testify, he will likely reiterate his report’s account of the genesis of the investigation: that the FBI initiated it after “a foreign government contacted the FBI about a May 2016 encounter with Trump campaign foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos,” in which Papadopoulos indicated Russia had offered to help the Trump campaign with damaging information on Clinton.

Mueller may well publicly speak to the ways his report detailed how the Trump campaign “expected it would benefit electorally” from that Russian help, and the campaign’s efforts to — yup — collude with it. If Mueller is asked why he declined to exonerate Trump on obstruction, he might somehow let it be known that he did, in fact, establish extensive evidence of criminality.

Nor is aggressive questioning of Mueller about those Strzok-Page texts likely to work for Trump. Remember: Each time this or that revelation about them was greeted by Trump as a “BOMBSHELL,” they ended up being buffoonish duds.

It’s possible, of course, that Barr will carry out Trump’s authoritarian directive to investigate the investigators. But Mueller’s testimony won’t build the case for this effort. It will only reveal it as that much more corrupt and lawless.
https://wapo.st/2H4lHfh
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Mon 6 May, 2019 09:13 am
@Olivier5,
Quote:
Bitching about Sanders' supporters is divisive as well, especially when done with a hollier-than-you attitude.
First, criticism isn't "bitching". Second, one really can't rationally maintain a formula that equates criticism with seeking to create division (in the sense we understand that term). To do so would be to ignore any/all differences in how such behaviors arise and how they are done. For example, we know that Russian intel sought to promote certain narratives and misinformation with the goal of disaffecting Dem/Hillary voters. And we know that part of that project involved placing misinformation etc into the conversation that Sanders' supporters were engaged in.

Criticizing divisive acts and goals is not the same as being divisive. Isn't that clear?
revelette1
 
  2  
Mon 6 May, 2019 09:15 am
@Olivier5,
How you can say with a straight 'post' those fussing about Bernie's supporters do it with a holier than thou attitude is just telling. Shoe on the other foot to say the least which has been the main point all along. Just follow Lash and to a lesser extent Edgar's posts on the subject of Bernie or 'real' progressives for all the proof anyone would need.
Olivier5
 
  2  
Mon 6 May, 2019 09:21 am
@blatham,
Criticising a vague group of people without a clear purpose, without a way forward, without a fix or an advice to make things better, is akin to "bitching". If you want to be critical, be contructive as well.

revelette1
 
  4  
Mon 6 May, 2019 09:22 am
Meanwhile Trump is sending to warships to warn Iran. Wag the dog in a very dangerous game.

US sends 'unmistakable message' to Iran
revelette1
 
  4  
Mon 6 May, 2019 09:25 am
@Olivier5,
He and others have been. They suggest in the never ending time of US elections, left/democrats/progressives should unite together to beat Trump and republicans in the House and the Senate. Without first doing the before mentioned all the proposed policies in the world make no difference.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  2  
Mon 6 May, 2019 09:25 am
@revelette1,
Because this "hollier than you" attitude is not limited to Bernites.
blatham
 
  4  
Mon 6 May, 2019 09:28 am
@Olivier5,
Quote:
Criticising a vague group of people without a clear purpose, without a way forward, without a fix or an advice to make things better, is akin to "bitching". If you want to be critical, be contructive as well.
I'm not sure what you'd have me do. I have written many posts directed at grasping and identifying bad-faith parties operating within the "pro-Sanders" camp. And I've pointed to how a campaign candidate can work to minimize such stuff when it comes to light.
revelette1
 
  2  
Mon 6 May, 2019 09:30 am
@Olivier5,
Most of us who are no "Bernites" have said we would support whoever wins and also, some of us support some policies proposals proposed by the leftist wing of the party but not all. It is the not all which draws a holier than thou attitude from the Leftist wing of the party. Simply disagreeing with them causes big debates and charges of neoliberals and the like.

Personally I am done with this, it is not worth the time I am spending on it. Disagree if you want. shrugs. It is a sign however of the troubles in the democrat party which I hope (don't hold much hope) does not translate into a Trump victory again.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Mon 6 May, 2019 09:31 am
Today's edition of Voices From The Right - Jennifer Rubin
Quote:
First it was the former White House counsel. Now it is special counsel Robert S. Mueller III. In both cases, President Trump — seemingly petrified of witnesses concerning a report in which he claims to have been exonerated — has tried to suppress testimony from those with the most damning evidence of Trump’s obstruction of justice.

The Post reports, “President Trump said Sunday that special counsel Robert S. Mueller III should not testify before Congress, reversing course from his previous position that the decision is up to Attorney General William P. Barr. ‘Bob Mueller should not testify,’ Trump said in an afternoon tweet. ‘No redos for the Dems!’” The House Judiciary Committee is seeking to have Mueller testify on May 15.

Mueller’s testimony would not be a redo, but it could demolish Trump and Attorney General William P. Barr’s canard that Trump is guilty of nothing...
https://wapo.st/2H4Cf6M
snood
 
  4  
Mon 6 May, 2019 09:43 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

No you are not. Not with me anyway. You keep agressing and insulting me. Either you calm down, or you'll be ignored.


It would be a heavy blow, but should you find it necessary to ignore me, I shall endeavor to somehow soldier on.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Mon 6 May, 2019 09:49 am
@blatham,
For one thing, you can keep doing whatever you want, and I can keep calling it "bitching" if I see it as futile.

For another, you may try and grasp that they are people occasionally acting in bad faith in your own camp, too. It's not like the Bernites are divisive and the anti-Bernites are not, always.

Finally, you may wish to ponder the difficult idea that to attribute all divisiveness to one camp and none to the other, that too is divisive.

You're most welcome.
Walter Hinteler
 
  4  
Mon 6 May, 2019 11:41 am
Trump would have been charged with obstruction were he not president, hundreds of former federal prosecutors assert
Quote:
More than 370 former federal prosecutors who worked in Republican and Democratic administrations have signed on to a statement asserting special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s findings would have produced obstruction charges against President Trump — if not for the office he held.

The statement — signed by myriad former career government employees as well as high-profile political appointees — offers a rebuttal to Attorney General William P. Barr’s determination that the evidence Mueller uncovered was “not sufficient” to establish that Trump committed a crime.

Mueller had declined to say one way or the other whether Trump should have been charged, citing a Justice Department legal opinion that sitting presidents cannot be indicted, as well as concerns about the fairness of accusing someone for whom there can be no court proceeding.

“Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice,” the former federal prosecutors wrote.

“We emphasize that these are not matters of close professional judgment,” they added. “Of course, there are potential defenses or arguments that could be raised in response to an indictment of the nature we describe here. . . . But, to look at these facts and say that a prosecutor could not probably sustain a conviction for obstruction of justice — the standard set out in Principles of Federal Prosecution — runs counter to logic and our experience.”

The statement is notable for the number of people who signed it — 375 as of Monday afternoon — and the positions and political affiliations of some on the list. It was posted online Monday afternoon; those signing it did not explicitly address what, if anything, they hope might happen next.

Among the high-profile signers are Bill Weld, a former U.S. attorney and Justice Department official in the Reagan administration who is running against Trump as a Republican; Donald Ayer, a former deputy attorney general in the George H.W. Bush Administration; John S. Martin, a former U.S. attorney and federal judge appointed to his posts by two Republican presidents; Paul Rosenzweig, who served as senior counsel to independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr; and Jeffrey Harris, who worked as the principal assistant to Rudolph W. Giuliani when he was at the Justice Department in the Reagan administration.

The list also includes more than 20 former U.S. attorneys and more than 100 people with at least 20 years of service at the Justice Department — most of them former career officials. The signers worked in every presidential administration since that of Dwight D. Eisenhower.

The signatures were collected by the nonprofit group Protect Democracy, which counts Justice Department alumni among its staff and was contacted about the statement last week by a group of former federal prosecutors, said Justin Vail, an attorney at Protect Democracy.

“We strongly believe that Americans deserve to hear from the men and women who spent their careers weighing evidence and making decisions about whether it was sufficient to justify prosecution, so we agreed to send out a call for signatories,” Vail said. “The response was overwhelming. This effort reflects the voices of former prosecutors who have served at DOJ and signed the statement.”

A spokesman for the special counsel’s office declined to comment. A spokeswoman for the Justice Department referred a reporter to Barr’s previous public statements on the subject.
... ... ...
blatham
 
  2  
Mon 6 May, 2019 12:20 pm
@Olivier5,
Quote:
Finally, you may wish to ponder the difficult idea that to attribute all divisiveness to one camp and none to the other, that too is divisive.
I haven't done so. Any time you find credible data suggesting it is being done by supporters of any candidate, it is entirely appropriate for you (or anyone) to criticize that.

But we have to acknowledge that those who state they will support only their candidate and then if another candidate wins the nomination they will either not vote or vote from Trump is something beyond criticism.

But let's end off. I doubt you and I disagree of anything important in terms of moral values and policy.
blatham
 
  3  
Mon 6 May, 2019 12:23 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Thanks Walter. I had not seen that yet. Thank god some people have the courage to speak out.
0 Replies
 
Builder
 
  -1  
Mon 6 May, 2019 03:29 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Quote:
We emphasize that these are not matters of close professional judgment,” they added. “Of course, there are potential defenses or arguments that could be raised in response to an indictment of the nature we describe here. . . . But, to look at these facts and say that a prosecutor could not probably sustain a conviction for obstruction of justice — the standard set out in Principles of Federal Prosecution — runs counter to logic and our experience.”


Misleading article, for mine. You don't get to wax lyrical about the law, and Mueller knew that.

The other side of this tale, is that if the president is above the law, isn't the fault with the legal system, and not with the president?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/20/2025 at 12:08:12