I think he nailed it, Barr identified both the most important questions everyone wanted answered; was there evidence of collusion, and should Trump be charged with obstruction. If there is any more important issue, please tell us what that could possibly could be. Poorly worded statement by AP, it couldn't be that "every page of Mueller's report marked that it contained grand jury material." Yahoo news clarifies: Probably all pages were marked whether they contained such material (maybe a stamp with two checkboxes: "GJ [_] yes [_] no"). Or maybe just every page with grand jury material was tagged. Grand jury material actually is secret and cannot be made public without a court order, so it doesn't really matter who tagged the pages, but if these were Mueller's markings it is wrong to blame Barr. This is probably how Barr was able to produce his summary on the main points in just 2 days, Mueller himself had short summaries of each conclusion, Barr reviewed those looking for anything serious. I doubt Mueller's own summaries overlooked significant issues. I suppose we will get the summaries with the report (all "appropriately redacted").
Not silly nor hypocritical, "progressivism" requires social adoption and some people in society are not as quick in adopting some things progressivism pursues. I remember as a teenager my father wouldn't allow my sister to wear miniskirts, she complained it was the fashion, everyone wore them, he was old-fashioned, yes, he agreed, but no miniskirts for her! She was 15 before she got her first bikini, nowadays little girls just 7 or 8 use bikinis. Times change, society evolves, some adopt fashions and trends sooner than others, we all move forward at some average pace, not fast enough for some, too quickly for others. Gay marriage? Doesn't bother me, though I wouldn't find it equivalent, I suppose I'm not "progressive" enough, likely in a few years most people across society will find a spouse and "partner" indistinguishable, but society has to get to that point on its own, this won't happen by decree. Same goes for open borders, multiculturalism, accommodating the handicapped, healthcare as a human right, prioritizing the environment... All of these require greater adoption by society than a democracy can impose by fiat. Progressives need to learn this, they may be on the right course, but they still have to get us all there and it can't be by force.
Did you know that Dershowitz is a PROFESSIONAL LIAR who is being PAID by FauxNoise to LIE to the gullible BLOTUS supporters about Mueller? Obviously not! Desshowitz is just as much of an egotistical self promoter as your BLOTUS and he is on FauNoise to spread red meat disinformation because it pays him to do so both in terms of money and self gratification. Dershowitz defended OJ Simpson, Jeffrey Epstein and Harvey Weinstein because it meant stroking his own ego in front of the cameras. So yes, he will spout any bovine excrement that he can get away with and only the gullible believe him. His allegations against Mueller are the typical smoke and mirrors drivel that all lawyers use to confuse the issue. If Mueller had actually violated anyone's civil liberties their lawyers would have bringing it up in defense of their clients. Not a single one of those lawyers has done so for the OBVIOUS reason that it would be LAUGHED out of court as being utterly BASELESS. In summary you have nothing to support your position but a self promoting professional liar who is no different to your lying BLOTUS. Yes, it does take critical thinking skills to see through Dershowitz's bovine excrement which is why he is treated like royalty on FauxNoise where those skills would get anyone using them fired in a heartbeat.
So now you are moving the goalposts and saying that your BLOTUS will be re-elected because of the SYMPATHY that the electorate will feel for the orange snowflake in the Oval office? Can you explain why the electorate never felt the same sympathy for Hillary because she had been endlessly attacked by the GOP prior to 2016? Would it be because she was NOT a "likable" person just as your BLOTUS is NOT a likable person? In essence your position rests entirely on this point because it really does not matter what positions the Dem candidate embraces and espouses they will NEVER get the vote of the BLOTUS supporters. However the Dems appealing to the Bernie demographic EXPANDS their own loyal Dem base giving them the swing votes they need to win. You are saying that the electorate will ignore the Progressive message appeal to their own pain and how it can be remediated and instead just feel SYMPATHY for the odious BLOTUS because he is the "victim" of the Dems exposing his endless misdeeds? That is a very tenuous hook to hang your hopes on IMO.
That is an interesting post, and you raise many good points, but I think the Bernie factor has been slightly ignored. All those young people wanting Bernie eventually discovered how corrupt the DNC is, and of course left a horrible taste in their mouth for party politics. Bernie is an independent, of course. This currently registered Republican wanted badly to vote for Bernie, because he represented real change. Change away from the status quo is all I want.
No, I'm not saying the abuse heaped on Trump will drive a sympathy vote, but I do think that as the level of this abuse becomes more evident it will detract from the support given to those who perpetrated it. Mueller's appointment was to investigate Trump's collusion with Russia to defeat Hillary, but it is true (and absolutely legal) for Mueller to investigate other matters uncovered in the course of his investigation. It appears Mueller did not find evidence of that collusion, but did uncover a lot of other matters, we don't yet know how these involved Trump, we do know some actually had nothing to do with him. So we are already removed one step from the original claim; there's no evidence of collusion with Russia to defeat Hillary, but there's evidence of some wrongful act by someone associated with Trump, the report ought to tell us whether it makes sense to attribute such other matters to Trump, but we already know some of them had nothing to do with him (for example Manafort's mortgage fraud or Cohen's taxicab medallion deals). It has been reported Democrats in Congress now seek Trump's financial records, they want to search for evidence of wrongdoing in the numerous transactions he's made in decades of real estate, hotel and casino deals, verify absolute regulatory compliance in licensing and permitting. This is a bit farther removed. It would be desirable to confirm he's not done anything unlawful, but it is also true the "Trump Organization" is large and diverse, has many people involved in a lot of transactions implicating plenty of regulations. Has there ever been any non-compliance with payroll tax, healthcare coverage, worker safety, employment discrimination, termination...? He's in the real estate development business, a notoriously regulated field, has he perfectly complied with all those construction regulations, his permits properly issued...? His casinos are another area of intense regulation and this involves complex and intense financing oversight, has there ever been any deviation from the strictest compliance relating to disclosure of funding and allocation of profits? Surely evidence can be found of some malfeasance decades ago in some business activity that profited Trump given the many deals and the highly regulated activity he engaged in. When this is uncovered, they'll delve into attributing it to Trump and try to show his involvement, awareness, oversight, direction, no doubt there will be instances when this is more evident, but how should an ordinary citizen regard this? Now we're a few steps away from collusion with Russia to defeat Hillary, we're examining ties between regulators in municipal governments who issued permits or waived compliance with someone associated with a Trump project. This is where I think some may balk as I expect there will be several instances when claims are made and the Trump nexus will not be very strong or he will have 'plausible deniability'. When finally they find something that conclusively proves the maid at some resort was unfairly fired in retaliation for a legitimate complaint over an actual breach of employment regulations by a supervisor who did directly raise the issue with Trump himself, thirty years ago, should the nation rally to demand his ouster? I'd caution Democrats on overreaching and remoteness.
Fallacious gibberish (Ad Hom) is not an argument for anything - and that is all you are doing. You can not quote one lie from Dershowitz - and you know it . This makes you the purveyor of falsehood and not Dershowitz. https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/384963-comey-mueller-and-the-poisonous-tree Your claim that Mueller has not committed violation of civil liberties is a complete falsehood. That is not even debated. The question is whether or not these violations were legitimate and justified. https://www.thenewamerican.com/usne...-manafort-s-home-violate-the-fourth-amendment Your claim that Manifort's Lawyers did not argue on the basis if civil liberty violations is false. What is also false is your claim that such arguments would be thrown out on the basis of being "absurd". The Judge himself scolded Mueller for his "Grossly negligent or reckless disregard for the strictures of the Fourth Amendment" You have no clue what you are talking about and the real "Bovine Excrement" is the stuff that you are posting.
Questionable relations with Russians? Some of the "Russians" you people are talking about are Americans of Russian decent or naturalized American citizens. Some are British who have duel citizenship. Some are Russian companies legally operating in the United States. And some are run ins, casual encounters that both campaigns had. It's doesn't seem to matter how many times you are told, NO COLLUSION. Some people are really sick.
Yes, if the Dems overreach you have a legitimate point. However there is documented evidence that your BLOTUS is a racist and does discriminate. The saying that the fish rots from the head down establishes that this discriminating is condoned throughout his organization. Just look at the same thing when it came to the condoning of molesting female employees at FauxNoise given that the C-level executives were the worst culprits. We already have evidence that your BLOTUS's Casinos were in VIOLATION of anti money laundering regulations and we have evidence that he sold properties to the Russians. It would not surprise me at all if there is evidence that he and/or his organization are involved in money laundering. Should your BLOTUS be allowed to get away with the crimes of money laundering just because he is in the Oval office? On top of that we have evidence that he is EXPLOITING his position in order to generate PROFITS via his use of his golf clubs, hotels and resorts at TAXPAYER expense. Why should taxpayers be paying through the nose for his PERSONAL ENRICHMENT? Why do you NOT have a problem with that? We also have evidence of his illegal abuse of charities and fundraising scams that needs to be thoroughly investigated to find out what tax laws were violated. In other words there is ALREADY enough EVIDENCE to JUSTIFY the investigations into his crimes and Congress would be FAILING in their DUTY to We the People if they turned a blind eye to all of these criminal acts. On top of that we have the crimes committed by members of his cabinet which need to be investigated. The GOP investigated Hillary umpteen times and managed to make her "unlikable" as a candidate. It would be hypocritical to deny the Dems the same opportunity with your BLOTUS. There is way MORE evidence to justify ALL of the investigations above and none of them would meet the criteria of "overreach" IMO.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA! Your source for that load of bovine excrement is Mark Penn? Seriously? FTR he has ZERO LEGAL CREDENTIALS. http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/11/clinton-adviser-mark-penn-loves-trump.html That you are desperately searching for discredited disinformation turds to support your position in the same sewer where professional lying scumsuckers like Mark Penn make their living says volumes. Now let's deal with this asinine falsehood of yours; That comment was made by a Federal Judge in 2015 about a search that took place in 2012 under the SDNY jurisdiction! https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ainst-wall-street-financier-wey-idUSKBN1952A3 Onus is now ENTIRELY ON YOU to PROVE that Mueller was involved in that case and that the judge was "scolding" him personally! Needless to say you won't be able to substantiate your latest FALSEHOOD because it NEVER HAPPENED! You just disingenuously cherry picked that quote from one of your extreme rightwing DISINFORMATION sources without bothering to fact check it for yourself first. This PATTERN of posting UNSUBSTANTIATED bovine excrement is becoming tiresome. Do you enjoy having your falsehoods EXPOSED over and over again?
Bad news for those who expect the Congressional subpoena of Mueller's unredacted report (with all supporting documentation) will become available easily:
That depends upon whether or not GJ testimony is included in the report. If there are only rulings by the GJ regarding whether or not to prosecute then I don't see that anything would be revealed that is not already known.
Your previous post was Ad Hom - attacking the messenger instead of addressing the message. You didn't like Allan Dershowitz as a source - despite the fact that he is a highly respected civil rights Lawyer (and Democrat voting for both Hillary and Obama). Now - in articles describing specific Civil Liberties issues - you again engage in Ad Hom. Saying "he is not a Lawyer" - as if one needs to be a Lawyer to know what civil liberties are which is false nonsense - but , regardless - you did the same Ad Hom BS when I gave you a Lawyer. The fact of the matter is that all of the things that happened to Manifort that were described in the article - happened.. and they were civil rights violations. The fact of the matter is that your claim that Manifort's Lawyers did not argue violations of civil liberties is completely false. You are correct that the case referred to in the link was not the Judge scolding Mueller - however, the case being referred to had the same offences as committed by the Mueller team = Mueller violated civil liberties. It is also true that Mueller was scolded by a Judge in the Manifort case for his tactics. Federal judge rightly rebukes Mueller for questionable tactics https://thehill.com/opinion/judicia...htly-rebukes-mueller-for-questionable-tactics No surprise here though - Mueller has a demonstrable track record of violating the principles of justice and being a scum bucket.
Your sources have ZERO CREDIBILITY but that does not stop you believing their LIES! Your own falsehoods were EXPOSED but you continue to believe them. You have NOTHING but the DEBUNKED opinions of known liars and scumsuckers but you still persist in believing that you are right. There is a scientific study that explains the bizarre refusal to accept documented factual reality and instead continue to believe in absurd fallacies that have been exposed as bovine excrement. Obviously that scientific study has now been corroborated by the posts in this thread. There is nothing further to be gained IMO since you have completely and utterly DISQUALIFIED yourself from any further meaningful interaction on this topic as far as I am concerned. Have a nice day!
What falsehoods? You twirling around in circles crying "Falsehood Falsehood" after seeing evidence that refutes your claims - does not make that evidence "falsehood". Nor does attacking the messenger "Ad Hom" suddenly go from being logical fallacy to Truth. Your insistence that fallacy constitutes Truth - and then twirling around and blaming others for this silliness - is called Projection. Information on this Psychological disorder can be found here https://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/psychpedia/projection
Mueller is a known violator of due process, look at the Enron prosecution denouement. He is famous for his abuses.
Democrats need to come up with something better than "orange man bad", they do need a vision, some overarching message on where they want to lead the country: Bernie tried in Iowa yesterday rallying the crowd with a call to give incarcerated felons the right to vote, can he bring the nation together on this issue? I'm being facetious, doubt the country will come together behind voting rights for incarcerated felons, but at least its better than "orange man bad". I think Democrats realize they just can't get enough votes together behind "MeToo", or "abolish ICE", or "free universal and unlimited healthcare for all", or "soak the rich", or "Green New Deal", and they just don't realize "orange man bad" doesn't have the votes either.
Now you are just repeating my material against you - the difference being that I backed my claim up with evidence - you did not
Mueller's report which is to be released to the public on Barr's initiative (after he delivers it to Congress) will feature redactions in 4 different colors indicating whether applied to grand jury material, classified information (sources and methods), ongoing investigations, or reputational harm to ancillary figures. I think Barr is going to score an end run here, that he knew (probably from Mueller himself) what was in the report before Mueller finished it. I remember him testifying about how he wanted to make as much of it as legally possible public, and there was a lot of discussion about this at his confirmation hearing, like Congress thought he'd try to hide the report. Once he got it Barr said he would make it public, but that some things had to be redacted because it is illegal, could be detrimental or harmful, to disclose them. Barr drafted a summary of his (not Mueller's) conclusions to report the 2 most important findings in Mueller's report; no evidence of conspiracy with Russia to defeat Hillary by Trump or others on his team, and the lack of any decision whether to recommend prosecution of Trump for obstruction of justice. Barr counseled with Rosenstein and Mueller and concluded there wasn't conclusive enough evidence to sustain a prosecution for obstruction. Now we're waiting for Mueller's report, about a week has passed and it may be another week before we get it. Amazingly, people seem to think Mueller's report will show Barr is completely mistaken about the absence of evidence Trump and his team colluded with Russia, and are certain it will reveal plenty of evidence of obstruction -exactly the opposite of what Barr told us. If that were the case, I doubt Barr would make Mueller's report public, it would be at least embarrassing to be caught saying something completely different from what is made public by the report. It is claimed Barr will redact evidence of Trump's collusion and of his obstruction falsely claiming it is grand jury material, relates to sources and methods, some ongoing investigation or could harm the reputation of periferal figures. I suspect this unfounded belief will animate a lengthy fight for disclosure of the redactions, and can see how this would be detrimental, especially to ongoing investigations. Nonetheless, we may go through an extended gradual disclosure of redacted information which will repeatedly fail to make public that smoking gun (and keep the failed hoax alive). I also think we should bear in mind disclosure to the public is on Barr's initiative, it is true Congress unanimously voted to make it public before Barr said he would, but it is also true Barr is not compelled by law to do so. Special Counsel is supposed to produce a report to the Attorney General, who with DoJ determines if it is necessary to provide to Congress (it wouldn't be in a situation where Special Counsel failed to find evidence meriting prosecution -as is apparently the case here). Democrats are so certain Mueller did find damning evidence they are pushing real hard to get this whole report and everything relied on in it to the public, but I think there really isn't anything there (not even in the redacted parts).
Barr needs to keep in mind that there are all of the lawyers who worked for the SC investigation. If he fails to reveal pertinent information that they know about then he cannot hide behind redactions unless he can prove that what they are revealing must be redacted. Furthermore there is nothing stopping Congress from having these lawyers testify about what they discovered. If Barr wants to retain his credibility he needs to make minimal use of his redactions IMO.
