Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

peddlelies

batgoat wrote: »

It looks awful for him and it looks like he used an attorney General to spin it for him.

What has Barr said that's factually incorrect?

jooksavage

Barr will go down in history as a total fraud and a shill. Instead of failing to conclude obstruction took place, as Barr incorrectly asserted, the SC is unable to say the President didn't attempt to obstruct justice and invites congress to judge for themselves 10 instances that, as descibed in the report, are clearly obstruction.

peddlelies

jooksavage wrote: »

Barr will go down in history as a total fraud and a shill. Instead of failing to conclude obstruction took place, as Barr incorrectly asserted, the SC is unable to say the President didn't attempt to obstruct justice and invites congress to judge for themselves 10 instances that, as descibed in the report, are clearly obstruction.

What will Loretta Lynch go down as in your opinion?

And the bold bit, pure media spin. Barr and the report itself says Mueller identified 10 possible obstruction situations, not 10 instances where obstruction took place. It's dishonest to say otherwise.

marno21

Barr is a stooge. We didn't learn that today - it's not news.

The idea that the Russia thing will decide the 2020 election is fantasy to me. Democrats need to start pushing policy issues seriously. Healthcare, income inequality etc

It's disappointing how many Americans will vote for Trump right now because "the economy is doing so well". Yet the shutdown showed exactly how dire many people's personal finance situation is. Just because the S&P 500 is doing well and there are smiles on Wall Street shouldn't be equivocated into national prosperity.

jooksavage

peddlelies wrote: »

What will Loretta Lynch go down as in your opinion?

And the bold bit, pure media spin. Barr and the report itself says Mueller identified 10 possible obstruction situations, not 10 instances where obstruction took place. It's dishonest to say otherwise.

The report describes the following instances. They're portrayed as facts, not rumour or hearsay. This is not spin - Mueller has used them as justification for his conclusion that the President cannot be exonerated.

1. Trump tells Comey to drop Flynn investigation
2. Tells Sessions to unrecuse himself
3. Fires Comey
4. Tells McGahn to get Rosenstein to drop Mueller
5. Tries to get Lewandosky to ask Sessions to limit scope of investigation so it doesn't cover historical election interference by Russia
6. Lied about nature of tower meeting
7. Summer 17 tries to get to get Sessions to unrecuse himself again
8. Instructs McGahn to change his statement to SC about instructing Rosenstein to fire SC
9. Public denunciation of Cohen for cooperating
10. Asks Flynn for heads up about incriminating info on President that the SC might have brought up

MadYaker

What a time to be alive! There's actually a lot in this report despite the ambiguous conclusion. I would seem pretty clear to me that the president is guilty of obstruction but I guess that's why I'm not a lawyer. The only reason he isn't guilty of that is because the people he asked to carry out the obstruction refused. But there is clear demonstration of genuine intent to commit obstruction on numerous occasions. Yet still not enough?

Also this puts to bed any arguments that the russians didn't actively and somewhat succesfully attempt to influence the election, even Trumps own AG said it. That's huge on it's own and I wonder is the US gov doing anything at all about this?

peddlelies

jooksavage wrote: »

The report describes the following instances. They're portrayed as facts, not rumour or hearsay. This is not spin - Mueller has used them as justification for his conclusion that the President cannot be exonerated.

1. Trump tells Comey to drop Flynn investigation
2. Tells Sessions to unrecuse himself
3. Fires Comey
4. Tells McGahn to get Rosenstein to drop Mueller
5. Tries to get Lewandosky to ask Sessions to limit scope of investigation so it doesn't cover historical election interference by Russia
6. Lied about nature of tower meeting
7. Summer 17 tries to get to get Sessions to unrecuse himself again
8. Instructs McGahn to change his statement to SC about instructing Rosenstein to fire SC
9. Public denunciation of Cohen for cooperating
10. Asks Flynn for heads up about incriminating info on President that the SC might have brought up

Yes, I don't agree, they aren't instances of obstruction. They're possible situations where obstruction may have occurred.

Look, I think it's a moot point, the obstruction angle. The underlying accusation of the campaign somehow conspiring with Russian to interfere in the election was the golden egg, and that came up short. The report itself alludes to Trump in many of those incidents acting like he did because he felt he was being wrongly accused and it was destroying his presidency. I don't see a single "instance" if we want to that word, where Trump fired someone or engaged in some other act because he wanted to hide some kind of conspiracy, I see the opposite in fact, where in many situations he encouraged investigators to find any wrong doing by people in his campaign.

It's not the Special councils job to exonerate someone, the fact they even included those words in the report tells me there was some sort of argument among themselves since they couldn't find anything substantial to do with collusion.

duploelabs

peddlelies wrote: »

Yes, I don't agree, but they aren't instances of obstruction. They're possible situations where obstruction occurred.

Look, I think it's a moot point, the obstruction angle. The underlying accusation of the campaign somehow conspiring with Russian to interfere in the election was the golden egg, and that came up short. The report itself alludes to Trump in many of those incidents acting like he did because he felt he was being wrongly accused and it was destroying his presidency. I don't see a single "instance" if we want to that word, where Trump fired someone or engaged in some other act because he wanted to hide some kind of conspiracy, I see the opposite in fact, where in many situations he encouraged investigators to find any wrong doing by people in his campaign.

It's not the Special councils job to exonerate someone, the fact they even included those words in the report tells me there was some sort of argument among themselves since they couldn't find anything substantial to do with collusion.

He fired Comey 'because of the whole Russia thing', that's one time he fired someone to obscure the investigation.
Yes, there's no proven conspiracy but, according to Barr's interpretation, if there's no underlying crime then there can be no obstruction

peddlelies

duploelabs wrote: »

He fired Comey 'because of the whole Russia thing', that's one time he fired someone to obscure the investigation.
Yes, there's no proven conspiracy but, according to Barr's interpretation, if there's no underlying crime then there can be no obstruction

There's no hope at all I think.

Instead of your interpretation of what the media portrays his words to mean, you could see in the report that there's ample evidence to support the claim that Trump fired Comey because he wouldn't say he wasn't under investigation publicly, not NONE to back up the claim he did it to cover up a conspiracy. That's what the SC conclusion is on Trump firing Comey.

"The report also said “substantial evidence indicates that the catalyst” for the decision to fire FBI Director James Comey was his “unwillingness to publicly state that the president was not personally under investigation.” But the report said the evidence “does not establish that the termination of Comey was designed to cover up a conspiracy between the Trump Campaign and Russia.”

peddlelies

MadYaker wrote: »

What a time to be alive! There's actually a lot in this report despite the ambiguous conclusion. I would seem pretty clear to me that the president is guilty of obstruction but I guess that's why I'm not a lawyer. The only reason he isn't guilty of that is because the people he asked to carry out the obstruction refused.

Hmmm.

Which is it?

Polling data over the next while will be interesting. This prevailing idea that it's oh so bad doesn't tally up with my opinion on how people will react.

MadYaker

peddlelies wrote: »

Hmmm.

Which is it?

I guess we should be grateful that the people that trump asked to break the law on his behalf had a lot more respect for the law than trump does.

We must ask ourselves why someone would risk getting charged with obstruction by attempting to interfere with an investigation they supposedly have nothing to fear from. It seems to me he was genuinely very afraid of what mueller might find.

Manic Moran

Leroy42 wrote: »

Agreeing to a new summit? Where did you hear that? What have the US done to change the dynamic after the collapse and failure of the last summit?

It was on the Associated Press feed, so is on quite a few media sites.
https://apnews.com/e7462797b895453894306751a0430370

It was brushed away, but the last summit was a complete failure for Trump. HE had given NK pretty much everything they had wanted but got very little in return.

Well, the North Koreans wanted sanctions lifted without further preconditions. The US said "no" and walked away. That was the end of the summit. It was a failure, but it doesn't exactly shout "the DPRK got pretty much everything they wanted".

KyussB

As stated when the initial conclusions of the report first became news:
News media in the US has been shown up as propagating a Russia-phobic witch hunt, peddling enormously damaging falsehoods with no evidence for years - effectively rendering the distinction between the mainstream news sources involved, and those the mainstream disparage as spreading 'fake news', as nil.

The mainstream news sources with manufactured 'respectability' get to peddle falsehoods for years - whereas many non-mainstream news sources get branded as peddling 'fake news' by mainstream outlets - and this get taken as true, merely based on attribution from supposedly 'respectable' outlets, which have been proven as popularizing falsehoods.

There's a pretty dangerous and precipitous divide in what is counted as acceptable public discussion, these days - there is a strong move towards growing censorship, combined with witch-hunt hysteria at select 'others' - and this is one of the few things lately which exposes the hypocrisy that is at the heart of that.

listermint

KyussB wrote: »

As stated when the initial conclusions of the report first became news:
News media in the US has been shown up as propagating a Russia-phobic witch hunt, peddling enormously damaging falsehoods with no evidence for years - effectively rendering the distinction between the mainstream news sources involved, and those the mainstream disparage as spreading 'fake news', as nil.

The mainstream news sources with manufactured 'respectability' get to peddle falsehoods for years - whereas many non-mainstream news sources get branded as peddling 'fake news' by mainstream outlets - and this get taken as true, merely based on attribution from supposedly 'respectable' outlets, which have been proven as popularizing falsehoods.

There's a pretty dangerous and precipitous divide in what is counted as acceptable public discussion, these days - there is a strong move towards growing censorship, combined with witch-hunt hysteria at select 'others' - and this is one of the few things lately which exposes the hypocrisy that is at the heart of that.

But.....



Everyone agrees Russia meddled in the US election, and also in brexit.

So erm. Can you point to where a Russia phobic media is a thing. They merely report the facts .

Or perhaps you think Russia should be allowed to meddle in elections across the globe ? I'm sure a charge that you would have a different view on if say it was the US doing it.

Manic Moran

Best guess on the DPRK weapons test is it was an anti-tank missile.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/18/politics/us-north-korea-weapon-claim/index.html

everlast75

peddlelies wrote: »

I'm sure he'll construct a very honest representation of what's in the report. I would recommended Sean Hannity.

False equivalency has found its ground zero right here with that statement.

If you think you could construct a more honest and informed breakdown of a complex 2 year report, with all due respect, you are out of your mind.

everlast75

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Polling data over the next while will be interesting. This prevailing idea that it's oh so bad doesn't tally up with my opinion on how people will react.

Agreed.

Gallup have him at between 35 to 45% approval since he became president. Incidentally, the first president ever not to have broken above the 50%.

35 to 45% will swallow whatever he shovels at this stage. They view the Dems as reprehensible, an attack on their way of life in my view, and nothing will change that.

The interesting question from my view is whether the Dems should begin impeachment proceedings on him, which they would probably lose but to me, based on the content of the report, morally they should, or allow him to stumble on, crisis to crisis, until 2020.

duploelabs

everlast75 wrote: »

Agreed.

Gallup have him at between 35 to 45% approval since he became president. Incidentally, the first president ever not to have broken above the 50%.

35 to 45% will swallow whatever he shovels at this stage. They view the Dems as reprehensible, an attack on their way of life in my view, and nothing will change that.

The interesting question from my view is whether the Dems should begin impeachment proceedings on him, which they would probably lose but to me, based on the content of the report, morally they should, or allow him to stumble on, crisis to crisis, until 2020.

To me it's his disapproval rating that matters. You'll always have 40% approval rating of the polled (or a few points here or there) of the cult of Trump. Conversely always 40% of neverTrumps. With the remaining 20% undecideds, and they are the votes that make up the difference in an election. However those 20% are rarely shown, except in the disapproval rating as that rating will show the 40% neverTrumps plus the undecideds.
So that's where I reckon the true effects of the report will be witnessed

MadYaker

everlast75 wrote: »

Agreed.

Gallup have him at between 35 to 45% approval since he became president. Incidentally, the first president ever not to have broken above the 50%.

35 to 45% will swallow whatever he shovels at this stage. They view the Dems as reprehensible, an attack on their way of life in my view, and nothing will change that.

The interesting question from my view is whether the Dems should begin impeachment proceedings on him, which they would probably lose but to me, based on the content of the report, morally they should, or allow him to stumble on, crisis to crisis, until 2020.

There’s no way he’s getting impeached over this.

derb12

Wasn't Giuliani supposed to be issuing a rebuttal hours after the Mueller report was released?
I wonder what the hold-up is.
Thanks to Barr, he got the report days earlier in order that he could provide a swift response.
Perhaps it is non-rebuttable.

Chips Lovell

The most dispiriting thing about the release of the report is that its a reminder of the poor state of discourse surrounding US politics. Literally within seconds of its publication, people were arguing online over it, when the obviously hadn't read or even scanned it.

For a large constituency of people, it doesn't really matter what's in the report. They've got their mind made up already. They'll believe what they want to believe and nothing within its pages is going to change that. If they do read any of it, it'll be to seize on sentences and paragraphs that support their own, pre-formed conclusions.

Indeed, it seems the bigger the row, the more people are inclined to double down on these convictions. That may be great for winning real-world or online shouting matches, but it probably isn't too healthy for American society as a whole.

jooksavage

peddlelies wrote: »

Yes, I don't agree, they aren't instances of obstruction. They're possible situations where obstruction may have occurred.

Look, I think it's a moot point, the obstruction angle. The underlying accusation of the campaign somehow conspiring with Russian to interfere in the election was the golden egg, and that came up short. The report itself alludes to Trump in many of those incidents acting like he did because he felt he was being wrongly accused and it was destroying his presidency. I don't see a single "instance" if we want to that word, where Trump fired someone or engaged in some other act because he wanted to hide some kind of conspiracy, I see the opposite in fact, where in many situations he encouraged investigators to find any wrong doing by people in his campaign.

It's not the Special councils job to exonerate someone, the fact they even included those words in the report tells me there was some sort of argument among themselves since they couldn't find anything substantial to do with collusion.

You seem to be taking a similar line to Barr yesterday, which saw him justifying obstructionist behavior: the President was upset because he felt he was being wrongfully accused. That's not much of a defense for the kind of utterly lawless behaviour that was only tempered by scruples of the people like Don McGahn.

On the "special councils job", Barr has been proved to nakedly dishonest here. He claimed numerous times that the Mueller's decision not to make a determination of guilt had nothing to do with DOJ guidelines that prohibit the indictment of a sitting president. That's not what Mueller says. He's cited DOJ guidelines several times as the reason why he didn't and couldn't return a finding of guilt.

Your claim that it's not the SC's job to exonerate. Mueller himself says that this WAS something he would and could have done:

"If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. "

BUT...

"Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. "

Or to put it another way, bound as he was by DOJ guidelines, he could clear Trump of obstruction, but he couldn’t make a determination of guilt.

looksee

Chips Lovell wrote: »

The most dispiriting thing about the release of the report is that its a reminder of the poor state of discourse surrounding US politics. Literally within seconds of its publication, people were arguing online over it, when the obviously hadn't read or even scanned it.

For a large constituency of people, it doesn't really matter what's in the report. They've got their mind made up already. They'll believe what they want to believe and nothing within its pages is going to change that. If they do read any of it, it'll be to seize on sentences and paragraphs that support their own, pre-formed conclusions.

Indeed, it seems the bigger the row, the more people are inclined to double down on these convictions. That may be great for winning real-world or online shouting matches, but it probably isn't too healthy for American society as a whole.

I doubt that (bolded) is exclusive to America. It is simply one of the side effects of instant communication. Trump has to be first to respond to anything, regardless of how inaccurate his understanding or opinion is, so long as he is first that's all he cares about. Anything that follows is simply a response to him, granting authority to his views, and it is typical of many other social media commentators.

everlast75

looksee wrote: »

Trump has to be first to respond to anything

Or, as he did yesterday, he gets his word in beforehand by sending Barr out

PropJoe10

everlast75 wrote: »

Or, as he did yesterday, he gets his word in beforehand by sending Barr out

Rosenstein didn't look too happy throughout Barr's propaganda speech yesterday. Hardly surprising either!

manual_man

listermint wrote: »

But.....



Everyone agrees Russia meddled in the US election, and also in brexit.

So erm. Can you point to where a Russia phobic media is a thing. They merely report the facts .

Or perhaps you think Russia should be allowed to meddle in elections across the globe ? I'm sure a charge that you would have a different view on if say it was the US doing it.

Yeah. You're not being honest here. It has been asserted that Russia meddled. Assertions don't equal facts. Extremely little 'proof' of this meddling has ever been made public. Don't you ever ask yourself why? Do I believe some Russians 'trolled' and meddled around the 2016 election? Yes. But I want to see the proof. I want to understand the extent. It worries me(and should worry everybody) that such a grand assertion(Russian government interference in a U.S. election) can be made and yet there is zero requirement to make public the findings. For what are they worried about? That the findings won't add up to a concerted effort by the Russian government to interfere? If the facts speak for themselves, let the public see the facts. It is in the national interest. Yet, predictably, this will be avoided by citing 'national security concerns'. The only national security concern is intelligence agencies acting like they're above everyone. Great accusations require great proof. Let's see the proof.

everlast75

PropJoe10 wrote: »

Rosenstein didn't look too happy throughout Barr's propaganda speech yesterday. Hardly surprising either!

Reminiscent of Christie here...

https://youtu.be/SO_C41yuLls

I cannot figure Rod out.

He writes the memo that assists Trump in firing Comey.

He then loses his **** and talks about wearing a wire.

He defends the hell out of the Mueller investigation.

But then signs off on Barr's summary of the report!?

manual_man

Out of all the characters in this drama, I've always been drawn to Rosenstein. His demeanour. I just can't help feel that there's a lot he's hiding.

Chips Lovell

manual_man wrote: »

Yeah. You're not being honest here. It has been asserted that Russia meddled. Assertions don't equal facts. Extremely little 'proof' of this meddling has ever been made public.

At this stage, Russian interference is indisputable. Read the first 50 pages of the Mueller report for a summary. If you want to go deeper, read:

1. The December 2016 joint analysis of the FBI and Department of Homeland Security on Russian interference in the 2016 election.
2. The February 2018 indictment of three Russian organisations and 13 named individuals for their involvement in a propaganda campaign atempting to influence public opinion during the election campaign.
2. The July 2018 indictment of 12 named Russian intelligence agents for their role in interfering in the election campaign.