Fortunately, I do not have to provide proof. Everything here is "op-ed", not "investigative journalism".
Im sorry, I forgot you don’t like it when people challenge your view in this thread.
And speak for yourself - I prefer my discourse to be rational, that is: upon the basis of fact and evidence - which is why I tend to reject conspiracy theories from both sides on here.
Take health care off the negotiating table, and maybe unions could actually fight for (gasp!!!) higher wages, instead of being held hostage by fighting tooth and nail to hold onto fairly shitty health insurance benefits instead. The health care system in this country is completely fucked. It's immoral if not downright evil.
I think this is largely true. One potential issue is that if (by some miracle) MFA becomes a thing, as soon as it is killed (which we can see by the ACA being targeted, you know the GOP would never stop trying to kill MFA) the unions might have to start at the bottom and try to negotiate back up to what they even have now.
We dearly need institutional change - but it can come at a cost.
What tying medical insurance to emploment does is make workers even more subservient and dependent on employers for their continued existence. If MFA is ever implemented, there WILL be hiccups, and there would be a period where things seemed chaotic. That is unavoidable. That said, I still don't see a realistic path to getting there unless Bernie Sanders actually IS a miracle worker.
Another thing I have noticed recently is that Bernie Sanders will just flatly dismiss any question posed by the media he finds inconvenient. In another timeline, I'd find this problematic. In this one, all it tells me is that he understands the rules have changed and we aren't playing the same game anymore. Hardcore Sanders supporters have as much if not more contempt for the press as Trump supporters. Though I'd argue they have better reasons.
The president is innocent of everything, I know this because I've never read the Mueller report.
In all seriousness, what inside of the Mueller Report validates any piece of the years of media reports about Russian collusion with the Trump family? You act like "we" don't care about facts but you are clearly in the wrong here. I believe I asked this before, sorry if you responded and I missed it.
This single story alone should be enough to destroy the reputation of the media in general, given their blatant lack of objectivity in this and every other matter since 2016, but they don't really have much of one left to destroy with anyone not already a card carrying liberal to begin with.
The president is innocent of everything, I know this because I've never read the Mueller report.
In all seriousness, what inside of the Mueller Report validates any piece of the years of media reports about Russian collusion with the Trump family? You act like "we" don't care about facts but you are clearly in the wrong here. I believe I asked this before, sorry if you responded and I missed it.
This single story alone should be enough to destroy the reputation of the media in general, given their blatant lack of objectivity in this and every other matter since 2016, but they don't really have much of one left to destroy with anyone not already a card carrying liberal to begin with.
I provided some information about the report here.
I haven't gone back to the report itself, but things I commented on included:
- the unredacted portion of the report says it established (which means proved to a criminal standard) that there were multiple links between the campaign and individuals connected to the Russian government. Even though those links were not sufficient to establish a criminal conspiracy, the fact they existed (and that Trump lied so many times about that) is still pretty damning.
- the Trump campaign heavily promoted political materials produced by Russia.
- the campaign shared private polling data with Russia, which was a crime. Only Manafort was charged with that though on the grounds it was not clear whether he was acting in his capacity as head of the campaign or purely in a personal capacity.
- the Trump Tower meeting was illegal, but Trump Jr was not prosecuted for that on the grounds he may have been stupid enough not to realize that. That decision was probably fortunate for Trump Sr as well given the number of times he lied about what happened there.
- several of the instances of obstruction listed were clearly actionable in principle, but Mueller declined to prosecute because of the policy of the DoJ not to prosecute a sitting President.
- the section on obstruction also explains why the President tried to be obstructive (and why campaign members were generally uncooperative and destroyed evidence): "the evidence does indicate that a thorough FBI investigation would uncover facts about the campaign and the President personally that the President could have understood to be crimes or that would give rise to personal and political concerns."
Sure the Mueller report could have turned out far worse for Trump, but even the unredacted elements provided plenty of cause for concern about links with Russia.
The president is innocent of everything, I know this because I've never read the Mueller report.
In all seriousness, what inside of the Mueller Report validates any piece of the years of media reports about Russian collusion with the Trump family? You act like "we" don't care about facts but you are clearly in the wrong here. I believe I asked this before, sorry if you responded and I missed it.
This single story alone should be enough to destroy the reputation of the media in general, given their blatant lack of objectivity in this and every other matter since 2016, but they don't really have much of one left to destroy with anyone not already a card carrying liberal to begin with.
This: “This series of events [surrounding the June 9 meeting] could implicate the federal election-law ban on contributions and donations by foreign nationals . . . Specifically, Goldstone passed along an offer purportedly from a Russian government official to provide “official documents and information” to the Trump campaign for the purposes of influencing the presidential election. Trump Jr. appears to have accepted that offer and to have arranged a meeting to receive those materials. Documentary evidence in the form of e-mail chains supports the inference that Kushner and Manafort were aware of that purpose and attended the June 9 meeting anticipating the receipt of helpful information to the Campaign from Russian sources.“
Page 115.
Don Jr was allegedly too stupid to know better, but everyone else in the campaign went along with receiving the dirt. Just because there was no dirt doesn’t mean this should have been excused.
It’s also what the Democrats should have focused on, but then Ukraine happened, pushing the report to the side while Congress was discussing it.
Replace Chelsea Clinton with Don Jr and you know the out come would have been a lot different and worse for the Clinton’s.
The president is innocent of everything, I know this because I've never read the Mueller report.
In all seriousness, what inside of the Mueller Report validates any piece of the years of media reports about Russian collusion with the Trump family? You act like "we" don't care about facts but you are clearly in the wrong here. I believe I asked this before, sorry if you responded and I missed it.
This single story alone should be enough to destroy the reputation of the media in general, given their blatant lack of objectivity in this and every other matter since 2016, but they don't really have much of one left to destroy with anyone not already a card carrying liberal to begin with.
I provided some information about the report here.
I haven't gone back to the report itself, but things I commented on included:
- the unredacted portion of the report says it established (which means proved to a criminal standard) that there were multiple links between the campaign and individuals connected to the Russian government. Even though those links were not sufficient to establish a criminal conspiracy, the fact they existed (and that Trump lied so many times about that) is still pretty damning.
- the Trump campaign heavily promoted political materials produced by Russia.
- the campaign shared private polling data with Russia, which was a crime. Only Manafort was charged with that though on the grounds it was not clear whether he was acting in his capacity as head of the campaign or purely in a personal capacity.
- the Trump Tower meeting was illegal, but Trump Jr was not prosecuted for that on the grounds he may have been stupid enough not to realize that. That decision was probably fortunate for Trump Sr as well given the number of times he lied about what happened there.
- several of the instances of obstruction listed were clearly actionable in principle, but Mueller declined to prosecute because of the policy of the DoJ not to prosecute a sitting President.
- the section on obstruction also explains why the President tried to be obstructive (and why campaign members were generally uncooperative and destroyed evidence): "the evidence does indicate that a thorough FBI investigation would uncover facts about the campaign and the President personally that the President could have understood to be crimes or that would give rise to personal and political concerns."
Sure the Mueller report could have turned out far worse for Trump, but even the unredacted elements provided plenty of cause for concern about links with Russia.
You're not making any sense here. It did not establish conspiracy to a criminal standard or else they would have said they were guilty of conspiracy. Conspiracy law was the exact metric they were using, and they failed to meet it, according to the report. They did not succeed and fail at the same time, they simply failed. They even say they didn't meet the standard of coordination, which was a far looser and nebulous term in their mind.
They see coordination as meaning any sort of dealings in which there was any sort of tacit agreement or anything more beyond two parties acting in their own interests in their own capacities. They didn't meet this definition either, so objectively speaking there is nothing "damning" about any of it in their own minds.
Specifically, in the very first pages of the report, they state "the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with Russia in election interference activities." Right after that, they state they are using conspiracy law as the metric, which is appropriate.
It could not get any more clear than that.
The report itself goes on to state why each one of those examples, breathlessly reported on as the smoking gun, amounted to nothing in the end. Mostly because things like "passing polling data on to Russia" are wild exaggerations of the facts.
"to have public statements and tweets made about the department, about people in the department, our men and women here, about cases pending in the department and about judges before whom we have cases, make it impossible for me to do my job and to assure the courts and the prosecutors in the department that we're doing our work with integrity".
Listen up, Trump--your own people are telling you to chill out with the wild, random Tweets. You won't listen to me on it so maybe you will listen to them.
"to have public statements and tweets made about the department, about people in the department, our men and women here, about cases pending in the department and about judges before whom we have cases, make it impossible for me to do my job and to assure the courts and the prosecutors in the department that we're doing our work with integrity".
Listen up, Trump--your own people are telling you to chill out with the wild, random Tweets. You won't listen to me on it so maybe you will listen to them.
If anyone believes Trump and Barr aren't on the same team here, and that this is anything but an elaborate (well, not so elaborate) ploy to make it seem like they weren't on the same page, you probably also think wrestling heels actually hate the babyfaces in real life. Pure theater.
I haven't seen anything to suggest that Barr is lacking in integrity and he has been around for a long time. It's like anyone with five degrees of separation to a Republican is corrupt these days. I don't agree with his judicial philosophy, I think too much Presidential power is dangerous, but that's about it.
Istrumental in the pardons for Iran-Contra, lied about the contents of the Mueller report for 3 weeks before we saw it, helped attempt to bury the whistleblower report, is now personally intervening in sentencing guidelines for the President's henchmen. Days after giving a speech that local prosecutors were too lenient on criminals, mind you. The guy who just last year said if minority communities have a problem with how police treat them, the maybe they shouldn't show up when called at all. If Bill Barr has an OUNCE of integrity, then there are no documented cases of Coronavirus in China.
you probably also think wrestling heels actually hate the babyfaces in real life
I....don't understand this. What?
It's staged, it's make-believe. Barr is pretending he is upset that the President is tweeting his demands to him, when what it really amounts to is a way to relay instructions with the veneer of plausible deniability because it isn't on official White House stationary. It was a show for the cameras to pretend he's "feuding" with the President.
"to have public statements and tweets made about the department, about people in the department, our men and women here, about cases pending in the department and about judges before whom we have cases, make it impossible for me to do my job and to assure the courts and the prosecutors in the department that we're doing our work with integrity".
Listen up, Trump--your own people are telling you to chill out with the wild, random Tweets. You won't listen to me on it so maybe you will listen to them.
If anyone believes Trump and Barr aren't on the same team here, and that this is anything but an elaborate (well, not so elaborate) ploy to make it seem like they weren't on the same page, you probably also think wrestling heels actually hate the babyfaces in real life. Pure theater.
His complaints ring to me of "I'm trying to rig things in secret and Trump keeps making it harder! Poor me!"
I haven't seen anything to suggest that Barr is lacking in integrity and he has been around for a long time. It's like anyone with five degrees of separation to a Republican is corrupt these days. I don't agree with his judicial philosophy, I think too much Presidential power is dangerous, but that's about it.
That's the problem with right wing media bubbles. You don't see or hear what's going on, you just get spin.
For one thing, Barr's letter about the Mueller report and his spin in front of the camera was like the literal opposite of what the Mueller report actually said when it came out later.
Barr’s intentional mischaracterization of the Mueller report served to validate Trump’s false claim that the report exonerated him in finding “no collusion.”
His position that Presidents are above the law and cannot be charged with a crime are uh PROBLEMATIC.
Barr wrongly failed to recuse himself from the Ukraine Affair. On July 25, Trump called Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. In the conversation, Trump specifically mentioned Barr five times as the person to work with to investigate his domestic politicial opponents. He should have recused himself.
Barr, as attorney general, engaged in a pattern of biased actions to support and validate repeated false claims and improper actions by Trump, and Barr failed to comply with the norms, rules and standards of conduct of the Justice Department.
Not only recently has he been a partisan hack, but he has a long history of being a dangerous ideologue when it comes to these issues. Here are a few examples:
-He provided the Bush administration with the legal justification for arresting fugitives overseas, even if doing so violated of international law.
-As deputy attorney general, he advised Bush that he could go to war in Iraq without consent from Congress.
-He effectively ended the Iran-Contra investigation by encouraging Bush to pardon six Reagan administration officials.
0A memo he wrote in 1989 on executive authority was used as a basis for the infamous 2005 OLC memo justifying the use of torture.
-When asked about Trump’s threats to use the Justice Department to investigate his opponents, he failed to defend the independence of the attorney general and stated, “there is nothing inherently wrong about a president calling for an investigation.”
Barr asserted that the president could end a proceeding (i.e., investigation) based on his own claims of being “falsely accused.” That is an absurd notion on its face. An investigation is, by definition, an exercise designed to determine: (1) whether a crime was committed, and (2) if there is evidence that an individual committed that crime.
Barr’s statement would be laughable if he attempted to apply it to anyone else in this country who is being investigated for a crime, which demonstrates that the current attorney general places the president above the law. It also indicates that he would have given Nixon a pass for the so-called “Saturday night massacre” in which the president attempted to end the Watergate investigation by firing his attorney general and deputy attorney general for their refusal to fire the special prosecutor.
The entire professional conservative apparatus in this country has been set-up since Watergate not to AVOID another Watergate happening, but to make sure no one is ever held accountable when it does. It's why FOX News and AM radio exist. They are batting 1.000 since this strategy took hold.
-He provided the Bush administration with the legal justification for arresting fugitives overseas, even if doing so violated of international law.
-As deputy attorney general, he advised Bush that he could go to war in Iraq without consent from Congress.
-He effectively ended the Iran-Contra investigation by encouraging Bush to pardon six Reagan administration officials.
0A memo he wrote in 1989 on executive authority was used as a basis for the infamous 2005 OLC memo justifying the use of torture.
-When asked about Trump’s threats to use the Justice Department to investigate his opponents, he failed to defend the independence of the attorney general and stated, “there is nothing inherently wrong about a president calling for an investigation.”
None of this speaks to his integrity, but to his judicial philosophy, which I don't agree with. He believes in giving too much power to the President, but that's not the same thing as being corrupt, and he is perfectly upfront with his beliefs. I don't think there is any reason to doubt his comments and that he believes in an independent judiciary.
*With, possibly, the exception of Iran Contra, which is something I am unfamiliar with.
-He provided the Bush administration with the legal justification for arresting fugitives overseas, even if doing so violated of international law.
-As deputy attorney general, he advised Bush that he could go to war in Iraq without consent from Congress.
-He effectively ended the Iran-Contra investigation by encouraging Bush to pardon six Reagan administration officials.
0A memo he wrote in 1989 on executive authority was used as a basis for the infamous 2005 OLC memo justifying the use of torture.
-When asked about Trump’s threats to use the Justice Department to investigate his opponents, he failed to defend the independence of the attorney general and stated, “there is nothing inherently wrong about a president calling for an investigation.”
None of this speaks to his integrity, but to his judicial philosophy, which I don't agree with. He believes in giving too much power to the President, but that's not the same thing as being corrupt, and he is perfectly upfront with his beliefs. I don't think there is any reason to doubt his comments and that he believes in an independent judiciary.
*With, possibly, the exception of Iran Contra, which is something I am unfamiliar with.
The Iran–Contra affair was a criminal activity in the United States that occurred during the second term of the Reagan Administration.
Senior Reagan administration officials secretly facilitated the sale of arms to Republic of Iran, which was the subject of an arms embargo.
The administration hoped to use the proceeds of the arms sale to fund the Contras in Nicaragua who were right wing terrorists involved with illegal drugs. Under the Boland Amendment, further funding of the Contras by the government had been prohibited by Congress.
The weapons sold to Iran were used by Qassem Soleimani, who Trump recently assassinated, against Americans.
The fall guy for this scandal was Oliver North who until recently was head of the NRA but is still a regular on the Fox News propaganda network.
The main issue, of course, was (sound familiar) seperation of powers. Congress passed a law specifically prohibiting something, so Reagan's foreign policy apparatus set-up a covert operation to do EXACTLY that to get around it. Who the fuck knows what Reagan did or didn't know at the time. He was in decline mentally the moment he got out of surgery for the gunshot wound, and alzheimers does not just appear out of nowhere. However, the point remains that Barr was brought in by Trump strictly because of his history as a cover-up artist. It's a feature, not a bug. His views on Executive power mirror the Cheney brigade, and calling them "radical" is an understatement. They essentially make the other branches (especially Congress) superfluous. Trump with a rag-tag bunch of incompetents around him is bad enough. Trump with Bill Barr as AG is a threat to the Republic itself.
If anyone believes Trump and Barr aren't on the same team here, and that this is anything but an elaborate (well, not so elaborate) ploy to make it seem like they weren't on the same page, you probably also think wrestling heels actually hate the babyfaces in real life. Pure theater.
If you don't believe that any professional with years of experience in the law and working in government winces physically every time Trump blathers on twitter about current cases, then you're... most likely incorrect.
Also, every single theory that relied on Trump being a master of skulduggery and strategy has failed so far, so I don't hold out a lot of expectation that this one is going to be any different. The most likely explanation for why Barr said "Shut up, boss, you're making everything harder" is because his boss won't shut up, and is making everything harder.
And, for the record, it would have gotten exactly as much support from Republicans as impeachment did. You are giving far, FAR too much credit to Senate Republicans, who as much as Trump himself are responsible for where we're heading. There isn't a single shred of evidence from the last 3 years that even remotely hints at the idea that they'd turn on him for ANY reason in ANY circumstance.
I mean, aside from the various times they've voted against him, including eight of them voting with Democrats to curb his warmaking powers less than a day after you made this objectively incorrect post.
The president is innocent of everything, I know this because I've never read the Mueller report.
In all seriousness, what inside of the Mueller Report validates any piece of the years of media reports about Russian collusion with the Trump family? You act like "we" don't care about facts but you are clearly in the wrong here. I believe I asked this before, sorry if you responded and I missed it.
This single story alone should be enough to destroy the reputation of the media in general, given their blatant lack of objectivity in this and every other matter since 2016, but they don't really have much of one left to destroy with anyone not already a card carrying liberal to begin with.
I provided some information about the report here.
I haven't gone back to the report itself, but things I commented on included:
- the unredacted portion of the report says it established (which means proved to a criminal standard) that there were multiple links between the campaign and individuals connected to the Russian government. Even though those links were not sufficient to establish a criminal conspiracy, the fact they existed (and that Trump lied so many times about that) is still pretty damning.
- the Trump campaign heavily promoted political materials produced by Russia.
- the campaign shared private polling data with Russia, which was a crime. Only Manafort was charged with that though on the grounds it was not clear whether he was acting in his capacity as head of the campaign or purely in a personal capacity.
- the Trump Tower meeting was illegal, but Trump Jr was not prosecuted for that on the grounds he may have been stupid enough not to realize that. That decision was probably fortunate for Trump Sr as well given the number of times he lied about what happened there.
- several of the instances of obstruction listed were clearly actionable in principle, but Mueller declined to prosecute because of the policy of the DoJ not to prosecute a sitting President.
- the section on obstruction also explains why the President tried to be obstructive (and why campaign members were generally uncooperative and destroyed evidence): "the evidence does indicate that a thorough FBI investigation would uncover facts about the campaign and the President personally that the President could have understood to be crimes or that would give rise to personal and political concerns."
Sure the Mueller report could have turned out far worse for Trump, but even the unredacted elements provided plenty of cause for concern about links with Russia.
You're not making any sense here. It did not establish conspiracy to a criminal standard or else they would have said they were guilty of conspiracy. Conspiracy law was the exact metric they were using, and they failed to meet it, according to the report. They did not succeed and fail at the same time, they simply failed. They even say they didn't meet the standard of coordination, which was a far looser and nebulous term in their mind.
They see coordination as meaning any sort of dealings in which there was any sort of tacit agreement or anything more beyond two parties acting in their own interests in their own capacities. They didn't meet this definition either, so objectively speaking there is nothing "damning" about any of it in their own minds.
Specifically, in the very first pages of the report, they state "the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with Russia in election interference activities." Right after that, they state they are using conspiracy law as the metric, which is appropriate.
It could not get any more clear than that.
The report itself goes on to state why each one of those examples, breathlessly reported on as the smoking gun, amounted to nothing in the end. Mostly because things like "passing polling data on to Russia" are wild exaggerations of the facts.
Oh I'm making sense - you just don't agree with the frame of reference I'm applying. It's essentially the same issue as before. You're taking the line that things are either black or white - either conspiracy is proved in a court of law or there's zero evidence of anything to worry about. I'm saying that there are plenty of things in the report that are of concern from other points of view (I was particularly focused on the question of whether Trump is a fit and proper person to head a government, but national security / relationships with allies and the probity of elections are other issues of concern).
I did go back to the report this morning to check on a couple of things. First, you suggest above that 'coordination' is some weaker form of conspiracy. Coordination, as used in the report, actually refers to whether someone has breached the Foreign Agent statutes (see section starting on page 181). The report concluded there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that any campaign member did that with respect to Russia (though Manafort, Gates and Flynn all pleaded guilty to other breaches of that statute). The report does though include a footnote that the lower standard of probable cause was met in the case of Page acting as a Russian agent.
Second, you refer to passing polling data to Russia as a wild exaggeration. There are multiple references within the report to Manafort passing on internal Trump Campaign polling data - for instance here's the first of those (starting on page 6):
"Separately, on August 2, 2016, Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort met in New York City with his long-time business associate Konstantin Kilimnik, who the FBI assesses to have ties to Russian intelligence. Kilimnik requested the meeting to deliver in person a peace plan for Ukraine that Manafort acknowledged to the Special Counsel's Office was a "backdoor" way for Russia to control part of eastern Ukraine; both men believed the plan would require candidate Trump's assent to succeed (were he to be elected President). They also discussed the status of the Trump Campaign and Manafort's strategy for winning Democratic votes in Midwestern states. Months before that meeting, Manafort had caused internal polling data to be shared with Kilimnik, and the sharing continued for some period of time after their August meeting."
If anyone believes Trump and Barr aren't on the same team here, and that this is anything but an elaborate (well, not so elaborate) ploy to make it seem like they weren't on the same page, you probably also think wrestling heels actually hate the babyfaces in real life. Pure theater.
If you don't believe that any professional with years of experience in the law and working in government winces physically every time Trump blathers on twitter about current cases, then you're... most likely incorrect.
Also, every single theory that relied on Trump being a master of skulduggery and strategy has failed so far, so I don't hold out a lot of expectation that this one is going to be any different. The most likely explanation for why Barr said "Shut up, boss, you're making everything harder" is because his boss won't shut up, and is making everything harder.
Harder to what?? Did he or didn't he order the 4 prosecutors who resigned to reduce Roger Stone's sentencing recommendation?? Because if he DIDN'T do so, why would they quit the case?? So now that we've established that is what happened, why was it done?? Because Bill Barr is such a merciful crusader for the rights of criminal defendants?? As I mentioned before, he JUST gave a speech railing on other prosecutors for being too lenient. If he didn't do it because Trump told him to, what other reason is there?? Are people really this obtuse?? The only way Trump is "making it harder" is by announcing their intentions to the whole world and Barr might prefer they just do it in secret. I've been right about Bill Barr every step of the way. I was right about him when I railed against him during his nomination, I said people were insane to think he wasn't pulling a fast on the entire country with his "summary" of the Mueller Report (which nearly everyone but me and maybe 2 or 3 other people here bought hook, line and sinker) and I'm right about this. William Barr is the most dangerous man in American politics at this moment, because he's NOT dumb and knows exactly what he's doing and how to go about doing it.
This evening a report came out that Trump "wasn't upset" about Barr's comments. That sound like Trump to you?? When has that EVER been the case when someone in the Administration has said or been quoted as saying something negative about him, or even offered the slightest bit of constructive criticism?? If Trump isn't upset, the ONLY reason, based on everything we know about his personality, is that he either knew it was a bullshit quote in advance, or he understood it was shortly after it was made. There is no room for any other interpretation unless we are going to pretend Trump got a personality transplant in the last 12 hours.
He has point-blank told me that if Bernie doesn't win the primary he will vote Libertarian. That's even if Warren is the nominee. The fanaticism of the younger Liberals should not be discounted. Sanders supporters don't seem to hold any allegiance to the Democratic Party...
Putting aside the weirdness of "If Sanders isn't the nominee I'll vote for the party that opposes 90% of what he stands for"...
...does no one else remember that the Sanders supporters were going to sit out the election if their guy didn't get the nomination in 2016, too? And that, statistically, they ended up voting Democratic, just like Hillary supporters did in 2008 despite also hearing how they were going to bolt the party?
People say all sorts of things in the heat of a campaign.
The only way Trump is "making it harder" is by announcing their intentions to the whole world and Barr might prefer they just do it in secret.
I mean, I doubt that's the only reason, but even in your viewpoint of the evil Republican hivemind, Trump is still a dumbass making everything harder for Barr so Barr would be perfectly justified to complain about it.
The only way Trump is "making it harder" is by announcing their intentions to the whole world and Barr might prefer they just do it in secret.
I mean, I doubt that's the only reason, but even in your viewpoint of the evil Republican hivemind, Trump is still a dumbass making everything harder for Barr so Barr would be perfectly justified to complain about it.
Watch what happens with this story over the next days and weeks and get back to me with this sympathetic take on Bill Barr. In fact, watch what happens as he flat-out weaponizes the Justice Department the moment the Democratic nominee is locked-in. He's already using it to shield the President's allies. The next step is obvious.
> —Milton Mayer, *They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45*
I would just like to register my pleasure that someone else has read this excellent, excellent book.
Nazi Germany was my specialist subject in history many years ago and I've considered reading this book before, but not got around to it. I've had some spare time over the last couple of days though and have now done that, rather than 'wasting' my time playing Baldur's Gate .
It's an interesting book and worthwhile reading, but I wouldn't wholeheartedly recommend it. Quite a large part of it reflects Mayer's personal views, which are pretty dated and have not stood the test of time well. The best bit of the book is the first part that tries to tell the stories of 10 men to explain why they became Nazis - that's done in a very readable way, though perhaps in consequence the treatment seems rather superficial. The bit that @smeagolheart posted (about how a series of individual steps could lead you without realizing into a totalitarian position) is a short interlude between those stories and Mayer's personal views - quoting one of Mayer's colleagues. Though that's far and away the most recognized legacy of the book, it's only very loosely connected with the remainder of the book.
I've put some more detailed ramblings about the book in the spoiler below, if anyone is interested.
Basis for study
Mayer originally sought a single person to provide a case study of why people became Nazis. After several months of failing to find an appropriate subject he was provided various leads by his German contacts and those developed into the 10 final subjects.
All the subjects were in a single small town (Marburg, though it was called Kronenberg in the book). Mayer does not properly explain in the book just how atypical that location was in Germany. It was a university town with almost no industry and thus a significantly higher proportion of people in the service sector than elsewhere. It was the lower-middle class, who predominated in the town, that were most drawn to Nazism and hence that was a good location to find subjects - but not necessarily a good location to extrapolate to the rest of Germany from.
All 10 of his subjects were men, although Hitler's rise to power relied heavily on the votes and support of women and understanding their views would have been important in a comprehensive study. The choice of subjects appears to have been unconscious and reflects that Mayer had rather sexist attitudes (those were pretty standard in the immediate post-war US, given the desire to get back to the traditional family structures disrupted by WW2).
The conversations with subjects took place over a 6 month period, with between 12 and 40 hours spent with each subject. Mayer didn't speak German, so relied mainly on translators which would have slowed down the transmission of information. Mayer felt though that the use of translators actually helped him, as it broke down some of the natural barriers there would have been for his subjects talking to an American academic.
Conclusions of study
One of the things Mayer notes is the personal devotion required under the Nazis. The oath of loyalty was to Hitler as an individual rather than to the country or State collectively and his 10 subjects all seemed to take that seriously. The basis for the oath was given as one reason why it was so difficult to organize resistance against Hitler - the eventual attempt to assassinate him was by people prepared to break their oath, but it was believed far greater numbers would join the resistance in the event of Hitler's death (when the oath would no longer be binding).
The subjects nearly all felt that the Nazi regime had been a good idea in principle, even if it had resulted in some specific evils. That reflected the better economy, social security and national prestige the Nazis brought in - and there was no awareness of the fact the good things were underpinned by a process of rearmament that was time-limited.
In general the subjects were not horrified by the war and did not have the pacifistic tendencies that were generally characteristic of Germans at this time. That probably reflected that, unlike many places, Marburg was only lightly damaged in the war and none of the 10 subjects appeared to have had close friends or relatives among the 5m Germans killed.
They also almost all had both had and retained a strong anti-semitic outlook. While they accepted the Jews had been too harshly treated at the end in being killed, it was considered appropriate for them to have lost their homes and livelihoods. This again would not have been typical of wider Germany - this geographical area had historically been much more anti-semitic than other places and the lower-middle class predominant in Marburg were also the most anti-semitic group in society (which is a major reason why Nazism was particularly attractive to this demographic).
Nazism was seen as specifically German and thus preferable to communism, which was seen as essentially foreign (reflecting the Russian reality, rather than the Marxian theory).
Hitler gained a lot of support in the late 20s and early 30s for not acting like a politician - telling it like it is and promising to root out corruption (there's a strong echo of the position in the US there of course). In general their views of Hitler remained positive (blaming the subsequent corruption, poor strategic decisions and evil practices on others).
Though initially taking power in a democratic system, the Nazis quickly switched to totalitarian rule. However, the subjects didn't feel this as an imposition. Partly that reflected they were all in the Nazi party and thus saw the benefits and not the costs, but there was also a clear feeling that the party itself was democratic in the sense that previous social classes became irrelevant in the new system (the book refers to this as democratic, though I think egalitarian would be a better description of what was attractive - the same processes could be seen in the French and Russian Revolutions as well of course).
Mayer's views
When putting forward proposals for his research, Mayer suggested that he wanted to explore the idea that the Nazi regime could happen to any people under the right conditions (and that's of course reflected in the views famously expressed by a colleague in the interlude of his book). However, the final written version of his own views is very different from this. Mayer propounds the theory that Germans had formed a very specific national character or spirit as a result of a unique geographical position and that explains why they were susceptible to Nazism. Frankly, that view is nonsensical and I can't be bothered to write more about it.
On the basis of his year's visit in 1951/2 and following the news while subsequently writing the book, Mayer concluded that the post-war occupation of Germany had totally failed in its objectives. He believed that most Germans would remain poor in the future, despite acknowledging in the book that industrial production had already recovered in the immediate post-war period - that was based on his expectation that future benefits of production would be distributed far more unequally than in fact they proved to be in Germany (or indeed in the US at that time). He also believed that the proposals to rearm Germany as part of the reaction to the Cold War with Russia would quickly result in a re-emergence of militarist tendencies. In fact Germany is still significantly more pacifist even today than other European countries. Mayer also dismissed the proposed European Union as an intellectual exercise that would go nowhere. Despite the recent Brexit, the EU has in fact had a considerable influence on the development of Germany.
Mayer believed that because Germany prior to WW1 had not had a democracy following the US model, they had effectively all been slaves. This was a misunderstanding of the historical hierarchical relationships in the country - which allowed for considerable autonomy at different levels (geographical, social and industrial). It's that tradition of local autonomy that has resulted in the strongly federal system in modern Germany and embodying the principle of subsidiarity into the EU.
The president is innocent of everything, I know this because I've never read the Mueller report.
In all seriousness, what inside of the Mueller Report validates any piece of the years of media reports about Russian collusion with the Trump family? You act like "we" don't care about facts but you are clearly in the wrong here. I believe I asked this before, sorry if you responded and I missed it.
This single story alone should be enough to destroy the reputation of the media in general, given their blatant lack of objectivity in this and every other matter since 2016, but they don't really have much of one left to destroy with anyone not already a card carrying liberal to begin with.
I provided some information about the report here.
I haven't gone back to the report itself, but things I commented on included:
- the unredacted portion of the report says it established (which means proved to a criminal standard) that there were multiple links between the campaign and individuals connected to the Russian government. Even though those links were not sufficient to establish a criminal conspiracy, the fact they existed (and that Trump lied so many times about that) is still pretty damning.
- the Trump campaign heavily promoted political materials produced by Russia.
- the campaign shared private polling data with Russia, which was a crime. Only Manafort was charged with that though on the grounds it was not clear whether he was acting in his capacity as head of the campaign or purely in a personal capacity.
- the Trump Tower meeting was illegal, but Trump Jr was not prosecuted for that on the grounds he may have been stupid enough not to realize that. That decision was probably fortunate for Trump Sr as well given the number of times he lied about what happened there.
- several of the instances of obstruction listed were clearly actionable in principle, but Mueller declined to prosecute because of the policy of the DoJ not to prosecute a sitting President.
- the section on obstruction also explains why the President tried to be obstructive (and why campaign members were generally uncooperative and destroyed evidence): "the evidence does indicate that a thorough FBI investigation would uncover facts about the campaign and the President personally that the President could have understood to be crimes or that would give rise to personal and political concerns."
Sure the Mueller report could have turned out far worse for Trump, but even the unredacted elements provided plenty of cause for concern about links with Russia.
You're not making any sense here. It did not establish conspiracy to a criminal standard or else they would have said they were guilty of conspiracy. Conspiracy law was the exact metric they were using, and they failed to meet it, according to the report. They did not succeed and fail at the same time, they simply failed. They even say they didn't meet the standard of coordination, which was a far looser and nebulous term in their mind.
They see coordination as meaning any sort of dealings in which there was any sort of tacit agreement or anything more beyond two parties acting in their own interests in their own capacities. They didn't meet this definition either, so objectively speaking there is nothing "damning" about any of it in their own minds.
Specifically, in the very first pages of the report, they state "the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with Russia in election interference activities." Right after that, they state they are using conspiracy law as the metric, which is appropriate.
It could not get any more clear than that.
The report itself goes on to state why each one of those examples, breathlessly reported on as the smoking gun, amounted to nothing in the end. Mostly because things like "passing polling data on to Russia" are wild exaggerations of the facts.
Oh I'm making sense - you just don't agree with the frame of reference I'm applying. It's essentially the same issue as before. You're taking the line that things are either black or white - either conspiracy is proved in a court of law or there's zero evidence of anything to worry about. I'm saying that there are plenty of things in the report that are of concern from other points of view (I was particularly focused on the question of whether Trump is a fit and proper person to head a government, but national security / relationships with allies and the probity of elections are other issues of concern).
I did go back to the report this morning to check on a couple of things. First, you suggest above that 'coordination' is some weaker form of conspiracy. Coordination, as used in the report, actually refers to whether someone has breached the Foreign Agent statutes (see section starting on page 181). The report concluded there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that any campaign member did that with respect to Russia (though Manafort, Gates and Flynn all pleaded guilty to other breaches of that statute). The report does though include a footnote that the lower standard of probable cause was met in the case of Page acting as a Russian agent.
Second, you refer to passing polling data to Russia as a wild exaggeration. There are multiple references within the report to Manafort passing on internal Trump Campaign polling data - for instance here's the first of those (starting on page 6):
"Separately, on August 2, 2016, Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort met in New York City with his long-time business associate Konstantin Kilimnik, who the FBI assesses to have ties to Russian intelligence. Kilimnik requested the meeting to deliver in person a peace plan for Ukraine that Manafort acknowledged to the Special Counsel's Office was a "backdoor" way for Russia to control part of eastern Ukraine; both men believed the plan would require candidate Trump's assent to succeed (were he to be elected President). They also discussed the status of the Trump Campaign and Manafort's strategy for winning Democratic votes in Midwestern states. Months before that meeting, Manafort had caused internal polling data to be shared with Kilimnik, and the sharing continued for some period of time after their August meeting."
That's not what they say coordination means, at least when they say "no Trump campaign members conspired or coordinated." I'll screenshot it for reference. Perhaps they use it again in some other context, but they are pretty clear what they mean when they are clearing everybody.
So I don't accept the idea that I'm only using a black and white definition. Not only did they not meet any criminal standard, but they don't meet any lesser standards that imply any sort of unspoken agreement at all. It's pretty broad.
It couldn't be more clear there is no substance there whatsoever.
I think it's pretty obvious why "passing polling data along to Russia" and "passing polling data to a long time associate" imply two very different things, namely, that he never believed, and there was never any evidence even in the report, that she wanted this data for Russia or something. They executed about 500 search and seizure warrants and obtained more than 230 records for private communications during this time per the report. If there was something there, we would know.
Whether or not Trump is fit for office is a matter of opinion. I don't think he's done all that bad, really. Not bad but not good. I certainly don't think the party willing to destroy the neutrality of government institutions in order to use them in a personal vendetta against their rival is worthy in any sense.
And, for the record, it would have gotten exactly as much support from Republicans as impeachment did. You are giving far, FAR too much credit to Senate Republicans, who as much as Trump himself are responsible for where we're heading. There isn't a single shred of evidence from the last 3 years that even remotely hints at the idea that they'd turn on him for ANY reason in ANY circumstance.
I mean, aside from the various times they've voted against him, including eight of them voting with Democrats to curb his warmaking powers less than a day after you made this objectively incorrect post.
Those votes don't mean much. They're for show. They're points to be used in re-election campaigns of like "see low information voters, I tried to stop the endless wars..."
But they don't mean anything because Republicans know he will veto the legislation. And they know that then golly they just won't be enough Republicans with a spine to override the veto. Oh darn, oopsie.
Republicans are spineless cowards afraid of Trump. This vote was for show to point to to pretend they can stand up to him. But it's a lie, they won't. This vote only happened because they knew that the votes aren't there to override a veto.
47 + 8 = 55
In the Senate, 67 votes would be needed to override the upcoming veto not 55.
This was a cynical political move and you, and many others of course, fell for it.
@Mathsorcerer "People who suffer from OMBS (Orange Man Bad Syndrome) will not be cured with facts because they automatically reject any fact which does not adhere to their worldview."
That's not what they say coordination means, at least when they say "no Trump campaign members conspired or coordinated." I'll screenshot it for reference. Perhaps they use it again in some other context, but they are pretty clear what they mean when they are clearing everybody.
So I don't accept the idea that I'm only using a black and white definition. Not only did they not meet any criminal standard, but they don't meet any lesser standards that imply any sort of unspoken agreement at all. It's pretty broad.
It couldn't be more clear there is no substance there whatsoever.
Thanks for the clarification. I think though that the report is using "coordination" in assessing whether the criminal requirements for conspiracy have been met (the reason for using that word is to reflect the wording of the original order to set up the investigation). In ordinary English, coordinate would not require any agreement at all - just that your actions are adjusted to react to those of someone else. In the specific sense they are using it here, agreement is required, i.e. this is the same standard as for conspiracy.
The report also goes further to explain there is an additional element required to demonstrate a criminal conspiracy
- that a party must not only have a coordination agreement, but know that this is for a criminal purpose.
I don't agree with you of course though that because that test has not been met that means there is nothing of concern about the multiple links between the Trump Campaign and Russia.
I think it's pretty obvious why "passing polling data along to Russia" and "passing polling data to a long time associate" imply two very different things, namely, that he never believed, and there was never any evidence even in the report, that she wanted this data for Russia or something. They executed about 500 search and seizure warrants and obtained more than 230 records for private communications during this time per the report. If there was something there, we would know.
I doubt we would know. Even if the US does have penetration of the Russian Internet Research Agency, I think that would almost certainly be covered in the redacted portion of the Mueller report.
It's true that Manafort said he did not believe Kilimnik was acting as a spy, but he certainly knew that he had a close relationship with Deripaska (who was in turn close to Putin). In fact Kilimnik was originally recruited by Manafort as a result of work previously done for Deripaska. It's also pretty clear that the FBI did not believe Manafort's claims he knew nothing about Kilimnik's work for Russian intelligence - for the reasons for that, see for instance this statement on page 134 "Gates suspected that Kilimnik was a "spy," a view that he shared with Manafort ..."
Manafort was sharing information with Deripaska with a view to ending some litigation and potentially renewing what had previously been an extremely lucrative source of work for him. The fact that he had those prior relationships and had a strong financial incentive was a major reason why the FBI only charged Manafort personally, rather than as part of the Trump campaign. While I agree with that decision, I still think there are clear national security concerns arising from those links.
Whether or not Trump is fit for office is a matter of opinion. I don't think he's done all that bad, really. Not bad but not good. I certainly don't think the party willing to destroy the neutrality of government institutions in order to use them in a personal vendetta against their rival is worthy in any sense.
At last, a statement we can both wholeheartedly subscribe to (skating as fast as possible over any issue about the specific identity of the party and their rival) .
Democrats are free to impeach Barr if they so desire; the Senate won't remove him from office, either, but at least The House will have the satisfaction of appearing to have done something. In the meantime, Trump should just go ahead and pardon Stone--he cannot be impeached for using his lawful, Constitutional authority. Well, okay--he *can* be impeached for it but he won't be.
Meanwhile, the Dept. of Justice is dropping its criminal investigation into McCabe. This is not a problem because McCabe is definitely yesterday's news and not important.
Alabama State Representative Rolanda Hollis introduced a bill that woule require males to receive a vasectomy upon turning 50 *or* after the birth of their third child. Her sentiments are going in the correct direction but this implementation is wrong--the government cannot *mandate* sterilization based on age or family size. Men *should* get voluntary vasectomies because they are inexpensive and the procedure does not take very long--I would rewrite the bill to give families some sort of financial break if the male *chooses* to have the procedure.
The bill is clearly meant to demonstrate that no one would EVER accept a law that dictates what a man can and can't do with their reproductive system. So you're damn right her sentiment is in the right place. I maintain that if men could give birth getting an abortion would be as easy as renting a Blu-Ray from Redbox. It's calling out the same cultural mentality that thinks it's fine to remove birth control from employer health care coverage, but has no such movement towards restricting the coverage of Viagra or Cialis.
Comments
What tying medical insurance to emploment does is make workers even more subservient and dependent on employers for their continued existence. If MFA is ever implemented, there WILL be hiccups, and there would be a period where things seemed chaotic. That is unavoidable. That said, I still don't see a realistic path to getting there unless Bernie Sanders actually IS a miracle worker.
Another thing I have noticed recently is that Bernie Sanders will just flatly dismiss any question posed by the media he finds inconvenient. In another timeline, I'd find this problematic. In this one, all it tells me is that he understands the rules have changed and we aren't playing the same game anymore. Hardcore Sanders supporters have as much if not more contempt for the press as Trump supporters. Though I'd argue they have better reasons.
In all seriousness, what inside of the Mueller Report validates any piece of the years of media reports about Russian collusion with the Trump family? You act like "we" don't care about facts but you are clearly in the wrong here. I believe I asked this before, sorry if you responded and I missed it.
This single story alone should be enough to destroy the reputation of the media in general, given their blatant lack of objectivity in this and every other matter since 2016, but they don't really have much of one left to destroy with anyone not already a card carrying liberal to begin with.
I provided some information about the report here.
I haven't gone back to the report itself, but things I commented on included:
- the unredacted portion of the report says it established (which means proved to a criminal standard) that there were multiple links between the campaign and individuals connected to the Russian government. Even though those links were not sufficient to establish a criminal conspiracy, the fact they existed (and that Trump lied so many times about that) is still pretty damning.
- the Trump campaign heavily promoted political materials produced by Russia.
- the campaign shared private polling data with Russia, which was a crime. Only Manafort was charged with that though on the grounds it was not clear whether he was acting in his capacity as head of the campaign or purely in a personal capacity.
- the Trump Tower meeting was illegal, but Trump Jr was not prosecuted for that on the grounds he may have been stupid enough not to realize that. That decision was probably fortunate for Trump Sr as well given the number of times he lied about what happened there.
- several of the instances of obstruction listed were clearly actionable in principle, but Mueller declined to prosecute because of the policy of the DoJ not to prosecute a sitting President.
- the section on obstruction also explains why the President tried to be obstructive (and why campaign members were generally uncooperative and destroyed evidence): "the evidence does indicate that a thorough FBI investigation would uncover facts about the campaign and the President personally that the President could have understood to be crimes or that would give rise to personal and political concerns."
Sure the Mueller report could have turned out far worse for Trump, but even the unredacted elements provided plenty of cause for concern about links with Russia.
This:
“This series of events [surrounding the June 9 meeting] could implicate the federal election-law ban on contributions and donations by foreign nationals . . . Specifically, Goldstone passed along an offer purportedly from a Russian government official to provide “official documents and information” to the Trump campaign for the purposes of influencing the presidential election. Trump Jr. appears to have accepted that offer and to have arranged a meeting to receive those materials. Documentary evidence in the form of e-mail chains supports the inference that Kushner and Manafort were aware of that purpose and attended the June 9 meeting anticipating the receipt of helpful information to the Campaign from Russian sources.“
Page 115.
Don Jr was allegedly too stupid to know better, but everyone else in the campaign went along with receiving the dirt. Just because there was no dirt doesn’t mean this should have been excused.
It’s also what the Democrats should have focused on, but then Ukraine happened, pushing the report to the side while Congress was discussing it.
Replace Chelsea Clinton with Don Jr and you know the out come would have been a lot different and worse for the Clinton’s.
You're not making any sense here. It did not establish conspiracy to a criminal standard or else they would have said they were guilty of conspiracy. Conspiracy law was the exact metric they were using, and they failed to meet it, according to the report. They did not succeed and fail at the same time, they simply failed. They even say they didn't meet the standard of coordination, which was a far looser and nebulous term in their mind.
They see coordination as meaning any sort of dealings in which there was any sort of tacit agreement or anything more beyond two parties acting in their own interests in their own capacities. They didn't meet this definition either, so objectively speaking there is nothing "damning" about any of it in their own minds.
Specifically, in the very first pages of the report, they state "the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with Russia in election interference activities." Right after that, they state they are using conspiracy law as the metric, which is appropriate.
It could not get any more clear than that.
The report itself goes on to state why each one of those examples, breathlessly reported on as the smoking gun, amounted to nothing in the end. Mostly because things like "passing polling data on to Russia" are wild exaggerations of the facts.
"to have public statements and tweets made about the department, about people in the department, our men and women here, about cases pending in the department and about judges before whom we have cases, make it impossible for me to do my job and to assure the courts and the prosecutors in the department that we're doing our work with integrity".
Listen up, Trump--your own people are telling you to chill out with the wild, random Tweets. You won't listen to me on it so maybe you will listen to them.
If anyone believes Trump and Barr aren't on the same team here, and that this is anything but an elaborate (well, not so elaborate) ploy to make it seem like they weren't on the same page, you probably also think wrestling heels actually hate the babyfaces in real life. Pure theater.
I....don't understand this. What?
It's staged, it's make-believe. Barr is pretending he is upset that the President is tweeting his demands to him, when what it really amounts to is a way to relay instructions with the veneer of plausible deniability because it isn't on official White House stationary. It was a show for the cameras to pretend he's "feuding" with the President.
His complaints ring to me of "I'm trying to rig things in secret and Trump keeps making it harder! Poor me!"
That's the problem with right wing media bubbles. You don't see or hear what's going on, you just get spin.
For one thing, Barr's letter about the Mueller report and his spin in front of the camera was like the literal opposite of what the Mueller report actually said when it came out later.
Barr’s intentional mischaracterization of the Mueller report served to validate Trump’s false claim that the report exonerated him in finding “no collusion.”
His position that Presidents are above the law and cannot be charged with a crime are uh PROBLEMATIC.
Barr wrongly failed to recuse himself from the Ukraine Affair. On July 25, Trump called Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. In the conversation, Trump specifically mentioned Barr five times as the person to work with to investigate his domestic politicial opponents. He should have recused himself.
Barr, as attorney general, engaged in a pattern of biased actions to support and validate repeated false claims and improper actions by Trump, and Barr failed to comply with the norms, rules and standards of conduct of the Justice Department.
Not only recently has he been a partisan hack, but he has a long history of being a dangerous ideologue when it comes to these issues. Here are a few examples:
-He provided the Bush administration with the legal justification for arresting fugitives overseas, even if doing so violated of international law.
-As deputy attorney general, he advised Bush that he could go to war in Iraq without consent from Congress.
-He effectively ended the Iran-Contra investigation by encouraging Bush to pardon six Reagan administration officials.
0A memo he wrote in 1989 on executive authority was used as a basis for the infamous 2005 OLC memo justifying the use of torture.
-When asked about Trump’s threats to use the Justice Department to investigate his opponents, he failed to defend the independence of the attorney general and stated, “there is nothing inherently wrong about a president calling for an investigation.”
Barr asserted that the president could end a proceeding (i.e., investigation) based on his own claims of being “falsely accused.” That is an absurd notion on its face. An investigation is, by definition, an exercise designed to determine: (1) whether a crime was committed, and (2) if there is evidence that an individual committed that crime.
Barr’s statement would be laughable if he attempted to apply it to anyone else in this country who is being investigated for a crime, which demonstrates that the current attorney general places the president above the law. It also indicates that he would have given Nixon a pass for the so-called “Saturday night massacre” in which the president attempted to end the Watergate investigation by firing his attorney general and deputy attorney general for their refusal to fire the special prosecutor.
None of this speaks to his integrity, but to his judicial philosophy, which I don't agree with. He believes in giving too much power to the President, but that's not the same thing as being corrupt, and he is perfectly upfront with his beliefs. I don't think there is any reason to doubt his comments and that he believes in an independent judiciary.
*With, possibly, the exception of Iran Contra, which is something I am unfamiliar with.
The Iran–Contra affair was a criminal activity in the United States that occurred during the second term of the Reagan Administration.
Senior Reagan administration officials secretly facilitated the sale of arms to Republic of Iran, which was the subject of an arms embargo.
The administration hoped to use the proceeds of the arms sale to fund the Contras in Nicaragua who were right wing terrorists involved with illegal drugs. Under the Boland Amendment, further funding of the Contras by the government had been prohibited by Congress.
The weapons sold to Iran were used by Qassem Soleimani, who Trump recently assassinated, against Americans.
The fall guy for this scandal was Oliver North who until recently was head of the NRA but is still a regular on the Fox News propaganda network.
William Barr helped ensure no one went to prison.
If you don't believe that any professional with years of experience in the law and working in government winces physically every time Trump blathers on twitter about current cases, then you're... most likely incorrect.
Also, every single theory that relied on Trump being a master of skulduggery and strategy has failed so far, so I don't hold out a lot of expectation that this one is going to be any different. The most likely explanation for why Barr said "Shut up, boss, you're making everything harder" is because his boss won't shut up, and is making everything harder.
I mean, aside from the various times they've voted against him, including eight of them voting with Democrats to curb his warmaking powers less than a day after you made this objectively incorrect post.
Oh I'm making sense - you just don't agree with the frame of reference I'm applying. It's essentially the same issue as before. You're taking the line that things are either black or white - either conspiracy is proved in a court of law or there's zero evidence of anything to worry about. I'm saying that there are plenty of things in the report that are of concern from other points of view (I was particularly focused on the question of whether Trump is a fit and proper person to head a government, but national security / relationships with allies and the probity of elections are other issues of concern).
I did go back to the report this morning to check on a couple of things. First, you suggest above that 'coordination' is some weaker form of conspiracy. Coordination, as used in the report, actually refers to whether someone has breached the Foreign Agent statutes (see section starting on page 181). The report concluded there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that any campaign member did that with respect to Russia (though Manafort, Gates and Flynn all pleaded guilty to other breaches of that statute). The report does though include a footnote that the lower standard of probable cause was met in the case of Page acting as a Russian agent.
Second, you refer to passing polling data to Russia as a wild exaggeration. There are multiple references within the report to Manafort passing on internal Trump Campaign polling data - for instance here's the first of those (starting on page 6):
"Separately, on August 2, 2016, Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort met in New York City with his long-time business associate Konstantin Kilimnik, who the FBI assesses to have ties to Russian intelligence. Kilimnik requested the meeting to deliver in person a peace plan for Ukraine that Manafort acknowledged to the Special Counsel's Office was a "backdoor" way for Russia to control part of eastern Ukraine; both men believed the plan would require candidate Trump's assent to succeed (were he to be elected President). They also discussed the status of the Trump Campaign and Manafort's strategy for winning Democratic votes in Midwestern states. Months before that meeting, Manafort had caused internal polling data to be shared with Kilimnik, and the sharing continued for some period of time after their August meeting."
Harder to what?? Did he or didn't he order the 4 prosecutors who resigned to reduce Roger Stone's sentencing recommendation?? Because if he DIDN'T do so, why would they quit the case?? So now that we've established that is what happened, why was it done?? Because Bill Barr is such a merciful crusader for the rights of criminal defendants?? As I mentioned before, he JUST gave a speech railing on other prosecutors for being too lenient. If he didn't do it because Trump told him to, what other reason is there?? Are people really this obtuse?? The only way Trump is "making it harder" is by announcing their intentions to the whole world and Barr might prefer they just do it in secret. I've been right about Bill Barr every step of the way. I was right about him when I railed against him during his nomination, I said people were insane to think he wasn't pulling a fast on the entire country with his "summary" of the Mueller Report (which nearly everyone but me and maybe 2 or 3 other people here bought hook, line and sinker) and I'm right about this. William Barr is the most dangerous man in American politics at this moment, because he's NOT dumb and knows exactly what he's doing and how to go about doing it.
This evening a report came out that Trump "wasn't upset" about Barr's comments. That sound like Trump to you?? When has that EVER been the case when someone in the Administration has said or been quoted as saying something negative about him, or even offered the slightest bit of constructive criticism?? If Trump isn't upset, the ONLY reason, based on everything we know about his personality, is that he either knew it was a bullshit quote in advance, or he understood it was shortly after it was made. There is no room for any other interpretation unless we are going to pretend Trump got a personality transplant in the last 12 hours.
Putting aside the weirdness of "If Sanders isn't the nominee I'll vote for the party that opposes 90% of what he stands for"...
...does no one else remember that the Sanders supporters were going to sit out the election if their guy didn't get the nomination in 2016, too? And that, statistically, they ended up voting Democratic, just like Hillary supporters did in 2008 despite also hearing how they were going to bolt the party?
People say all sorts of things in the heat of a campaign.
I dunno, maybe we should ask this poster:
I mean, I doubt that's the only reason, but even in your viewpoint of the evil Republican hivemind, Trump is still a dumbass making everything harder for Barr so Barr would be perfectly justified to complain about it.
Watch what happens with this story over the next days and weeks and get back to me with this sympathetic take on Bill Barr. In fact, watch what happens as he flat-out weaponizes the Justice Department the moment the Democratic nominee is locked-in. He's already using it to shield the President's allies. The next step is obvious.
Nazi Germany was my specialist subject in history many years ago and I've considered reading this book before, but not got around to it. I've had some spare time over the last couple of days though and have now done that, rather than 'wasting' my time playing Baldur's Gate
It's an interesting book and worthwhile reading, but I wouldn't wholeheartedly recommend it. Quite a large part of it reflects Mayer's personal views, which are pretty dated and have not stood the test of time well. The best bit of the book is the first part that tries to tell the stories of 10 men to explain why they became Nazis - that's done in a very readable way, though perhaps in consequence the treatment seems rather superficial. The bit that @smeagolheart posted (about how a series of individual steps could lead you without realizing into a totalitarian position) is a short interlude between those stories and Mayer's personal views - quoting one of Mayer's colleagues. Though that's far and away the most recognized legacy of the book, it's only very loosely connected with the remainder of the book.
I've put some more detailed ramblings about the book in the spoiler below, if anyone is interested.
Conclusions of study
Mayer's views
That's not what they say coordination means, at least when they say "no Trump campaign members conspired or coordinated." I'll screenshot it for reference. Perhaps they use it again in some other context, but they are pretty clear what they mean when they are clearing everybody.
So I don't accept the idea that I'm only using a black and white definition. Not only did they not meet any criminal standard, but they don't meet any lesser standards that imply any sort of unspoken agreement at all. It's pretty broad.
It couldn't be more clear there is no substance there whatsoever.
I think it's pretty obvious why "passing polling data along to Russia" and "passing polling data to a long time associate" imply two very different things, namely, that he never believed, and there was never any evidence even in the report, that she wanted this data for Russia or something. They executed about 500 search and seizure warrants and obtained more than 230 records for private communications during this time per the report. If there was something there, we would know.
Whether or not Trump is fit for office is a matter of opinion. I don't think he's done all that bad, really. Not bad but not good. I certainly don't think the party willing to destroy the neutrality of government institutions in order to use them in a personal vendetta against their rival is worthy in any sense.
Those votes don't mean much. They're for show. They're points to be used in re-election campaigns of like "see low information voters, I tried to stop the endless wars..."
But they don't mean anything because Republicans know he will veto the legislation. And they know that then golly they just won't be enough Republicans with a spine to override the veto. Oh darn, oopsie.
Don't fall for the show.
"But despite the measure likely being headed to Mr Trump's desk, the president and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell have kept enough GOP senators in line to have the votes necessary to block a veto-override vote, which would require a two-thirds majority in the upper chamber.". -https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-iran-war-powers-bill-veto-senate-republicans-a9334861.html
Republicans are spineless cowards afraid of Trump. This vote was for show to point to to pretend they can stand up to him. But it's a lie, they won't. This vote only happened because they knew that the votes aren't there to override a veto.
47 + 8 = 55
In the Senate, 67 votes would be needed to override the upcoming veto not 55.
This was a cynical political move and you, and many others of course, fell for it.
The report also goes further to explain there is an additional element required to demonstrate a criminal conspiracy
I doubt we would know. Even if the US does have penetration of the Russian Internet Research Agency, I think that would almost certainly be covered in the redacted portion of the Mueller report.
It's true that Manafort said he did not believe Kilimnik was acting as a spy, but he certainly knew that he had a close relationship with Deripaska (who was in turn close to Putin). In fact Kilimnik was originally recruited by Manafort as a result of work previously done for Deripaska. It's also pretty clear that the FBI did not believe Manafort's claims he knew nothing about Kilimnik's work for Russian intelligence - for the reasons for that, see for instance this statement on page 134 "Gates suspected that Kilimnik was a "spy," a view that he shared with Manafort ..."
Manafort was sharing information with Deripaska with a view to ending some litigation and potentially renewing what had previously been an extremely lucrative source of work for him. The fact that he had those prior relationships and had a strong financial incentive was a major reason why the FBI only charged Manafort personally, rather than as part of the Trump campaign. While I agree with that decision, I still think there are clear national security concerns arising from those links.
At last, a statement we can both wholeheartedly subscribe to (skating as fast as possible over any issue about the specific identity of the party and their rival)
Meanwhile, the Dept. of Justice is dropping its criminal investigation into McCabe. This is not a problem because McCabe is definitely yesterday's news and not important.
Alabama State Representative Rolanda Hollis introduced a bill that woule require males to receive a vasectomy upon turning 50 *or* after the birth of their third child. Her sentiments are going in the correct direction but this implementation is wrong--the government cannot *mandate* sterilization based on age or family size. Men *should* get voluntary vasectomies because they are inexpensive and the procedure does not take very long--I would rewrite the bill to give families some sort of financial break if the male *chooses* to have the procedure.