Chirp, chirp...

The place to discuss politics and policy issues that are not directly related to matters of faith.

Moderator: Jon Estes

Re: Chirp, chirp...

Postby Sandy » Sat Mar 30, 2019 10:08 am

The Mueller Report has not been released. What we have is a four page "summary" of the reports contents by the attorney general who has a very well stated position and record of bias when it comes to issues related to the presidency and is completely on the record regarding his very strong personal and professional bias when it comes to this particular investigation and its potential outcome. This same attorney general, along with most of his Republican colleagues, did not come anywhere close to holding this same view of the lack of legal authority to hold the president accountable, including who could indict him, when Bill Clinton was in the White House. So on top of everything else, including his willingness to accept a position of power at the invitation of the most corrupt president in history, Attorney General Barr's words are propaganda, not fact. The way they've handled this, unconstitutionally I might add, is just a way to get out ahead of the findings of the investigation.

If you actually read Barr's four page missive, it does not in any way state unequivocally that there was "no collusion," and it does not exonerate the President on any possible charge. It states that the report found that the special counsel did not have enough evidence to meet the higher standards for indictment required of a special counsel investigation . It does not state that there was "no collusion," nor does it state that there was no obstruction of justice. We already knew well in advance that the attorney general, who was put in place deliberately because of his long held views on the ability of the courts to indict a sitting president, This was the moment for which Jeff Sessions was thrown under the bus and for which Barr was hired. Trump, as usual, ignored the facts and headed out to rally the base.

Constitutionally, Congress will have to see the full, unredacted report. They will have to decide if the evidence which does exist for both collusion and obstruction of justice meets their standard for "high crimes and misdemeanors." They will have to have the courage to counter the propaganda being put out by Trump and state that he is lying about it. They already have more that is publicly known than the GOP had when they went after Clinton. So when that is all made public, yes, we will see. Until then, he is still incompetent, inept and unfit for office, a pathological liar and a sexual abuser of women.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 9389
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Chirp, chirp...

Postby Joseph Patrick » Sat Mar 30, 2019 11:23 am

William Thornton wrote:After two years of reading my coup-minded mod lib friends here and their affection for like minded dems, I'm far more inclined to vote for Trump in 2020 than any of the potential dem challengers. I'm immune to being shamed by morally bankrupt infanticide supporters.

We'll see how this unfold.

From Gerry Milligan...a typical response from a typical single issue voter.
Joseph Patrick
 
Posts: 584
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 12:53 am
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Chirp, chirp...

Postby KeithE » Sat Mar 30, 2019 12:04 pm

Joseph Patrick wrote:
William Thornton wrote:After two years of reading my coup-minded mod lib friends here and their affection for like minded dems, I'm far more inclined to vote for Trump in 2020 than any of the potential dem challengers. I'm immune to being shamed by morally bankrupt infanticide supporters.

We'll see how this unfold.

From Gerry Milligan...a typical response from a typical single issue voter.


It seems to me that William is basing his voting decisions on his bemusement/dislike of “mod libs”.

I would hope he would think about the candidate's:
- moral character
- morality related issues (more than just abortion which Trump does not really care about)
- honesty
- truthfulness with facts/numbers
- compassion
- ability to study social/economic matters
- ability to appoint uncorrupted cabinet/staff members
- appropriate speech
- vision (Trump is not bad here)
- proven carry though on that vision (Trump is terrible here)
- policies that enhance America’s economy
- policies that help struggling Americans
- policies that help reduce poverty worldwide
- ability to unite
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9175
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Chirp, chirp...

Postby William Thornton » Sat Mar 30, 2019 1:59 pm

My old friend reverts to type by presuming to know my state of mind.
My stray thoughts on SBC stuff may be found at my blog, SBC Plodder
User avatar
William Thornton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12375
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:30 pm
Location: Atlanta

Re: Chirp, chirp...

Postby KeithE » Sat Mar 30, 2019 4:54 pm

William Thornton wrote:My old friend reverts to type by presuming to know my state of mind.


Look at what you yourself said:
After two years of reading my coup-minded mod lib friends here and their affection for like minded dems, I'm far more inclined to vote for Trump in 2020 than any of the potential dem challengers.

(underlines min)

To which I said:
It seems to me that William is basing his voting decisions on his bemusement/dislike of “mod libs”.


If you are not bemused by or dislike “mod libs”, describe your attitude towards same.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9175
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Chirp, chirp...

Postby Rvaughn » Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:48 pm

Sandy wrote:Constitutionally, Congress will have to see the full, unredacted report...
Based on what?

I'm read a little debate of this by "legal minds" on how much of the grand jury testimony can be released to Congress if they are conducting no "judicial proceedings" (i.e. impreachment). Bottom line, I don't know, but it seems those who should know don't agree on it agree.
User avatar
Rvaughn
 
Posts: 1226
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 4:54 pm
Location: East Texas

Re: Chirp, chirp...

Postby Sandy » Sun Mar 31, 2019 11:18 pm

Rvaughn wrote:
Sandy wrote:Constitutionally, Congress will have to see the full, unredacted report...
Based on what?

I'm read a little debate of this by "legal minds" on how much of the grand jury testimony can be released to Congress if they are conducting no "judicial proceedings" (i.e. impreachment). Bottom line, I don't know, but it seems those who should know don't agree on it agree.


It's a separation of powers issue, according to a former US District attorney, Joyce Vance. The executive branch cannot make a ruling on an investigation by its own justice department. The special investigator had to be authorized by congress (it was, with a Republican majority at the time) and they are entitled to see the report, assign it to the appopriate committee and determine what the outcome will be. One of the things we've heard repeatedly about Mueller were the limits on his legal authority when it came to the sitting president.

The Republicans are, for the most part, on the record as having stated that Congress is the final authority and must make rulings on independent investigations when the justice department is involved because of the separation of powers. Remember the wall-eyed fit that several of them threw over the fact that when the investigation into Hillary's emails ended, Loretta Lynch would be making the final decision regarding prosecution? They screeched and hollered and lip flapped over that for months. Then the report came out and Lynch sent it to the house intelligence committee the same day, along with releasing the full text of the report. Then, from the GOP, chirp, chirp....
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 9389
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Chirp, chirp...

Postby Rvaughn » Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:32 am

Sandy wrote:It's a separation of powers issue, according to a former US District attorney, Joyce Vance...The Republicans...screeched and hollered and lip flapped over that for months...
Despite the squawkings and political machinations on both sides, in the middle there is a legitimate legal question about the sanctity/secrecy of grand jury testimony. I expect that ultimately the third separate power, the judicial branch, will make a ruling on this. I believe grand jury evidence was released re investigations into Presidents Nixon and Clinton, but I also think that was only after a judge ordered their release. It seems to me that House Rep. Jerry Jerry Nadler said as much in his letter to William Barr wanting him (Barr) to join Congress in asking a court to release the grand jury information.
User avatar
Rvaughn
 
Posts: 1226
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 4:54 pm
Location: East Texas

Re: Chirp, chirp...

Postby Sandy » Mon Apr 01, 2019 9:11 am

Rvaughn wrote:
Sandy wrote:It's a separation of powers issue, according to a former US District attorney, Joyce Vance...The Republicans...screeched and hollered and lip flapped over that for months...
Despite the squawkings and political machinations on both sides, in the middle there is a legitimate legal question about the sanctity/secrecy of grand jury testimony. I expect that ultimately the third separate power, the judicial branch, will make a ruling on this. I believe grand jury evidence was released re investigations into Presidents Nixon and Clinton, but I also think that was only after a judge ordered their release. It seems to me that House Rep. Jerry Jerry Nadler said as much in his letter to William Barr wanting him (Barr) to join Congress in asking a court to release the grand jury information.


The Justice Department does not exist as a separate entity from the executive branch when it comes to separation of powers. I agree that the courts will probably be called on to make a ruling, but the whole purpose of this independent investigation was for the purpose of determining whether the Trump campaign knowingly participated in the Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election. Noting that the Justice Department had already investigated Russian interference, and concluded that the Russians did indeed interfere in the election with the purpose of influencing it for Trump, it is pretty clear that the authorization for the special counsel was given by Congress to gather evidence that would be used in a possible impeachment. Letting the justice department have the final say would be the equivalent of allowing the defendant in a court case also be the jury.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 9389
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Chirp, chirp...

Postby Rvaughn » Tue Apr 02, 2019 7:32 am

I agree that there is, at the least, the appearance of conflict of interest if the attorney general and justice department "have the final say" about redacting the grand jury testimony. On the other hand, a legal decision does have to be made about it. I prefer that it be done by a judge. The Democratic members of Congress also have a certain amount of self-interest (at the least their desire to take back the White House). Some legal pundits I read brought up the issue of the Speaker of the House having already committed to not seeking impeachment as one of the reasons that would make not redacting the grand jury testimony questionable.
User avatar
Rvaughn
 
Posts: 1226
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 4:54 pm
Location: East Texas

Re: Chirp, chirp...

Postby Dave Roberts » Tue Apr 02, 2019 10:01 am

As an appointee of Trump, Barr must either recuse himself or forever taint the process. The appointment of one of his relatives as a White House counsel, makes Barr look like "a hired gun."
"God will never be less than He is and does not need to be more" (John Koessler)

My blog: http://emporiadave.wordpress.com/
User avatar
Dave Roberts
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7524
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:01 pm
Location: Southside, VA

Re: Chirp, chirp...

Postby Sandy » Tue Apr 02, 2019 11:29 am

Rvaughn wrote:I agree that there is, at the least, the appearance of conflict of interest if the attorney general and justice department "have the final say" about redacting the grand jury testimony. On the other hand, a legal decision does have to be made about it. I prefer that it be done by a judge. The Democratic members of Congress also have a certain amount of self-interest (at the least their desire to take back the White House). Some legal pundits I read brought up the issue of the Speaker of the House having already committed to not seeking impeachment as one of the reasons that would make not redacting the grand jury testimony questionable.


The speaker has not committed to not seeking impeachment. Her statement on that was qualified. There's a different standard for impeachment than there is for indictment by a special prosecutor and I suspect that difference will be noted in what Mueller determined was not enough evidence to bring charges against a sitting president, his position on that being similar to the attorney general and the two supreme court justices Trump appointed with this in mind, and that of congress, collectively, when considering the standards and qualifications for the Presidency. They need to see the full report, including the grand jury evidence, to make that determination. To be fair, some Republicans are already on the record as being favorable to a very low bar for the standards of evidence required for impeachment and they are also favorable to making sure that every word of every investigation is made available to Congress. Their pushing for all of that during the Clinton administration, and then again during the investigations of Hillary, show how low their standards are for proof, and their words should be fairly applied to orange hair.

Dave Roberts wrote:As an appointee of Trump, Barr must either recuse himself or forever taint the process. The appointment of one of his relatives as a White House counsel, makes Barr look like "a hired gun."


If this is allowed to stand as it sits currently, then there will never be another president held accountable for anything and no way for congress to ever get the information they are constitutionally entitled to get. The position of attorney general will be nothing more than a legal arm for the President to avoid accountability and they can simply wait until their term is nearly over, pardon everyone who helped them break the law, include themselves and move on to their next victim.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 9389
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Chirp, chirp...

Postby Tim Bonney » Tue Apr 02, 2019 1:39 pm

William Thornton wrote:After two years of reading my coup-minded mod lib friends here and their affection for like minded dems, I'm far more inclined to vote for Trump in 2020 than any of the potential dem challengers. I'm immune to being shamed by morally bankrupt infanticide supporters.

We'll see how this unfold.


William, I hope your enjoying of poking fun at mod/lib folks doesn't cause you to lose sight of the fact the Trump isn't really isn't a Republican in anything but name, nor is he a conservative.
Tim Bonney

First UMC of Indianola, Iowa - http://indfumc.org
My Blog - http://timbonney.com
User avatar
Tim Bonney
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6250
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 9:17 am
Location: Indianola, Iowa

Re: Chirp, chirp...

Postby Haruo » Tue Apr 02, 2019 2:50 pm

Rvaughn wrote:...the Speaker of the House having already committed to not seeking impeachment...

My impression was that Pelosi was committed to not seeking impeachment based on the currently available evidence. I think she left open the door to impeachment proceedings if and when substantially more serious evidence (which is unlikely to be in the Mueller report, but might well be ferreted out based on clues in the report.
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12736
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 7:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Chirp, chirp...

Postby Rvaughn » Tue Apr 02, 2019 3:15 pm

It is probably true that Pelosi has left open the possibility of changing her mind, but this statement she made beginning with “I’m not for” and ending with “he’s just not worth it” makes it seem unlikely that she will. Neither have I heard her retract it.
“I’m not for impeachment. This is news. I’m going to give you some news right now because I haven’t said this to any press person before. Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country. And he’s just not worth it.”
User avatar
Rvaughn
 
Posts: 1226
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 4:54 pm
Location: East Texas

Re: Chirp, chirp...

Postby William Thornton » Tue Apr 02, 2019 3:36 pm

Tim Bonney wrote:
William Thornton wrote:After two years of reading my coup-minded mod lib friends here and their affection for like minded dems, I'm far more inclined to vote for Trump in 2020 than any of the potential dem challengers. I'm immune to being shamed by morally bankrupt infanticide supporters.

We'll see how this unfold.


William, I hope your enjoying of poking fun at mod/lib folks doesn't cause you to lose sight of the fact the Trump isn't really isn't a Republican in anything but name, nor is he a conservative.


Yeah, don't you know it? It boils down to the choice.
My stray thoughts on SBC stuff may be found at my blog, SBC Plodder
User avatar
William Thornton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12375
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:30 pm
Location: Atlanta

Mueller's staff says report is "more damaging" to trump

Postby Sandy » Thu Apr 04, 2019 8:15 pm

Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 9389
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Chirp, chirp...

Postby William Thornton » Fri Apr 05, 2019 4:50 am

NYT you say? Yawn...
My stray thoughts on SBC stuff may be found at my blog, SBC Plodder
User avatar
William Thornton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12375
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:30 pm
Location: Atlanta

Re: Chirp, chirp...

Postby Sandy » Fri Apr 05, 2019 10:44 am

William Thornton wrote:NYT you say? Yawn...


My citation is from the Times. If you'd care to point out where they're not reliable and where they've reported anything but the actual facts given, ah, well, I've put that out here before and never got anything.

Other sources, lots of them, are reporting similar stories. Seems there's a lot of frustration among that special counsel staff who know Barr is hiding most of their work and the silence seems to have sprung a few leaks. Even false, er, Fox News is scrambling to keep pace.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 9389
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Chirp, chirp...

Postby Sandy » Fri Apr 12, 2019 9:18 pm

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/201 ... story.html

To borrow William's original title for this thread, the chirping is getting loud in Washington between the justice department and the white house. Quite a stone wall being built there. Every day that goes by without the full report being released raises more questions, at least with intelligent, thinking people, about what it might contain and more doubt about the brief that the attorney general put out on it so quickly after it was released.

They're following Nixon's watergate script almost word for word.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 9389
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Chirp, chirp...

Postby Dave Roberts » Sat Apr 13, 2019 10:17 am

I think we should just take Trump at his word, "The report exonerates me." Therefore, to hedge on its release is to call the POTUS a liar.
"God will never be less than He is and does not need to be more" (John Koessler)

My blog: http://emporiadave.wordpress.com/
User avatar
Dave Roberts
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7524
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:01 pm
Location: Southside, VA

Re: Chirp, chirp...

Postby JE Pettibone » Mon Apr 15, 2019 11:54 am

ED. Speaking of the redactions in the upcoming Mueller report . When has it become incumbent for upon the Government to release the total content of the Muller Secret Hearings. Is there no one else here who recalls when the government with a Democrat President wisely determined it was the best policy to "redact or censor" all correspondence between US Military personnel In the Far East and Europe and their families and all other civilians, to prevent this nations enemies from knowing of America and our allies assignments regarding Troop Movements and distribution of weapons and supplies. If indeed there existed legitimate reason for a Secret inquiry overseen by a special prosecuted, how reasonable is for the whole world to know every detail of the probe?
JE Pettibone
 
Posts: 649
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2016 10:48 am

Re: Chirp, chirp...

Postby Tim Bonney » Mon Apr 15, 2019 1:53 pm

JE Pettibone wrote:ED. Speaking of the redactions in the upcoming Mueller report . When has it become incumbent for upon the Government to release the total content of the Muller Secret Hearings. Is there no one else here who recalls when the government with a Democrat President wisely determined it was the best policy to "redact or censor" all correspondence between US Military personnel In the Far East and Europe and their families and all other civilians, to prevent this nations enemies from knowing of America and our allies assignments regarding Troop Movements and distribution of weapons and supplies. If indeed there existed legitimate reason for a Secret inquiry overseen by a special prosecuted, how reasonable is for the whole world to know every detail of the probe?


Ed, I don't have a problem with the report being redacted for appropriate security concerns. I do have a hard time with it being a political appointee of the President that gets to make those decisions as to what is redacted. I know if I were under investigation I'd love a sweet deal where an appointed underling of mine whose job depends on me gets to decide what to redact.
Tim Bonney

First UMC of Indianola, Iowa - http://indfumc.org
My Blog - http://timbonney.com
User avatar
Tim Bonney
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6250
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 9:17 am
Location: Indianola, Iowa

Re: Chirp, chirp...

Postby Dave Roberts » Mon Apr 15, 2019 2:33 pm

If we want a redaction for national security, shouldn't that go to the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the military and the CIA, not a new appointee to justice?
"God will never be less than He is and does not need to be more" (John Koessler)

My blog: http://emporiadave.wordpress.com/
User avatar
Dave Roberts
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7524
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:01 pm
Location: Southside, VA

Re: Chirp, chirp...

Postby Sandy » Tue Apr 16, 2019 10:18 pm

JE Pettibone wrote:ED. Speaking of the redactions in the upcoming Mueller report . When has it become incumbent for upon the Government to release the total content of the Muller Secret Hearings. Is there no one else here who recalls when the government with a Democrat President wisely determined it was the best policy to "redact or censor" all correspondence between US Military personnel In the Far East and Europe and their families and all other civilians, to prevent this nations enemies from knowing of America and our allies assignments regarding Troop Movements and distribution of weapons and supplies. If indeed there existed legitimate reason for a Secret inquiry overseen by a special prosecuted, how reasonable is for the whole world to know every detail of the probe?


I have no problem with the release of a redacted report which keeps the secrecy of anything related to national security, or which would violate any specific legal standards such as the source of grand jury testimony. What I have a problem with here is the way this was maniulated. It was pretty obvious when one of Trump's sycophants, Sen. Sessions, became the object of his wrath for recusing himself. Sessions apparently still had enough integrity, even after signing on with a Trump administration, to realize the conflict of interest involved in presiding over an investigation of the president who appointed him. I also have no problem with Congress getting the full, unreacted report. As long as Barr is the only one releasing and redacting, only Trump loyalists and dupes will believe that it exonerates Trump of either collusion or obstruction of justice.

Even if it isn't released without redaction, it seems that there are those who participated in the investigation who are getting impatient with the dodging and obfuscating tactics and while there weren't many "leaks" prior to its release, I think there will be those who are frustrated at the President's outright lies and there will be parts of the report that "leak" out which will expose a lot more than Trump wants us to know.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 9389
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

PreviousNext

Return to Politics and Public Policy Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron