Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #851  
Old 05-01-2019, 12:51 PM
UnwittingAmericans is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 272
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Or, more accurately, no.
The report concluded that there was insufficient evidence of obstruction. You guys are seeing things that Mueller didn't find.

:shrugs:

Regards,
Shodan
Lol, you're seeing things Mueller didn't SAY.

Barr said there was insufficient evidence of obstruction, not Mueller.
  #852  
Old 05-01-2019, 01:07 PM
Grrr!'s Avatar
Grrr! is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 16,127
Dayum! Sen Hirono unloads on Barr like a boss!
  #853  
Old 05-01-2019, 01:11 PM
jshore is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 6,946
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
This is a false assertion. Or do you have a cite from the Mueller report that concludes that there was "insufficient evidence of obstruction"?
It is worth than false. It is actually pretty close to the opposite of the truth. The actual truth is that Mueller could not exonerate Trump on obstruction, so in fact there was sufficient evidence of obstruction so that he could not be exonerated.

And, we don't know if Mueller thought there was sufficient evidence to charge Trump with obstruction or whether he was truly conflicted because he explicitly explains in the introduction to Volume II that he interpreted Justice Department policy to mean he could not reach such a conclusion. The ***ONLY*** conclusion he was allowed to reach, by his interpretation, was a conclusion that Trump did not obstruct justice. And, he clearly states that the EVIDENCE did not allow him to reach this conclusion.

I doubt that Shodan has read any of the Mueller report...or, if he has, his reading comprehension is atrocious.
  #854  
Old 05-01-2019, 01:13 PM
jshore is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 6,946
The scary part is what one of the Senators (Blumenthal?) brought up, which is that it is Barr who is overseeing those 14 other investigations that were spun off by Mueller.

I used to have hope that those investigations would deliver us from this current Hell we are in, but I have very little confidence in that now. I hope there are some DOJ officials brave enough to sacrifice their careers if necessary to prevent Barr from covering up for Trump in these other investigations where we won't be able to "check his work".
  #855  
Old 05-01-2019, 01:40 PM
jshore is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 6,946
Quote:
Originally Posted by jshore View Post
It is worth than false.
Of course, that should be "worse".
  #856  
Old 05-01-2019, 02:41 PM
Fiveyearlurker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Or, more accurately, no.

This is why discussion is pointless. The report concluded that there was insufficient evidence of obstruction. You guys are seeing things that Mueller didn't find.



:shrugs:



Regards,

Shodan


Dude. You made a specific prediction that turned out to be gloriously wrong and your double down exposes the reasons you made this prediction; you seem to think that we think this is a game because you think it’s a game.
  #857  
Old 05-01-2019, 05:04 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 6,596
Quote:
Originally Posted by jshore View Post
The scary part is what one of the Senators (Blumenthal?) brought up, which is that it is Barr who is overseeing those 14 other investigations that were spun off by Mueller.

I used to have hope that those investigations would deliver us from this current Hell we are in, but I have very little confidence in that now. I hope there are some DOJ officials brave enough to sacrifice their careers if necessary to prevent Barr from covering up for Trump in these other investigations where we won't be able to "check his work".
Yes. This is a horrifying situation.

The only remedy (other than the reliance on self-sacrificing whistle-blowers that you mention) is to impeach Barr. At the very least, an impeachment inquiry should be started immediately. There is ample evidence that Barr lied to Congress, to begin with.

Quote:
... Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., reiterated his position on Wednesday that Barr should resign, adding that he "continued to mislead members of Congress."

Van Hollen has taken issue with Barr's answer he gave at an April 20th hearing when the Democratic senator asked the attorney general if Mueller supported the conclusion Barr laid out in his memo. Barr replied, "I don't know whether Mueller supported my conclusion."

"We now know Mueller stated his concerns on March 27th, and that Barr totally misled me, the Congress, and the public. He must resign," Van Hollen tweeted late Tuesday. ...
https://www.usnews.com/news/politics...-him-to-resign
  #858  
Old 05-01-2019, 05:22 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 25,306
Barr won't testify before the House on Thursday.
  #859  
Old 05-01-2019, 05:32 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 6,596
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
Such a cowardly toady.
  #860  
Old 05-06-2019, 04:36 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 7,822
Even Faux News is reporting this story. I won't link to the Faux version because I respect (most of) you.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/pol...ed-if-n1002436


"The ex-prosecutors — who have served under both Republican and Democratic administrations dating back to President Dwight D. Eisenhower — said Attorney General William Barr's decision not to charge Trump with obstruction "runs counter to logic and our experience."
The letter added, “Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice.”
  #861  
Old 05-06-2019, 06:36 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 25,306
I'm glad to see people speaking out publicly.
  #862  
Old 05-07-2019, 10:28 AM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 25,306
Hey, look: Mitch McConnell is speaking out publicly!
Quote:
The Republican leader, in his most significant public comments yet on the investigation, is expected to outline in a Tuesday speech how special counsel Robert Mueller’s “exhaustive” probe went on for two years and is now complete. The remarks are being billed as his final thoughts on the topic.

“It’s finally over,” McConnell is expected to say.
Quote:
McConnell is expected to question if others are ready to move on from the “breathless conspiracy theorizing?” The Kentucky senator will suggest he doubts so.
  #863  
Old 05-07-2019, 11:36 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,060
In other, completely unrelated news: McConnell's home state Kentucky is getting a brand new Russian aluminum plant tied to Oleg Deripaska. You remember Oleg - best buddies with that Paul Manafort guy.
  #864  
Old 05-08-2019, 10:00 AM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,024
Cheeto is claiming executive privilege to keep the redacted parts of the report secret from Congress
  #865  
Old 05-08-2019, 10:33 AM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 25,306
I'd like to see headlines that say "Trump Announces Guilt With Executive Privilege Claim".
  #866  
Old 05-08-2019, 11:10 AM
elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 59,798
Quote:
By early Tuesday evening, more than 720 former federal prosecutors who worked in Democratic and Republican administrations had signed a letter asserting that President Trump would have been charged with obstructing justice based on special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s findings — if Trump were not the president....
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.abf506a22823

Started out few days ago as something like two hundred. A growing concern, it would seem
  #867  
Old 05-08-2019, 11:14 AM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 7,822
That's really cool. At least there will be records of opposition so that future generations will know that not all Americans were morons. For what that's worth.
  #868  
Old 05-09-2019, 01:13 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,572
Trump's rhetoric has gone from "No obstruction!" to "essentially no obstruction". https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/d...no-obstruction

Sure, just a little light obstruction of justice. No big deal.
  #869  
Old 05-09-2019, 01:25 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 9,263
Some people say that there's a MUE-LLER to blaaaame, but I know...it's nobody's fault.
  #870  
Old 05-09-2019, 01:27 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 17,677
You can get away with essentially anything, in the Florida panhandle.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #871  
Old 05-10-2019, 08:50 AM
MikeF is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,554
I posted the below in the Pit but the only response I got was, basically, "Reasonable questions". Sorry if this has already been addressed in this thread. I didn't have time to read through the whole thing.

I'm a little slow so help me with this. Trump asserts executive privilege to keep the Muller report under wraps. Executive Privilege exists so that that the president can confer with his advisors without worrying that these conversations will be made "public". Have I got this correct so far? But these conversations have already been released to Muller. Even if Muller quotes whoever said what Trump said, isn't it too late to assert the privilege? Shouldn't have he asserted it before they talked to Muller? I just don't understand how the privilege applies to this whole report. Also, if I understand it correctly, wasn't there an offer to let committee members view the report without making copies? Were there strings attached? Granted, its almost pointless to view a 400 page report with being able to take notes (I assume that's the case). But not completely pointless. I think it would be shrewd move to fight tooth and nail to not release a report or whatever, have a court force you to do so and then have nothing noteworthy in the report. "See. I told you so! Witch hunt!"

Last edited by MikeF; 05-10-2019 at 08:51 AM.
  #872  
Old 05-10-2019, 09:51 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 9,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeF View Post
I posted the below in the Pit but the only response I got was, basically, "Reasonable questions". Sorry if this has already been addressed in this thread. I didn't have time to read through the whole thing.

I'm a little slow so help me with this. Trump asserts executive privilege to keep the Muller report under wraps. Executive Privilege exists so that that the president can confer with his advisors without worrying that these conversations will be made "public". Have I got this correct so far? But these conversations have already been released to Muller. Even if Muller quotes whoever said what Trump said, isn't it too late to assert the privilege? Shouldn't have he asserted it before they talked to Muller? I just don't understand how the privilege applies to this whole report. Also, if I understand it correctly, wasn't there an offer to let committee members view the report without making copies? Were there strings attached? Granted, its almost pointless to view a 400 page report with being able to take notes (I assume that's the case). But not completely pointless. I think it would be shrewd move to fight tooth and nail to not release a report or whatever, have a court force you to do so and then have nothing noteworthy in the report. "See. I told you so! Witch hunt!"
Nobody takes the claim of executive privilege seriously, but the result of claiming it is that this will be decided by the courts, which takes time, which gives Trump time - time to think of some other way to break the rule of law.
  #873  
Old 05-10-2019, 09:59 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,297
And time to drag it out into campaign season, where he can claim Fake News! Witch Hunt! a little more effectively.
  #874  
Old 05-10-2019, 10:08 AM
OttoDaFe's Avatar
OttoDaFe is online now
Sluice Gate Tender, FCD #3
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Soviet of Washington
Posts: 2,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Nobody takes the claim of executive privilege seriously, but the result of claiming it is that this will be decided by the courts, which takes time, which gives Trump time - time to think of some other way to break the rule of law.
A bit of a tangent, but the judge who will rule on CFSG's lawsuit to block the subpoena to his accounting firm is fast-tracking the process.
Quote:
The judge declared Thursday that the sole issue before him, on the basic question of who should win, is whether the House committee’s demand for private records of several Trump businesses is “a valid exercise of legislative power.”

That, Mehta found, has already been “fully briefed” and he added that, as the judge, he “can discern no benefit from an additional round of legal arguments.” Mehta also said he saw no reason to take the time to further develop the facts of the dispute.
"I don't see why we need a hearing on a preliminary injunction, then a bunch of motions, then a hearing on a permanent injunction. Let's cut to the chase — Tuesday work for you?"

Last edited by OttoDaFe; 05-10-2019 at 10:10 AM. Reason: Linky
  #875  
Old 05-10-2019, 10:24 AM
elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 59,798
A noble gesture. But wouldn't such a procedure be an invitation to appeal? The tears crocodilian would flow, as due process is denied the innocent client! So, maybe one step in the delay and defer strategy is skipped, but all the rest remain.
  #876  
Old 05-10-2019, 10:28 AM
jasg is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Upper left hand corner
Posts: 5,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeF View Post
Also, if I understand it correctly, wasn't there an offer to let committee members view the report without making copies? Were there strings attached? Granted, its almost pointless to view a 400 page report with being able to take notes (I assume that's the case). But not completely pointless. I think it would be shrewd move to fight tooth and nail to not release a report or whatever, have a court force you to do so and then have nothing noteworthy in the report. "See. I told you so! Witch hunt!"
You are correct - as Politico explains.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Politico
When Barr released the public version of Mueller’s report earlier this month, he withheld four categories of material: classified information, material related to ongoing investigations, information that could damage the reputation of “peripheral third parties” and evidence collected by Mueller’s grand jury. Barr’s less-redacted report for the 12 lawmakers allowed them access to each category except grand jury material.

Under the terms offered by Barr, each lawmaker granted access would also be allowed to designate one staff member to view the report. The report was made available at Justice Department headquarters last week and is available for lawmakers and aides to review in a secure room on Capitol Hill this week. Information could not be shared with other lawmakers.

“While the Department will permit notetaking, the Department asks that all notes remain at the Department in its secure facility,” Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd wrote to lawmakers earlier this month, outlining the terms of their access. “Department officials will transfer notes to and from Capitol Hill for in camera review sessions that take place there.”
  #877  
Old 05-10-2019, 11:07 AM
OttoDaFe's Avatar
OttoDaFe is online now
Sluice Gate Tender, FCD #3
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Soviet of Washington
Posts: 2,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
A noble gesture. But wouldn't such a procedure be an invitation to appeal? The tears crocodilian would flow, as due process is denied the innocent client! So, maybe one step in the delay and defer strategy is skipped, but all the rest remain.
An appeal is pretty much guaranteed, especially if CFSG loses. And there's no assurance whatsoever that the subsequent court(s), or other courts evaluating similar lawsuits, will expedite.

But it's my understanding that CFSG's pattern is to stretch out litigation until the other party runs out of money and/or patience. So any action, however small, which serves to thwart this tactic is welcome.
  #878  
Old 05-14-2019, 04:59 AM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 7,822
"Attorney General William P. Barr has tapped John H. Durham, the U.S. attorney for the District of Connecticut, to investigate the origins of the special counsel’s probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Barr picked Durham in recent weeks to work on the review, which is designed to ensure the U.S. government’s “intelligence collection activities” related to the Trump campaign were “lawful and appropriate,” a person familiar with the decision said."


https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.13b19f13770f


Congress still hasn't seen the full report that Barr felt a great duty to whitewash. But now we're going to get answers. Important answers to questions like: Hey, how did this get started, anyway?
  #879  
Old 05-14-2019, 05:06 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,189
See, I remember the president firing the head of the FBI then bragging that it was about investigations into him.
  #880  
Old 05-14-2019, 08:27 AM
enipla is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Colorado Rockies.
Posts: 14,119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
See, I remember the president firing the head of the FBI then bragging that it was about investigations into him.
Junior and Kushner meeting with Russians and Trump trying to cover that up may have had something to do with it too.

But, but, it was about orphans, yeah, that's the ticket.
__________________
I don't live in the middle of nowhere, but I can see it from here.
  #881  
Old 05-14-2019, 10:02 AM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,644
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
"Attorney General William P. Barr has tapped John H. Durham, the U.S. attorney for the District of Connecticut, to investigate the origins of the special counsel’s probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Barr picked Durham in recent weeks to work on the review, which is designed to ensure the U.S. government’s “intelligence collection activities” related to the Trump campaign were “lawful and appropriate,” a person familiar with the decision said."


https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.13b19f13770f


Congress still hasn't seen the full report that Barr felt a great duty to whitewash. But now we're going to get answers. Important answers to questions like: Hey, how did this get started, anyway?
I just started a separate thread about this as I think it will likely be the first of protracted Benghazi-like tenacity (and a similar nothingburger outcome) but we will see.
  #882  
Old 05-14-2019, 10:13 AM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,644
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Nobody takes the claim of executive privilege seriously, but the result of claiming it is that this will be decided by the courts, which takes time, which gives Trump time - time to think of some other way to break the rule of law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
And time to drag it out into campaign season, where he can claim Fake News! Witch Hunt! a little more effectively.
We may see how successful the delay strategy is going to be by the end of today. Rachel Maddow has been telling this tale but here's the Politico take on things.

Essentially U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta acted like he was aware of Trump's strategy and he rebuffed the prospect of a drawn-out process much to the consternation of Trump's attorneys.
Quote:
The judge decided to expedite the process, deciding only to hear in-person arguments by Trump’s lawyers and the House general counsel before making a ruling.

That move bodes poorly for Trump. It suggests the judge didn’t want to drag out the case as Democrats seek to quickly gather evidence of Trump’s alleged financial impropriety. On Monday, ahead of the hearing, Trump’s attorneys telegraphed those concerns in a new court filing and asked Mehta to cancel the hearing altogether and set a trial date.

“While Plaintiffs understand the Court’s desire to decide this case efficiently, resolving it in this way—and on this schedule—will severely prejudice Plaintiffs,” Trump attorney William S. Consovoy wrote.

Mehta later formally denied Consovoy’s request, writing in a brief order Monday night: “The hearing will proceed tomorrow as scheduled.”
  #883  
Old 05-14-2019, 12:17 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,157
Page 2 of this document contains a list of the targets of the Deutsche Bank subpoena. The list begins
  • ▋▋▋▋▋▋▋▋▋▋▋▋▋
  • Donald J. Trump
  • Donald Trump, Jr.
  • Eric Trump
  • Ivanka Trump
  • ▋▋▋▋▋▋▋▋▋▋▋▋▋▋▋▋▋▋▋▋▋▋▋
  • The Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust
  • ...
Note that the first four visible items are the names of humanoids; all the remaining visible items are business entities operated by those humanoids. The questions is: Why were two items redacted?

My guess is that the redacted items are subheadings, perhaps "Individuals" and "Business organizations" respectively. But then why were the subheadings redacted? Was it just a ploy to get conspiracy theorists agog, so the Trumpists could later come back with a Gotcha! ?

And why don't redactions, where possible, use up available white space? Here they're almost using the redaction lengths as hints to what was redacted.
  #884  
Old 05-14-2019, 04:52 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 6,596
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Page 2 of this document contains a list of the targets of the Deutsche Bank subpoena. The list begins
  • ▋▋▋▋▋▋▋▋▋▋▋▋▋
  • Donald J. Trump
  • Donald Trump, Jr.
  • Eric Trump
  • Ivanka Trump
  • ▋▋▋▋▋▋▋▋▋▋▋▋▋▋▋▋▋▋▋▋▋▋▋
  • The Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust
  • ...
Note that the first four visible items are the names of humanoids; all the remaining visible items are business entities operated by those humanoids. The questions is: Why were two items redacted?

My guess is that the redacted items are subheadings, perhaps "Individuals" and "Business organizations" respectively. But then why were the subheadings redacted? Was it just a ploy to get conspiracy theorists agog, so the Trumpists could later come back with a Gotcha! ?

And why don't redactions, where possible, use up available white space? Here they're almost using the redaction lengths as hints to what was redacted.
Presumably it was someone on the House committee, who constructed those redactions.

The CapOne subpoena has no individual listed, and no category title for the list of business entities.

It's weird. I can't think of a reason for it. Some on Twitter were coming up with names, rather than category titles, that could fit into the redacted spaces...but why would Melania or Barron (for example) be listed first, and Donald second?

Granted, that WOULD annoy him....
  #885  
Old 05-17-2019, 06:29 AM
UnwittingAmericans is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 272
A federal district court judge yesterday ordered DOJ to release in unredacted form some portions of Flynn's testimony, and ordered prosecutors to publicly file transcripts of any calls Flynn had with Kislyak (the content of which is what Flynn was convicted of lying about).

I assume DOJ can appeal, but this gets the ball rolling towards a potential constitutional showdown with Barr.
  #886  
Old 05-17-2019, 04:42 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 6,596
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnwittingAmericans View Post
A federal district court judge yesterday ordered DOJ to release in unredacted form some portions of Flynn's testimony, and ordered prosecutors to publicly file transcripts of any calls Flynn had with Kislyak (the content of which is what Flynn was convicted of lying about).

I assume DOJ can appeal, but this gets the ball rolling towards a potential constitutional showdown with Barr.
And lest we forget, the only reason such a potential move forward is occurring is that we happen to have a federal district court judge in place who isn't Trump's minion.

As time goes on, we will be less and less able count on that bulwark remaining in place.
  #887  
Old 05-18-2019, 03:18 PM
Fiveyearlurker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,474
The first GOP Congress person to release a statement favoring impeachment.

https://twitter.com/justinamash/stat...952236546?s=21
  #888  
Old 05-18-2019, 04:34 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,713
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker View Post
The first GOP Congress person to release a statement favoring impeachment.

https://twitter.com/justinamash/stat...952236546?s=21
Holy cow.

I disagree with Representative Amash politically on nearly everything, but that series of tweets was perfectly on point.

I wonder what will be done to him by his cohorts.
  #889  
Old 05-18-2019, 04:57 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 6,596
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
Holy cow.

I disagree with Representative Amash politically on nearly everything, but that series of tweets was perfectly on point.

I wonder what will be done to him by his cohorts.
If crucifixion were legal, they'd be calling for it. He does hit them pretty specifically (in addition to hitting Trump):

Quote:
"We’ve witnessed members of Congress from both parties shift their views 180 degrees—on the importance of character, on the principles of obstruction of justice—depending on whether they’re discussing Bill Clinton or Donald Trump," he explained.

According to Amash, this partisanship also resulted in few members of Congress actually reading the entire Mueller report.

"[T]heir minds were made up based on partisan affiliation—and it showed," he wrote, "with representatives and senators from both parties issuing definitive statements on the 448-page report’s conclusions within just hours of its release."
https://www.newsweek.com/republican-...onduct-1429655

Of course we're all wondering if Amash might be a domino. Wouldn't that be something!
  #890  
Old 05-18-2019, 05:08 PM
Fiveyearlurker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,474
I guess we finally found the actual conservative.
  #891  
Old 05-18-2019, 10:33 PM
elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 59,798
You say that like its a good thing. Which, under the circumstances, sorta kinda....
  #892  
Old 05-19-2019, 12:02 AM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 14,903
Amash (who represents the district adjacent to mine) is considering a run for president as a Libertarian in 2020. I'm pretty sure this has something to do with that. I think we can expect an announcement from him sometime between now and January.

He's an asshole, but he's actually a different kind of asshole from the usual assholes in the Grand Old Party of Assholes.

Last edited by Happy Lendervedder; 05-19-2019 at 12:04 AM.
  #893  
Old 05-19-2019, 08:28 AM
Fiveyearlurker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
You say that like its a good thing. Which, under the circumstances, sorta kinda....
I believe that a healthy conservative wing is necessary. We don't have many actual conservatives anymore though.
  #894  
Old 05-20-2019, 01:43 PM
Fiveyearlurker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker View Post
The first GOP Congress person to release a statement favoring impeachment.

https://twitter.com/justinamash/stat...952236546?s=21
Amash continues to shame his colleagues.
  #895  
Old 05-20-2019, 01:58 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 7,822
Oh God, I hope he's careful with these accusations, Trump is liable to make fun of his ears or something.
  #896  
Old 05-21-2019, 06:49 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 9,263
This won't be the domino. The Republican party is wedded to corruption, and the sponsors and benefactors of the party, who use the party to impose a growing oligarchy, will severely punish those who try to break away from their gang.

Consider the example of Don McGahn:

Quote:
If Mr. McGahn ... defies the White House, Mr. McGahn could not only damage his own career in Republican politics but also put his law firm, Jones Day, at risk of having the president urge his allies to withhold their business. The firm’s Washington practice is closely affiliated with the party.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.9ea230c5031e

Simply put, the entire Republican party is corrupt. They don't play by the rules. In their world, there are no rules. They want to break down American democracy so that it no longer functions credibly as a mechanism for popular representation.
  #897  
Old 05-21-2019, 07:51 AM
MikeF is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,554
A quick question - just who is McGahn's client? The president himself or the office? As McGahn is now a private citizen, is he bound to follow orders issued by Trump or the WH?
  #898  
Old 05-21-2019, 08:18 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 9,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeF View Post
A quick question - just who is McGahn's client? The president himself or the office? As McGahn is now a private citizen, is he bound to follow orders issued by Trump or the WH?
I think that Trump will assert that whatever the House wants from McGahn falls under the rubric of executive privilege/classified material. I could see Barr threatening jail for anyone who testifies about anything discussed in the White House. Obviously it would be nonsense, but nonsense can no longer be ignored as an empty threat.
  #899  
Old 05-21-2019, 08:26 AM
Fiveyearlurker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeF View Post
A quick question - just who is McGahn's client? The president himself or the office? As McGahn is now a private citizen, is he bound to follow orders issued by Trump or the WH?
Well, the RNC did pay McGahn's law firm, Jones Day, 2 million dollars last month for "LEGAL AND COMPLIANCE SERVICES". So, that might have something to do with where his loyalties lie.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:48 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017