“…we have 300 hamburgers, many, many french fries — all of our favorite foods.”
All of your favorite foods, President Bell & Howell.
The Atlantic has an interesting article about reactions to the NYTimes story, and What It All Means.
Well worth the read.
Are you? Not me.
This is a man who:
[ul]
[li]Believes there is more evidence for an investigation into the Clinton Foundation and the “Uranium 1 Deal” than there is for the investigation into Trump’s “collusion.” To be fair, he tried to back away from his earlier writings about the matter but got nailed when Peter Baker of the New York Times posted the text of Barr’s email to him relating to this issue on Twitter (CNN).[/li][li]Made the following conflicting statements at the confirmation hearing yesterday: 1) Would abide by the advisory DOJ policy (not law, mind you) that a sitting president cannot be indicted, and 2) Would release as much of Mueller’s report as he could “in accordance with the rules and regulations governing” release of the report. Of course he fails to mention that he is in charge of what rules and regulations govern the release of the report. The rules to which he refers apply to bringing charges – something he said couldn’t be done. [/li]
He then went on to leave himself a tremendous amount of latitude to withhold much of the information in Mueller’s report, including information Congress would need to determine if Trump committed high crimes and/or misdemeanors. In other words, he will fight any indictment Mueller may wish to file, and simultaneously gave himself room to stifle the information Congress would need to impeach.
[li]Would not agree to be bound by the recommendations of career ethics lawyers in the DOJ if they conclude he should recuse himself from overseeing the Mueller investigation.[/li][li]Praised Jeff Sessions in glowing terms as one of the best AGs ever.[/li][li]Stated he views fentanyl as “sort of the new crack.” Do you know how he dealt with crack in the 90s?[/li][/ul]
Still think he’s great? I don’t. I think he is exactly the man Trump and Republicans dreamed he could be.
Before his confirmation hearing, I had hoped he might be a pick in the manner of Rod Rosenstein and Christopher Wray, both Trump picks who turned out to be Institutionalists first and Trump supporters second. But I think he is more in the style of Mike Pompeo – a true danger to this country and its values. And remember, this is a Dick Cheney pick.
Giuliani concedes that the Trump campaign may have collided with Russia.
<mirthless laugh> “Collided” is right. 
Rudy: “Oh, sure, campaign folks may have colluded with Russians. But Trump never knew anything about it. Not right away. And so what if he did know? It’s not a crime to talk to Russians!! Hillary talks to Russians!! Lock her up!!”
We’re so far down the rabbit hole, I fear we will never escape.
This is Giuliani’s standard move for getting out in front of news that’s coming out.
That’s so. It does raise a thought about what might be about to drop soon. I hate to get my hopes up, though.
(Pleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleaseplease…!!!)
Given RudyG’s admission, wonder why the GOPTrump team
- Isn’t just PISSED at Manafort now
- Just passed legislation lifting sanctions on the buyers of Manafort’s data
?
The President can withdraw a nomination at any time before a vote on the Senate floor, I believe.
You pass confirmation, President tries to withdraw your nomination, and you take the job anyway? Now, that’s chutzpah!
LOL, you must not have kids. “The president serves everyone McDonald’s” is the worst possible way to turn kids against him. My daughter LOVES McD’s, although we only let her have it on rare occasion, generally when we are on a long road trip.
More like black hole, I think. I’m hoping that as a nation, we have not passed the event horizon and are thus invisible to the rest of the world.
Is your daughter under voting age? I’m sure even Clemson footballers would regard Mickey Dee as fuel, not food. Was there anything about what their reaction was when they walked in on a pile of gelid quarter-pounders?
Not getting your point.
We really don’t have a Michael Cohen thread, so putting this here:
Bolding mine - didn’t want anyone to miss that little detail.
He’s obviously not the ideal choice, but I think he seems to be a little more neutral than I initially thought.
[quote=“Aspenglow, post:9005, topic:800093”]
[LIST]
[li]Believes there is more evidence for an investigation into the Clinton Foundation and the “Uranium 1 Deal” than there is for the investigation into Trump’s “collusion.” To be fair, he tried to back away from his earlier writings about the matter but got nailed when Peter Baker of the New York Times posted the text of Barr’s email to him relating to this issue on Twitter (CNN).[/li][/QUOTE]
His musings via email are one thing. What concerns me the most are what happens when you put someone in a position in which they can directly influence the outcome of an investigation? Is there evidence that he’s hyper-partisan to the put where he would try to impede an investigation for purely political reasons? I felt that was obviously the case with Matt Whittaker, and I had worried that was true with Barr, but I’m less convinced than I was that Barr is going to be Trump’s lackey. I accept at face value that, at this stage in his life, he hasn’t much to gain unless he’s trying to become president one day, and I highly doubt that’s the case. Being an AG isn’t a good springboard for the Oval Office.
[quote=“Aspenglow, post:9005, topic:800093”]
[li]Made the following conflicting statements at the confirmation hearing yesterday: 1) Would abide by the advisory DOJ policy (not law, mind you) that a sitting president cannot be indicted, and 2) Would release as much of Mueller’s report as he could “in accordance with the rules and regulations governing” release of the report. Of course he fails to mention that he is in charge of what rules and regulations govern the release of the report. The rules to which he refers apply to bringing charges – something he said couldn’t be done. [/li][/QUOTE]
I am in agreement that a sitting president can’t (or at least shouldn’t be indicted) - that’s why impeachment exists. Nor do I view it as necessarily problematic if he treats confidential documents related to non-indictments as confidential. Keep in mind, too, that there may be ways for the House to get much, if not most, of the crucial information out in the public sphere. But there will be a lot of the investigation that remains classified and confidential, and that may be Barr’s call alone. Law enforcement and national security agencies might intervene as well. I didn’t read into his testimony that he was going to bury it all.
Barr is certainly not my first choice for an AG, but then again Trump wasn’t my choice for president. I am not saying that Barr couldn’t ultimately turn out to be bad news, only that I’m not quite as anxious about him as I was before. I guess the jury’s still out.
Cohen directly implicates the president in poll rigging:
“As for the @WSJ article on poll rigging, what I did was at the direction of and for the sole benefit of @realDonaldTrump @POTUS. I truly regret my blind loyalty to a man who doesn’t deserve it.”
Most of the first link is behind a paywall, but what I read is hillarious. IT company shows up at Trump Tower to collect $50k for services rendered. Cohen gives them $12k in cash in a Walmart bag, and a boxing glove from some MMA guy.
The story cuts off there; it may be that Cohen also gave the company some Trump steaks, a BOGO coupon for soup, a genuine replica Civil War hat, or a ketchup bottle actually once used by DJT.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Trump, even through flunkeys, has *never *overpaid anyone.
You mean hamberders?