Cont: The Trump Presidency: Part 19

[alfaniner]

Speculation is he's going to invoke Executive Privilege to prevent Bolton from testifying. "It's not about me! It's because I want to protect all future Presidents!" he says.

 

[Trebuchet]

Speculation is he's going to invoke Executive Privilege to prevent Bolton from testifying. "It's not about me! It's because I want to protect all future Presidents!" he says.

So did Nixon.

 

[Steve]

Guess if you can't get any of those promised jobs for coal miners this is the next best thing.

I haven't looked but tell me, is the GOP responsible for this bill or is it bipartisan?

If they can’t get jobs as coal miners then they are not coal miners. How can benefits for coal miners benefit them?

(Trump always has an out)

 

[acbytesla]

Speculation is he's going to invoke Executive Privilege to prevent Bolton from testifying. "It's not about me! It's because I want to protect all future Presidents!" he says.

I can't imagine Roberts not dismissing that assertion out of hand if the Senate wants Bolton to testify.

 

[Andy_Ross]

NATOME

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If they can’t get jobs as coal miners then they are not coal miners. How can benefits for coal miners benefit them?

(Trump always has an out)

Pensions are for retired miners and health can can include people disabled from mining like those with Black Lung disease.

But I have not seen the legislation.

It might also be a fake campaign issue, one that distracts from the no-jobs issue.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

This was the exchange:









To which I said:







A narrative can be pointing out one thing while ignoring something else. That's one way narratives work.



Barr seriously misrepresented the Mueller Report. He not only claimed claimed he couldn't indict, he went on to say there was nothing to indict over, but there was. And that is what Stacyhs was talking about, Barr could have done more than just say there was no reason to change the 40 year old policy. You answered emphasizing the narrow piece about indicting a sitting POTUS.



Mueller said there were crimes but it wasn't his call. Barr not only said that one "can't indict", he claimed there were no crimes of POTUS obstruction in the report.



Stacyhs pointed to Barr's position of refusing to indict as an example of bias. You shifted the subject to one thing you felt was defensible.



The Atlantic:Five Things I Learned From the Mueller Report - A careful reading of the dense document delivers some urgent insights.

I took issue with this statement:

"Barr's bias has been evident since his declaration that a sitting president cannot be charged with a crime..."

I get what was meant by it.

I get that Barr misrepresented the report.

Not sure what else there is to clear up, but there's no need for you to deign to educate me on the subject or make further aspersions about some "narrative" I have.

My point was more along the lines of "maybe the lead example of Barr's bias should be something other than his making a (yes, rare) factually correct statement about DOJ policy."

The fact it has to be followed up with further explanations and clarifications makes it a weak lead statement.

Anything else I can clear up?

 

[Lurch]

To me, any continuing flap about 'bias' in the FBI over the FISA process is like the flap over the whistleblower. Events have so far outpaced them as to be rendered effectively meaningless in the context of Trumpco's criminality.

Here we can rightly exclaim to the hand-wringers attempting to distract via such tertiary drivel: Do keep up!

 

[Aridas]

First Trump claimed that there was an 'imminent' attack planned against Americans by Soleimani as a justification for his assassination. No evidence of this has been put forth by the Trump administration. In fact, the 'evidence' was mocked as "sophomoric", and "utterly unconvincing". Even Republican Senators Mike Lee and Rand Paul agreed it was "one of the worst military briefings" they'd heard.

Today we were told that the threat was against a US embassy...or embassies. Pompeo admitted he didn't know where or when these alleged attacks would occur so why they were considered 'imminent' is anyone's guess. Pompeo also claimed that members of Congress were informed about the threat to the embassy/embassies, but several members have denied that. Trump admitted today that he "believes" it would have been four embassies. He stressed the word "believes" instead of saying he "knows". In Trump speak, that means "I'm just making this up".

This administration's credibility is non-existent. It's a sad, sad day when the first reaction to anything the say is disbelief but they are the victims of their own making.

Pompeo's words on this matter simply can't be trusted, regardless. Looks like he's had a personal vendetta against Soleimani for a long time, in particular.

The source told CNN that as the years have gone by, Pompeo has told friends and colleagues that "I will not retire from public service until Soleimani is off the battlefield."

Why is it you get your panties in a twist over the slightest "potential' impropriety of the FBI and totally ignore the mountains of evidence of actual crimes and abuses of power of members of the Trump family and this administration?

...I'm afraid that I'm going to have to side with Zig on the "potential" bit. Errors happened, according to the report, some of which certainly deserve further investigation and potentially prosecution. To repeat, that those errors happened is a problem - one that's well worth addressing. If you are set on accusing Zig of hypocrisy, though, I would suggest poking at something more closely related. Like his reaction to the significant and impactful pro-Trump/anti-Hillary bias at the FBI that led to multiple cases of the FBI acting to support Trump's campaign and hurt Hillary's, his reactions to the GOP's brazen lying and absurd spin attempts in its propaganda to try to claim serious anti-Trump bias at the FBI, especially when it came to stuff related to Mueller, and his "anything that can be twisted into ends justify the means" support of what was, for all practical purposes, an actual politically motivated witch hunt.

If that's not enough for you, of course, I suppose you could branch off to his recent claim that he simply doesn't care what evidence of Russia's influence over Trump there is because of the Trump's Administration's actions that are supporting the oil and gas industries, with the underlying premise being that lowering the price of oil and gas will hurt Putin's power and influence. It would be easy to note, for example, that Trump's personally driven up the price of oil over and over and over with his own actions. Like pulling out the Iran deal and acting to pick fights with them over and over. Putin's benefited quite significantly from Trump's personal actions that affect oil prices, overall, and the prices have indeed risen significantly from what they were at the start of his Presidency, after all. But, of course, that wouldn't address what he actually said. And that you were being unreasonable in your response, in this instance. There's plenty to poke at, when it comes to Zig, but not even remotely everything - and for your sake, I suggest paying attention to what he's actually saying, or he'll likely twist you around his finger with your mistaken assumptions and the discussion will then be all about your mistakes, leading to much less useful discourse and much more unhappiness on your part.

Guess if you can't get any of those promised jobs for coal miners this is the next best thing.

I haven't looked but tell me, is the GOP responsible for this bill or is it bipartisan?

Manchin's a Democrat and was apparently leading the effort. Bipartisan effort, but no statement on how bipartisan. Looks like the kind of thing that Democrats largely support, though, and that the GOP tends to oppose.

 

[acbytesla]

...I'm afraid that I'm going to have to side with Zig on the "potential" bit. Errors happened, according to the report, some of which certainly deserve further investigation and potentially prosecution. To repeat, that those errors happened is a problem - one that's well worth addressing.

I don't doubt that there are errors in the FISA warrant system. And that those errors should be addressed. That said, I also have no doubt that an investigation was warranted.

I also have no doubt, absolutely none, that there is substantial evidence that Trump is a criminal and a traitor that wantonly ignores every rule and every law. And that Zig is just hammering at the FISA shortcomings as a way to excuse Trump's corruption.

 

[Stacyhs]

I took issue with this statement:

"Barr's bias has been evident since his declaration that a sitting president cannot be charged with a crime..."

I get what was meant by it.

I get that Barr misrepresented the report.

Not sure what else there is to clear up, but there's no need for you to deign to educate me on the subject or make further aspersions about some "narrative" I have.

My point was more along the lines of "maybe the lead example of Barr's bias should be something other than his making a (yes, rare) factually correct statement about DOJ policy."

You missed my point. Barr didn't just make a "factually correct statement about DOJ policy"; before his nomination, he sent an unsolicited 15 page memo to the WH presenting his opinion as to why Trump's public interactions with FBI Director Comey were not obstruction of justice.[/U]. He then declared during his confirmation hearings:

"You know, for 40 years the position of the executive branch has been you can't indict a sitting president," Barr says. "I see no reason to change them."

That is not just stating the policy; that is expressing his support for it.

The fact it has to be followed up with further explanations and clarifications makes it a weak lead statement.

Anything else I can clear up?

If the 'it' is referring to my statement said you 'took issue with', then you did need further explanation and clarifications as you first responded with "Barr didn't create the policy" which I never said he did in the first place.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

.... Manchin's a Democrat and was apparently leading the effort. Bipartisan effort, but no statement on how bipartisan. Looks like the kind of thing that Democrats largely support, though, and that the GOP tends to oppose.

That's what I guessed, GOP taking credit for things they didn't do. Trump is obsessive about doing that.

 

[Cabbage]

You haven't actually been paying attention. I haven't claimed that there was bias.

Oh, so you're "Just Asking Questions" when you bring it up persistently?



Gotcha

 

[Cabbage]

Again, I'm not claiming that there was bias.

Oh sure you're not claiming it.

You just keep bringing it up over and over again.

Oh, but you don't actually believe it!

LOL! Sure, brother!

Tell me another one.

 

[Ziggurat]

Oh sure you're not claiming it.

You just keep bringing it up over and over again.

I didn't bring it up. newyorkguy did.

 

[varwoche]

Speculation is he's going to invoke Executive Privilege to prevent Bolton from testifying. "It's not about me! It's because I want to protect all future Presidents!" he says.

The unanswered question of the day (at least so far as I'm concerned)... If this happens, and the claim is disputed, who decides?

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Speculation is he's going to invoke Executive Privilege to prevent Bolton from testifying. "It's not about me! It's because I want to protect all future Presidents!" he says.

He wants there to be future presidents? That's reassuring.
Or does he mean after he's died of old age, or carted off to a home?

 

[Delphic Oracle]

You missed my point. Barr didn't just make a "factually correct statement about DOJ policy"; before his nomination, he sent an unsolicited 15 page memo to the WH presenting his opinion as to why Trump's public interactions with FBI Director Comey were not obstruction of justice.[/U]. He then declared during his confirmation hearings:



That is not just stating the policy; that is expressing his support for it.




If the 'it' is referring to my statement said you 'took issue with', then you did need further explanation and clarifications as you first responded with "Barr didn't create the policy" which I never said he did in the first place.

Christ.

On.

A.

Cracker.

I pointed out a weak/vague statement that was made. I can see this has upset several people greatly.

I do not need a lesson on the timeline of events or the positions individuals have taken, I'm quite aware and have been following along the whole time.

I will probably continue calling out weak or vague statements in the future, theatrics and hysterics don't sway me.

Weak, overbroad claims erode a premise.

Stop using them.

 

[acbytesla]

The unanswered question of the day (at least so far as I'm concerned)... If this happens, and the claim is disputed, who decides?

Chief Justice John Roberts.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Trump Tweets

“FBI Director apologizes for FISA Errors (of which there were far to many to be a coincidence!).”
@FoxNews Chris, what about all of the lives that were ruined because of the so-called “errors?” Are these “dirty cops” going to pay a big price for the fraud they committed?

New polling shows that the totally partisan Impeachment Hoax is going nowhere. A vast majority want the Do Nothing Democrats to move on to other things now!

Nancy Pelosi will go down as the absolute worst Speaker of the House in U.S. history!

Now the Radical Left, Do Nothing Democrats, are asking @senatemajldr Mitch McConnell to do the job that they were unable to do. They proved NOTHING but my total innocence in the House, despite the most unfair & biased hearings in the history of Congress. Now they demand fairness!

95% Approval Rating in the Republican Party, a record. 53% Approval Rating overall (can we add 7 to 10 percent because of the Trump “thing?”). Thank you!