Trump allows attorney general to declassify information about origins of Russia probe

[Jingthing]

This makes opening a preliminary impeachment investigation much more likely. Keep in mind that step won't necessarily proceed to a decision to proceed to impeachment.

 

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

 

 

[OtinPattaya]

If the roles were reversed, and a democratic presidential candidate underwent the same sort of "investigation" at the behest of Republicans, all based on a laughably dubious dossier and all manner of partisan grotesqueries, people like Rachel Maddow and Don Lemon would be squealing like stuck pigs in their moral outrage and we would never hear the end of it. Ah, the hypocrisy. It never gets old. 

[Scott]

Numerous off-topic posts, mostly about the statement by Robert Mueller.  

 

Stay on topic and this isn't about Mueller's statement.  

 

 

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, OtinPattaya said:

If the roles were reversed, and a democratic presidential candidate underwent the same sort of "investigation" at the behest of Republicans, all based on a laughably dubious dossier and all manner of partisan grotesqueries, people like Rachel Maddow and Don Lemon would be squealing like stuck pigs in their moral outrage and we would never hear the end of it. Ah, the hypocrisy. It never gets old. 

"all based on a laughably dubious dossier and all manner of partisan grotesqueries"

 

As has been explained repeatedly, the investigation was based on proven Russian interference in the 2016 election, Trump campaign officials with dodgy business dealings with Russians that they lied about, and Trump's suspicious friendliness towards Russia and Putin during the campaign and his Presidency. 

 

There were very legitimate reasons to launch the Mueller investigation; it would have been treasonously irresponsible not to.  The investigation Barr is launching is a different matter.

[lannarebirth]

 

 

 

 

Quote

 

The intelligence community needs a house-cleaning

John Brennan and the CIA claim lives will be endangered if their work is declassified. That excuse only works so many times

 

https://taibbi.substack.com/

 

 

[bristolboy]

4 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

The intelligence community needs a house-cleaning

John Brennan and the CIA claim lives will be endangered if their work is declassified. That excuse only works so many times

 

https://taibbi.substack.com/

 

And the Trump administration is going to do it in a fair and unprejudiced way?

[lannarebirth]

4 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

And the Trump administration is going to do it in a fair and unprejudiced way?

 

When others fail to scrutinize and clean house as needed they leave it up to their rivals to do it. That's not very smart.

 

edit: Personally, I'd like to see people like Brennan and Clapper in stocks being pelted with rotten vegetables and broadcast for everyone to see. 

[bristolboy]

Just now, lannarebirth said:

 

When others fail to scrutinize and clean house as needed they leave it up to their rivals to do it. That's not very smart.

It's even less smart to endorse such a house cleaning by an administration such as this one.

[lannarebirth]

Just now, bristolboy said:

It's even less smart to endorse such a house cleaning by an administration such as this one.

 

It is not optimal I agree, but it's what happens when the establishment loses it's credibility.

[bristolboy]

29 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

It is not optimal I agree, but it's what happens when the establishment loses it's credibility.

Loses its credibility amongst whom? People who rely on conspiracy theories manufactured in Russia or Macedonia? The very fact that you paint this with such a broad brush reveals where you stand on the issue and what sources you give credence to.

[lannarebirth]

55 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Loses its credibility amongst whom? People who rely on conspiracy theories manufactured in Russia or Macedonia? The very fact that you paint this with such a broad brush reveals where you stand on the issue and what sources you give credence to.

 

I'm not into  conspiracy theories but I'm also not going to buy into anything the likes of a Brennan or a Clapper has to say either. These are serial liars and perjurers who for some reason are still given a voice. If there was any true justice they'd be stripped of any rank or retirement benefits and be publically humiliated for the disgraces they are.

[Morch]

6 hours ago, OtinPattaya said:

If the roles were reversed, and a democratic presidential candidate underwent the same sort of "investigation" at the behest of Republicans, all based on a laughably dubious dossier and all manner of partisan grotesqueries, people like Rachel Maddow and Don Lemon would be squealing like stuck pigs in their moral outrage and we would never hear the end of it. Ah, the hypocrisy. It never gets old. 

 

How do you mean "if"? Like the "laughably dubious" Pizzagate, the Birther thing, or them numerous Benghazi efforts?

[albertik]

13 hours ago, heybruce said:

Oh look, a Uranium One troll.  And a newby to TV as well. 

 

Show us what was illegal, unusual, or contrary to US interests in the Uranium One deal.

 

BTW, what happened to the Trump Foundation after he was elected?

You must either be kidding or just plain  …….. BTW, just so you know; all is not as it might appear to you, I am not a newbie, but if it suits you to think that, then enjoy your feeble attempt at demeaning me. It only amplifies your ignorance.  MIC drop.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's a piece by Matt Taibbi. Sensationalism, hype, exaggeration and half-cooked assertions are expected, and delivered.

 

It's one thing saying intelligence services need a review, a reform, a cleaning of stables or whatever. Quite another for it to be "executed" by an administration such as Trump's and at an opportune moment fitting political necessity.

 

[WeekendRaider]

wow!  such an important topic!  

but what if the USA-Has-To-Own-The-World's-5G War plays out faster than this drama does?

and the plan for 12,000 Man Made SpaceX satellites.... while China and Russia just stand back and don't do anything...... example, their own 12,000 Man Made satellites and their own version of 5G.... in Asia, where most of the world lives, although 95% of them so far are not "jet setters", so to speak....

what if.... the Rare Earth thing, which to me is now connected to anything involving Trump.... such as these "legal issues".... what if we can connect the Rare Earth thing to that little old........ peer reviewed..... article in Science by Rosenfeld at Hebrew U. a few weeks ago where he coyly says the conclusion is to 'revisit our models' [oh man] because we have "underestimated" [yet again again] what aerosols do and even if there is only a 20% reduction, visavis some economic thang.... we be in a World of Hurt... and not just one of "legal issues" in Saharat Amerikee.   

[lannarebirth]

12 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

It's a piece by Matt Taibbi. Sensationalism, hype, exaggeration and half-cooked assertions are expected, and delivered.

 

It's one thing saying intelligence services need a review, a reform, a cleaning of stables or whatever. Quite another for it to be "executed" by an administration such as Trump's and at an opportune moment fitting political necessity.

 

The artcle is well referenced and I remember most of the scandalous behaviour he alludes to.

 

Yeah, it's a shame this was left to the likes of Trump and he may make some political capital out of it (or it may blow up in his face), but it's long past time to shine a light on the practices and methods of US intelligence agencies. 

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, albertik said:

You must either be kidding or just plain  …….. BTW, just so you know; all is not as it might appear to you, I am not a newbie, but if it suits you to think that, then enjoy your feeble attempt at demeaning me. It only amplifies your ignorance.  MIC drop.

I see, you were banned for trolling and had to come back with a new identity.

 

Your off-topic deflection about Uranium One has been thoroughly debunked; the deal was legal, it in no way threatens US security, and the State Department had very little to do with it. 

 

Regarding which of us are ignorant, I will let your posts, and lack of informed responses, speak for themselves.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, lannarebirth said:

The artcle is well referenced and I remember most of the scandalous behaviour he alludes to.

 

Yeah, it's a shame this was left to the likes of Trump and he may make some political capital out of it (or it may blow up in his face), but it's long past time to shine a light on the practices and methods of US intelligence agencies. 

 

It's a Taibbi piece. Follows that it will be lengthy, colorful and well referenced. The part where assertions and conclusions based on them references are well supported is a different thing.

 

Allow me to doubt that Trump & Co. got much interest in reforming or improving USA intelligence sources, or that such a possible investigation will be used in a constructive manner. Kinda funny going on about this while dismantling the integrity of both the office held, and other parts of the administration managed.

[lannarebirth]

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Allow me to doubt that Trump & Co. got much interest in reforming or improving USA intelligence sources, or that such a possible investigation will be used in a constructive manner. 

 

I don't maintain that Trump holds an interest in reforming and improving US intelligence agencies. But there's plenty of evidence those agencies need reforming and improving and since long before now. Trump might be able to highlight that while he's trying to serve his own ends. That's not all bad.

[mogandave]

 
Not even remotely correct with regard to my take on Trump supporters, and this was expended on many past posts. So you're either making it up or plain lying. I do thing that there a contingent of Trump fans on this forum which is happy enough cheering anything whatsoever.
 
You apply an almost reflexive deflection (or in other words, defense) even of things which are matter of public record, while engaging in the bizarre unrelated whataboutist commentary.
 
Your take on the obstruction of justice bit as referenced in Muller's report has been repeatedly shown to be misleading, at best.
 
Framing issues of conduct as being merely legal/illegal is part of the bar being lowered. Many things aren't illegal, but are still frowned upon, or not considered proper. I think most people expect the President to be someone who isn't the lowest-common-denominator on this front.
 
That you don't think there's nothing in his tax returns doesn't rely on anything much. If anything, there's quite a bit of information regarding dodgy business practices and conflicting interests which may give some pause. Not you, obviously. Whether he'll release them or not remains to be seen - again, not quite the point.
 
You care more about what he does? Fair enough. Well, almost. Meeting in private with Putin doesn't bother you? Him or his family having business interests in countries concerning USA economic and foreign policy don't bother you? Having a chaotic foreign policy or a merry-go-round-rotation at the White House doesn't bother you? Oh well...
 
You lower the bar by choosing to ignore things which you'd be all over if done or said by another President. Even if one believes he was/is better than the alternative, that (maybe) plays up to a point. If all he's got going is not being Hillary, that's not really saying a whole lot (again, that lowered bar) about his merits. Nor does it serve as much of a credible basis for the spirited defense and support on offer.
 

1. If I am wrong about you generally having contempt for Trump supporters I apologize.

2. I’m not sure what reflexive deflection is. If it means defense, why not just say defense? What things of public record have I denied? To be clear, I don’t consider the press public record. Apparently it’s okay to compare Trump to another President when it makes him look bad, but it’s unacceptable to use a comparison to defend him.

3. My take on obstruction of justice is that Mueller could have come to a conclusion if he had wanted to, he just could not bring charges. This is still my position. Did Ken Starr not conclude President Clinton had obstructed justice?

4. I find much of Trump’s behavior inappropriate, and yes, I would very much prefer he behaved more appropriately, but I do not think those are grounds to run him out of office or not support him.

5. I didn’t say there was nothing in his tax returns. I assume you claiming I did was a mistake on your part, and that you did not intentionally misrepresent what I said. What I said was, I don’t think there will be anything illegal in them. I went on to say there would be a lot of things in the the press would be able to pick through to to attack him with. To be clear, if he is a criminal tax evader I would like to see him prosecuted.

5. I don’t know that the President meeting in private with foreign heads of state is inappropriate or not, is it? Yes, he has business interests in foreign countries and yes, that is conflict of interest. In the event I felt he was making foreign policy decisions based on what best benefits his foreign investments against what best benefits the country I would want him impeached. I do not have any reason to believe he is doing that, do you?

Yes, I would like to see a more stable cabinet, but I blame the press for the turnover as much as anything. I like that Trump supports Israel and moved the embassy, I like what he’s trying to do with the boarder, North Korea and Chiiiiiina. I don’t like tariffs, but I like lower taxes and I am against socialized medicine.

6. You really want to blame me for the low bar? I don’t think that was me. The alternative would have meant a continuation of the previous administration and the leftward shift of the country. In my opinion, that shift would have a much greater negative impact on my friends and family than anything embarrassing Trump’s done.

Why not watch some TV and get back to me about a low bar and how offensive Trump is.

[Morch]

17 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

I don't maintain that Trump holds an interest in reforming and improving US intelligence agencies. But there's plenty of evidence those agencies need reforming and improving and since long before now. Trump might be able to highlight that while he's trying to serve his own ends. That's not all bad.

 

We'll have to disagree about the merits of this being carried out (again, if one assumes that what will actually be carried out bear much relation to reform and improvement) by the Trump administration.

 

I actually think that it's very bad. Not because a review of intelligence services is off-limits, but that doing so in the manner exhibited so far by Trump & Co. might cause lasting damage for years to come, rather than fix anything.

 

The bare-chested horse riding Russian is loving it, that's for sure.

[lannarebirth]

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

We'll have to disagree about the merits of this being carried out (again, if one assumes that what will actually be carried out bear much relation to reform and improvement) by the Trump administration.

 

I actually think that it's very bad. Not because a review of intelligence services is off-limits, but that doing so in the manner exhibited so far by Trump & Co. might cause lasting damage for years to come, rather than fix anything.

 

The bare-chested horse riding Russian is loving it, that's for sure.

 

Yeah, I'm sure Putin is enjoying it, but let's face it, the US has got some big, big problems. Is Trump going to fix them? No he isn't, But he's pretty good at highlighting them or bringing them to the surface. And since we westerners don't have to worry so much about the "loss of face",  I'm glad a light is being shone on some of our major problems. I don't care what Putin thinks about it, I care what I think about it.

[Morch]

20 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

1. If I am wrong about you generally having contempt for Trump supporters I apologize.

2. I’m not sure what reflexive deflection is. If it means defense, why not just say defense? What things of public record have I denied? To be clear, I don’t consider the press public record. Apparently it’s okay to compare Trump to another President when it makes him look bad, but it’s unacceptable to use a comparison to defend him.

3. My take on obstruction of justice is that Mueller could have come to a conclusion if he had wanted to, he just could not bring charges. This is still my position. Did Ken Starr not conclude President Clinton had obstructed justice?

4. I find much of Trump’s behavior inappropriate, and yes, I would very much prefer he behaved more appropriately, but I do not think those are grounds to run him out of office or not support him.

5. I didn’t say there was nothing in his tax returns. I assume you claiming I did was a mistake on your part, and that you did not intentionally misrepresent what I said. What I said was, I don’t think there will be anything illegal in them. I went on to say there would be a lot of things in the the press would be able to pick through to to attack him with. To be clear, if he is a criminal tax evader I would like to see him prosecuted.

5. I don’t know that the President meeting in private with foreign heads of state is inappropriate or not, is it? Yes, he has business interests in foreign countries and yes, that is conflict of interest. In the event I felt he was making foreign policy decisions based on what best benefits his foreign investments against what best benefits the country I would want him impeached. I do not have any reason to believe he is doing that, do you?

Yes, I would like to see a more stable cabinet, but I blame the press for the turnover as much as anything. I like that Trump supports Israel and moved the embassy, I like what he’s trying to do with the boarder, North Korea and Chiiiiiina. I don’t like tariffs, but I like lower taxes and I am against socialized medicine.

6. You really want to blame me for the low bar? I don’t think that was me. The alternative would have meant a continuation of the previous administration and the leftward shift of the country. In my opinion, that shift would have a much greater negative impact on my friends and family than anything embarrassing Trump’s done.

Why not watch some TV and get back to me about a low bar and how offensive Trump is.

 

 

 

Reasoned defense, of leaders, politicians, ideas and agendas is one thing. What's on offer from Trump supporters on many of these topics, is far removed from this. Rather, there a constant stream basically repeating and expanding on the often inane narrative issuing from the President and the White House. This includes counterfactual claims, "alternative facts", and whatnot. As there's been numerous instances of this, pretending it's not a thing just demonstrate the point. One of the latest would be Barr's version of Mueller's report.

 

I've no idea what the comparison to other Presidents was about, and I doubt most such comparisons reflect positively on Trump anyway. Many of the times references to past presidents are made by Trump supporters aren't really about comparisons, but rather means of deflection.

 

Your take on obstruction of justice, with reference to the Mueller report is at a disconnect from the views aired on the report and by Mueller. I believe there was a reference to DOJ policy.

 

We'll have to disagree as to Trump's inappropriate behavior being grounds for opposing him or wishing him out of office. Again, seems like the bar is set rather low on this one. I doubt the same "lenience" would have been afforded for another President, let along a Dem.

 

Yeah, the "illegal" somehow dropped from the comment about Trump's tax returns. You thing there would be nothing illegal found, and it's a choice. Not a good bet, IMO, but each to his own. It can be the case that he there will be nothing illegal as far as USA tax laws go - but that may expose other things, illegal in nature. Again, the argument on offer is reduced to whether Trump did something outright illegal or not. I think that's a rather low bar setting, but could be just me.

 

You don't know that the President meeting in private, and without documentation, with the powerful head of a country not exactly friendly to the USA is inappropriate? Here's a clue, it is. As for Trump's conflict of interest issues, and you having no reason to believe they effect policy decisions - this is based on what, exactly? Trump's business interests are not transparent, and both him and family members provided some conflicting statements (to put it politely on these matters. Given Trump's business career and practices, plus taking into account his tenuous relationship with telling the truth or sticking to facts - why would anyone afford him that level of trust?

 

The press is to blame for the Trump administration personnel turnover? That got to be one of the most bizarre claims made. And here I thought we had a President who prides himself on hiring only the best.

 

I didn't blame just you specifically. You're responsible for what you post, and it is your posts and view expressed which were referenced. And I do get having strong views regarding the USA's so-called "left" or the inadequate candidate fielded. What I'm having trouble with is defining Trump's tenure as merely "embarrassing" - that's the lowering of the bar alluded to. The issues mentioned above go way beyond embarrassment. Willing to ignore or minimize them all is not reasonable.

 

What does TV have to do with any of this? Unless, of course, one was into choosing reality show personas as Presidents. Oh, wait....

 

[Morch]

25 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

Yeah, I'm sure Putin is enjoying it, but let's face it, the US has got some big, big problems. Is Trump going to fix them? No he isn't, But he's pretty good at highlighting them or bringing them to the surface. And since we westerners don't have to worry so much about the "loss of face",  I'm glad a light is being shone on some of our major problems. I don't care what Putin thinks about it, I care what I think about it.

 

I think the effect of Trump's so-called "highlighting" exacerbates more than facilitates issues.

[lannarebirth]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

I think the effect of Trump's so-called "highlighting" exacerbates more than facilitates issues.

 

I think that's probably true given the lack of investigative curiosity of the mainstream press. That's another change I'd like to see.

[Morch]

6 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

I think that's probably true given the lack of investigative curiosity of the mainstream press. That's another change I'd like to see.

 

Right, it's the press's fault. OK. Let's diss another institution while at it. Guess Putin would sign that one  as well. I'll take something that's imperfect over flushing it all down the drain.

[mogandave]

 
Right, it's the press's fault. OK. Let's diss another institution while at it. Guess Putin would sign that one  as well. I'll take something that's imperfect over flushing it all down the drain.

Do you believe mainstream press is unbiased in their reporting of Trump?

[lannarebirth]

2 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

Do you believe mainstream press is unbiased in their reporting of Trump?

 

The verified liars of the intelligence community serve as network "analysts". You think there's any bias to be found there from the networks or the analysts?

[mogandave]

 
 
Reasoned defense, of leaders, politicians, ideas and agendas is one thing. What's on offer from Trump supporters on many of these topics, is far removed from this. Rather, there a constant stream basically repeating and expanding on the often inane narrative issuing from the President and the White House. This includes counterfactual claims, "alternative facts", and whatnot. As there's been numerous instances of this, pretending it's not a thing just demonstrate the point. One of the latest would be Barr's version of Mueller's report.
 
I've no idea what the comparison to other Presidents was about, and I doubt most such comparisons reflect positively on Trump anyway. Many of the times references to past presidents are made by Trump supporters aren't really about comparisons, but rather means of deflection.
 
Your take on obstruction of justice, with reference to the Mueller report is at a disconnect from the views aired on the report and by Mueller. I believe there was a reference to DOJ policy.
 
We'll have to disagree as to Trump's inappropriate behavior being grounds for opposing him or wishing him out of office. Again, seems like the bar is set rather low on this one. I doubt the same "lenience" would have been afforded for another President, let along a Dem.
 
Yeah, the "illegal" somehow dropped from the comment about Trump's tax returns. You thing there would be nothing illegal found, and it's a choice. Not a good bet, IMO, but each to his own. It can be the case that he there will be nothing illegal as far as USA tax laws go - but that may expose other things, illegal in nature. Again, the argument on offer is reduced to whether Trump did something outright illegal or not. I think that's a rather low bar setting, but could be just me.
 
You don't know that the President meeting in private, and without documentation, with the powerful head of a country not exactly friendly to the USA is inappropriate? Here's a clue, it is. As for Trump's conflict of interest issues, and you having no reason to believe they effect policy decisions - this is based on what, exactly? Trump's business interests are not transparent, and both him and family members provided some conflicting statements (to put it politely on these matters. Given Trump's business career and practices, plus taking into account his tenuous relationship with telling the truth or sticking to facts - why would anyone afford him that level of trust?
 
The press is to blame for the Trump administration personnel turnover? That got to be one of the most bizarre claims made. And here I thought we had a President who prides himself on hiring only the best.
 
I didn't blame just you specifically. You're responsible for what you post, and it is your posts and view expressed which were referenced. And I do get having strong views regarding the USA's so-called "left" or the inadequate candidate fielded. What I'm having trouble with is defining Trump's tenure as merely "embarrassing" - that's the lowering of the bar alluded to. The issues mentioned above go way beyond embarrassment. Willing to ignore or minimize them all is not reasonable.
 
What does TV have to do with any of this? Unless, of course, one was into choosing reality show personas as Presidents. Oh, wait....
 

I read Barr’s summary and Mueller’s letter to Barr about his concerns about it, and I don’t see that the summary is not accurate. Had Mueller believed the evidence showed that Trump was guilty of obstruction, he should have stated this in the report.

It has been my experience that “deflection” is a term used by the left when they are unwilling, unable, or uncomfortable discussing something.

My take on Mueller not reaching a conclusion on the O of J charge is that his claim that he was bound by DOJ policy is false. Ken Starr concluded President Clinton was guilty of a number of crimes, including obstruction of justice.

In all honesty, I would likely afford any President pursuing an agenda I agreed with more “lenience” than one who was pursuing an agenda I disagreed with. That may be one difference between you and I, your ideology clearly does not interfere with your position on Trump or cloud you judgement, mine does.

I believe the IRS has been through his taxes and that they are in order. I also think there will be things in there that may be questionable and could be embarrassing. I think an argument can be made that everyone’s tax returns should be made public, but I don’t think an argument can be made that only his are.

You do not believe the constant barrage of negative press and hate spewed at the administration has an effect on the work environment?

What has Trump done that you feel is damaging to the country? I’m not sure what you mean by “so-called left”, but clearly there is a push towards socialism an the alternative to Trump would have advance that. Clearly most of the anti-Trump crowd here support the leftward shift towards socialism, I do not.

TV shows how much vulgar we have become as a society. Trump is just throwing in our face.

[riclag]

 Mr. Barr must declassify all files and hand them over to the investigators. I've heard declassify for over a year by the GOP,while the dems and the media were either silent or complained that it was un-American and would risk national security!Mr. Barr can release files that wouldn't hurt current  intel assets .   Mr. Barr you are dammed if you do dammed if you don't by the dems!