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

[bristolboy]

5 hours 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.

It's pretty obvious what you think about it and it's not at all clear that your views differ all that much from what the Russian and Macedonian trolls would have you think.

[bristolboy]

5 hours 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. 

If by "highlighting them or bringing them to the surface" you mean indulging in wild accusations, then I agree with you 100%,

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-calls-2016-campaign-spying-treason-warns-of-long-jail-sentences

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/23/trump-not-understanding-treason-names-people-he-thinks-committed-capital-crime/?utm_term=.b30be4101841

[Chomper Higgot]

22 minutes ago, riclag said:

 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!

Alternatively Barr could simply respond to Trump by advising him that he as AG and the DOJ are not tools of the President to be used to persecute his political rivals. 

[Morch]

5 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

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

 

 

I believe in not posing loaded questions which aren't really much to do with my post.

[riclag]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Alternatively Barr could simply respond to Trump by advising him that he as AG and the DOJ are not tools of the President to be used to persecute his political rivals. 

There must be a loyal reason why Barr wants to defend the constitution! He must be sicken to what he found when he started his job on the first day! He spoke of this when he cleared Mr. Trump . No collusion ,no obstruction!( Mr. Barr,Mr. Trump had every right to fire Mueller and stop the investigation because it was a hoax).

[mogandave]

 
I believe in not posing loaded questions which aren't really much to do with my post.

I thought we were discussing what impact (if any) the press has on the turnover in the Trump administration which you scoffed at. While you are are certainly welcome to dodge the question, please don’t try to pretend a heavily biased press would have no impact on the work environment.

Everyone that was in, or being considered for positions in the administration were and continue to be attacked mercilessly.

[riclag]

It was so obvious IMOP,that Muellers team was provoking the President ,by intimidating him to commit  obstruction !

Antagonizing and prodding the POTUS each time he went on his 3 summits with coordinated unannounced news briefings

[bristolboy]

9 minutes ago, riclag said:

It was so obvious IMOP,that Muellers team was provoking the President ,by intimidated him to commit  obstruction !

Antagonizing and prodding the POTUS each time he went on his 3 summits with coordinated unannounced news briefings

Yes, I can still remember how Bill Clinton publicly raged and made accusations of treason while the Starr investigation was going on. Clearly, it's impossible for any rational person to control himself while such an investigation is going on.

[mogandave]

Yes, I can still remember how Bill Clinton publicly raged and made accusations of treason while the Starr investigation was going on. Clearly, it's impossible for any rational person to control himself while such an investigation is going on.

You also remember President Clinton was guilty, yes? That may have something to do with it...

Do you happen to remember how the press/left (redundant) attacked Starr?

[Morch]

4 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Regardless of what you see, the President was not clearly exonerated, and obstruction issue wasn't quite as Barr presented it. Maybe in an alternate reality, things were different. I don't know. You wish to claim Mueller is lying or making false claims? Good luck with that, you've moved on to the next level.

 

Not much interested in your alleged experiences regarding your deflections being called deflections. And, by the way, your comment was yet another one of them.

 

I don't know that I'm much into ideology. During my time on this forum I've been repeatedly called a lefty, a fascist and most recently a "......... reactionary non event". Make of it what you will. And you're wrong, I do understand lesser of two evils, taking the good with the bad and whatnot. Not a purist here. All that, and honestly, I doubt I could have found it in me to support someone of Trump's profound inadequacies, regardless of whether his politics matched mine.

 

Something that's "questionable" and "embarrassing" applies for most people. The President is not an ordinary citizen, though, and the repercussions of him being either compromised or in a situation involving a conflict of interests are far more serious. A President ought to be held to a higher standard than most, not the other  way. Saying that this should apply all around is fine, but doesn't make Trump's conduct any less suspect or any more acceptable.

I believe that a whole lot of the negative press Trump and the Trump administration get are earned through actions and conduct. And I don't think this got a whole lot to do with the number of highly placed officials who left. Also, Trump himself doesn't seem to generate much of a positive work environment either. Again, bizarre claim.
 

Sorry, not gonna get into a "what has Trump done that you feel is damaging to the country" - issues are discussed on multiple past and present topics, feigning ignorance is silly and rude. As for the so-called left remark - IMO, much of the USA's So-called Left, would be considered Centrist elsewhere. The version of socialism some of Trump rivals are on about is rather tame, as such things go. That people with views placed either extreme tend to paint anyone not seeing things their way as being this or that doesn't mean a whole lot. In the same way, don't hold with calling all Republicans or Trump supporters fascists and such.

 

TV shows are much more vulgar and reflect how we are as a society. Fine. How does having Trump as President help make things better in this regard? Simple. It doesn't. If anything, it makes things worse. And that's because of the legitimacy coming with the office he holds.

[Morch]

31 minutes ago, riclag said:

There must be a loyal reason why Barr wants to defend the constitution! He must be sicken to what he found when he started his job on the first day! He spoke of this when he cleared Mr. Trump . No collusion ,no obstruction!( Mr. Barr,Mr. Trump had every right to fire Mueller and stop the investigation because it was a hoax).

 

Only the report didn't actually say "no obstruction", and Trump wasn't fully cleared. That's was Barr's initial presented version. And that's way doubts are raised as to his credibility with regard to the issue of declassifying information.

 

The investigation was not a hoax, and it is doubtful Trump had "every right" as claimed.

[Morch]

21 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

I thought we were discussing what impact (if any) the press has on the turnover in the Trump administration which you scoffed at. While you are are certainly welcome to dodge the question, please don’t try to pretend a heavily biased press would have no impact on the work environment.

Everyone that was in, or being considered for positions in the administration were and continue to be attacked mercilessly.
 

 

 

No, I believe that's a bizarre claim you raised, nothing more. I don't "pretend" I just think it's nonsense.

 

 

[Morch]

22 minutes ago, riclag said:

It was so obvious IMOP,that Muellers team was provoking the President ,by intimidating him to commit  obstruction !

Antagonizing and prodding the POTUS each time he went on his 3 summits with coordinated unannounced news briefings

 

Do make up your mind, either he's Fearless Leader, or a neurotic wreck of man who can't handle the pressure. Either way, laughable.

[bristolboy]

13 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

You also remember President Clinton was guilty, yes? That may have something to do with it...

Do you happen to remember how the press/left (redundant) attacked Starr?
 

 

Really? He was removed from office?

[mogandave]

Really? He was removed from office?

You seem like a nice guy, why the constant need to misrepresent what is said?

I said he was guilty, I didn’t say he was removed from office.

He was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice and disbarred.

But of course you knew that.

[bristolboy]

7 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

You seem like a nice guy, why the constant need to misrepresent what is said?

I said he was guilty, I didn’t say he was removed from office.

He was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice and disbarred.

But of course you knew that.

 

impeachment is the equivalent of an indictment. It's not a conviction. If the House impeaches Trump, will that mean he is guilty?

[mike787]

...and the circus keeps going...

[mogandave]

impeachment is the equivalent of an indictment. It's not a conviction. If the House impeaches Trump, will that mean he is guilty?

Yes

[riclag]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

Only the report didn't actually say "no obstruction", and Trump wasn't fully cleared. That's was Barr's initial presented version. And that's way doubts are raised as to his credibility with regard to the issue of declassifying information.

 

The investigation was not a hoax, and it is doubtful Trump had "every right" as claimed.

 

[bristolboy]

7 minutes ago, mogandave said:

Yes

 

Well, you're pretty much alone there.

[stevenl]

1 minute ago, riclag said:

Congress gave the AG the responsibility 20 years ago to determine the outcome of a special counsel report,it  concluded no C, no O

How many times have you been told

You can repeat that many times, still doesn't make it true.

[Morch]

1 minute ago, riclag said:

Congress gave the AG the responsibility 20 years ago to determine the outcome of a special counsel report,it  concluded no C, no O

How many times have you been told

 

Congress didn't give the AG the authority to misrepresent investigation reports.

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, riclag said:

Congress gave the AG the responsibility 20 years ago to determine the outcome of a special counsel report,it  concluded no C, no O

How many times have you been told

No one doubts he has the authority not to proceed with a criminal case. Indeed can't by DOJ rules. But no rational person doubts that Mueller disagrees with him. And no rational person thinks that Congress doesn't have the authority to disagree with him as well.

[riclag]

The original scope was first to find collusion,it wasn't found. After they went with obstruction and they couldn't come to a conclusion and left it up to Barr and Rosenstein

[riclag]

3 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

No one doubts he has the authority not to proceed with a criminal case. Indeed can't by DOJ rules. But no rational person doubts that Mueller disagrees with him. And no rational person thinks that Congress doesn't have the authority to disagree with him as well.

20 years ago they changed the rules after starrs report.Now they want to delegitimize the person they gave the responsibility to oversee the SC! He was elected by the senate ! The dems are truly radical

[bristolboy]

Just now, riclag said:

20 years ago they changed the rules after starrs report.Now they want to delegitimize the person they gave the responsibility to oversee the SC! He was elected by the senate ! The dems are truly radical

Given his misrepresentation of the report and his acting more like Trump's personal attorney than the AG, why should you be surprised?

[riclag]

3 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Given his misrepresentation of the report and his acting more like Trump's personal attorney than the AG, why should you be surprised?

No misrepresentation ,Barr concluded and he's got every republican to back him except for one gop  congressman 

[riclag]

5 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Given his misrepresentation of the report and his acting more like Trump's personal attorney than the AG, why should you be surprised?

That personal atty is a media/dem talking point! Perhaps Mr. Trump should of nominated his sister ,like jfk did with his brother

[riclag]

 Sorry,I just realized  I was on the wrong thread,they are similar kinda,Starting from a reply to my comment on post 303

[heybruce]

9 hours 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.

 

" Did Ken Starr not conclude President Clinton had obstructed justice? "

 

The DOJ Office of Legal Counsel opinion that stated that it was not appropriate to indict a sitting President was published in October 2000.  So Ken Starr was not operating under the same constraints as Robert Mueller.  Also, in my opinion, Ken Starr was not as professional or ethical as Robert Mueller.

 

"I don’t know that the President meeting in private with foreign heads of state is inappropriate or not, is it? "

 

Yes, it is inappropriate.  Also, it is illegal to confiscate records of such meetings, as Trump did when he confiscated the notes of his interpreter after meeting with Putin.

 

"What I said was, I don’t think there will be anything illegal in them (President Trump's tax returns)."

 

I don't know why you would say that.  It has already been established that hundreds of millions  of dollars worth of assets were transferred within the Trump family in a manner to avoid estate taxes.