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

[heybruce]

4 hours 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!

So which is it; declassify all files, or only declassify the files that won't hurt current intel assets.  I agree with you if the declassification is limited to files that won't interfere with ongoing intelligence operations.

[heybruce]

2 hours 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?
 

The Starr investigation was into business dealings between the Whitewater Real Estate company and Hillary Clinton, but Kenn Starr was given unlimited time, money and remit to dig into anything he could find about the Clintons. 

 

Imagine if such an investigation were conducted into Trump and his business dealings.

[heybruce]

59 minutes ago, riclag said:

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

I know you have been shown the letter appointing Robert Mueller.  Why do you keep misrepresenting it?

[mogandave]

"
 
"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. 
 
 

And it’s your position that the IRS agents that are assigned every year to review and or audit Trump’s tax returns are all morons that know nothing of tax law and just rubber-stamp every billionaire’s returns? Or perhaps the IRS is full of neo-nazi Trump supporters secretly hiding all the illegal activities and payments from Putin for all the secrets Trump is sending him, and the blackmail payments Trump is making to Putin to keep him from releasing the golden shower videos?

It makes no difference what is in Trump’s returns anyway. Trump has nothing to gain by releasing them. If they’re squeaky clean, it will be all about what he’s hiding in his offshore accounts, or some other such nonsense.

You’ve already indicated you think him a criminal for structuring his finances in such a way as to maximize what his family gets to keep once he dies.

Again, Trump would be a fool to release anything to Congress until every appeal and legal avenue of refusal is exhausted.

[heybruce]

1 minute ago, mogandave said:

 

And it’s your position that the IRS agents that are assigned every year to review and or audit Trump’s tax returns are all morons that know nothing of tax law and just rubber-stamp every billionaire’s returns? Or perhaps the IRS is full of neo-nazi Trump supporters secretly hiding all the illegal activities and payments from Putin for all the secrets Trump is sending him, and the blackmail payments Trump is making to Putin to keep him from releasing the golden shower videos?

It makes no difference what is in Trump’s returns anyway. Trump has nothing to gain by releasing them. If they’re squeaky clean, it will be all about what he’s hiding in his offshore accounts, or some other such nonsense.

You’ve already indicated you think him a criminal for structuring his finances in such a way as to maximize what his family gets to keep once he dies.

Again, Trump would be a fool to release anything to Congress until every appeal and legal avenue of refusal is exhausted.
 

My position is that the IRS is understaffed and overwhelmed, which makes it impossible to go through every billionaire's tax returns in sufficient detail to catch all the tricks that teams of tax lawyers and accountants come up with.  An IRS agent looking at a current year tax return is unlikely to go back to returns from past years to check into suspiciously fluctuating valuations of properties that Cohen described in his testimony to Congress.

 

Is it you position that the IRS is all-knowing and nothing ever gets by them?  Where did you come up with your fanciful speculation on what I think of the IRS?

 

Trump is clearly a liar (we already knew that) for claiming he made his fortune off a small loan from his father.  The "structure" of the wealth transfers in the Trump family was clearly illegal, but only discovered after the statute of limitations ran out.

 

I do agree that a guilty person would be a fool to cooperate with investigators without first exploring all avenues to stay out of prison.

[mogandave]

The Starr investigation was into business dealings between the Whitewater Real Estate company and Hillary Clinton, but Kenn Starr was given unlimited time, money and remit to dig into anything he could find about the Clintons. 
 
Imagine if such an investigation were conducted into Trump and his business dealings.

I was talking about the other Starr investigation, but yeah, that would be great.

[mogandave]

My position is that the IRS is understaffed and overwhelmed, which makes it impossible to go through every billionaire's tax returns in sufficient detail to catch all the tricks that teams of tax lawyers and accountants come up with.  An IRS agent looking at a current year tax return is unlikely to go back to returns from past years to check into suspiciously fluctuating valuations of properties that Cohen described in his testimony to Congress.
 
Is it you position that the IRS is all-knowing and nothing ever gets by them?  Where did you come up with your fanciful speculation on what I think of the IRS?
 
Trump is clearly a liar (we already knew that) for claiming he made his fortune off a small loan from his father.  The "structure" of the wealth transfers in the Trump family was clearly illegal, but only discovered after the statute of limitations ran out.
 
I do agree that a guilty person would be a fool to cooperate with investigators without first exploring all avenues to stay out of prison.

What are there, 500-600 billionaires i the US?

You think tax attorneys are recommending their billionaire clients cheat on their taxes? Would that not expose both them and their clients to prosecution and incarceration?

You thing the IRS doesn’t have agents assigned year-round to guys like Trump?

Perhaps the IRS should spend less time on conservative groups, an more time on billionaires, what do you think?

[bristolboy]

3 hours ago, riclag said:

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

There is no crime called "collusion" so your assertion is obviously false.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, mogandave said:

 

What are there, 500-600 billionaires i the US?

You think tax attorneys are recommending their billionaire clients cheat on their taxes? Would that not expose both them and their clients to prosecution and incarceration?

You thing the IRS doesn’t have agents assigned year-round to guys like Trump?

Perhaps the IRS should spend less time on conservative groups, an more time on billionaires, what do you think?
 

I think that tax attorneys routinely push the limits of legality in advising ways to minimize tax.  I also think some people, Trump in particular, will happily break laws to save money if they think they can get away with it.

 

No, I don't think the IRS has agents assigned year-round to guys like Trump.  Do you have information to the contrary?

 

I think the IRS should be adequately resourced to spend time on all suspicious tax activities.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, mogandave said:

 

I was talking about the other Starr investigation, but yeah, that would be great.

There was only one Starr investigation.  When he couldn't find anything to pin on the Clintons with the Whitewater stuff, Republicans in Congress gave him carte blanche to investigate everything and find anything on the Clintons.

 

Republican would scream like stuck pigs if such an investigation were launched on a Republican President, especially Trump.

[lannarebirth]

7 hours ago, bristolboy said:

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.

C'mon man. How can you turn the wish for an honest government into a partisan issue? Everyone should want that.

[mogandave]

There was only one Starr investigation.  When he couldn't find anything to pin on the Clintons with the Whitewater stuff, Republicans in Congress gave him carte blanche to investigate everything and find anything on the Clintons.
 
Republican would scream like stuck pigs if such an investigation were launched on a Republican President, especially Trump.

So Lewinsky was part of the Whitewater investigation?

[heybruce]

3 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

So Lewinsky was part of the Whitewater investigation?

Yes!  You didn't know that?

[lannarebirth]

7 hours ago, bristolboy said:

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

 

Do you think the intelligence community is involved in overreach or not? Do you think they should be accountable to elected officials (whether you voted for them or not).  When you catch them in a lie or cover up do you think that should make you more suspect or less suspect of their next statement or action.

Now, I'm pretty sure of your answers to these questions if applied to the current president. Why are you so resistant to applying the same standard to people who can do just as much or more damage?

[mogandave]

I think that tax attorneys routinely push the limits of legality in advising ways to minimize tax.  I also think some people, Trump in particular, will happily break laws to save money if they think they can get away with it.
 
No, I don't think the IRS has agents assigned year-round to guys like Trump.  Do you have information to the contrary?
 
I think the IRS should be adequately resourced to spend time on all suspicious tax activities.

I agree that tax attorneys (and most everyone that pays taxes) “push the limit of legality” to minimize their tax burden.

I disagree that it is common for companies as large as Trump’s to knowingly break tax laws. Too much downside for not enough upside.

I only have anecdotal information.

I generally agree, but there are millions of small time tax evaders, and very often it’s a blood from a turnip situation. The tax code is an f’n nightmare.

[heybruce]

2 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

Do you think the intelligence community is involved in overreach or not? Do you think they should be accountable to elected officials (whether you voted for them or not).  When you catch them in a lie or cover up do you think that should make you more suspect or less suspect of their next statement or action.

Now, I'm pretty sure of your answers to these questions if applied to the current president. Why are you so resistant to applying the same standard to people who can do just as much or more damage?

Striking the correct balance between secrecy and oversight with intelligence agencies is an ongoing process that is never perfect.

 

After 911 it was discovered that information that could have exposed the plot existed but was scattered across different agencies that didn't share information.  This was because of strict "need to know" limits on intelligence sharing, commonly referred to as stovepipes.  After 911 many of these stovepipes were removed.

 

A predictably consequence of eliminating the stovepipes was the massive intelligence breaches of Wikileaks/Manning and Snowden.  These were the result of people provide with security clearances for specific purposes being given access to a great deal of secret information they had no need for.  I assume stovepipes are now being re-instituted.

 

(As an aside, regulation always goes between unacceptable extremes.  Restrictions on the use of pain medication that resulted in unnecessary suffering going into the 1980's were replaced with liberal use, and marketing, of pain medication leading to the current opioid crisis.  I expect excessive restrictions to be implemented again in the near future.)

 

Oversight of the intelligence agencies is provide by Congressional oversight committees.  It is a far from perfect system, as many (most? all?) of these committee members have no background in intelligence.  However it is the best system that anyone has come up with.

 

If you believe that covert intelligence operations are essential to keeping the country and the deployed military forces safe (I do), then you have to accept that there will never be a perfect system for oversight of the agencies involved.  It will be a constant process of mistakes, corrections, and more mistakes.

 

However I don't think Trump, who shows no interest in Constitutional limits, checks and balances, laws or anything that doesn't benefit him, is the correct person to oversee the next round of corrections.

[usviphotography]

5 hours 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.

Barr read the report and concluded there was no obstruction. That is actually the majority position of legal experts in the US. Mueller is the one who holds a bizarre and minority view that a President expressing him distaste with what he feels is a political witch hunt (and by the way, the report found Trump was right about that) can somehow be classified as "obstruction". Barr thinks Mueller's whole "obstruction" position is silly, as do most American Legal Scholars. Obstruction means destroying evidence, or bribing a cop, paying off witnesses, or some other such overt and underhanded act. Acid bleaching a server, for example. Expressing your opinion is not "obstruction". The Left are embarrassing themselves. 

 

And BTW, if Mueller's theory about obstruction were actually true, then we should be arresting the Democratic Leadership for obstruction right now for their opposition to Barr's investigation of Crossfire Hurricane and the origins of the Russian Hoax. The Democrats are very lucky that Barr is a much better and more ethical lawyer than Mueller or they'd find themselves in the clink. 

[lannarebirth]

8 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Striking the correct balance between secrecy and oversight with intelligence agencies is an ongoing process that is never perfect.

 

After 911 it was discovered that information that could have exposed the plot existed but was scattered across different agencies that didn't share information.  This was because of strict "need to know" limits on intelligence sharing, commonly referred to as stovepipes.  After 911 many of these stovepipes were removed.

 

A predictably consequence of eliminating the stovepipes was the massive intelligence breaches of Wikileaks/Manning and Snowden.  These were the result of people provide with security clearances for specific purposes being given access to a great deal of secret information they had no need for.  I assume stovepipes are now being re-instituted.

 

(As an aside, regulation always goes between unacceptable extremes.  Restrictions on the use of pain medication that resulted in unnecessary suffering going into the 1980's were replaced with liberal use, and marketing, of pain medication leading to the current opioid crisis.  I expect excessive restrictions to be implemented again in the near future.)

 

Oversight of the intelligence agencies is provide by Congressional oversight committees.  It is a far from perfect system, as many (most? all?) of these committee members have no background in intelligence.  However it is the best system that anyone has come up with.

 

If you believe that covert intelligence operations are essential to keeping the country and the deployed military forces safe (I do), then you have to accept that there will never be a perfect system for oversight of the agencies involved.  It will be a constant process of mistakes, corrections, and more mistakes.

 

However I don't think Trump, who shows no interest in Constitutional limits, checks and balances, laws or anything that doesn't benefit him, is the correct person to oversee the next round of corrections.

 

Then let Congress do it, but some entity must do it. Lies, cover ups, overreach should not be tolerated by the American people regardless of party affiliation. A credulous press might be a good place to start. Haven't seen that in a while except when politically aligned press is taking aim at their political rivals. Currently the mainstream press is "captured" by the intelligence community. The same community that has been caught lying time and time again.

[heybruce]

11 minutes ago, usviphotography said:

Barr read the report and concluded there was no obstruction. That is actually the majority position of legal experts in the US. Mueller is the one who holds a bizarre and minority view that a President expressing him distaste with what he feels is a political witch hunt (and by the way, the report found Trump was right about that) can somehow be classified as "obstruction". Barr thinks Mueller's whole "obstruction" position is silly, as do most American Legal Scholars. Obstruction means destroying evidence, or bribing a cop, paying off witnesses, or some other such overt and underhanded act. Acid bleaching a server, for example. Expressing your opinion is not "obstruction". The Left are embarrassing themselves. 

 

And BTW, if Mueller's theory about obstruction were actually true, then we should be arresting the Democratic Leadership for obstruction right now for their opposition to Barr's investigation of Crossfire Hurricane and the origins of the Russian Hoax. The Democrats are very lucky that Barr is a much better and more ethical lawyer than Mueller or they'd find themselves in the clink. 

" Barr read the report and concluded there was no obstruction. That is actually the majority position of legal experts in the US. "

 

Really?  Care to give your sources for this surprising information?

 

Also, what obstruction have the Democrats presented to Barr's investigation, other than to point out that it is based on nothing more than Trump's accusations that are unsupported by evidence.

[usviphotography]

5 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

Then let Congress do it, but some entity must do it. Lies, cover ups, overreach should not be tolerated by the American people regardless of party affiliation. A credulous press might be a good place to start. Haven't seen that in a while except when politically aligned press is taking aim at their political rivals. Currently the mainstream press is "captured" by the intelligence community. The same community that has been caught lying time and time again.

Declassifying is the President's job under our Constitution. Draining the swamp is what we elected him to do. Kick it off to Congress and it will be buried as Congress is every bit as compromised by the Intelligence Community. Most President's are captured too. We are extremely lucky Trump is our President right now. 

[heybruce]

3 minutes ago, usviphotography said:

Declassifying is the President's job under our Constitution. Draining the swamp is what we elected him to do. Kick it off to Congress and it will be buried as Congress is every bit as compromised by the Intelligence Community. Most President's are captured too. We are extremely lucky Trump is our President right now. 

How's that swamp draining going?  Has swamp creature Trump and his crack team of industry insiders and lobbyists gotten very far?

[usviphotography]

5 minutes ago, heybruce said:

" Barr read the report and concluded there was no obstruction. That is actually the majority position of legal experts in the US. "

 

Really?  Care to give your sources for this surprising information?

 

Also, what obstruction have the Democrats presented to Barr's investigation, other than to point out that it is based on nothing more than Trump's accusations that are unsupported by evidence.

 

This is a good summary of prevailing legal view of the matter:  https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/441726-alan-dershowitz-barr-is-right-mueller-is-wrong

 

And I'm really frightened by wait sort of media sources you rely on that you think there is "no evidence" for Barr's investigation. Independent Media practically solved the case themselves while you guys were obsessing of the Russian Hoax. Misfurd, Downer, Thompson, Leshchenko. Do any of these names register? I think the Left is going to be in for a shock equal to that of election night 2016 when the hammer finally comes down on this conspiracy. 

[heybruce]

34 minutes ago, usviphotography said:

 

This is a good summary of prevailing legal view of the matter:  https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/441726-alan-dershowitz-barr-is-right-mueller-is-wrong

 

And I'm really frightened by wait sort of media sources you rely on that you think there is "no evidence" for Barr's investigation. Independent Media practically solved the case themselves while you guys were obsessing of the Russian Hoax. Misfurd, Downer, Thompson, Leshchenko. Do any of these names register? I think the Left is going to be in for a shock equal to that of election night 2016 when the hammer finally comes down on this conspiracy. 

So your claim that the majority of legal experts agree with Barr has changed to one expert who cited two precedents (only one which sort of applied) that weren't really precedents because they weren't tried in court.  Is that correct?

 

No, those names don't register.  The investigation into Russian interference and possible conspiracy with the Trump campaign was based on real evidence and real national security concerns.  What did these people say that changes that?

[Morch]

9 hours ago, usviphotography said:

Barr read the report and concluded there was no obstruction. That is actually the majority position of legal experts in the US. Mueller is the one who holds a bizarre and minority view that a President expressing him distaste with what he feels is a political witch hunt (and by the way, the report found Trump was right about that) can somehow be classified as "obstruction". Barr thinks Mueller's whole "obstruction" position is silly, as do most American Legal Scholars. Obstruction means destroying evidence, or bribing a cop, paying off witnesses, or some other such overt and underhanded act. Acid bleaching a server, for example. Expressing your opinion is not "obstruction". The Left are embarrassing themselves. 

 

And BTW, if Mueller's theory about obstruction were actually true, then we should be arresting the Democratic Leadership for obstruction right now for their opposition to Barr's investigation of Crossfire Hurricane and the origins of the Russian Hoax. The Democrats are very lucky that Barr is a much better and more ethical lawyer than Mueller or they'd find themselves in the clink. 

 

Barr misrepresented Mueller's report. That's a fact. As for the "majority position of legal experts" claim, noticed you've already failed to support this in response to another query. Same goes for your definition of "obstruction", not that the President limit himself to "expressing himself", but even had he done so, it would still have amounted to abusing his office.

 

I'm aware that some of Trump's fans are more into them "alternative facts", though, so not too surprise by this nonsense. And thanks for the apparently mandatory deflection bit about Dems, no hardcore pro-Tramp half-cooked rant hits the spot without such.

[Morch]

12 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

And it’s your position that the IRS agents that are assigned every year to review and or audit Trump’s tax returns are all morons that know nothing of tax law and just rubber-stamp every billionaire’s returns? Or perhaps the IRS is full of neo-nazi Trump supporters secretly hiding all the illegal activities and payments from Putin for all the secrets Trump is sending him, and the blackmail payments Trump is making to Putin to keep him from releasing the golden shower videos?

It makes no difference what is in Trump’s returns anyway. Trump has nothing to gain by releasing them. If they’re squeaky clean, it will be all about what he’s hiding in his offshore accounts, or some other such nonsense.

You’ve already indicated you think him a criminal for structuring his finances in such a way as to maximize what his family gets to keep once he dies.

Again, Trump would be a fool to release anything to Congress until every appeal and legal avenue of refusal is exhausted.
 

 

 

Seems like the crux of your arguments, and specifically as per taxes and conduct, is that the President got a right to be a crook. That might be so, but why would anyone want a crook in the White House?

[mogandave]

 
Seems like the crux of your arguments, and specifically as per taxes and conduct, is that the President got a right to be a crook. That might be so, but why would anyone want a crook in the White House?

Seems like the crux of your arguments, and specifically as per Trumps fitness for office is to call everyone that does not agree with you a fool, and then misrepresent what they say to avoid having to formulate an argument. I’m guessing you’re much better educated than I am, so why put a little effort into addressing what I actually say?

I’m not sure how you make the jump from my saying that I do not believe Trump is a criminal tax evader, to you claiming all my arguments are based my belief that “...the President got a right to be a crook”, but I won’t ask, as no doubt you’ll claim the question is off-topic deflection.

[Morch]

47 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

Seems like the crux of your arguments, and specifically as per Trumps fitness for office is to call everyone that does not agree with you a fool, and then misrepresent what they say to avoid having to formulate an argument. I’m guessing you’re much better educated than I am, so why put a little effort into addressing what I actually say?

I’m not sure how you make the jump from my saying that I do not believe Trump is a criminal tax evader, to you claiming all my arguments are based my belief that “...the President got a right to be a crook”, but I won’t ask, as no doubt you’ll claim the question is off-topic deflection.

 

 

I don't think I ever called anyone on TVF a fool, certainly not you. Is this one of them "alternative facts"? Wouldn't know how well educated you are or what does it have to do with anything. 

 

And I am addressing what you say. My comment was a general one, based on a whole lot of posts you made on this topic. In most, the bottom line argument is that the President is not to be held to a higher standard, or even that you're willing to afford lenience since you support his politics.

 

You say you believe this or that about Trump. It's just not very clear what your beliefs are based on. The President's history, and current conduct, don't lend themselves as a sound foundation for such beliefs.

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎5‎/‎29‎/‎2019 at 10:09 PM, Morch said:

 

What you imagine doesn't interest me much, but no - that would be your own nonsense assertion. I think that posters applying unconditional defense of anything and everything Trump does, and who are engaged in constant deflection whenever any negatives are raised, qualify.

 

Reading your posts, doesn't seem you're half as bothered as you claim about his conduct, conflicts of interest, or pretty much anything, really. As said, for some reason, the bar is lowered when it comes to this President.

I was extremely bothered by the activities ( or lack of activities ) of Clinton when she was Sec State, but none of the side currently opposing Trump were bothered. Apparently it depends on which side one supports as to how much one is bothered- is that surprising?

 

Trump does some things I vehemently oppose, but given the choice between him and his opponent at the election, I'll have to accept that no one gets everything they want. 

[bristolboy]

13 hours ago, usviphotography said:

Barr read the report and concluded there was no obstruction. That is actually the majority position of legal experts in the US. Mueller is the one who holds a bizarre and minority view that a President expressing him distaste with what he feels is a political witch hunt (and by the way, the report found Trump was right about that) can somehow be classified as "obstruction". Barr thinks Mueller's whole "obstruction" position is silly, as do most American Legal Scholars. Obstruction means destroying evidence, or bribing a cop, paying off witnesses, or some other such overt and underhanded act. Acid bleaching a server, for example. Expressing your opinion is not "obstruction". The Left are embarrassing themselves. 

 

And BTW, if Mueller's theory about obstruction were actually true, then we should be arresting the Democratic Leadership for obstruction right now for their opposition to Barr's investigation of Crossfire Hurricane and the origins of the Russian Hoax. The Democrats are very lucky that Barr is a much better and more ethical lawyer than Mueller or they'd find themselves in the clink. 

Even lots of Fox news commentators don't agree with you about that so called "majority opinion." And your claim about Congress obstructing Barr's investigation is ludicrous. Congress is not part of the Executive branch. Maybe you should take a little time to familiarize yourself with a document popularly known as the U.S. Constitution.

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Trump does some things I vehemently oppose, but given the choice between him and his opponent at the election, I'll have to accept that no one gets everything they want. 

I'll believe that when I see it.