Trump's hand-picked attorney general summarized the Mueller Report by saying two things.
1) Trump or his campaign did not legally conspire with Russia to fix the 2016 election
2) Trump is NOT exonerated from the charge of Obstruction of Justice.
IF Barr properly reported Mueller's conclusion regarding the lack of enough evidence to establish a conspiracy between Donald Trump or any of his campaign to fix the 2016 Presidential election, then I accept that. But only a full reading of the report's non-classified parts will verify that.
Keep in mind, AG Barr doesn't think a president, any president including Nixon, can obstruct justice, which most people find very strange. Therefore, his assessment that Mueller says he DID NOT EXONERATE Trump for Obstruction of Justice. Just like with Hillary Clinton, they didn't have enough evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt. That means there WAS some evidence. That throws the question into Congress' court.
So, one down and a bunch are still on the table.
- Conspiracy to fix the election is gone
- Obstruction of Justice is not
- Conspiracy to commit campaign fraud with Cohen is definitely in play
- The Trump inaugural committee is under investigation
- All of Trump's businesses are under state and federal investigation
AND TRUMP CAN'T STOP LYING, even in celebrating the decision on "No Collusion"
He said - “This was an illegal takedown that failed,” - That is a lie; multiple rulings said the probe was legal
He said - "It was just announced there was no collusion with Russia.” - Correct, they couldn't put together enough evidence of conspiracy to charge him
He said - "There was no obstruction, none whatsoever," - That is a lie. Mueller said that Trump was not EXONERATED, a far cry from his claim.
Democrats need to be very, very careful about how they proceed here or they're going to lose the 2020 election in both the executive branch and Congress. If they're seen as the party of obstruction, they're going down. The American people are not going to tolerate more gridlock in Washington. This was exactly the reason Trump won in the first place.
We will see how obstructionist they are. For example:
1 - Anti-Corruption and Pro-Democracy Reform: McConnell will ignore it.
2 - Expanded gun background check bill - Trump promised to veto it
3 - Increase time for FBI to run background checks - McConnell will ignore it
So, who is the obstructionist???
So well said... One can see the writing on the wall, it's a shame the Dems don't. It seems they are stuck in a self-destructive mode.
Is that why the Ds have flipped two more House seats in special elections recently?
You don't think Trump lying with 8 out of 10 statements isn't self-destructive, lol. Hell, he even lies about his own father.
It is obvious we will never agree on the president or what he has accomplishes. I guess it's once again another waiting game. You know like the Mueller report. It is almost embarrassing to see the Dems always come up short. No really. I guess the 2020 election might be the last nail in their coffin. Trump is going to be around at least for 6 more years, you might want to consider that, and maybe just accept the inevitable. You clearly dislike him, but it is also clear many did like him and his way of running the country and will vote him in once again. He gets things done and is not afraid to do what must be done to fix any and all things that other presidents found it too difficult to do or should I say he is not a politician that is willing to see America being taking advantage of.
The Dems just don't have a clue of how to win against him. Their candidate's agendas are all over the place... The vote will be split due to these extreme differences.
The numbers simply do not work for you, Sharlee. You see, Trump barely won. The 3 Blue states he picked off, he did so by a mere 80,000 votes in total (which is why it is so plausible Comey and the Russian's pushed him over the top)
He picked up independents and Democrats who were really pissed with Clinton. Since he became President, he has 1) kept his Republican base, 2) lost a bunch of independents, and 3) Clinton isn't running. More importantly, he has gained no new votes and we are ready for the Russians. He isn't going to win.
Further, the Ds, because of healthcare and immigration, will increase their hold on the House and will more than likely lose the Senate.
And, Trump does not fix things, he breaks them.
Do you actually believe this? I guess when he wins in 2020 you can continue with this line of thinking.
"He picked up independents and Democrats who were really pissed with Clinton.
And do you really think the Dems have anyone at this point that will satisfy the Dems that walk the center line? Do you think all Dems are into socialism or candidates that are old school and tell them whatever they hope to hear? President Trump shot all that kind of thinking to hell. The Dems candidates are all over the map, and the vote will be split badly. Socialism scares people. It is very easy to look at all the other countries that have gone down the path of Socialism.
Not sure where you come up with your opinion " he has gained no new votes"? I hope it's not due to some poll? It is very apparent the polls are not reliable any longer. Please remember the polls the day before Trump won.
"Further, the Ds, because of healthcare and immigration, will increase their hold on the House and will more than likely lose the Senate."
Really, it's very clear Dems or the Reps have done nothing to improve either healthcare or immigration. Plus, president Trump is and has been trying his best to fix our broken immigration laws. Te Dems deny there is even a problem. LOL Trump is keeping the fire burning in regards to immigration reform, and most likely will fix it.
"And, Trump does not fix things, he breaks them."
This sounds downright silly... Have you seen our jobs numbers this morning, and wage increases this month? He is doing a wonderful job, and all in the face of being battered by a bias media.
I will put my money on Trump to win in 2020. Guess we will have to wait and see who will be able to once again come back to Hubpages and celebrate his win. Some will return with, The Russians did it! LOL
I would like to address one of your statements in a previous comment
"Trump's hand-picked attorney general summarized the Mueller Report by saying two things"
It is the president's privilege and actually a duty to appoint an AG. Do you feel Trump does not have the right to appoint an AG of his choosing?
It has been reported that in this past week Mueller is working with Barr daily to prepare for what the Congress and the general public will see from the investigation. Barr has a wonderful reputation and does not deserve his name being dragged through the mud, just because the Dems did not get the results they had hoped for.
CBS News - Link Below statement " Barr said that the Justice Department was working with Mueller to identify and redact any information pertaining to national security, ongoing litigation and data which would "unduly infringe on the personal privacy and reputational interests of peripheral third parties."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/william-ba … 019-03-29/
" Comey and the Russian's pushed him over the top) "
Do you actually believe this? " - I absolutely do think it is probable. I saw what happened to the polls when Comey put his foot on the scales in favor of Trump shortly before people voted (not that he intended to, but that was the outcome) AND now that the huge scale of Russia's attempt to make Trump president it wouldn't be that difficult to flip 80,000 votes in their targeted states - and they did target WI, PA, and MI.[/u
As to who can easily beat Trump we have Biden, Harris, and probably Klobuchar. Hell, Sanders could probably beat him has well because he would pick up all of his voters that voted for Trump.
Yes, according to [u]the sum of all polls. including polls like Rasmussen and Fox, Trump has lost votes and not gained any.
Job numbers are still lower than that established by Obama, on average, and wage growth under performed expectations at 3.2% rather than the expected 3.4% and is still following the pattern set by Obama in the last two years of his administration.
" I saw what happened to the polls when Comey put his foot on the scales in favor of Trump shortly before people voted "
Most polls showed Clinton well ahead. Not sure how you could forget this?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the … ction-eve/
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/artic … 32270.html
https://www.latimes.com/nation/politics … story.html
"As to who can easily beat Trump we have Biden, Harris, and probably Klobuchar. Hell, Sanders could probably beat him has well because he would pick up all of his voters that voted for Trump."
Biden has not yet said he will run. The Dems are doing a good job of chasing him away. LOL I very much agree he would be their best chance, But once again they chose to shoot themselves in the foot. And yes Bernie has the cash for a campaign the rest you have mentioned have no backing what so ever. The money people just won't support them. You see the people with the cash are not willing to put money on a person that won't be able to beat Trump. Why would they? The party is to split, and funny they just can't see that?
"Yes, according to [u]the sum of all polls. including polls like Rasmussen and Fox, Trump has lost votes and not gained any."
Please offer a source.
Trump was just to Michigan, and they showed the lines and reported that he had a record-breaking crowd. I live in Michigan, and we are all loving what he has done for the state. Michigan will once again vote Trump, and I predict in larger numbers.
Trump has the economy the best it has ever been. You need to do some research on the subject.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckdevor … f9d8e5635a
Which polls are you looking at? Ones before Comey's announcement? WI polls who did show Clinton still ahead? MI polls which showed a dead heat? PA polls which also showed a dead heat after Comey's announcement.
Of the 4 polls you listed, all national polls btw, only one, the LA Times had her ahead outside the margin of error. The other three were at or witnin the MOE which means they had it as a statistical tie.
Further, since these were national polls, they got it right, didn't they? Clinton won the national vote by about what they were predicting.
I looked at the polls AFTER Comey's announcement and Clinton lost quite a bit of support.
Michigan loves Trump, eh?
President Trump is rapidly losing support in Michigan, a key swing state in presidential elections.
Nearly half of Michigan residents “definitely” will not vote for Trump, compared to 31% who said they definitely will, according to an EPIC-MRA poll of 600 active and likely voters. Another 16% said they will probably vote for someone else.
Similar polls in Wisconsin and Florida, two other key swing states, show Trump’s chances of getting re-elected are diminishing.
https://www.metrotimes.com/news-hits/ar … n-michigan
Not so much it seems.
The economy has been MUCH better MANY other times in history. It is you who needs to do the research. But then that is what happens when you believe a serial liar.
A key aspect of the economy is employment: can you point to MANY times in history when employment figures were MUCH better? Even in percentage working rather than total jobs available?
Her comment was "the economy the best it has ever been", not unemployment. But to answer your question:
1966 - 1969
I don't see any employment figures here. It was my understanding that not only was employment higher than at any time in the past, but unemployment was the lowest it's been for at least 40 years.
But looking at the graph of unemployment since the 60's (I reject the rate in the 50's as women were not a large part of the employment picture as they are today), there was only one short period, around 1970, when it was lower than today, and then only about 1/2 of a percentage point lower. This is not MANY times or MUCH better.
In addition, unemployment does not account for the millions of illegal aliens working jobs that we have today but did not have then. Remove those aliens and we could have an unemployment figure under 3%. Employment, then, is much better today than ever in the past...for Americans, if illegal workers were not there. Again, it kind of shows that the MANY times that were MUCH better don't exist.
https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=im … 0&vt=0
Sorry, WIlderness, when people speak of "employment" numbers, they generally mean the unemployment rate. Why? Because total employment is a meaningless number since the population always grows (of course if Trump gets his way, our population will start shrinking). Consequently, it is a forgone conclusion that employment levels MUST grow so long as the economy is growing. As I said, meaningless.
If you want to talk "employment" numbers, then you must look at participation rate. In that case, the current rate is rather low compared to recent history. The PR has been higher than the current number for every year since 1978 through 2013.
BTW, I just ran the March numbers and the employment arena is showing its first signs of weakness. Both the median and average weeks out of work have increased two months running. Further, the, while not showing up on the chart yet, the number of days people are out of work is beginning to increase as well (which backs up the average numbers).
Assuming that "participation rate" means the percentage of Americans that hold a job, it is indeed the most valuable. Along with that thought, the theory behind it (assuming it refers only to those that WANT a job - children, the aged, homemakers, etc. are not included in the figure) it is why I discounted the unemployment from the 50's. When the labor force doubles, relative to the total population, as women enter the workforce with a vengeance then those years without working women in large numbers are not very applicable. Not that large numbers of illegals will also have a definite effect, lowering the participation rate of people that would like to work while keeping total employment high.
But at the same time then, if that is what you mean by PR, it is not possible to have a high unemployment rate and a high PR - what you are claiming during the recession. So what, then, are you referring to with "PR"?
PR = participation rate.
Not that you couldn't have looked this up yourself - "The labor force participation rate measures an economy's active labor force and is the sum of all employed workers divided by the working age population. It refers to the number of people who are either employed or are actively looking for work."
"Not that large numbers of illegals will also have a definite effect, lowering the participation rate of people that would like to work " - Has proven to be a false statement.
Please offer a resource to back up your comment. I would be interested to see if this is true?
Sure, it is very easy to find. All you needed to do is google Unemployment Rate 1950 - 2019 and you can take your pick from many, many sources. I copied this one for you, but I used a chart I found instead.
https://www.thebalance.com/unemployment … ar-3305506
Using your chart, there is exactly one year in the last 50 years that had a lower unemployment that we have now, and by only 0.4 points.
Where are the MANY instances with MUCH better figures?
Then you need to go back and relook at that table (not chart) because you are very wrong. The chart I looked at broke it out by months, but that is not important.
1969 had a rate of 3.5%. Every year after that had at least a rate of 3.9%, right up to 2018, which is the same as current rates at 3.8%.
One year is not "many"...unless you can use that table to find more? You claim they are there, and in the last 50 years, but I can't find them. Can you point them out?
1929 - 3.2%
1943 - 1.9%
1944 - 1.2%
1945 - 1.9%
1946 - 3.9%
1947 - 3.6%
1951 - 3.1%
1952 - 2.7%
1966 - 3.8%
1967 - 3.8%
1968 - 3.4%
1969 - 3.5%
2000 - 3.9%
You really do need glasses, Wilderness
Michigan pols were in Hillary's favor up to the night of the election.
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/ … /91964392/
She also had the better polls in WI.
https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt … f841a.html
It is very clear the polls can't be trusted, your theory that Comey's announcement affected Hillary's polls is just not factual?
Her polls continued to be very good statewide as well as nationwide. Maybe it's time to stop putting the blame for her loss on others, and place the blame on her...
I guess it is your prerogative to put your faith in polls. I prefer not too. It is clear to me they are skewed.
Sorry, the Metro Times is a small news outlet that does not get much respect here in Michigan. It is and has been a far-out Liberal Newspaper from its conception.
" But then that is what happens when you believe a serial liar.?"
Facts are hard to take when you're always on the losing end. Like I said. I will be around to say told you so when he wins in 2020.
I must ask you to can give a resource that proves your claim that any time in our countries history when employment figures were better not only for men, but women, Latinos, and blacks. As I also pointed out wages have gone up steadily under Trump; Nominal wages grew 3.4 percent over the last 12 months, the fastest pace since 2009. It also was once again up for this past March at 0.1%. You really need to do research before making your comments. There are lies and facts. I dig for facts, and I believe I make every attempt to add a resource to show a bit of information that led me to my opinion, and subsequently to my posted comment.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-st … americans/
The final RCP poll average was Clinton up by 3.6 - WITHIN the MOE and a statistical dead heat. Trump won by 0.3 points So the poll was correct. Also, an 11/6 Trafalgar poll had Trump up 2 points, inside the MOE
An 11/4 Democratic leaning PPP poll had Clinton up 6, but still within the MOE for that poll (meaning Clinton could have been as low as 46.8 and Trump as high as 47.2)
You didn't say "Employment Figures" now did you. But look at my answer to Wilderness. You point out how wages have gone up steadily under Trump, which is true. But you FAIL to point out they went up steadily under Obama as well. Why is that??
BTW, from a professional cost analyst to a non-professional, you need to be dealing in REAL wage growth, not nominal. While it might not have much impact over 12 months, it does make a difference over longer periods of time.
Paul Craig Roberts has pointed out that Trump was not cleared of the obstruction charge is arrant nonsense: "As Trump committed no crime, what evidence did he obstruct? The evidence of his innocence? Just as murder requires a body, obstruction requires a crime to obstruct."
No crime = no possible claim that Trump "obstructed" justice.
If there was no crime and therefore no possibility of obstruction of justice, and that is indeed the case, then there is no chance of proving that the non-existent obstruction never happened. Another "have you stopped beating your wife" scenario, then.
Which is exactly the point; if the claim is made often enough and loud enough gullible people will believe it when it is not refuted (because you can't refute what isn't there). They will believe Trump is guilty of obstruction even when there was nothing to obstruct. Politics at its best.
Sorry to break it to you both but Multiple, Multiple court convictions clearly establish there is no need for the underlying crime to be true, or even exist, to prove Obstruction of Justice; which Mueller loudly points out Trump was NOT EXONERATED of.
Perhaps you could provide a citation of a case in which someone was convicted of "obstructing justice" in an instance in which no crime was committed.
This is kind of like saying, "Prosecutors claim I killed my wife. The court found that my wife is still alive. But the media is claiming that I withheld evidence that I killed my wife."
Clearly, if your wife is alive and well, it is absurd to claim that the defendant is guilty of withholding evidence that his wife is dead. You can't withhold evidence of something that never happened.
I am surprised you don't know this. Look up Martha Stewart (I am not going to do all of the work for you.)
My recollection is that Martha Stewart was convicted of lying (perjury) in connection with her insider trading. She was in fact guilty of insider trading.
You can't obstruct justice in a case where a crime does not exist.
Here is some help, "Stewart was found guilty by the jury of eight women and four men on all four remaining counts: conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and two counts of making false statements to a federal investigator." - Notice she was not found guilty of stock fraud or any other underlying crime.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ImClone_s … ading_case
More help - Simply google "Can you be found guilty of obstruction with no underlying crime?"
Is this help called welfare?
William Barr's summary states, "I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the president committed an obstruction-of-justice offense. Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the Constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president."
You will note that Barr's summary also states, "Generally speaking, to obtain and sustain an obstruction conviction, the government would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person, acting with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct with a sufficient nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding. In cataloguing the President's actions, many of which took place in public view, the court identifies no actions that, in our judgement, constitute obstructive conduce, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, or were done with corrupt intent, each of which under the Department's principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction offense."
Here is a link to Barr's summary, where you can read it in full: https://assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/ … ovzDF.E/v0
Or, to put it another way: GAME OVER.
Plus you are ignoring the fact that the entire investigation was predicated upon perjury to the FISA Court (on multiple occasions). So we are pretty much looking at perjury and seditious conspiracy to overthrow the result of the 2016 election, for which dozens, if not hundreds of people should rightfully be prosecuted.
But AG Barr decided Trump (or any president) could not obstruct justice long before he saw the Mueller report. He would look pretty stupid to reverse his prejudgment wouldn't he?
Why do you think Trump hired him?
Your exercise of your psychic powers to speculate on Barr's personal views and motives are irrelevant. His job was to summarize the outcome of the investigation, not to perform an interpretive dance about it.
Mueller's remark that the report "does not exonerate" Trump is superfluous. It is not within his purview to hypothecize that Trump (or any other accused person) might be guilty, despite his inability to discover any evidence of guilt.
As James Howard Kunstler puts it, "It’s this simple: prosecutors are charged with finding crimes. If there is insufficient evidence to bring a case, then that is the end of the matter. Prosecutors, special or otherwise, are not authorized to offer hypothetical accounts where they can’t bring a criminal case. But Mr. Muller produced a brief of arguments pro-and-con about obstruction for others to decide upon. In doing that, he was out of order, and maliciously so." https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-04- … ers-report
Are you aware that NOT EXONERATED does not mean GUILTY? That in fact, it has nothing to do with guilt at all? That you, yourself, are "NOT EXONERATED" from obstruction of justice?
The endless suggestion that NOT EXONERATED somehow translates into guilt is not only tiresome and ridiculous, but makes a reader wonder just what the agenda of the speaker might be, for it certainly isn't truth and reality.
Whoever but you Wilderness, ever suggested "NOT EXONERATED somehow translates into guilt "? You made that up so you can make an argument against a ghost.
I don't know, but continued insistence that he is NOT EXONERATED of obstruction must mean something. Why do YOU think it is repeated time after time after time, generally right after someone mentions there was no collusion?
Is it just that he could be guilty of that crime, or murder or contaminating water or performing illegal abortions or anything else on the books? Doesn't really seem a reason to say it over and over and over...I don't see anyone claiming he could be guilty of doing illegal abortions, after all!
Yes, it means Exactly what it says. Trump was NOT found innocent. Mueller DOES have evidence of obstruction. For whatever reason, Mueller chose not to indict Trump (probably because DOJ says he is not allowed to, guilty or not)
Why do I keep saying it over and over again? Because YOU and Trump keep trying to say Trump is innocent over and over again.
He was not exonerated from performing illegal abortions, either, yet no one keeps repeating that? Why not? What is the difference?
Are you claiming that the "fix is in" as Bill did for Hillary? Are you claiming that Mueller has the evidence but was paid enough so he would not indict?
You obviously don't want to let the statement stand as a simple statement that no information was found to indict Trump, so what else makes you and others keep repeating it while ignoring other crimes with, as far as anyone knows, exactly the same evidence, i.e. none at all?
Actually, from a legal standpoint, the choice is binary: You are either exonerated or your case is referred for prosecution. The finding that Trump did not commit collusion means he is exonerated.
Of course that is not true, is it. You are also mixing crimes and words. Let me show you the error of your ways this way. Provide me the exact words in Mueller's report, since you apparently have a copy, or Barr's summary, where it says anything like "The finding that Trump did not commit collusion means he is exonerated"
Let me ask - Do you understand the difference between Collusion and Conspiracy? I have explained elsewhere in this forum. I am guessing not.
Finally, please review and tell me what crime Mueller used the word "Exonerated" with. Hint - it wasn't collusion.
And how, in the real world, how do you get "The finding that Trump did not commit collusion means he is exonerated." from "“The investigation [b]did not establish[/b} that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities,”
Term of Art "Did Not Establish", see https://caselaw.findlaw.com/tx-supreme- … 1269.html. "Did Not Establish" does not establish "Actual Innocence"
There is no requirement to establish innocence in order to be exonerated. It is not the job of the prosecuting attorney to establish innocence. His job is to either refer the case for prosecution, or exonerate. Where the case is not referred for prosecution, is is because there is insufficient evidence to do so.
Mueller's remark that the report "does not exonerate" Trump is superfluous. It is not within his purview to hypothecize that Trump (or any other accused person) might be guilty, despite his inability to discover any evidence of guilt.
As James Howard Kunstler puts it, "It’s this simple: prosecutors are charged with finding crimes. If there is insufficient evidence to bring a case, then that is the end of the matter. Prosecutors, special or otherwise, are not authorized to offer hypothetical accounts where they can’t bring a criminal case. But Mr. Muller produced a brief of arguments pro-and-con about obstruction for others to decide upon. In doing that, he was out of order, and maliciously so."
Mueller prosecutors are starting to leak, now that the investigation is over. They are saying the report is more damaging than what AG Barr is saying. Not surprising.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/03/politics … index.html
Lookout for the Mueller TRAP!
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/artic … -democrats
Here is where the truth lies cause you can't find it anywhere in your posts ME,
https://hubpages.com/politics/The-Russi … Conspiracy
Today Barr made claims that spying occurred during the Trump Campaign. Our government spied on Trump, and that he was currently looking into it. I would surmise this could add to the Dems problems in the next election. Plus it may just lead to some crimes that were perpetrated under the Obama administration? Barr certainly opened a can of worms on national television this morning.
https://www.aol.com/article/news/2019/0 … /23709589/
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- … SKCN1RM1ZC
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/watch/attorn … 6278211717
You should be thankful our intelligence agencies opened up an investigation into this elderly, off the rails weirdo who publicly encouraged our enemy to commit espionage against the USA and STEAL our Secret INFO on NATIONAL Television, which is a crime:
The FBI was SHOCKED and probably STILL is with Mr. Trump's suspicious behavior which is documented for the world to see and if they don't keep close surveillance on this mad fool they would absolutely be derelict of duty:
When you encourage a collaborative effort with our ENEMIES to undermine our democracy you can expect to be watched very closely by our magnificent intelligence agencies:
Did Barr open up a can of worms - no question.
Will it hurt the Dems, only if he proves all 17 intelligence agencies are liars since they claim Trump was not "spied" (as opposed to being legitimately investigated in a counterintelligence operation.) He also doesn't trust his own DOJ inspector general, either - WHY?
There is no question anymore (and I was giving Barr the benefit of the doubt) that Barr is an agent of Trump.
What is ironic is to prove something nefarious happened, he will have to prove a conspiracy amongst all intel agencies (mostly Republicans), the FISA Court (appointed by a Republican Chief Justice and most of whom are Republicans), Mueller (a Republican), and the FBI (mostly Republican) Do you see a trend here?
I am going to take another step out on the ice My Esoteric, but regarding your statement that 17 intelligence agencies, (bolded no less), said that Pres. Trump was not spied on, did you mix that up with the false claim that 17 intelligence agencies say Russia interfered with the 2016 elections?
I hadn't heard your initial claim before, even though I had seen that a similar claim about Russian interference had been debunked. When I asked Google to help me check it out, she couldn't find anything relative to your claim. Maybe I didn't look deep enough? Or you just misspoke?
Heard on the news tonight that some politician (I didn't get the name or the whole story) that has completed an investigation and is turning over for prosecution some 17 names, I think all for inappropriate behavior in Muellers investigation. Wish I had gotten the whole story, but I didn't.
*edit* and apparently I got the number of people Nunes referred to wrong.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/20 … tion_.html
Yeah, I saw that, 8 sticks in my mind but may be wrong as well. But, if it had come from someone I respected (like Speaker Ryan), I would take it more seriously. But Nunes is very damaged goods with zero credibility.
Of course he is damaged goods and of course he has zero credibility. He isn't trying to railroad Trump, after all.
But you do realize that it was the House Intelligence Committee that did the investigation, not Nunes, right? Nunes is only the spokesperson for the portion of that committee still attempting to do it's job; he isn't speaking solely for himself.
Nunes, while it is true he was driven out as chairman of that specific committee, he retained control over it and the rest of the Intel Committee activities. You remember the ill-fated Nunes memo don't you? That was him, not the investigation.
I am happy to see that Shift is completing the work that Nunes Should have done.
OK, your right, sort of. The FBI said they found no evidence (March 4 and 20) as did the Director of National Intelligence (March 5) as well as Department of Justice National Security Division (Sep 1).
Not quite 17, but the DNI ought to count for a few of them.
Whew! R.O.L.A.I.D.S. It would have been demoralizing to be wrong ... again.
Well, not so fast. Technically...
The Director of National Intelligence serves as the head of the Intelligence Community. (The U.S. Intelligence Community is a coalition of 17 agencies and organizations.)
Some of the authorities and duties include:
Establish objectives and priorities for collection, analysis, production and dissemination of national intelligence.
Ensure maximum availability of and access to intelligence information within the Intelligence Community.
Ensure the most accurate analysis of intelligence is derived from all sources to support national security needs.
So, would it be safe to say that the DNI do speak for those 17 agencies?
In the context of this discussion, I don't think it would be safe to say that the DNI speaks for all 17 agencies relative to this conclusion.
A Politifact's article says so:
"What matters is the agencies that (were involved) and whether, based on their mandate and collection responsibilities, those are the agencies best positioned to make the assessment," said Carrie Cordero, counsel at law firm ZwillGen and former counsel for various federal agencies focusing on national security...."
"So their endorsement or non-endorsement basically means nothing in this case," Aftergood said, adding, "In this context, the assessments that count the most are those of CIA, NSA, FBI and ODNI."
An NPR article agreed:
While the DNI does speak on behalf of 17 intelligence agencies, the work that led to the assessment about Russian interference came from three of the 17 — the CIA, FBI and NSA.
The conclusion has been affirmed by other agencies and Congressional intelligence committees, but it is best to say that "U.S. intelligence agencies" or "the U.S. intelligence community" say that Russia tried to influence the campaign and "undermine faith in the U.S. democratic process." Don't specifically attribute the conclusion to all 17 intelligence agencies."
"There is no question anymore (and I was giving Barr the benefit of the doubt) that Barr is an agent of Trump." Please correct my memory. As a rule, a new president appoint their choice of AG? Possibly you believe Trump should not have had that privilege?
List of those being investigated from the Obama administration.
FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe - Democrat
AG Loretta Lynch - Democrat
Sally Yates - Democrat
Bruce and Nelli Ohr - Democrat
lieutenant general James Clapper - Democrat
Director of the Central Intelligence John Brennan - Democrat
FBI Lawyer Lias Page - Democrat
FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok - Demacrate
James Comey - Republican
Rod Rosenstein - Republican
No way of knowing the FISA Court Judges political standings that signed off on spying requests on Carer Page and others due to privacy... It may become public knowledge at some point, but I doubt it.
No, the President does nominate the AG, as they should, but the AG represents the citizens of the United States and not the president. All of the law enforcement agencies are to act independently of the wishes of the president and Barr is not doing that, it seems. He appears to be coordinating with and acting to the specific benefit of Trump.
McCabe was a registered Republican (his wife was a Democrat)
And I didn't mention the others.
You don't think Roberts would appoint a Democrat, do you?
"All of the law enforcement agencies are to act independently of the wishes of the president and Barr is not doing that, it seems."
Why do you say that? Because he does not show massive, obvious bias against the president? Because he doesn't participate in the witch hunt to destroy Trump? Because he does what is right and what the law requires, whether it hurts or helps Trump?
There was no "witch hunt", that is a figment of your and Trump's imagination. It was a real investigation started by Republicans who cared more about America than Donald Trump and it has found real crimes, several of which involved Trump's campaign and people.
Now, if it had found no evidence of any crimes, or had exonerated Trump of obstruction, or found zero, nada, evidence of conspiracy, then I would agree with you. BUT, they did find evidence of Trump's obstruction and conspiracy within the Trump campaign.
In the former case, Mueller, for whatever reason, chose not to indict a sitting president himself (which is against DOJ "policy").
In the latter, Mueller did NOT say he had zero evidence of conspiracy. He said he didn't have enough to convict beyond a reasonable doubt - the same thing Comey said (and shouldn't have) about Clinton.
It goes without saying now, that with his SPY claim, Barr put his lot in with Trump and gave up any semblance of non-partisanship.
"It goes without saying now, that with his SPY claim, Barr put his lot in with Trump and gave up any semblance of non-partisanship."
Or that they are both right and Trump WAS "spied" upon. But that's not something to be contemplated, right? Far better to just claim bias, whether there or not, in the hopes of shutting it all down before it blows up and proves "beyond a reasonable doubt" that it happened.
I certainly did not indicate that the AG represents the president at all. Your statement is incorrect.
" All of the law enforcement agencies are to act independently of the wishes of the president and Barr is not doing that, it seems. "
Barr has not in any way showed any form of bias I can detect. Other than ruffling some feather making the statement yesterday at the hearing that he is investigating the FISA fiasco. The Republicans have him to do so, with plenty of evidence to back their claims of the Obama administration starting an investigation into the Trump campaign, perhaps without any form of substantial evidence. It appears the crew I mentioned above lied to the FISA judges to gain subpoenas to spy on several of the people in the Trump campaign. I will hold out judgment until Horowitz's hands down his report if there is proof to these accusations. I don't want to end up with egg on my face as many Dems have now that the Mueller report is in. In regards to McCabe, I will give you that one. Could not really find any party affiliation, I found that he supported his wives as a Democrat for the Virginia State Senate. ( I stand corrected)
I do also realize that Barr made the statement that he saw no reason to change the law that a sitting president cannot be indicted while in office. This his legal opinion, he has a right to it does he not?
In my opinion, it appears you are very unhappy with the Mueller report and have chosen to blame Barr for doing his job. He seems very capable to offer the public the Mueller report with few redactions. and is preparing the final report with the help of Mueller and his agents g to make sure the public see as much as can be released legally. to the Congress and the public. It amazes me how the Dems just won't accept the facts as Mueller has provided them after a two-year investigation. This kind of behavior makes them look foolish to many.
But Barr IS biased; he has not jumped on the bandwagon of considering Trump guilty without evidence. He doesn't support the witch hunts, and that makes him biased to many that have concluded that, without doubt, Trump is guilty and must be removed from the office he was elected to.
You said it, (and I did to) Barr is biased because he has jumped on the bandwagon of trying to hide the whole truth from Congress, and the unclassified truth from the people.
He knows what he Mueller report says and so do the Mueller people who have been raising a stink because Barr is shading the truth and trying to protect Trump from the truth.
The truth is
1) there IS evidence of conspiracy, just not beyond a reasonable doubt (but I would bet there is a preponderance of evidence)
2) there is proof people in the Trump campaign colluded, but not quite enough to rise to conspiracy
3) there is evidence that Trump obstructed justice. We already know that Barr prejudged Trump's innocence on this so him not finding it was not a surprise to anybody. We won't know how much evidence Mueller has until the Ds force it out of Barr
4) the Russians interfered in our elections on Trump's behalf
That is what we know. There was no "witch hunt" except in your and Trump's mind. There was lawful reason to investigate and the ONLY people who think otherwise are avid Trump supporters.
'In my opinion, it appears you are very unhappy with the Mueller report...."
We haven't yet seen the Mueller report. All we've seen is a letter from an AG who was appointed specifically because he believes, like Tricky Dick, that a President can't obstruct justice.
I hope Barr is true to his word about redacting only what is necessary.
"All we've seen is a letter from an AG who was appointed specifically because he believes, like Tricky Dick, that a President can't instruct <obstruct> justice."
What makes you say that? A google search produced only:
"Instead, Barr said he and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, after consulting with other Justice Department officials, concluded that there wasn't enough evidence to charge Trump with obstructing justice in the investigation."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol … 264298002/
Which is far, far cry from what you're claiming. What information can you give to support your position that Barr believes a president can't obstruct justice?
You are not aware of the unsolicited 18-page memo Barr sent to the DOJ in June 2018?
Helluva job application.
I take it you didn't read Barr's 17(?) page memo to DOJ telling them that presidents can't obstruct justice did you?
https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/19/politics … index.html
Here is his memo, which several other attorneys general said is flawed. https://www.lawfareblog.com/document-wi … estigation
From your link, Barr states that: "Obviously, the President and any other official can commit obstruction in this classic sense of sabotaging a proceeding's truth finding function."
This does not appear to equate with the statement that Barr thinks "that a President can't instruct <obstruct> justice." as was made by PP. Or do you read the words another way?
I saw that, but then I continued on reading his thoughts. They appear to say, and other AGs seem to agree, that absent such obvious signs of obstruction, a president is incapable of of obstructing justice because, regardless of corrupt intent, it is within his power to obstruct by simply claiming he is just "doing his job". I think Barr even stated Trump could have simply shut down the investigation on him simply because he can.
Minus the spin ("simply claiming"), that appears to be the crux of the argument, all right. That, and throughout history the portion being used by Mueller to suggest obstruction has never been used that way; his approach is a novel one, legally.
I don't know that Barr said he could simply shut it down, but it might be in line with the rest of his viewpoint.
But either way, it certainly doesn't align with the statement that Trump cannot be found guilty of obstruction, which was what started all this. He can, and even Barr said so with no ambiguity.
I think the other federal prosecutors (as well as Mueller) disagree with you and Barr - http://time.com/5559169/donald-trump-ob … barr-memo/
In your link, I see that "Former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti" agrees with you; there are grounds for indictment. Another, Biran, says "What is unlikely to appear is a “smoking gun” that points clearly to obstruction"; he appears to disagree with you.
I see nothing that any current prosecutor agrees, only that a few specific events are present. No indication they think there are grounds for prosecution. It seems that you are reading something into the article that isn't there.
By saying "The Republicans have him to do so, with plenty of evidence to back their claims of the Obama administration starting an investigation into the Trump campaign, perhaps without any form of substantial evidence. " - YOU seem to calling our intel agencies liars since they have said through testimony and other sources that 1) Obama did nothing of the sort and 2) the FBI, et al had plenty of evidence to warrant an investigation into all the Russian contacts made (and lied about) by people in the Trump campaign. Those are hard facts to get around.
The Dems don't know what Mueller has provided them because Trump's man Barr doesn't want them to see anything but his version of it.
"No, the President does nominate the AG," ????? Under the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution, the officeholder is nominated by the President of the United States and appointed with the advice and consent of the United States Senate. The attorney general serves in the Cabinet of the president of the United States. The AG as head of the Department of Justice and is chief legal counsel to the president.
Seems sad and odd that you for some reason feel Trump did not deserve to appoint an AG of his choice? You do realize previous presidents fill their cabinets with persons of their choice? I find it odd you feel Trump should not be given this privilege. The president also has the right to replays the AG at his discretion. It is apparent you presume a bit too much in regards to Barr's work ethics. Your use words such as "it seems and appears". Perhaps you should not make such accusations against a man that may not be in any way guilty of what you accuse him...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St … ey_General
Bad grammar part. The "No" referred to, I think, your comment "Barr has not in any way showed any form of bias I can detect. "
The phrase after the comma (which probably should have been a period or something) just restates what you said. I wasn't arguing the president shouldn't the right to pick his own cabinet.
My point is that once confirmed, the new AG represents the American people as an independent arbiter and not Trump's personal defender.
Hate to inform you... The grammar you speak of is from your own post? I was quoting part of your comment. You seem confused?
MY ESOTERIC WROTE:
No, the President does nominate the AG, as they should, but the AG represents the citizens of the United States and not the president. All of the law enforcement agencies are to act independently of the wishes of the president and Barr is not doing that, it seems. He appears to be coordinating with and acting to the specific benefit of Trump.
McCabe was a registered Republican (his wife was a Democrat)
And I didn't mention the others.
You don't think Roberts would appoint a Democrat, do you?
My dude lets move away from the topic of Trump Russia collusion for a second. This looks very bad for Democrats and the mainstream media who have been crying wolf for 2 years that the 2016 election was rigged. If you don't think this will have a major effect on the moderates in our country you have another thing coming in 2020.
Exactly what so-called "wolf" has the mainstream media been crying - that wasn't true???
Mr. Trump has yet to be exonerated, he continues to undermine our Health-Care System, continues to try and SLASH Social Security and Medicare, is STILL a racist and misogynist etc etc etc which spells DOOM for the Republican Senate in 2020 and DOOM for whomever is the Republican presidential candidate:
MizBejabbers: I was right about the MASSIVE Blue Wave of Democratic Righteousness which washed away the communist russian republican control of the house of reps, a prediction which was not at all difficult to foresee, and I'll be right about the total collapse of the communist republican senate when Dems seize control of that branch of government in 2020:
The people are fed up to here with waking up every morning to another Bozo Trump induced nightmare of attacks on our democracy and health-care system and are equally fed up with the COMPLICITY of russian republicans in the house and senate: Donald can't escape justice forever, sooner or later the long arm of the law will catch up to him and his family and result in prison time, the Mueller Report and his foundation which was forced to shut-down are just a sign of things to come for them and it sure doesn't look pretty:
Jake, I said that because I was surprised and shocked when Hillary didn't win. So after that shocker, nothing surprises me nowadays. Now getting back to our "illustrious" president, doesn't anyone else smell a rat? The investigation closes a month after Barr is confirmed. Mueller all of a sudden doesn't find collusion after all the investigation and hoopla with Michael Cohen et al, and then he turns the decision over to Barr, when it is his job to render it. I think the Trump-Barr bunch got to Mueller.
Personally, I think Mueller is a stickler for the rules. And one rule he is stuck with is the Dept of Justice OLC ruling that you can't indict a sitting president. If you can't, then how can he reach a conclusion that he should be indicted even though there is enough evidence to do so.
The same logic, I think, applies to the conspiracy charge - although I think the evidence was probably weaker.
Why he didn't indict the kids is anybody's guess.
MizBejabbers: There have never been so many Creepy SEWER Rats running around our white house in this nations history and we have never had a retarded "White Nationalist" aka nazi, calling the shots behind the scenes:
Just wait until the public actually sees the un-redacted Mueller Report, and we will see it one way or another even if republican "SHILL" Barr continues with the COVER-Up: There seems to still be Patriotic Americans within the white house who are keeping tabs and revealing the insanely dangerous atrocities occurring, my guess is if the report is concealed, a great American from within will provide it to the public at some time in the near future:
He can't escape justice forever, nobody does:
I have little hope that the full report will do anything more than give conspiracy theorists more food for fodder. It's kind of like Clinton arguing the definition of the word is. Reality can't smack them in the face because they have their heads buried in the sand.
Given the way the Mueller report was dropped on a Friday afternoon after close of business, and the rapid summary that was published by AG Barr just 36 hrs later on a Sunday afternoon, it would he safe to assume that Barr had his 4 page summary already drafted well before the report was released. It was going to go down this way REGARDLESS of what Mueller concluded with his investigation.
Trump knew this last week when he said the entire report should be released to the public. He had already signaled to AG Barr that he doesn't want Mueller's report released to the public OR Congress, and Barr will oblige him. The ONLY way this report sees the light or day is with Democrats in Congress insisting on it, and it will probably require subpoenas and a court fight. Remember folks, just because Barr said something it true, doesn't make it so. He was brought in, hand-picked, to be Trump's Roy Cohn. This is the same guy that advised George Bush to pardon Casper Weinberger, Oliver North and 6 others for the Iran Contra scandal. Barr has ZERO regard for the rule of law; he is a political hack. Again, that was the only qualification Trump looked at when picking him to replace Jeff Sessions.
It is now up to the Democrats in Congress to do the Deep dive into Trump's shady and corrupt business practices, and conspiracy that Barr failed to acknowledge in his 4 page summary. I believe most educated and rational Americans know from just their common sense alone that there is more "there" there to be discovered about Russia's involvement in the 2016 election. This is not a joking matter, even if partisan hacks in the Republican Party don't take our Constitution or the rule of law seriously. The people SPECIFICALLY elected 40 new Democrats to the House of Representatives, because in their hearts they know Trump is crooked. If the Democrats don't pursue this further, they will he replaced in 2020. Nobody elected them to he nervous Nellies.
Remember folks, Trump will not pick up even ONE new voter in 2020. Many of those that voted for him, at least 10%, have come to realize that he is a grifter. Will the uneducated hillbillies who have nothing to gain or lose come out to vote for him in 2020 just out of spite? Probably. But the college educated conservative women in the suburbs of key swing states know that he is a liar and a charlatan, and they won't be fooled twice. Democrats need to subpoena Mueller, Rothenstein and Barr to elaborate on Mueller's findings before they talk to anyone else, and they need someone like Kamala Harris asking the questions.
I do feel sorry for those who might be educated above their level of intelligence and can't see the obvious lies being pushed forth by the Democratic party.
I'm educated. I'm conservative. I think the democrats have pulled the wool over the eyes of people who think the things you've posted.
Amazing, a self-described "educated" person having the audacity to say "I do feel sorry for those who might be educated above their level of intelligence "
That statement suggests to me you might be one of them.
Also, it is no mistake that Trump's primary supporters do not have a higher education. He depends on people who haven't been taught how to think for themselves and actually analyze what he says.
Since you are conservative does that mean you -
Opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act? Conservatives did and still do.
Oppose the 1965 Voting Rights Act? Conservatives did and still do.
Oppose the 13th Amendment? Conservatives did.
Oppose the 14th Amendment? Conservatives did.
Oppose the 15th Amendment? Conservatives did and still do.
Oppose the 19th Amendment? Conservatives did.
Interesting that you didn't notice I was responding to a post which disparaged hard working Americans because of that poster's opinion of the education level of others.
Lob an insult, don't complain when one is returned.
As to your comments about conservatives. I was raised by a father who was Republican. Our family's record on standing against the Democratic machine and their KKK cohorts during the end of segregation tells me you have no idea which party stands for what, in real time. All of your questions pertain to stands by the Democratic party.
I realize bashing people and accusing them of imagined crimes is the Democrat's last stand so, I'm certain you'll have more inane, and false allegations in your next post.
And don't tell me 'but, I'm not a Democrat'. Your posts refute that claim.
Was your father a liberal, moderate, or conservative Republican? I was a liberal one for a good portion of my life. Now I am a moderate independent.
The "Democrats" you speak of were conservative Democrats. The key word that has any meaning over time is "conservative". It only makes a difference of whether you are a Democrat or Republican when you give a year along with it - something you DON'T have to do when you speak of conservative and liberal.
Conservatives and liberals have history that is unchanging.
On the other hand, Democrats and Republicans have a history that changes every 50 or so years.
The fact that you think a political party does not change its philosophy over time tells me you have never studied political history and only live in the late 20th century on.
And I will tell you I am not a Democrat today or yesterday or ever. The only party I have ever claimed to belong to was the Republican Party when they stood for the principles that Lincoln believed in. That went out the window beginning in mid 1980s. Until 2017, the Republicans became the party of Calhoun or George Wallace, since that is who they appear to be most similar to. Now, they are the party of Trump who is - well he is certainly not a conservative, nor is he a moderate, nor is he a liberal - so I have no idea who he is other than a transactional misogynistic racist.
Things change, yes. But your argument reminds me of one by a Jehovah Witness, about what things mean.
I agree though, that racists exist on both ends of the political spectrum. But, saying someone is racist, simply because they support a particular policy, or a person who pushes the policy, is race baiting and has been a tactic of the Democratic party each time it sheds a new skin.
Policy is what matters. Trump may be a schmuck, personally, but every demographic has benefited from his economic policies. Trump may be called a misogynist, personally, by the left but he is administration has many women in positions of authority. Trump may be called a racist by the left but this administration has tried and been shut down, by the left, to correct the injustices done to children who were snuck into this country years ago, while attempting to ensure policy changes so future children do not suffer the same fate. Trump may be called an idiot, personally, and be accused of being a pawn for Putin, but his policies have given those Russia attempts to bully more support than Obama ever did. Trump may be guilty, with no chance of being proven innocent, in the minds of the left, of myriad offenses; but the body of evidence being built has already proven that the rabbit holes people such as yourself are stuck within were dug specifically to obfuscate the facts.
I could go on and on but policy is how I determine what is true about an individual and a party. I think the more important lesson to learn from history is not the face of the party's change but what drives the change of the face. And who a person is is more about what they accomplish than the worst you can you perceive their words to mean.
I don't say someone is racist "because they support a particular policy, or a person who pushes the policy." I say it because their own person actions and words call for it.
- John Calhoun, a Conservative, was a racist.
- George Wallace, a Conservative, was a racist.
- Donald Trump, says he is a Conservative, is a racist.
- John Kennedy, a Liberal, was Not a racist.
- Jimmy Carter, a Liberal, was Not a racist.
- Abraham Lincoln, a Liberal, was Not a racist
Very few Liberals are racist because that violates liberal first principles
Many Conservatives are not racist, e.g. Ronald Reagan, because conservative first principles are silent on it. History shows that if a person's moral outlook ISN'T guided by first principles that actively oppose racism, they tend to be conservative
On the other hand, if a person's moral outlook IS guided by such first principles, they tend to be liberal.
Assuming you are middle class, how have you benefited from Trump's economic policy? Have you seen the huge bump in your income that he promised? I do taxes for a few friends and have seen their tax returns drop or remain the same from what it would have been. I will probably lose money as well.
The economy itself is continuing the pace set under the Obama administration, between 2 and 3% annual growth. Except for farmers. They are now on life-supporting handouts from the Trump administration. The coal industry continues to fail.
I must admit, there are a few economic bright spots under Trump. The rich are much richer. Corporations and their executives are much richer. Steel workers and the companies they work for are better off.
But, overall, the economy is not much different that it was under President Obama.
Trump shut down the government, not the left. Trump had a deal with McConnell and because conservatives whined, he broke it and caused the longest shutdown in American history.
I don't call Trump an idiot, even though he does many idiotic things. I, and a whole host of mental health professionals, call Trump dangerously mentally ill.
As far as I can tell the entire basis for accusing Trump (and conservatives in general) of racism is because of his (and our) wish to end illegal immigration. Oddly, I know a number of liberals, but only one who is in favor of illegal immigration. Ergo, by you logic, I suppose most liberal must be racists.
I think Trump's policies have helped the economy somewhat. Almost all of our economic ills are the result of very entrenched special interests, including but not limited to the Federal Reserve system, banking, Wall Street, healthcare, and education. You can see that it would be difficult to root out even one of these. They pretty much own "the system."
I will say that most of the working people I know are doing well. I would even go so far as to say that my own little "hobby" business is doing well, though it's hard to say how much Trump has to do with it. But, based on my own sales, I have the impression that people seem to have a bit more money to spend.
Shutting the government down was a good thing. It would be good if about 99% of government at all levels were shut down permanently, since...um...most people are being continually robbed of more than half of their income by government parasites. If we could get rid of the damn leeches, it would more than double everyone's disposable income.
This is the actual basis of Leftist hate: Almost all of them are government employees/retirees, or employed in government-subsidized "industries," or are on the tit one way or another. Being as how they are on the payroll, they are Statists of a very deep dye. Their basic political position in all things is "All power to the state; no power to the people." No power of decision-making re First and Second Amendment rights, no power to make economic decisions regarding education and health care, no power to start their own businesses, no leverage in the labor market due to immigration (legal and illegal), and continually robbed by the financial industry.
"I think Trump's policies have helped the economy somewhat." - I agree with the "somewhat". I'll this far, it has been great for the wealthy, those on the low end have seen no improvement, and those in the middle, only a little.
Trump's and conservatives stance on immigration have nothing to do with racism, everybody wants safe, less porous borders. What defines Trump and many conservatives as "racist" are the words they chose to use and the actions they take.
If you read my book or hub on the issue of Recessions, you will find that the Federal Reserve, or something like, is the ONLY reason recessions, depressions, and panics can be limited in severity and reduced in number. EVERY time the government let the central bank charter lapse or the Fed weakened its oversight, a big recession resulted including the one in 2008.
"Almost all of them are government employees/retirees, or employed in government-subsidized "industries," or are on the tit one way or another. " - So, it sounds like your solution is to have NO GOVERNMENT at all or let profit-driven private business run it.
The last recession was brought on by the mortgage debacle. Fannie mae and Freddie mac forced banks to give mortgages to people who have no business owning a home...
The crisis and recession was self inflicted by our government, trying to do good by the people but misguided thinking they can force home ownership on everyone.
The truth is, not everyone can own a home or have the income to support owning a home.
What did you think of the Mueller hearing this week?
Was it everything you expected?
Or were you as shocked as I was about how clueless Mueller was about his own report...
As I prove in my book, A Short History of Significant American Recessions, Depressions, and Panics: Why Conservative Economic Theory Does Not Work, it was conservative economic theory that was largely responsible for the Great 2008 Recession. It facilitated the bad mortgage loans. and was why Greenspan didn't do anything - he thought his theory was working - until he figured out it wasn't.
The Financial Inquiry puts a lie to the statement "government, trying to do good by the people but misguided thinking they can force home ownership on everyone. " - That is another Right-wing Myth.
Mueller was far from clueless about a 450+ page plus report. Hell, the Rs wouldn't even give him time to look up what they were talking about. I do agree his visual performance was weak. But he was Very Strong when it came to:
- The Russians played a substantial role in the outcome of the 2016 election
- That the Russians are doing it now
- That the Russians will do it again in 2020 (although the Iranians, ironically, may act as a counter-weight
- That Trump obstructed justice
- That there was evidence of Conspiracy, just not enough of it
- That Mueller did NOT exonerate Trump of obstruction charges because there was plenty of evidence he did
- That Trump's acceptance of Wikileaks was "problematic"
So, for the most part, it was everything I expected (since I read the report and he didn't deviate from it)
It was never very subtle. Obama and Hillary accused Trump of doing precisely what they had been doing for years and hoped to continue to do for many years more. Projection equals protection.
Everyone will see that Hillary took money from all around the world and especially she made deals with Russia. We've seen Obama on camera with a big shot from Russia saying we will be able to collude even more after the next election.
The idea that Trump and Russia could collude and keep it secret is kind of silly. Our population is so poorly educated now that you could tell them CNN is a serious news outlets, and they would believe it!
Exactly what did Obama and Hillary accuse Trump of doing? A very vague sentence, don't you think Bruce? And what is it that Clinton and Obama have been doing for years? Also, extremely vague.
What money did Hillary take, even indirectly, from all over the world; that will be news to everybody. What deals, outside of official ones, did she make - on her own, with nobody else knowing? That would be news no one else knows.
Can you provide the quote where Obama said he could/would "collude" with the Russians? Since you said "again" what did Obama "collude" on previously??? Somehow, I think you are mistaken.
Why did Trump meet with Putin in private??
Why did Trump take the translator's notes??
Why has he met with Putin without an American translator??
Why does Trump keep saying Putin is correct about Russian not interfering with our/your election in spite of our OWN Intelligence Agencies (all of them) says Putin DID interfere???
You meant FakeFoxNews, didn't you and the Trump adviser Lyin' Hannity??
If you don't know what Hillary and Obama are accused of doing, and you know of no money has taken "from all over the world" in her "pay to play" racket, I have to assume it is because you have not really been following the continuous barrage of news on these subjects.
Your other objections are puerile: One does not negotiate on a public stage. If Trump "took the translator's notes" it was doubtless because he did not want the conversation to be made public, for the reason already stated. If he met with Putin without an American translator, it seems like to me that this was because Putin speaks English.
While there are indications that there may have been some attempts by Russia to influence the election (which from the actual evidence appear to be insignificant), attempts by nearly every major nation to attempt to influence the elections of other nations are so commonplace that the whole subject is kind of a yawn. There are nations other than Russia whose efforts to influence our elections are massive by comparison.
I.e., there are only five major corporations controlling the US news and entertainment media. Some are largely owned by foreign nationals and many by dual citizens. MSM "journalism" as a whole might be characterized as the activities of foreign countries and/or foreign nationals attempting to influence US government and economic policies, as well as elections.
"If you don't know what Hillary and Obama are accused of doing, and you know of no money has taken "from all over the world" in her "pay to play" racket, I have to assume it is because you have not really been following the continuous barrage of news on these subjects." - CLEARLY I do, Blue. THEREFORE, you must be following Trump's lead and making it up.
"While there are indications that there may have been some attempts by Russia to influence the election (which from the actual evidence appear to be insignificant), " - LOLOL, now who doesn't follow the news? Clearly, you.
This whole post was SO predictable: "We can't prove collusion, BUT...everyone knows he's guilty of something"
Next will be another "investigation" into some other trumped up charge. Perhaps he's been buying sex from martians.
I think it's interesting that no one finds the chain of events odd, and telling.
Hilary began a bizarre (seemed to me McCarthyesque, chant) during her campaign of 'Russia, Russia, Russia.'
What seemed odd at the time was just setting the stage for the entire collusion hoax which has cost millions of dollars and ripped the fabric of our political system.
Once her gambit failed they should have dropped it, like a rock. But, no. The good of the country doesn't factor into politics.
I hope Rand Paul's proposed amendment will be added and we can get to the bottom of the beginning of this entire debacle.
Well, it's awfully early to be putting nails in a coffin. Considering that his base at this point is the only one still supporting him and by that I mean "his" base, not the Republican party as a whole. There are those Republicans, like the Bush's who voted Democrat rather than vote for Trump.
As for accomplishments, ripping children from their parents, putting them in camps where they are being raped and abused. Or taxing the hard workers to death so much that they've decided to vote against him. Hurting the farmers with his "great trade deals", or better yet, taking money away from our veterans to build a wall we don't need. Don't you every wonder, how after all these years, as soon as Trump gets appointed to the Presidency, we have an issue with border security and he has to shut down the government. Yet we have an drug epidemic that's killing thousands daily and even though he ran on that issue, he hasn't done anything about it, not even called a national emergency.
Trump supporters are so controlled that they don't even question the fact that he and McConnell are not allowing anyone to run against them. Great Democracy don't you think.
At least the Democrats have a choice, win or lose, Dems are still a part of a democracy. Can't say they same for Trump and his followers.
I was going to say it is the Republican Party because they have been shedding members recently. But that turns out not to be true, the number of people identifying as Republicans haven't changed over the past 5 years, according to Gallup.
Since almost all of Trump's support comes from Republicans, 85% still, and cowardly Republican congresspeople, I would have to conclude that is who his base is - Republicans.
“I have argued for a couple of weeks that the Barr summary, the four-page attorney general summary, did not say no evidence of conspiracy. It did not say no evidence of obstruction. It said not enough evidence to establish the crime. Establish is lawyer-speak for prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, Napolitano said on Fox News' "America's Newsroom."
"If there was no evidence of any criminal activity whatsoever then the attorney general would have said that in his four-page summary and he didn’t," he said.
Napolitano has continually said that Mueller's investigation likely uncovered some evidence of collusion and obstruction of justice.
“In the 700-page summary of the 2 million pages of raw evidence, there is undoubtedly some evidence of a conspiracy and some evidence of obstruction of justice,” he said in March. “Just not enough evidence.”
by Sharlee 7 months ago
Although the special counsel' Robert Mueller's report on Russian interference does not come to any concrete conclusion as to whether President Trump sought to obstructed justice, Robert Mueller's team did find and examine 10 "discrete acts" in which Mueller infers President Trump may have...
by Scott Belford 20 months ago
There can be know doubt that the Trump Jr. meeting with various Russians connected with Putin was collusion. It is not important that the those on the Russian side ended up only talking about influencing Donald Trump to end a set of 2012 sanctions against Russia. What is important is that...
by Scott Belford 13 months ago
Over 15, close or very close associates of Donald Trump or his campaign have had contacts with Russia and Russian spies. How can this not be a conspiracy that Trump didn't know about??- Flynn - National Security Advisor (pleaded guilty)- Sessions - Former Attorney General (fired by Trump for...
by Jack Lee 2 years ago
In discussions here on HubPages, a common topic arises when discussing the media. In most circles, people believes what they read and see on TV. That is why we Conservatives don't trust the media for providing the truth...because we know who we are and the media is mis characterizing conservatives...
by JOC 17 months ago
If he's going to cooperate, that would assume that there's something of value to the investigation in there. Should be interesting to see what he shares.
by Ralph Schwartz 8 months ago
Congressional Democrats spent more than $35 million on the Mueller report. It took 675 days, included nearly 3,000 subpoenas, and required 500 witness accounts. Despite being conducted by a far-from-unbiased legal team—one that has collectively donated at least 20 times more to Democrat as...
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|