[barmar]

I actually heard a Republican Senator on "Morning Edition" today defending Barr's responses. He said that he was responding to the precise wording of the questions he was asked, and they weren't clear enough, so his answers were not technically lies. He talked about how lawyers always advise their clients to give as narrow responses as possible, not offer anything beyond what was specifically asked, and that's what Barr did. So it's the questioners' fault for not asking the right questions.

[andrei]

 hrothgar, on 2019-May-03, 10:04, said:

I'm hoping for

[*] Dies an ignominious death when his own sleen reaches up and chokes him

LOL, what an idiot.

Birds of a feather flock to this board.

[johnu]

 andrei, on 2019-May-03, 11:18, said:

Birds of a feather flock to this board.

Now that you mention it, I did notice that a lot of right fringe Dennison puppets feel an uncontrollable urge to defend Dennison in this thread.

[johnu]

 Winstonm, on 2019-May-03, 09:48, said:

God is Rod "I can land the plane" Rosenstein. Wow.

Here's an interesting background story about that:

It sure does look like William Barr was the anonymous source for the Rod Rosenstein “land the plane” bombshell

Quote

Various pundits were quick to catch that these words have been used before, in similar fashion. Two weeks ago, while testifying before Congress on an unrelated matter, Attorney General William Barr said that he couldn’t address the Mueller report at the time, because “I’m landing the plane right now” with regard to its release. Wait a minute here. What are the odds that these two guys just happened to choose the same obscure metaphor while trying to pull off something underhanded? As it turns out, Rosenstein didn’t actually use the phrase – and this is where it gets tricky.

[johnu]

 barmar, on 2019-May-03, 11:06, said:

I actually heard a Republican Senator on "Morning Edition" today defending Barr's responses. He said that he was responding to the precise wording of the questions he was asked, and they weren't clear enough, so his answers were not technically lies. He talked about how lawyers always advise their clients to give as narrow responses as possible, not offer anything beyond what was specifically asked, and that's what Barr did. So it's the questioners' fault for not asking the right questions.

I heard this on MSNBC that Barr has an interesting "tell" when he is about to lie or deflect from the truth during questioning.

On what should be a 1 second yes or no answer, Barr will pause for 10 or so seconds, and then ask for the question to be repeated. And then he'll give a Clintonesque discussion about the exact meaning of a particular word in that question while he mentally tries to figure out how much he can lie without clearly committing perjury.

[rmnka447]

 johnu, on 2019-May-03, 14:06, said:

I heard this on MSNBC that Barr has an interesting "tell" when he is about to lie or deflect from the truth during questioning.

On what should be a 1 second yes or no answer, Barr will pause for 10 or so seconds, and then ask for the question to be repeated. And then he'll give a Clintonesque discussion about the exact meaning of a particular word in that question while he mentally tries to figure out how much he can lie without clearly committing perjury.

GuffawingOL!!!

MSNBC? MSNBC makes Fox News look like the temple of virtue and truthfulness in comparison. MSNBC can't tell the difference between opinion and fact.

These people created imaginary "code words" And "dog whistles" to reinterpret anything a conservative says into something sinister, racist, bigoted or worse. Now, they've got this unique insight into AG Barr's behavior, so they can claim he lied.

This after claiming the US government was being run by the Russians, which was fantasy. This after decrying the end of democracy virtually every day for 2 years, it's still strong despite their best efforts. This after claiming collusion with Russia was a dead certain given, it proved to be false.

In the immortal words of John McEnroe -- "You can't be serious!!"

[Winstonm]

 rmnka447, on 2019-May-03, 19:19, said:

GuffawingOL!!!

MSNBC? MSNBC makes Fox News look like the temple of virtue and truthfulness in comparison. MSNBC can't tell the difference between opinion and fact.

These people created imaginary "code words" And "dog whistles" to reinterpret anything a conservative says into something sinister, racist, bigoted or worse. Now, they've got this unique insight into AG Barr's behavior, so they can claim he lied.

This after claiming the US government was being run by the Russians, which was fantasy. This after decrying the end of democracy virtually every day for 2 years, it's still strong despite their best efforts. This after claiming collusion with Russia was a dead certain given, it proved to be false.

In the immortal words of John McEnroe -- "You can't be serious!!"

A few bipartisan questions for you:

Do you think any president should be able to stop any federal investigation he feels is unfair?
Do you think it proper for the president of the United States to be profiting from foreign countries using his businesses?
If a president had the potential to be making policy decisions favorable to a country or individual based on how much money that country or person was spending at the president' businesses, would it be fair for Congress to investigate that possibility? If it were found to be occurring, would that rise to the level of a criminal offense or, if not, an impeachable offense?
And finally, do you think it is proper for the president to cause the Department of Justice to investigate political opponents?\\

Quote

This after decrying the end of democracy virtually every day for 2 years, it's still strong despite their best efforts.

You seem to have a misguided understanding that attacks on norms are somehow good, rather than being harmful. Democracies do not die overnight - even coup d'etat take years to develop. The slow erosion of democracy is a huge subject which takes a book - I suggest you read it:. How Democracies Die

[johnu]

 rmnka447, on 2019-May-03, 19:19, said:

MSNBC? MSNBC makes Fox News look like the temple of virtue and truthfulness in comparison. MSNBC can't tell the difference between opinion and fact.

You mean Fox Propaganda Network? The network who spent a whole year trying to get Dennison elected? The network where Dennison gets most of his political appointees? The mud slinging, scandal driven, right fringe network owned by Rupert Murdock? Even some of the Fox on air personalities like Andrew Napolitano and Chris Wallace have had enough with some of their colleagues' "opinions".

Fox News Legal Analyst Unloads On Trump: ‘Unlawful, Defenseless And Condemnable’

Quote

“I’m disappointed in the behavior of the president,” Napolitano said in his video. “His job is to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States to uphold and enforce federal law. Not to violate it.”

He said if Trump violated the law to save a life, he could have a moral defense.

“But ordering obstruction to save himself from the consequences of his own behavior is unlawful, defenseless and condemnable,” he wrote on the website.

Fox News’ Chris Wallace Calls Out His Own Network’s Opinion Hosts Over Barr Coverage

Quote

Some opinion people who appear on this network who might be pushing a political agenda don't think the Mueller letter is a big deal. But we have to deal in facts -- the fact is this letter was a clear indication that Mueller was very upset w/ Barr.

And there was this:
PUTIN HAS 'GRIP' ON 'FRIGHTENED' TRUMP, FORMER FOX NEWS ANALYST SAYS

Quote

“Before he became a candidate or president, Donald Trump was the perfect target for Russian intelligence. Here is someone who has no self-control, a sense of sexual entitlement and intermittent financial crisis," Peters said. "I mean, that’s made-to-order for seduction by Russian intelligence.”

MSNBC has personalities who deal in opinion. Fox has personalities who deal in fantasy unrelated to facts.

 rmnka447, on 2019-May-03, 19:19, said:

These people created imaginary "code words" And "dog whistles" to reinterpret anything a conservative says into something sinister, racist, bigoted or worse. Now, they've got this unique insight into AG Barr's behavior, so they can claim he lied.

Most Fox personalities don't need to create imaginary code words and dog whistles. They just reuse the racist, bigotted ones that have been used since reconstruction days, updated after the 64 Civil Rights act.

And no, MSNBC doesn't need to create code words and dog whistles. They just have to observe Fox personalities and right fringe politicians and recognize bigots and racists. As far as Dennison's government paid personal attorney Barr goes, he was a liar while serving under Bush I, and anybody who has read the Mueller report or summaries knows that he lied about those reports. No code words, no dog whistles, just calling Barr a liar.

 rmnka447, on 2019-May-03, 19:19, said:

This after claiming the US government was being run by the Russians, which was fantasy. This after decrying the end of democracy virtually every day for 2 years, it's still strong despite their best efforts. This after claiming collusion with Russia was a dead certain given, it proved to be false.

Obviously you have only heard about Barr's 4 page summary where he completely exonerated Dennison, and Dennison using Barr's summary to declare he was 100% vindicated. Mueller wrote Barr a letter to complain that Barr had lied about the conclusions of the report.

Do yourself a favor. Download a copy of Mueller's report and read it yourself without any spin from anybody else. Then you can discuss things without embarrassing yourself and exposing yourself as being completely ignorant about the facts.

 rmnka447, on 2019-May-03, 19:19, said:

In the immortal words of John McEnroe -- "You can't be serious!!"

Well, at least we agree on one thing.

[johnu]

Russia's investment in purchasing their personal puppet Trump continues to pay dividends:

Trump Says He Discussed the ‘Russian Hoax’ in a Phone Call With Putin

Quote

Instead, the two leaders pledged to embark on a new era of cooperation on issues from North Korea to Venezuela, where Mr. Trump said the Russian leader “is not looking at all to get involved, other than he’d like to see something positive happen.”

Of course, this undercuts well known liberal Democrats John Bolton and Mike Pompeo who had both blamed Russia for interference in Venezuela.

Quote

Mr. Trump’s dismissal of Russian election interference runs counter to the assessments of the nation’s intelligence agencies, as well as Mr. Mueller’s report, while his characterization of Mr. Putin’s role in Venezuela contradicts the views of his own top advisers.

It must be nice to be Putin and have the US President under his thumb.

[cherdano]

 barmar, on 2019-May-03, 11:06, said:

I actually heard a Republican Senator on "Morning Edition" today defending Barr's responses. He said that he was responding to the precise wording of the questions he was asked, and they weren't clear enough, so his answers were not technically lies. He talked about how lawyers always advise their clients to give as narrow responses as possible, not offer anything beyond what was specifically asked, and that's what Barr did. So it's the questioners' fault for not asking the right questions.

When everything is part of the team sport Reps vs Dems then apparently anything that is not a crime is an ok thing to do.

Personally, I'd make the radical suggestion that when the US attorney general appears in front of Congress to testify about a matter of great public concern, his goal should be to properly inform Congress and the public about relevant matters, not to mislead Congress as much as possible without technically committing perjury.

[andrei]

 Winstonm, on 2019-May-03, 20:40, said:

A few bipartisan questions for you:

Do you think any president should be able to stop any federal investigation he feels is unfair?
Do you think it proper for the president of the United States to be profiting from foreign countries using his businesses?
If a president had the potential to be making policy decisions favorable to a country or individual based on how much money that country or person was spending at the president' businesses, would it be fair for Congress to investigate that possibility? If it were found to be occurring, would that rise to the level of a criminal offense or, if not, an impeachable offense?
And finally, do you think it is proper for the president to cause the Department of Justice to investigate political opponents

Collusion? Where is collusion?
Why no mention about collusion?

[Winstonm]

 andrei, on 2019-May-04, 09:52, said:

Collusion? Where is collusion?

Among Individual-1, Michael Cohen, and David Pecker to pay off porn stars and playmates.

But did not you know about that collusion? It's also known as being an unindicted co-conspirator.

[PassedOut]

 andrei, on 2019-May-04, 09:52, said:

Collusion? Where is collusion?
Why no mention about collusion?

Do you know of any hard evidence -- not the vast amount circumstantial evidence that we all know about -- of collusion with Russia? I thought that the Mueller investigation did not.

Seems to me that Trump was the one always tweeting about collusion and the news reports were about his tweets. As collusion is not a crime, his tweets were likely intended to deflect attention away from his actual crimes. Trump certainly behaves as if he has a lot to hide -- not the behavior of an honest person.

[hrothgar]

 andrei, on 2019-May-04, 09:52, said:

Collusion? Where is collusion?
Why no mention about collusion?

The Mueller report directly addresses this point, idiot...

In all seriousness, if you are too stupid and lazy to familiarize yourselves with the basics of what is being discussed, why not just ***** off?

(Out of curiosity, are you are Russian emigree or a son there of?)

[Winstonm]

It is interesting to read the Mueller report in the sense of what he did not say. For example, page 2 of the report speaks of the "coordination", which he writes, "does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law." So because they were charged to look for "coordination" between the campaign and Russia, the Mueller team used their own quite narrow definition of an agreement, either tacit or explicit, between the campaign and the Russian government.

Mueller went on to say that this "coordination" would require more than 2 parties, and they could not establish that. What they did not speak about was what they found about less than 3 parties, i.e., specifically 2 parties.

Because of that, I would bet many of the 14 cases spun off the SC's office are in this area - not quite up to the rigid standards of the SCO's definitions but needing a close look by investigators and possibly Grand Juries.

BTW, here is a link to the redacted Mueller report. Better to read it than listen to drivel about "collusion".

[johnu]

 andrei, on 2019-May-04, 09:52, said:

Collusion? Where is collusion?
Why no mention about collusion?

Nice job of reading the questions. You managed to not answer or even mention any of Winstonm's questions and come up with your own off tangent questions. Isn't it time for you to list all of Dennison's "accomplishments" since he took office?

Here's a cliff notes summary of some of the Mueller report findings.

Guide to the Mueller Report’s Findings on “Collusion”

As far as "collusion" discussions, one section says this

Quote

1. Trump was receptive to a Campaign national security adviser’s (George Papadopoulos) pursuit of a back channel to Putin.

2. Kremlin operatives provided the Campaign a preview of the Russian plan to distribute stolen emails.

3. The Trump Campaign chairman and deputy chairman (Paul Manafort and Rick Gates) knowingly shared internal polling data and information on battleground states with a Russian spy; and the Campaign chairman worked with the Russian spy on a pro-Russia “peace” plan for Ukraine.

4. The Trump Campaign chairman periodically shared internal polling data with the Russian spy with the expectation it would be shared with Putin-linked oligarch, Oleg Deripaska.

5. Trump Campaign chairman Manafort expected Trump’s winning the presidency would mean Deripaska would want to use Manafort to advance Deripaska’s interests in the United States and elsewhere.

6. Trump Tower meeting: (1) On receiving an email offering derogatory information on Clinton coming from a Russian government official, Donald Trump Jr. “appears to have accepted that offer;” (2) members of the Campaign discussed the Trump Tower meeting beforehand; (3) Donald Trump Jr. told the Russians during the meeting that Trump could revisit the issue of the Magnitsky Act if elected.

7. A Trump Campaign official told the Special Counsel he “felt obliged to object” to a GOP Platform change on Ukraine because it contradicted Trump’s wishes; however, the investigation did not establish that Gordon was directed by Trump.

8. Russian military hackers may have followed Trump’s July 27, 2016 public statement “Russia if you’re listening …” within hours by targeting Clinton’s personal office for the first time.

9. Trump requested campaign affiliates to get Clinton’s emails, which resulted in an individual apparently acting in coordination with the Campaign claiming to have successfully contacted Russian hackers.

10. The Trump Campaign—and Trump personally—appeared to have advanced knowledge of future WikiLeaks releases.

11. The Trump Campaign coordinated campaign-related public communications based on future WikiLeaks releases.

12. Michael Cohen, on behalf of the Trump Organization, brokered a secret deal for a Trump Tower Moscow project directly involving Putin’s inner circle, at least until June 2016.

13. During the presidential transition, Jared Kushner and Eric Prince engaged in secret back channel communications with Russian agents. (1) Kushner suggested to the Russian Ambassador that they use a secure communication line from within the Russian Embassy to speak with Russian Generals; and (2) Prince and Kushner’s friend Rick Gerson conducted secret back channel meetings with a Putin agent to develop a plan for U.S.-Russian relations.

14. During the presidential transition, in coordination with other members of the Transition Team, Michael Flynn spoke with the Russian Ambassador to prevent a tit for tat Russian response to the Obama administration’s imposition of sanctions for election interference; the Russians agreed not to retaliate saying they wanted a good relationship with the incoming administration.

There are 448 pages in the Mueller report, plus attachments and other classified material which probably runs into the thousands and thousands of pages.

[Winstonm]

On a serious note - meaning I'm ignoring the president's sycophants - the fact that Nancy Pelosi is saying this:

Quote

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is concerned President Donald Trump will not voluntarily step down unless Democrats win by a "big" enough margin in 2020 that he doesn't contest the results, the New York Times reported Saturday.

In an interview with the newspaper this week, the Democratic leader expressed worry over a scenario where Trump would not accept the election results if he were to lose re-election by a slim margin, the Times reported.
"We have to inoculate against that, we have to be prepared for that," Pelosi told the newspaper Wednesday.

is so remarkable that it should both sicken and terrify anyone who considers himself American or a supporter of democracy anywhere in the world. Think about this: the current Speaker of the House of Representatives has gone on record to the major newspaper in the U.S. saying she is concerned the current president will not voluntarily turn over power if he is dissatisfied with the 2020 election results. Incredible!

This is gobsmacking of gargantuan proportions.

[y66]

From The Future of Trump’s Economy: Theme of the Week by Brooke Sample at Bloomberg:

Quote

The U.S. economy is looking strong, and President Donald Trump wants to take all the credit. The jobs report on Friday was excellent, the latest sign that America’s decade-long expansion is nowhere near over. Productivity grew by a blistering 3.6 percent last quarter. Some pundits are wondering if inflation is dead. Yet there are worrying signs for Trump. His tweets once moved markets; now they are often ignored. And his formula for growth — tax cuts, deregulation, higher spending — looks a lot like President George W. Bush’s … and his administration presided over the worst recession since the Great Depression. This week, Bloomberg Opinion columnists looked at the economy from a number of angles, trying to understand where the economy is going next.

Don’t Be Shocked If Trump’s Economy Goes the Way of Bush’s – Richard J. Carroll

Don’t Cheer for the Health-Care Hiring Boom – Justin Fox

Bankers at the Top Are Getting Big Raises Under Trump – Mark Whitehouse

Trump’s Fed Tweets Don’t Faze Bond Traders Anymore – Brian Chappatta

Productivity Is Way Up. Are You Paying Attention, Fed? – Karl W. Smith

The Milken Conference Trades Rainbows for Clouds – Stephen Gandel

Trump Can Do a Lot More to Help Manufacturing – Noah Smith

Trump’s Tax Cuts Aren’t Doing What They Should – Mark Whitehouse

U.S. Expansion May Be Nowhere Near an End – Nir Kaissar

[andrei]

 hrothgar, on 2019-May-04, 10:18, said:

(Out of curiosity, are you are Russian emigree or a son there of?)

LOL, I might be from Ukraine.

Did you hear about Ukraine? The country that colluded with Democrats in 2016?

Ukrainian Embassy confirms DNC contractor solicited Trump dirt in 2016

I need to warn you about the above article: it contains named sources. I am afraid you are not used to it and I hope you won't find it offensive.

[andrei]

Told you already that this thread is a goldmine. Look what you can find 3 posts apart:

 Winstonm, on 2019-May-04, 10:31, said:

It is interesting to read the Mueller report in the sense of what he did not say.

He did not say anything about Lori Loughlin either, so I guess she is not guilty.

 Winstonm, on 2019-May-04, 19:28, said:

On a serious note - meaning I'm ignoring the president's sycophants - the fact that Nancy Pelosi is saying this:

is so remarkable that it should both sicken and terrify anyone who considers himself American or a supporter of democracy anywhere in the world. Think about this: the current Speaker of the House of Representatives has gone on record to the major newspaper in the U.S. saying she is concerned the current president will not voluntarily turn over power if he is dissatisfied with the 2020 election results. Incredible!

This is gobsmacking of gargantuan proportions.

Do you think Nancy knows if Warriors will three-peat?