Open thread Feb. 14, 2020 Dan Crawford | February 14, 2020 8:35 am Tags: opem thread Comments (7) | Digg Facebook Twitter |
Donald Trump claimed that he has a right to intervene in criminal cases. Has he really? Seems a clear breach of separation of powers. Of course he probably meant just in the prosecution (although after conviction is clearly too late), in which case maybe he does have the right (although it breaches strict convention). Any experts?
I doubt he does, but that will not stop him from doing so. He is untouchable, and we are in big trouble. I mean:
“So Trump Basically Confessed to the Ukraine Charges
Just in case anyone is still interested in things like presidential abuse of power.
Not for nothing, America, but basically, he copped to it.
‘The reversal came Thursday in a podcast interview Trump did with journalist Geraldo Rivera, who asked, “Was it strange to send Rudy Giuliani to Ukraine, your personal lawyer? Are you sorry you did that?” Trump responded, “No, not at all,” and praised Giuliani’s role as a “crime fighter.”
“Here’s my choice: I deal with the Comeys of the world, or I deal with Rudy,” Trump said, referring to former FBI Director James Comey. Trump explained that he has “a very bad taste” of the US intelligence community, because of the Russia investigation, so he turned to Giuliani. “So when you tell me, why did I use Rudy, and one of the things about Rudy, number one, he was the best prosecutor, you know, one of the best prosecutors, and the best mayor,” Trump said. “But also, other presidents had them. FDR had a lawyer who was practically, you know, was totally involved with government. Eisenhower had a lawyer. They all had lawyers.” …’
Trump’s past denials came in November, when the House of Representatives was investigating the President’s conduct with Ukraine. Multiple US diplomats and national security officials testified that Giuliani was a central figure in the pressure campaign to secure political favors from Ukraine. Trump also mentioned Giuliani in his phone call last summer with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
Ah, how wonderfully the elected fools and tools in the Congress must feel this morning. It’s only a matter of time before this admission descends into the fog of, “Well, everybody knew that,” in the national dialogue, and we all go back to worrying about whether Michael Bloomberg will let us sublet a bit of democracy after he buys it all up. But, even with the firings, and the frog-marches out of the White House, and the attorney general’s meddling, this is the best piece of evidence we have yet of El Caudillo del Mar-a-Lago’s having been “emboldened” when the fools and tools acquitted him in the Senate. Susan Collins will embark on a sternly worded letter just as soon as she can locate a quill…and, perhaps, the odd brain cell or four.”
“Why Would You Believe Anything William Barr Said?
Why would you believe anything that anyone in the Trump administration said about anything without independently verifying it?
At this point, there is really no reason to believe anything that anyone associated with the current regime says about anything until it can be independently verified. That ought to be the case with any administration, really, but the sheer volume and audacity of the lies coming out of the crew assembled by Donald Trump, American president, has brought things to a new level. This is government by used car salesmen, whose only job is to sell the notion that The Boss hasn’t already removed the muffler.
So there was really no reason to credulously accept the little routine that Trump’s pet toad of an attorney general, William Barr, rolled out for ABC News on Thursday. Earlier in the week, federal prosecutors recommended that a judge sentence Trump associate Roger Stone to seven-to-nine years in prison for various crimes including witness tampering and lying to Congress about his ratfucking exploits in 2016. Then the president tweeted his dissatisfaction with the supposedly harsh recommendation. Then top officials at the Department of Justice seized control—soon enough, Trump tweeted Barr congratulations for “taking charge”—and engineered a more lenient recommendation, which prompted all four prosecutors on the case to quit. It’s now up to U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, whom Trump has also attacked, to actually hand down a sentence on February 20.
So on Thursday, Barr prepared a whole shtick about how independent he is, and how the president “has never asked me to do anything in a criminal case.” (Strangely, he was not so forthcoming when Senator Kamala Harris asked him a similar question under oath: “Has the president or anyone at the White House ever asked or suggested that you open an investigation of anyone?” Barr hemmed and hawed.) The attorney general even debuted a new act wherein he is Very Frustrated with the president’s behavior on the Tweet Machine, something he could never have foreseen when he took the job multiple years into Trump’s presidency. The tweets, he said, “make it impossible for me to do my job.”
Don’t tweet, just call me! There is literally no level of cynicism sufficient to grapple with the machinations of these people, and no level of skepticism that is out of order. Barr already manipulated the findings of the Mueller Report with his execrable Letter, which was billed as summarizing its findings until everyone found out it distorted the findings, at which point Barr said it was not really a summary. The idea that Donald Trump is not interfering in the Department of Justice, or that he is even capable of stopping himself from interfering, is absurd.”
I am certainly not a judge, but if I was appointed for life(even if I wasn’t) and I had this group threatening me I would make sure I stayed within the guidelines. The very highest amount of time within the guidelines.
Of course knowing full well that Stone will be pardoned, but I’d have to stand up to them.
It’s getting ridiculous now.
” Barr Orders Review Of Michael Flynn Case, Heightening Political Interference Concerns
The attorney general’s move renews the questions about how the Justice Department is treating Donald Trump allies.
Many reasons this country needs to vote Trump out of office. But I think one of the biggest is so he can be prosecuted and sent to jail. He is most certainly the unidicted co-conspirator in the Cohen conviction, and the State of NY and the SDNY have a lot of charges waiting for him to be out of the WH.
I cannot think of anything that would be more deserved than trump in prison.
Trump just accused the jury foreman of bias in the Stone trial. Stone has asked for a new trial.
Elmer Fudd (Barr) complaining about trump is almost tragic except what Elmer is doing is similar to what trump is doing. He is interfering with the legal process which is enshrined in a different branch of the Gov. Elmer is doing the same thing as Trump when he intercedes for Stone and soon Flynn I imagine.
That the Senate finds the interference by trump and Barr to be outside the law is inexcusable (insert your own word here _____________). No loud outcry from the Senate and some of them are joining in by launching their own investigations (Graham). The Senate remains disfunctional. Please give, your opinions. I am happy to hear them.
Every time I see something that is a repetition of the 2016 primary I shudder.
“Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) got lots of attention Thursday with a statement she made to HuffPost’s Matt Fuller.
It was about “Medicare for All,” which has become a defining issue in the Democratic presidential campaign, and whether Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Medicare for All’s best-known champion and Ocasio-Cortez’s first choice for 2020 Democratic nominee, could actually get such a plan through Congress.
“A president can’t wave a magic wand and pass any legislation they want,” Ocasio-Cortez warned, acknowledging the political obstacles such a proposal would inevitably encounter. “The worst-case scenario? We compromise deeply, and we end up getting a public option. Is that a nightmare? I don’t think so.”
AOC is not backing off M4A, but being realistic. That makes sense and quite frankly it could help Dem voters leery of M4A support Sanders(not that they shouldn’t if he wins the primary).
But then 2016 raises its head:
“Reasonable people can disagree about which argument is more persuasive, or where an ideal middle ground between the extremes lies. But too often in the past few years, and especially during the presidential campaign, this strategic debate has turned into a moral one, with supporters of Medicare for All describing dissenters as sellouts to corporate interests or indifferent to the people who would still suffer in a system that didn’t achieve full universal coverage.
Probably the most memorable instance of this was in July of last year, after Vice President Joe Biden laid out a health care plan that included a public option along with other reforms designed to make insurance and drugs more affordable.
Under the Biden plan, millions would get coverage, and many struggling with high costs would get significant financial help. But, by the campaign’s own estimates, it would still leave 15 million people without insurance.
Progressive analyst Matt Bruenig did a back-of-the-envelope calculation, using some well-known data on links between insurance and mortality, and published an item (later republished in the socialist Jacobin) he titled, “Bidencare System Will Kill 125,000 Through Uninsurance.”
I fail to see how that helps Sanders, especially when a realistic view of what would happen to M4A(AOC’s compromise) would then enable people to say something like “Sanders lied to us about giving us M4A and killed 125,000.”
Run on your platform, don’t run against others’ platforms.
I saw the same kind of thing after the ACA was passed. Progressives attacked it as much, if not more, than Republicans. They made criticisms just like Breunig’s above, and made the ACA brutally unpopular(before it even kicked in), that I believe the 2010 elections were greatly affected.
This was common on progressive sites like NC, and the damage that was done to progressive actions cannot be measured. They repeated the same process in 2016, and now it looks like 2020 will be the same.
These people never learn.
I want either Warren or Sanders to win the primary. Personally, I think Warren would have the better chance to beat trump, mainly due to Bernie’s past baggage which was ignored by Clinton in 2016 and the other candidates now(which makes me happy).
Trump will not ignore that past.
However, I am now rooting for Sanders to win, because it seems like a loss in the primary will lead to the same behavior of the berniebros in 2016.
And that gave us trump.