All Things Trump: Is it over yet?

[Animavore]

Yep. He sure knows a lot about wind.

[Clinton Huxley]

That mouth-breathing satsuma may just be dumb enough to win a second term.

[Animavore]

Please remember the videos I posted about conservative debate tactics. This stupidity is by design. They keep saying stupid shit Dems can't resist rebutting until they exhaust the person they're debating and when they say they can't be arsed arguing with stupid any more the conservative claims to win.

It's like that movie War Games. The only way to win is not to play. Don't even dignify such stupidity by responding in the first place.

[Tero]

He is going to lock them up, except for Saturday Night Live which he will drive off the air for treason:

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump identified the enemies of his state Thursday night.

At a raucous campaign rally in Grand Rapids, Michigan — his first since Attorney General William Barr reported that the president would not be prosecuted for obstruction of justice and that special counsel Robert Mueller had not established the existence of a conspiracy between the 2016 Trump campaign and Russian operatives — Trump listed them by name and occupation.

"Little pencil-neck Adam Schiff," Trump said of the House Intelligence Committee chairman, who continues to oversee a Russia probe as the president's campaign seeks his resignation or expulsion from Congress.

"Jerry Nadler," he said, invoking the name of the House Judiciary chairman, who is looking into the obstruction-of-justice allegations for which Mueller, in the still-secret report to Barr, laid out evidence for and against concluding the president had committed criminal conduct.

"I have beat him many times, and now I have to come here and beat him again," Trump said of the New York Democrat.

"These people are sick," he continued. "All of the Democrat politicians, the media bosses, bad people. ... crooked journalists, the totally dishonest TV pundits. ... And all the current and former officials who paid for, promoted, and perpetuated the single greatest hoax in the history of politics in our country. They have to be — I am sorry, they have to be accountable."

The crowd chanted a solution for that: "Lock them up!"

NBC

So, those folks accuse him of treason and various other crimes, mock and belittle the guy for the last 3 1/2 years endlessly - ridiculing his face, his weight, his hands, his hair, his food, his beverages, his manner of doing everything - depicting him as stupid, evil, horrible, and not only that but in the pocket of foreign governments who "have something on him" - two years of false accusations that he he knew about wikileaks dumps in advance and the like - every couple of weeks a new monster breaking news that would finally destroy the guy they openly, and brazenly, loathe....

... he verbally retorts, and he's the problem?

They can fuck off. Rachel Maddow? Crying her eyes out at the release of the Mueller report. LOL.

Yeah fuck off ! It’s entirely different for TV etc to mock a guy than for a president of s country to threaten to lock me up for having different politics than he does. This is the last straw. You are on ignore.

[Tero]

Note: there us no need for Trump to take our abuse. He could just quit!

[Svartalf]

No, we could get somebody interesting, say, HIllbillary? to confront him and tell him "You're fired!"

[Tero]

Well, on a pessimistic note, we could get Hillary into the senate. For the purpose of removing Trump when he wins in 2020 and the senate goes 50/50 requiring Pence to block the votes there.

[pErvinalia]

He is going to lock them up, except for Saturday Night Live which he will drive off the air for treason:

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump identified the enemies of his state Thursday night.

At a raucous campaign rally in Grand Rapids, Michigan — his first since Attorney General William Barr reported that the president would not be prosecuted for obstruction of justice and that special counsel Robert Mueller had not established the existence of a conspiracy between the 2016 Trump campaign and Russian operatives — Trump listed them by name and occupation.

"Little pencil-neck Adam Schiff," Trump said of the House Intelligence Committee chairman, who continues to oversee a Russia probe as the president's campaign seeks his resignation or expulsion from Congress.

"Jerry Nadler," he said, invoking the name of the House Judiciary chairman, who is looking into the obstruction-of-justice allegations for which Mueller, in the still-secret report to Barr, laid out evidence for and against concluding the president had committed criminal conduct.

"I have beat him many times, and now I have to come here and beat him again," Trump said of the New York Democrat.

"These people are sick," he continued. "All of the Democrat politicians, the media bosses, bad people. ... crooked journalists, the totally dishonest TV pundits. ... And all the current and former officials who paid for, promoted, and perpetuated the single greatest hoax in the history of politics in our country. They have to be — I am sorry, they have to be accountable."

The crowd chanted a solution for that: "Lock them up!"

NBC

So, those folks accuse him of treason and various other crimes, mock and belittle the guy for the last 3 1/2 years endlessly - ridiculing his face, his weight, his hands, his hair, his food, his beverages, his manner of doing everything - depicting him as stupid, evil, horrible, and not only that but in the pocket of foreign governments who "have something on him" - two years of false accusations that he he knew about wikileaks dumps in advance and the like - every couple of weeks a new monster breaking news that would finally destroy the guy they openly, and brazenly, loathe....

... he verbally retorts, and he's the problem?

They can fuck off.

No, not just fuck off. They should be locked up!

[Tero]

What a dodo!
”During a brief news conference he held at Mar-a-Lago on Friday afternoon, President Donald Trump claimed that closing the border with Mexico would be a “profit-making operation” because of the United States’ trade deficit with its southern neighbor.”

[Tero]

https://twitter.com/maddow/status/1111749689538424837
What happened between Sunday and today that made Barr expand the list of things he will cut from the Mueller Report?

On Sunday, it was (1) grand jury material and (2) stuff that impacts ongoing cases.

Now he's added (3) intelligence information and (4) "embarrassing" material.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Benghazi conspiracies were used by Republicans to try to discredit Obama and later Clinton. Here we are witnessing the creation of a conspiracy of the manipulation of what Mueller's report actually says being used to discredit Trump and his administration.

It would have been simple enough for the administration to release the report to at least the qualified members of Congress (the so-called intelligence "Gang of Eight") without redactions of any kind--there are procedures for that, and there is precedent for getting a court order to release even the grand jury information to these same members of Congress. It's not just a conspiracy theory: 'Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) told reporters earlier this week Attorney General William Barr told him the report will pass through the White House to see if they want to make redactions to the report, according to a reporter from Reuters.' (source) Do you think that it's unreasonable to question why the report has not been given to at least the Gang of Eight, and instead Attorney General Barr is tap-dancing and stalling as he redacts whatever he sees fit to (even if the White House doesn't get to fiddle the report)?

Regarding the rest, I'd say that if you change the report so as to remove the possibility of concluding Mueller found evidence of Trump colluding with Russia, just not enough to warrant prosecution, that you'd have blatantly distorted Mueller's intent.

We'll ignore the DOJ rule that precludes it from prosecuting a sitting president. I think your statement is astute, and I wonder whether Mueller would actually say something if Barr redacted such evidence. I'm not sure that he would, but I do hope so.

I asked if you would be OK with the White House going through the report and redacting sections of it. I also asked if you would rely on the accuracy of the report after the White House had carried out redactions. I suppose you already answered when you said, "If [Mueller] doesn't [say anything if the White House edits the report] then I'm okay with it."

[Sean Hayden]

I asked if you would be OK with the White House going through the report and redacting sections of it. I also asked if you would rely on the accuracy of the report after the White House had carried out redactions. I suppose you already answered when you said, "If [Mueller] doesn't [say anything if the White House edits the report] then I'm okay with it."

That's correct, but not for nothing. There are two sides to a story and I've noted that when we talk about one side of this story, it is always assuming the worst of them. I guess that’s natural. You’re looking out for risks. But it isn't good in my opinion to go from identifying a risk to assuming whatever you’re afraid of is actually happening, which is how I see the complaints about Barr so far.

For example, is there no other reason for his opinion regarding prosecuting Trump than that he doesn’t want a Republican prosecuted? I don't believe that. Instead, it seems likely that it is only the reason which most aligns with the risk/fear you’ve identified. In short, you’re emphasizing those things which would tend to point towards your fears being reality. This is how conspiracy works.

Barr has an opinion regarding prosecuting Trump for obstruction. Is it because he doesn’t want to prosecute Republicans? Does it mean that he will tamper with evidence? I haven’t even seen these questions explored, and yet we are already talking about Barr stalling, looking for ways to exonerate Trump, being underhanded, etc.

Also, what about the risks Democrats present? Should Trump take no precautions against the possibility that they’ll mischaracterize the report? I believe that two people may look at the same report and draw different conclusions. But it remains just a risk. However, I bet we could look at some Democrats and put together a reasonable conspiracy that this is exactly what they intend to do.

Mueller headed the investigation. He knows better than anyone what is most reasonable to conclude from his findings. That doesn’t mean he can’t be wrong. But if I want to know whether the Democrats or the Republicans are mischaracterizing the report, I want to ask Mueller. If he doesn’t say that any redactions have distorted his intent, then I’m fine with that.

[JimC]

Sean, all of your questions would simply be answered if the entire report was released. Until that happens, nobody can be certain that political machinations are keeping information from the public. It's not a question of automatically suspecting Barr, but simply admitting the possibility that he or others could censor for political reasons.

If some absolutely vital intelligence-related material should not be released to protect sources, then that could be redacted, once signed off as necessary by a joint Democrat/Republican committee.

[Sean Hayden]

No, it's clearly a matter of accusing Barr of working to protect Trump from what the report actually says. That's the politics. You're confusing your reasoned approach for what is actually happening. We all do that. But make no mistake, people are saying this is a cover up, Barr is working behind the scenes to protect Trump. A conspiracy is being created. Hell, some even suspected Mueller right after Barr's first statement, which remind me, was how long ago now?

[L'Emmerdeur]

I asked if you would be OK with the White House going through the report and redacting sections of it. I also asked if you would rely on the accuracy of the report after the White House had carried out redactions. I suppose you already answered when you said, "If [Mueller] doesn't [say anything if the White House edits the report] then I'm okay with it."

That's correct, but not for nothing. There are two sides to a story and I've noted that when we talk about one side of this story, it is always assuming the worst of them. I guess that’s natural. You’re looking out for risks. But it isn't good in my opinion to go from identifying a risk to assuming whatever you’re afraid of is actually happening, which is how I see the complaints about Barr so far.

I haven't claimed to know what is actually happening, but this isn't taking place in a vacuum. Barr is highly partisan and I've already laid out facts which would lead a reasonable person to question whether he will deal with the report in an unbiased way.

There is no law which states that it's the Attorney General's prerogative to vet what is discovered by a Special Counsel, beyond determining whether the Special Counsel has recommended charges which are 'inappropriate or unwarranted.' Barr has made no such determination, yet there he is stepping in to whittle away at the report, picking and choosing what Congress will learn from it. You may be willing to depend on Mueller to speak up but he's already had his say, and could very well hold his tongue now.