LaxPower Back-Up Stick

Trinity wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 7:00 am “Poking holes in a Trump conspiracy theory, Italy's prime minister said Italian intelligence agents did nothing to promote false stories about Russian meddling in the U.S. election.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/23/worl ... conte.html

"Italian officials have lamented that the unusual requests by the Trump admin complicated what has been a long-lasting collaboration between allies on issues of justice & national security."

Gee, this is not what I heard from Faux News yesterday afternoon. They were all a twitter about how bad this was for Clapper and Brennan. My gosh, who should I believe?

Obama did this. He used Ukraine to frame Russia for electing Trump. Man, he hates Hillary.

BILL BARR’S DOJ ENGAGED IN CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE US ON TRUMP’S JULY 25 MEETING

"It turns out that deliberately undermining FEC’s ability to do its job is a crime, one of the same crimes that Parnas and Fruman got charged with, the same crime that Bill Barr’s DOJ is vigorously prosecuting against the Russian trolls (though which a recent decision from Dabney Friedrich may put at risk): Conspiracy to Defraud the US.

There’s zero chance, of course, that Bill Barr will charge his top aides with thwarting the ability of the FEC to connect the dots on a referral that directly ties to another complaint already in their hands. But we should be clear that DOJ appears to be engaged in undermining the proper functioning of the campaign finance system in the same way Russian trolls and Parnas and Fruman have been accused of doing."

..

Should We Really Buy DOJ’s Efforts To Wash Its Hands Of Trump’s Ukraine Mess?

..

Electoral POTUS Donny Trump's, personal attorney, William Pelham Barr is back and ready to rumble. Beware you, sniveling, Lilly-livered libs.No matter where you hide and cower,he'll find you and mete out his and his boss's version of justice.

AND THERE'S NOT A FLAMING THING YOU CRETINS CAN DO ABOUT IT!

ASIDE: I'm not sure WPB is a member of Opus Dei. Hansson, Alioto, and Scalia were/are members. Bannon is NOT nor is Chaminade Sean.

wahoomurf wrote: ↑Fri Oct 25, 2019 11:07 am Electoral POTUS Donny Trump's, personal attorney, William Pelham Barr is back and ready to rumble. Beware you, sniveling, Lilly-livered libs.No matter where you hide and cower,he'll find you and mete out his and his boss's version of justice.

AND THERE'S NOT A FLAMING THING YOU CRETINS CAN DO ABOUT IT!

They'll beat it out of you. Probably best to return the strawberries.

Seriously given what I hear / read about Durham, I would not be too concerned. He appears to be a strong institutionalist. Now Barr is a scum bag and certainly warrants a great deal of suspicion. I would expect Durham to act as a check on the scum bag. Also I would not worry, the investigation will leak like a sieve - you know how workaday career government officials are about doing their jobs (I mean the Deep State).

wahoomurf wrote: ↑Fri Oct 25, 2019 11:07 am Electoral POTUS Donny Trump's, personal attorney, William Pelham Barr is back and ready to rumble. Beware you, sniveling, Lilly-livered libs.No matter where you hide and cower,he'll find you and mete out his and his boss's version of justice.

AND THERE'S NOT A FLAMING THING YOU CRETINS CAN DO ABOUT IT!

Serious question. What is in it for Barr to coddle the nuts of Trump? Is it not professional suicide for him as an attorney to go to bat for someone [Trump] that is clearly crocked, corrupt, and impeachable?

youthathletics wrote: ↑Fri Oct 25, 2019 1:14 pm

wahoomurf wrote: ↑Fri Oct 25, 2019 11:07 am Electoral POTUS Donny Trump's, personal attorney, William Pelham Barr is back and ready to rumble. Beware you, sniveling, Lilly-livered libs.No matter where you hide and cower,he'll find you and mete out his and his boss's version of justice.

AND THERE'S NOT A FLAMING THING YOU CRETINS CAN DO ABOUT IT!

Serious question. What is in it for Barr to coddle the nuts of Trump? Is it not professional suicide for him as an attorney to go to bat for someone [Trump] that is clearly crocked, corrupt, and impeachable?

Even after Trump, his enablers won't be gone. There will always be room for him among other will to power scum bag elites. Polite society is likely to be a different story. IMO.

70 current Inspectors General letter complaining about the OLC (Office of Legal Counsel) opinion that blocked sharing of the whistleblower complaint with Congress:

https://www.ignet.gov/sites/default/fil ... losure.pdf

Some excerpts:

[W]e believe that the OLC opinion creates uncertainty for federal employees and contractors across government about the scope of whistleblower protections, thereby chilling whistleblower disclosures

We also share the ICIG’s concern that the OLC opinion could seriously impair whistleblowing and deter individuals in the intelligence community and throughout the government from reporting government waste, fraud, abuse, and misconduct

The OLC opinion

will have a chilling effect that extends to employees, contractors, and grantees in other parts of the government, who might not consider it worth the effort and potential impact on themselves to report suspected wrongdoing if they think that their efforts to disclose information will be for naught or, worse, that they risk adverse consequences for coming forward when they see something they think is wrong

That would be a grave loss for IG oversight and, as a result, for the American taxpayer

The Trump administration told millions of Federal Employees: "a legal path does not exist for you. Please, please, please, simply leak all of the stuff you have to the press".

Oh well. Can say we didn't warn of this damage to our government. Par for the Trump course.

RedFromMI wrote: ↑Fri Oct 25, 2019 2:11 pm 70 current Inspectors General letter complaining about the OLC (Office of Legal Counsel) opinion that blocked sharing of the whistleblower complaint with Congress:

https://www.ignet.gov/sites/default/fil ... losure.pdf

Some excerpts:

[W]e believe that the OLC opinion creates uncertainty for federal employees and contractors across government about the scope of whistleblower protections, thereby chilling whistleblower disclosures

We also share the ICIG’s concern that the OLC opinion could seriously impair whistleblowing and deter individuals in the intelligence community and throughout the government from reporting government waste, fraud, abuse, and misconduct

The OLC opinion

will have a chilling effect that extends to employees, contractors, and grantees in other parts of the government, who might not consider it worth the effort and potential impact on themselves to report suspected wrongdoing if they think that their efforts to disclose information will be for naught or, worse, that they risk adverse consequences for coming forward when they see something they think is wrong

That would be a grave loss for IG oversight and, as a result, for the American taxpayer

Did you notice who wrote the opinion?

Serious question. What is in it for Barr to coddle the nuts of Trump? Is it not professional suicide for him as an attorney to go to bat for someone [Trump] that is clearly crocked, corrupt, and impeachable?

This is a really good question. Barr, after all, is a longtime inside the Beltway lawyer, Ivy Leaguer from the Upper West Side, and worked for Bush 1. You'd think Deep Stater, not MAGA.

But Barr for years has aligned himself (like many other Federalist Society conservative lawyer types) with the "unitary executive" theory. Which holds that presidents (or at least GOP presidents) can do pretty much whatever they want. Barr presumably cares more about his extreme pet theory than he does about Trump personally. Don't forget that unsolicited 18 page memo on the theory that he sent to Rod Rosenstein.

I suspect that Barr (age 69) has gotten more curmudgeonly and dug in about his theory as he's gotten older. And at that age, he's not interested in his next job. So he can go out as a hero to his Federalist Society buddies, and does not give a rip about what anyone else thinks.

So while Barr's not much of a MAGA, he's everything that a MAGA president would want in an enabler AG.

The OLC opinion in question was written by Steven A. Engel, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel. He clerked for Anthony Kennedy (Supreme Court) and served in the last three years of the GW Bush administration. His confirmation as OLC AAG was opposed by John McCain due to his involvement in the so-called "torture" memo, and his confirmation vote was 51-47, with the only Democratic vote from Joe Manchin.

ggait wrote: ↑Fri Oct 25, 2019 3:04 pm

Serious question. What is in it for Barr to coddle the nuts of Trump? Is it not professional suicide for him as an attorney to go to bat for someone [Trump] that is clearly crocked, corrupt, and impeachable?

This is a really good question. Barr, after all, is a longtime inside the Beltway lawyer, Ivy Leaguer from the Upper West Side, and worked for Bush 1. You'd think Deep Stater, not MAGA.

But Barr for years has aligned himself (like many other Federalist Society conservative lawyer types) with the "unitary executive" theory. Which holds that presidents (or at least GOP presidents) can do pretty much whatever they want. Barr presumably cares more about his extreme pet theory than he does about Trump personally. Don't forget that unsolicited 18 page memo on the theory that he sent to Rod Rosenstein.

I suspect that Barr (age 69) has gotten more curmudgeonly and dug in about his theory as he's gotten older. And at that age, he's not interested in his next job. So he can go out as a hero to his Federalist Society buddies, and does not give a rip about what anyone else thinks.

So while Barr's not much of a MAGA, he's everything that a MAGA president would want in an enabler AG.

Thanks. If that is the case, he is going to go down swinging if this is indeed his last dance. Which means he likely has enough ammo to certainly make life miserable for the left. I think both sides are past the point of no return and someone will need to show their cards soon.

“...someone will need to show their cards soon.”

YA, what does this mean??

ggait wrote: ↑Fri Oct 25, 2019 3:04 pm

Serious question. What is in it for Barr to coddle the nuts of Trump? Is it not professional suicide for him as an attorney to go to bat for someone [Trump] that is clearly crocked, corrupt, and impeachable?

This is a really good question. Barr, after all, is a longtime inside the Beltway lawyer, Ivy Leaguer from the Upper West Side, and worked for Bush 1. You'd think Deep Stater, not MAGA.

But Barr for years has aligned himself (like many other Federalist Society conservative lawyer types) with the "unitary executive" theory. Which holds that presidents (or at least GOP presidents) can do pretty much whatever they want. Barr presumably cares more about his extreme pet theory than he does about Trump personally. Don't forget that unsolicited 18 page memo on the theory that he sent to Rod Rosenstein.

I suspect that Barr (age 69) has gotten more curmudgeonly and dug in about his theory as he's gotten older. And at that age, he's not interested in his next job. So he can go out as a hero to his Federalist Society buddies, and does not give a rip about what anyone else thinks.

So while Barr's not much of a MAGA, he's everything that a MAGA president would want in an enabler AG.

Interesting view; of course, Barr's first time in that office also had it's issues. Definitely in keeping with that theory.

However, I wonder whether this "unitary executive" theory was trumpeted loudly during the Clinton impeachment, or even the Obama Admin's slow walk response at times to subpoenas?

I'm thinking it's a convenient theory only to be applied when one's side gets in charge. All about maximum power for me and my side...

Or has he been consistent throughout, offering his views to Clinton for instance?

seacoaster wrote: ↑Fri Oct 25, 2019 3:52 pm “...someone will need to show their cards soon.”

YA, what does this mean??

Much like a game of poker. Both sides are sitting at the table, each raising the pot...at some point something has to give.

youthathletics wrote: ↑Fri Oct 25, 2019 9:10 pm

seacoaster wrote: ↑Fri Oct 25, 2019 3:52 pm “...someone will need to show their cards soon.”

YA, what does this mean??

Much like a game of poker. Both sides are sitting at the table, each raising the pot...at some point something has to give.

Interesting analogy.
But I don't think the Administration will ever 'show their cards' as they are so bad and they know it. Even when they turn over a card they think is an ace, ala the Zelensky transcript, the House just picks up the card as if they were playing fish not poker, say thank you very much, that plays nicely into my royal flush.

Likewise the 'cards' that are coming forward, despite the Administration's attempts to block them, are almost all very damning of Trump and cronies.

I think what we're also seeing is that the court decisions are rolling in, dismissing over and over again the Administration's attempts at obstruction.

The House doesn't control the timing of those court decisions, but they are indeed adding up fast...eventually they'll force information out into view, information Trump wants to hide.

I don't envy Pelosi's seat. Every week that goes by, more and more gets revealed, more court decisions get made, more honest folks come forward to testify, more is learned about what Rudy was doing, and the more that Trump thrashes around making various public admissions. All helpful to revealing Trump's corruption, abuse of power, and obstruction of justice.

On the other hand, the appetite for public hearings amongst the public is growing to the point of nearing impatience. At some point, this needs to move into the theater of public hearing rather than the investigation. Problem is, the investigation keeps revealing the need for more depositions. So, do you move before those are complete?

Her problem is not winning "impeachment", it's to get 'removal' be the will of 55-60% of Americans post Senate process, and she doesn't control that final stage of the process. It is important to Pelosi that, regardless of whether the Senate votes to remove, getting a strong majority to believe, based on presented evidence, that removal is appropriate.

November 2020 will be here before we know it.

There is nothing that says the house cannot vote to impeach, kick it off to the Senate and go on investigating and if warranted, impeach on a different set of issues downstream. Frankly there is no reason I see for the argument that impeachment has to be wrapped up by the time the primary season starts. Of course the Trumpnista will whine, I doubt the majority of the electorate will.

jhu72 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 26, 2019 9:24 am There is nothing that says the house cannot vote to impeach, kick it off to the Senate and go on investigating and if warranted, impeach on a different set of issues downstream. Frankly there is no reason I see for the argument that impeachment has to be wrapped up by the time the primary season starts. Of course the Trumpnista will whine, I doubt the majority of the electorate will.

That's indeed a scenario, though it's an untested view that the body politic won't see it as more and more overtly partisan if we're in the midst of the election, especially the general.

But this all comes down to whether the evidence that is taken forward is really strong and obvious.
You and I think that's already the case with the Ukraine matter, but is it to the point where 55-60% going to agree when it is presented in the Senate?
I dunno. But each passing week appears to provide more corroboration.

I think we see another 10 days at most of closed door depositions, then move to open hearing process in the House.
I agree that in parallel other depositions can be happening as well...it's just that there's only so much staff and hours in the week.

Eventually the vote and move to the Senate.