Political Roundtable Part XXV

Trump cheats at golf, cheats on his wives, cheats at elections. During his 1.5 hour love fest with Putin, I would wager that he (using his "code") let Putin know that he has his blessings to interfere again in the election. I'm serious

Pointgod · Post #1666 » by **Pointgod** » Sun May 5, 2019 7:09 pm

closg00 wrote:
Wizardspride wrote:

Read on Twitter
?s=19

Trump cheats at golf, cheats on his wives, cheats at elections. During his 1.5 hour love fest with Putin, I would wager that he (using his "code") let Putin know that he has his blessings to interfere again in the election. I'm serious

Of course he did. What the media isn’t reporting is that Trump and his team welcomed Russian inference in the election and him and the Republican Party welcome it again in 2020. There’s literally no other reason to not have passed laws or made serious attempts to strengthen the integrity of elections. The Republican Party is welcoming help from a foreign power because it’s in their favor. Every single American should be sickened and pissed.

closg00 · Post #1667 » by **closg00** » Sun May 5, 2019 7:45 pm

I was waiting for this announcement, I didn't believe the Fat Man for a minute that he was going to allow Mueller to testify, more delays.

Read on Twitter

Wizardspride · Post #1668 » by **Wizardspride** » Sun May 5, 2019 11:03 pm

Read on Twitter

?s=19

Pointgod · Post #1669 » by **Pointgod** » Sun May 5, 2019 11:45 pm

Wizardspride wrote:

Read on Twitter
?s=19

Media needs to do a better job making people understand what the **** is going on. Explain things clearly because most people won’t have the time or focus to read the whole thing.

closg00 · Post #1670 » by **closg00** » Mon May 6, 2019 6:12 pm

Wizardspride wrote:

Read on Twitter
?s=19

Barr's Orwellian rollout of the Mueller report worked to perfection, it would be a month before the actual report would come out. Meanwhile, Barr's "summary" was sprinted down the sidelines by practically everyone and is still to this day the narrative.

pancakes3 · Post #1671 » by **pancakes3** » Mon May 6, 2019 6:44 pm

https://medium.com/@dojalumni/statement-by-former-federal-prosecutors-8ab7691c2aa1

415 signatures and counting. that's, a lot.

Post #1672 » by **Jamaaliver** » Mon May 6, 2019 7:40 pm

^Piggybacking on this:

Trump would have been charged with obstruction were he not president, hundreds of former federal prosecutors assert

More than 370 former federal prosecutors who worked in Republican and Democratic administrations have signed on to a statement asserting special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s findings would have produced obstruction charges against President Trump — if not for the office he held.

The statement — signed by myriad former career government employees as well as high-profile political appointees — offers a rebuttal to Attorney General William P. Barr’s determination that the evidence Mueller uncovered was “not sufficient” to establish that Trump committed a crime.

“Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice,” the former federal prosecutors wrote.

The list also includes more than 20 former U.S. attorneys and more than 100 people with at least 20 years of service at the Justice Department — most of them former career officials. The signers worked in every presidential administration since that of Dwight D. Eisenhower.

The signatures were collected by the nonprofit group Protect Democracy, which counts Justice Department alumni among its staff and was contacted about the statement last week by a group of former federal prosecutors, said Justin Vail, an attorney at Protect Democracy.

Washington Post

dobrojim · Post #1673 » by **dobrojim** » Mon May 6, 2019 7:55 pm

Maybe someone could send that statement and list of signatories to J Goldberg
who was into some serious rationalizations and minimalizations throughout the
comments he made this morning when discussing Barr and the Mueller report
on NPR's Morning edition today.

We emphasize that these are not matters of close professional judgment. Of course, there are potential defenses or arguments that could be raised in response to an indictment of the nature we describe here. In our system, every accused person is presumed innocent and it is always the government’s burden to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. But, to look at these facts and say that a prosecutor could not probably sustain a conviction for obstruction of justice — the standard set out in Principles of Federal Prosecution — runs counter to logic and our experience.

gtn130 · Post #1674 » by **gtn130** » Mon May 6, 2019 8:16 pm

pancakes3 wrote:https://medium.com/@dojalumni/statement-by-former-federal-prosecutors-8ab7691c2aa1

415 signatures and counting. that's, a lot.

LOL I bet these 415 DNC shills / Hillary Hoes have never even read Glenn Greenwald's Twitter feed or Michael Tracey's podcast!

Post #1675 » by **Ruzious** » Mon May 6, 2019 9:48 pm

Wizardspride wrote:

Read on Twitter
?s=19

I'd like to stomp Trump's head into the ground and wink knowingly at him. Aw, does that sound like I'm angry. Aw.

Post #1676 » by **Ruzious** » Mon May 6, 2019 9:57 pm

dckingsfan wrote:
Pointgod wrote:
Wizardspride wrote:...

Impeach the ****!

Pelosi is the adult in the room - hope everyone just sits tight while she maneuvers the ship through the channel.

Problem is - her conclusions put together don't make sense. How do you strongly conclude to not impeach Trump and at the same strongly conclude to impeach his new fixer?

Post #1677 » by **Ruzious** » Mon May 6, 2019 10:01 pm

closg00 wrote:That Fat POS Barr, how could he not be forced to resign? Republicans would NEVER take this kind of sh*t

Because the problem isn't just Barr and Trump; it's the Republican party itself - which is led by people like Trump and Barr.

Wizardspride · Post #1678 » by **Wizardspride** » Mon May 6, 2019 10:04 pm

Read on Twitter

?s=19

closg00 · Post #1679 » by **closg00** » Tue May 7, 2019 10:17 am

Ruzious wrote:
closg00 wrote:That Fat POS Barr, how could he not be forced to resign? Republicans would NEVER take this kind of sh*t

Because the problem isn't just Barr and Trump; it's the Republican party itself - which is led by people like Trump and Barr.

True, today's Republican party would have ignored everything that Nixon did

I_Like_Dirt · Post #1680 » by **I_Like_Dirt** » Tue May 7, 2019 2:57 pm

Ruzious wrote:Problem is - her conclusions put together don't make sense. How do you strongly conclude to not impeach Trump and at the same strongly conclude to impeach his new fixer?

Because it might be politically possible to impeach the AG but it isn't for the President. I pointed out before the election that the President wasn't immune from prosecution in so many words but was still way more protected than anything and suggested that a large part of the appeal of the job to Trump was that very reality and I recall a lot of people suggesting I was wrong on several fronts. It sure looks to me like he had a grasp of that reality from the start.

The interesting thing about impeaching Barr is, if successful, it starts opening up a bit of a potential platform on which to go after Trump. It may not succeed or even be a politically desirable move but if the goal were to impeach Trump, it would almost have to begin with impeaching Barr.