The US Presidency 2020

[CBH99]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2vGMjJplTI


Wasn't sure where to post this, but thought it could be relevant to this thread regardless.

I've given up on following American politics, and have mostly given up on following this thread.  Everything about American politics can be sensationalized, with short-tempered snitty comments made by either side.  Easy to do when both sides have a lot to answer for.

I thought this was an interesting insight into Washington though....maybe the corruption is too intense, too deep, too self serving, and too protecting of itself for there to ever be real change? 


Unfortunately, guys like Congressman Trey Gowdy & company - whom I wish we could just clone - hate it there, and have publicly stated they can't wait until they never have to go to Washington again.  That says something right there.

 

[mariomike]

You just can't make this stuff up, folks.

See rest here:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bill-barr-trump-tweets-roger-stone

:cheers:

Barr says Trump tweets 'make it impossible to do my job' amid Roger Stone drama

"I think it’s time to stop the tweeting about Department of Justice criminal cases," Barr said.

Saw this on Twitter,

This Barr interview is DeNiro in Goodfellas yelling at Johnny Roastbeef for buying his wife a Cadillac after the Lufthansa heist.
https://twitter.com/matthewamiller/status/1228067340467740673

 

[Altair]

You just can't make this stuff up, folks.

See rest here:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bill-barr-trump-tweets-roger-stone

:cheers:

Sounds like political interference to me.

Sounds like SNC Lavalin except instead of a pressure campaign done over the phone and behind closed doors its was being done over twitter.

 

[mariomike]

Unfortunately, guys like Congressman Trey Gowdy & company - whom I wish we could just clone - hate it there, and have publicly stated they can't wait until they never have to go to Washington again. 

Since then,

... joined Fox News as a contributor. In October 2019, he announced he was joining President Donald Trump's legal team and because of conflict of interest would no longer serve as a contributor to Fox News. However, Gowdy's proposed move to join the lawyers defending Trump was scuttled a few days later over concerns that he would be acting in violation of anti-lobbying laws.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trey_Gowdy#Presidential_politics

Trey Gowdy joins Fox News as a contributor
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/427673-trey-gowdy-joins-fox-news-as-a-contributor

Fox News terminates Trey Gowdy as he joins Trump’s legal team
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/09/fox-terminates-trey-gowdy-amid-reports-he-joined-trumps-legal-team.html

Inside Trump’s Botched Attempt to Hire Trey Gowdy
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/13/us/politics/trey-gowdy-trump-impeachment.html?searchResultPosition=1

10 Questions for Trey Gowdy
https://www.justsecurity.org/66613/10-questions-for-trey-gowdy/

 

[Brad Sallows]

>Sounds like SNC Lavalin except instead of a pressure campaign done over the phone and behind closed doors its was being done over twitter.

Trump can't tweet backwards in time.  I've been looking for evidence that the DoJ's decision was taken after the decision maker(s) heard from Trump and haven't found any yet.  That doesn't disprove interference theories, but is a necessary (if insufficient) piece of evidence such theories should have.

Trump can pardon Stone without giving any reason, and knows he can issue pardons and has no need to avail himself of any lesser means.

Trump tweets irritating nonsense frequently; moreover, he does it without people acting on it as if Trump is Henry II.

The reason stated by the DoJ for the reassessment is legitimate; there is disagreement among lawyers as to whether the request was unusually punitive so it is not a settled matter that DoJ would have ignored it.

The mundane explanation - the DoJ did its thing, while Trump separately did his thing - is more reasonable.

 

[Remius]

The mundane explanation - the DoJ did its thing, while Trump separately did his thing - is more reasonable.

Except that we are talking about a President who has interfered in so many things that unfortunately the more mundane explanation may seem to be to more reasonable one, but it is not the most probable one.

It could be reasonable, but we are not dealing with someone I would define as reasonable.

 

[FJAG]

The mundane explanation - the DoJ did its thing, while Trump separately did his thing - is more reasonable.

How about this explanation: everyone in his administration knows what Trump wants so they're doing him little favours to stay on his good side.

Stone was convicted last November and Trump has railed numerous times about how "unfair" that was.

e.g.  https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/15/trump-defends-roger-stone-after-conviction-071132

As for the pardon - not to worry; I predict that it'll come immediately after sentencing.

:cheers:

 

[Remius]

Well I'm sure the POTUS will be quite unhappy about this:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/doj-wont-pursue-criminal-charges-against-mccabe

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/14/politics/andrew-mccabe-justice-department-investigation/index.html

As well as any Trump supporters that thought this was going anywhere.

 

[Jarnhamar]

[quote author=Remius]
As well as any Trump supporters that thought this was going anywhere.
[/quote]

And people who expect the FBI to act with integrity and be beyond reproach?

 

[Remius]

And people who expect the FBI to act with integrity and be beyond reproach?

I suspect that those that are unhappy with this don't have that expectation to begin with.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I suspect that those that are unhappy with this don't have that expectation to begin with.

You're no Trump supporter. How do you feel about the FBIs history and performance when it comes to the president?

 

[Remius]

You're no Trump supporter. How do you feel about the FBIs history and performance when it comes to the president?

The JD's IG's report did not find that he engaged in politically biased actions against Trump.  They fired him 26 hours before he was eligible for retirement.  They are not proceeding with any charges.

I personally think that Trump cannot for the life of him believe that long serving public servants and officials can actually put their own biases at the door and do their jobs.  He's fired many of them based on that belief alone.  I also think that when someone tries to tell him the rules that don't fit what he wants he takes that as disloyalty.  I also think he has a fundamental misunderstanding that certain departments are and should be apolitical. 

But I also believe that much like here in Ottawa, that the political leanings of most public servants are more center to left.  That does not mean that they can't do their jobs.

I think people tried to do their jobs.  Then politicians (including Trump) made it political and good employees got caught in the mess.  Some still are. 

That is the lens under which my opinion is formed. 

It looks like he was punished for trying to do his job.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Insightful post, thanks. Yea firing him right before retirement was a dick move.

The report said that McCabe "lacked candor" in a conversation with Comey when he said he had not authorized the disclosure and didn't know who had done so. The IG also found that he lacked candor when questioned by FBI agents on multiple occasions since that conversation.

McCabe served at the FBI for 21 years. He became the acting director in May 2017 after President Trump fired Comey.

Then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions fired McCabe in March 2018 after the inspector general found he had repeatedly misstated his involvement in a leak to The Journal regarding an FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation.

Throughout the investigation, McCabe denied any wrongdoing and said the inspector general’s conclusions relied on mischaracterizations and omissions, including of information favorable to McCabe

Does that mean he didn't do what he was accused of doing?

It seems to me like there's numerous examples of the FBI behaving less than honourably in the last couple years, including leading up to the election. Am I mistaken?

 

[Brad Sallows]

>Except that we are talking about a President who has interfered in so many things

>How about this explanation: everyone in his administration knows what Trump wants so they're doing him little favours to stay on his good side.

Yes, that's so obviously true, since so much print and airtime has been spent detailing all the times Trump tried to interfere in something, was ignored by subordinates who don't seem particularly obsessed with staying on his good side, and lost interest due to his highly abbreviated attention span.

Add: given Barr's recent remarks, I doubt he is much preoccupied with doing Trump little favours.

There are, broadly, two streams of information in play here: the NYT's reported comments from people working in the DoJ, which might be echoed or buttressed by additional evidence from others who have spoken to the DoJ; and speculation (anything anyone cares to make up).  The usual rule applies: you can prove anything if you make up your evidence.

 

[FJAG]

...  The usual rule applies: you can prove anything if you make up your evidence.

I agree with that. Same story for the White House's recent position on killing Soleimani.

Imminent threat' explanation noticeably absent in White House report justifying Soleimani strike
Zachary Cohen
By Zachary Cohen and Sam Fossum, CNN

Washington (CNN)The Trump administration has repeatedly insisted that its decision to kill Iranian General Qassem Soleimani was justified because he posed an "imminent threat" to American lives, but that phrase was notably absent in an official White House report sent to Congress that outlines the legal and policy rationale for conducting last month's strike.

A copy of the report -- released by House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Rep. Eliot Engel Friday -- is an unclassified version of what is called a 1264 notification, which the White House is required to send to Congress if it changes its view on the legal framework for using military force.

In this case, the notice not only outlines the administration's legal justification for killing Soleimani, but acknowledges that the White House expanded its interpretation of the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force to include military action against Iran.

"Iran's past and recent activities, coupled with intelligence at the time of the air strike, indicated that Iran's Qods Force posed a threat to the United States in Iraq, and the air strike against Soleimani was intended to protect United States personnel and deter future Iranian attack plans," the report reads.
...

See rest and White House Report here:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/14/politics/trump-soleimani-strike-legal-justification/index.html

:cheers:

 

[Cloud Cover]

Well, I see little chance of Bloomberg staying in the race: https://twitter.com/JuddLegum/status/1230328368563970048?s=20

 

[Remius]

Well, I see little chance of Bloomberg staying in the race: https://twitter.com/JuddLegum/status/1230328368563970048?s=20

March 3rd will be more of an indication.

Being accused of misogyny doesn’t seem to be a disqualifier in US politics these days...

 

[Cloud Cover]

It does in the DNC!!!

 

[Remius]

It does in the DNC!!!

Desperation makes for weird times.

 

[mariomike]

Being accused of misogyny doesn’t seem to be a disqualifier in US politics these days...

You can even become president,

Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations