Just watched a panel discussion on CBS (NOT FOX) on Barr's press conference today. Despite the obvious bias of some of the panel members, the legal expert, Jonathan Turley, seemed very fair.

The point was made that no changes were made to the Mueller report by Barr or Trump. The report is still exactly as it came from Mueller. I always thought there would be a quick response from Mueller and/or his team of Democrats if anything was changed.

Turley expected the democrats to focus on OOJ, and he said legally this would be very difficult, so he expected the attacks to be political, not legal. Exactly what I have been saying - the Dems need a campaign issue, and this is it.

Well, that's the report from CBS. One of you lefties can tell me what CNN had to say, although I think I could make a good guess.

One question I have, and I hope some Republican will ask it of Mueller when he appears May 23:

When did it become clear there was no collusion, and why was there no report made at that time?

Especially cogent if it was clear before the 2018 midterms.

My guess is that it was clear there was no collusion at *least* a year and a half ago.

But why wind up a smashing good 'obstruction' snipe search when it is going full steam.

Anyone find that Valerie Jarret's daughter being the first question in the presser rather odd?

(04-18-2019 08:53 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 10:40 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 07:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 05:00 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

throw a rock and run away. We've seen your act before.

If you have something to say, say it and defend it. We have had enough innuendo the last three years.

DOJ should not have been meeting with the White House in advance of this report being released.

I guess that the Office of the President has zero Executive Privilege interests, *and* the DOJ should utterly ignore that substantial prong of our jurisprudence en toto.

Got it. Makes perfect sense.

Geezus fing krist the press is intentionally ignorant on this....... The myna birds are just myna birds.

(yes a head slap emoji really should be available here....)

Edited to add: saw the conference live, and Barr confirmed this, albeit according to Barr, Trump refused to exercise *any* privilege. Yes, there should be *zero* communication between Barr and the holder of a very real, tangible privilege.

Good god that NY Times tweet pisses me off. Imply bad **** when you perfectly well know there is a real legal reason and rationale. I really think the job of the fing media is that of being the 'implier in chief' for all the fing myna birds and ignoramuses around.

I never said the Executive Branch should have zero Executive Privilege.

The Executive Branch should stay as far away from a potential conflict of interest as possible, though. But as we've repeatedly seen, there are no conflicts of interest for Trump in the eyes of many.

What's a better way to release a redacted report - before or after meeting with the person it focuses on (who is your boss)?

(04-18-2019 09:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-18-2019 08:53 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 10:40 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 07:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 05:00 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

throw a rock and run away. We've seen your act before.
If you have something to say, say it and defend it. We have had enough innuendo the last three years.

DOJ should not have been meeting with the White House in advance of this report being released.

I guess that the Office of the President has zero Executive Privilege interests, *and* the DOJ should utterly ignore that substantial prong of our jurisprudence en toto.
Got it. Makes perfect sense.
Geezus fing krist the press is intentionally ignorant on this....... The myna birds are just myna birds.
(yes a head slap emoji really should be available here....)
Edited to add: saw the conference live, and Barr confirmed this, albeit according to Barr, Trump refused to exercise *any* privilege. Yes, there should be *zero* communication between Barr and the holder of a very real, tangible privilege.
Good god that NY Times tweet pisses me off. Imply bad **** when you perfectly well know there is a real legal reason and rationale. I really think the job of the fing media is that of being the 'implier in chief' for all the fing myna birds and ignoramuses around.

I never said the Executive Branch should have zero Executive Privilege.
The Executive Branch should stay as far away from a potential conflict of interest as possible, though. But as we've repeatedly seen, there are no conflicts of interest for Trump in the eyes of many.
What's a better way to release a redacted report - before or after meeting with the person it focuses on (who is your boss)?

What difference does it make?

Hey molehill, go be a mountain for me, please? Pretty please?

(04-17-2019 07:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 05:00 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

throw a rock and run away. We've seen your act before.

If you have something to say, say it and defend it. We have had enough innuendo the last three years.

Careful -- At Ease may attack you for being "privileged", or throw some other amateur psychology term at you. :)

(04-18-2019 10:22 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 07:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 05:00 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

throw a rock and run away. We've seen your act before.

If you have something to say, say it and defend it. We have had enough innuendo the last three years.

Careful -- At Ease may attack you for being "privileged", or throw some other amateur psychology term at you. :)

He probably is "whiter" than me, and very likely way more privileged.

But stuff like facts never stand in the way of a good name-calling.

(04-18-2019 10:14 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-18-2019 09:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-18-2019 08:53 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 10:40 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 07:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  throw a rock and run away. We've seen your act before.
If you have something to say, say it and defend it. We have had enough innuendo the last three years.

DOJ should not have been meeting with the White House in advance of this report being released.

I guess that the Office of the President has zero Executive Privilege interests, *and* the DOJ should utterly ignore that substantial prong of our jurisprudence en toto.
Got it. Makes perfect sense.
Geezus fing krist the press is intentionally ignorant on this....... The myna birds are just myna birds.
(yes a head slap emoji really should be available here....)
Edited to add: saw the conference live, and Barr confirmed this, albeit according to Barr, Trump refused to exercise *any* privilege. Yes, there should be *zero* communication between Barr and the holder of a very real, tangible privilege.
Good god that NY Times tweet pisses me off. Imply bad **** when you perfectly well know there is a real legal reason and rationale. I really think the job of the fing media is that of being the 'implier in chief' for all the fing myna birds and ignoramuses around.

I never said the Executive Branch should have zero Executive Privilege.
The Executive Branch should stay as far away from a potential conflict of interest as possible, though. But as we've repeatedly seen, there are no conflicts of interest for Trump in the eyes of many.
What's a better way to release a redacted report - before or after meeting with the person it focuses on (who is your boss)?

What difference does it make?

Hey molehill, go be a mountain for me, please? Pretty please?

Do y'all think any time I say something critical I'm suggesting it's the most awful, horrible, ungodly thing ever to happen?

Trump and DOJ should not have met before the release. Do you disagree with that?

(04-18-2019 09:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-18-2019 08:53 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

Quote:DOJ should not have been meeting with the White House in advance of this report being released.

I guess that the Office of the President has zero Executive Privilege interests, *and* the DOJ should utterly ignore that substantial prong of our jurisprudence en toto.

Got it. Makes perfect sense.

Geezus fing krist the press is intentionally ignorant on this....... The myna birds are just myna birds.

(yes a head slap emoji really should be available here....)

Edited to add: saw the conference live, and Barr confirmed this, albeit according to Barr, Trump refused to exercise *any* privilege. Yes, there should be *zero* communication between Barr and the holder of a very real, tangible privilege.

Good god that NY Times tweet pisses me off. Imply bad **** when you perfectly well know there is a real legal reason and rationale. I really think the job of the fing media is that of being the 'implier in chief' for all the fing myna birds and ignoramuses around.

I never said the Executive Branch should have zero Executive Privilege.

The Executive Branch should stay as far away from a potential conflict of interest as possible, though. But as we've repeatedly seen, there are no conflicts of interest for Trump in the eyes of many.

What's a better way to release a redacted report - before or after meeting with the person it focuses on (who is your boss)?

do you even understand that for the DOJ to (correctly) bring to the Executive's attention to the potential use of privilege it has to (by necessity) interact with the WH?

And for the WH to waive privilege it has to interact with the DOJ on substantive issues?

Or do you think some weird ass ESP thingy should be employed to bypass that physical necessity?

I mean even after you know the rationale and the necessity for yrue interaction you are dug in like 1917 Verdun.

Your response is to simply release. No interaction on the matter. So actually you *are* saying that Executive Privilege should not apply. Perhaps you arent smart enough to realize the end result of your pithy judgement.

It is going to be interesting to see what comes out of the report, now that it is mostly released.

One quote I've seen already:

Quote: If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would state so. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the president's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him

That quote provides a lot more context to the statement Barr used in his summary. Very reminiscent of the Comey comments regarding Hillary.

(04-18-2019 10:37 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-18-2019 10:14 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-18-2019 09:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-18-2019 08:53 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 10:40 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  DOJ should not have been meeting with the White House in advance of this report being released.

I guess that the Office of the President has zero Executive Privilege interests, *and* the DOJ should utterly ignore that substantial prong of our jurisprudence en toto.
Got it. Makes perfect sense.
Geezus fing krist the press is intentionally ignorant on this....... The myna birds are just myna birds.
(yes a head slap emoji really should be available here....)
Edited to add: saw the conference live, and Barr confirmed this, albeit according to Barr, Trump refused to exercise *any* privilege. Yes, there should be *zero* communication between Barr and the holder of a very real, tangible privilege.
Good god that NY Times tweet pisses me off. Imply bad **** when you perfectly well know there is a real legal reason and rationale. I really think the job of the fing media is that of being the 'implier in chief' for all the fing myna birds and ignoramuses around.

I never said the Executive Branch should have zero Executive Privilege.
The Executive Branch should stay as far away from a potential conflict of interest as possible, though. But as we've repeatedly seen, there are no conflicts of interest for Trump in the eyes of many.
What's a better way to release a redacted report - before or after meeting with the person it focuses on (who is your boss)?

What difference does it make?

Hey molehill, go be a mountain for me, please? Pretty please?

Do y'all think any time I say something critical I'm suggesting it's the most awful, horrible, ungodly thing ever to happen?

Trump and DOJ should not have met before the release. Do you disagree with that?

I think it is immaterial. It appears that you are upset that Trump and his team may have been given some time to prepare. Is that it? Because it is certain that not one comma in the report was changed or could have been.

To answer your first question, no, not every time.

(04-18-2019 10:37 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-18-2019 10:14 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-18-2019 09:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-18-2019 08:53 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 10:40 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  DOJ should not have been meeting with the White House in advance of this report being released.

I guess that the Office of the President has zero Executive Privilege interests, *and* the DOJ should utterly ignore that substantial prong of our jurisprudence en toto.
Got it. Makes perfect sense.
Geezus fing krist the press is intentionally ignorant on this....... The myna birds are just myna birds.
(yes a head slap emoji really should be available here....)
Edited to add: saw the conference live, and Barr confirmed this, albeit according to Barr, Trump refused to exercise *any* privilege. Yes, there should be *zero* communication between Barr and the holder of a very real, tangible privilege.
Good god that NY Times tweet pisses me off. Imply bad **** when you perfectly well know there is a real legal reason and rationale. I really think the job of the fing media is that of being the 'implier in chief' for all the fing myna birds and ignoramuses around.

I never said the Executive Branch should have zero Executive Privilege.
The Executive Branch should stay as far away from a potential conflict of interest as possible, though. But as we've repeatedly seen, there are no conflicts of interest for Trump in the eyes of many.
What's a better way to release a redacted report - before or after meeting with the person it focuses on (who is your boss)?

What difference does it make?

Hey molehill, go be a mountain for me, please? Pretty please?

Do y'all think any time I say something critical I'm suggesting it's the most awful, horrible, ungodly thing ever to happen?

Trump and DOJ should not have met before the release. Do you disagree with that?

yes. the issue of executive privilege had to be discussed. and its assertion. or not.

your blanket statement is idiotic given that.

not saying you are evil. in this case you are parroting an implied attack and parroting an idiotic stance given the law. not evil.

Still immaterial. The report says what the report said before, during and after any talks with the president.

I have never understood how/why Democrats, base or leadership, could believe or imply they believe that material changes could be made to the report with protest fro Muelller and/or his team of Democrats. Somebody explain to me how that could happen.

Just Democratic arm waving over any little thing they can find. Expect more of the same in the coming days.

It will be interesting to hear what Barr and Mueller have to say when they testify before Congress. I wonder if the innuendo attacks will continue face to face. Easy on Twitter. I thought Democrats were against using Twitter?

(04-18-2019 10:40 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It is going to be interesting to see what comes out of the report, now that it is mostly released.

One quote I've seen already:

Quote: If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would state so. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the president's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him

That quote provides a lot more context to the statement Barr used in his summary. Very reminiscent of the Comey comments regarding Hillary.

actually Comeys comments tracked 'Hillary did x' point for point with the relevant statute provisions before his 'conclusion' that there would be no prosecution.

The CBS analyst made the point this morning that two lawyers can look at the same set of facts and come to very different opinions on whether on a crime has been committed or, if so, if it is prosecutable.

The president is clear of legal danger, but the political attacks will continue. I believe the point of the continued attacks are two fold - 1) to create a 'reason" why Trump must be defeated in 2020, and 2) to save face after spending three years on this witch hunt.

First they could not accept that Hillary was beaten. Now they cannot accept that Trump is not guilty. Odd for the party that was chastising Trump about if he could accept a Hillary win. They can dish it out, but they can't take it.

I think the political motive is why they keep talking impeachment, just as if they didn't know it takes a 2/3 vote in the Senate to remove. Or maybe they don't know. They are smart, so there has to be a good reason for the rush to follow that road to its dead end. Or maybe the impeachment itself is the goal. Just an election point.

So,, what good does the impeachment do the DNC if it is not before the election? The analyst this morning said it would take many months, and the clock is close to running out on the Dems before November 2020.

What is the point?

Well, I have been watching CNN and MSNBC (I like a well rounded view),

As you might guess, both of them resemble a henhouse into which a fox has entered. Lots of squawking,, lots of concern, lots of wing flapping, much hysteria. As an old farm boy, perhaps this image is more meaningful to me.

On CNN, credit Jake Tapper with emphasizing at every opportunity that the report found no evidence of collusion and thus keeping his panel within bounds. The entertaining part is that each panelist claims to understand what Mueller really meant that he didn't say and why he didn't say it. To quote JAAO, wow.

(04-18-2019 11:03 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  actually Comeys comments tracked 'Hillary did x' point for point with the relevant statute provisions before his 'conclusion' that there would be no prosecution.

That's the difference. Comey spelled out enough specifics to support convictions on several counts. This report doesn't do that.

(04-18-2019 05:45 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-18-2019 11:03 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  actually Comeys comments tracked 'Hillary did x' point for point with the relevant statute provisions before his 'conclusion' that there would be no prosecution.

That's the difference. Comey spelled out enough specifics to support convictions on several counts. This report doesn't do that.

The only difference that means something to the left is the target.