(04-30-2019 07:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I did read your post - and my point still stands. There was no way to generate division among the Republicans with single payer. I also don't know how many D's would have been on board with single payer in 2016-2018, given how difficult it was to get Obamacare passed.

I also don't know how much Trump really supports single payer. It's clear that he support getting rid of Obamacare, but that's about all I can tell.

In short, while I see what you're trying to suggest, and I guess that if we look at the just magnitude of the potential outcome, without the probability of it occurring, then you're correct that there was a bigger opportunity there. But I don't see how healthcare reform in the form of single payer would have been a viable solution for the D's to achieve any progress, so there was less than a snowballs chance in hell that the opportunity would bear fruit. Should have responded a bit more explicitly.

But to the overall point, the D's could have been more active in trying to secure some middle ground, and should have been trying to get that message out there as well. They followed the pattern of their Republican counterparts during Obama's tenure of failing to try and publicly find middle ground and just focus on trying to stop the other team.

The probability of something happening never enters my equation because 'single payer' isn't a solution and neither is 'infrastructure'. Those are pieces of a plan or a theme. No telling what the actual plan would look like and whom they might have attracted.... Kind of silly to debate whom would support 'what' when we really have no idea what that 'what' is. If Infrastructure means high speed rail in California and the north-east corridor, you lose the middle of the country... regardless of which party supports it. A Nevada Republican might support it though if it includes a spur to Las Vegas.

My point is your last part. Had they engaged with him on healthcare reform (which the right ran on) and single payer (which the left supports and trump differed with the party there)... they could have gotten lots of mileage with the middle.... which is more important to winning the white house than courting the ultra left.

Perhaps what THEY did was try to learn from the right... that courting the 'fringe' and giving the base nowhere else to go can win... They just have to find some way to not piss off the middle with socialism.

Quote:Re: Report of the Special Counsel on the Investigation Into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election and Obstruction of Justice (March 2019)

Dear Attorney General Barr:

I previously sent you a letter dated March 25, 2019, that enclosed the introduction and executive summary for each volume of the Special Counsel's report marked with redactions to remove any information that potentially could be protected by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure that concerned declination decisions; or that related to a charged case. We also had marked an additional two sentences for review and have now confirmed that these sentences can be released publicly.

Accordingly, the enclosed documents are in a form that can be released to the public consistent with legal requirements and Department policies. I am requesting that you provide these materials to Congress and authorize their public release at this time.

As we stated in our meeting of March 5 and reiterated to the Department early in the afternoon of March 24, the introductions and executive summaries of our two-volume report accurately summarize this Offices work and conclusions. The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Offices work and conclusions. We communicated that concern to the Department on the morning of March 25. There is new public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations. See Department of Justice, Press Release (May 17, 2017).

While we understand that the Department is reviewing the full report to determine what is appropriate for public release process that our Office is working with you to complete that process need not delay release of the enclosed materials. Release at this time would alleviate the misunderstandings that have arisen and would answer congressional and public questions about the nature and outcome of our investigation. It would also accord with the standard for public release of notifications to Congress cited in your letter. See 28 C.F.R. 609© ('the Attorney General may determine that public release' of congressional notifications 'would be in the public interest').

Sincerely yours,

Robert S. Mueller III Special Counsel

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/201...liam-barr/

(05-01-2019 12:22 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

Quote:Re: Report of the Special Counsel on the Investigation Into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election and Obstruction of Justice (March 2019)

Dear Attorney General Barr:

I previously sent you a letter dated March 25, 2019, that enclosed the introduction and executive summary for each volume of the Special Counsel's report marked with redactions to remove any information that potentially could be protected by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure that concerned declination decisions; or that related to a charged case. We also had marked an additional two sentences for review and have now confirmed that these sentences can be released publicly.

Accordingly, the enclosed documents are in a form that can be released to the public consistent with legal requirements and Department policies. I am requesting that you provide these materials to Congress and authorize their public release at this time.

As we stated in our meeting of March 5 and reiterated to the Department early in the afternoon of March 24, the introductions and executive summaries of our two-volume report accurately summarize this Offices work and conclusions. The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Offices work and conclusions. We communicated that concern to the Department on the morning of March 25. There is new public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations. See Department of Justice, Press Release (May 17, 2017).

While we understand that the Department is reviewing the full report to determine what is appropriate for public release process that our Office is working with you to complete that process need not delay release of the enclosed materials. Release at this time would alleviate the misunderstandings that have arisen and would answer congressional and public questions about the nature and outcome of our investigation. It would also accord with the standard for public release of notifications to Congress cited in your letter. See 28 C.F.R. 609© ('the Attorney General may determine that public release' of congressional notifications 'would be in the public interest').

Sincerely yours,

Robert S. Mueller III Special Counsel

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/201...liam-barr/

Quote:A day after Mueller sent his letter to Barr, the two men spoke by phone for about 15 minutes, according to law enforcement officials.

In that call, Mueller said he was concerned that media coverage of the obstruction probe was misguided and creating public misunderstandings about the office’s work, according to Justice Department officials. Mueller did not express similar concerns about the public discussion of the investigation of Russia’s election interference, the officials said. Barr has testified previously that he did not know whether Mueller supported his conclusion on obstruction.

When Barr pressed Mueller on whether he thought Barr’s memo to Congress was inaccurate, Mueller said he did not but felt that the media coverage of it was misinterpreting the investigation, officials said.

Funny AtEase doesnt provide context to his bolded portions. Amazing that that happened.

Linky poo to quote in Wash Po
De-firewalled linky poo to Wash Post

I would not expect a 4-page synopsis to capture fully the context, nature, and substance of a 400-page report. I would not see doing so as its purpose. If you wanted to prepare a document to capture fully the context, nature, and substance of a 400-page report, I would expect your document to be something close to 400 pages.

I think the relevant issue is whether Mueller had any substantive disagreement with the conclusions expressed in Barr's letter. I've seen no indication that he did. In fact, I would say the opposite.

(05-01-2019 05:05 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I would not expect a 4-page synopsis to capture fully the context, nature, and substance of a 400-page report. I would not see doing so as its purpose. If you wanted to prepare a document to capture fully the context, nature, and substance of a 400-page report, I would expect your document to be something close to 400 pages.

I think the relevant issue is whether Mueller had any substantive disagreement with the conclusions expressed in Barr's letter. I've seen no indication that he did. In fact, I would say the opposite.

I actually want to read the Executive Summaries that Mueller provided to Barr. It will be interesting how those compare to the letter Barr sent.

My experience with them is that they generally do a good job covering the context, nature, and substance of the report they are summarizing.

(05-01-2019 05:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-01-2019 05:05 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I would not expect a 4-page synopsis to capture fully the context, nature, and substance of a 400-page report. I would not see doing so as its purpose. If you wanted to prepare a document to capture fully the context, nature, and substance of a 400-page report, I would expect your document to be something close to 400 pages.
I think the relevant issue is whether Mueller had any substantive disagreement with the conclusions expressed in Barr's letter. I've seen no indication that he did. In fact, I would say the opposite.

I actually want to read the Executive Summaries that Mueller provided to Barr. It will be interesting how those compare to the letter Barr sent.
My experience with them is that they generally do a good job covering the context, nature, and substance of the report they are summarizing.

If you've read the report, you've read them. They are included in the full report. As I recall, I don't see much difference going from the full report to the Mueller summaries to the Barr letter. Nothing that I can recall in the way of substantive difference.

(05-01-2019 05:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-01-2019 05:05 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I would not expect a 4-page synopsis to capture fully the context, nature, and substance of a 400-page report. I would not see doing so as its purpose. If you wanted to prepare a document to capture fully the context, nature, and substance of a 400-page report, I would expect your document to be something close to 400 pages.
I think the relevant issue is whether Mueller had any substantive disagreement with the conclusions expressed in Barr's letter. I've seen no indication that he did. In fact, I would say the opposite.

I actually want to read the Executive Summaries that Mueller provided to Barr. It will be interesting how those compare to the letter Barr sent.
My experience with them is that they generally do a good job covering the context, nature, and substance of the report they are summarizing.

If you've read the report, you've read them. They are included in the full report. As I recall, I don't see much difference going from the full report to the Mueller summaries to the Barr letter. Nothing that I can recall in the way of substantive difference.

(05-01-2019 05:22 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-01-2019 05:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-01-2019 05:05 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I would not expect a 4-page synopsis to capture fully the context, nature, and substance of a 400-page report. I would not see doing so as its purpose. If you wanted to prepare a document to capture fully the context, nature, and substance of a 400-page report, I would expect your document to be something close to 400 pages.
I think the relevant issue is whether Mueller had any substantive disagreement with the conclusions expressed in Barr's letter. I've seen no indication that he did. In fact, I would say the opposite.

I actually want to read the Executive Summaries that Mueller provided to Barr. It will be interesting how those compare to the letter Barr sent.
My experience with them is that they generally do a good job covering the context, nature, and substance of the report they are summarizing.

If you've read the report, you've read them. They are included in the full report. As I recall, I don't see much difference going from the full report to the Mueller summaries to the Barr letter. Nothing that I can recall in the way of substantive difference.

I think this quoted section does:

Quote:Overarching factual issues. We did not make a traditional prosecution decision about these facts, but the evidence we obtained supports several general statements about the President's conduct.

Several features of the conduct we investigated distinguish it from typical obstruction-of-justice cases. First, the investigation concerned the President, and some of his actions, such as firing the FBI director, involved facially lawful acts within his Article II authority, which raises constitutional issues discussed below. At the same time, the President's position as the head of the Executive Branch provided him with unique and powerful means of influencing official proceedings, subordinate officers, and potential witnesses—all of which is relevant to a potential obstruction-of-justice analysis. Second, unlike cases in which a subject engages in obstruction of justice to cover up a crime, the evidence we obtained did not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference. Although the obstruction statutes do not require proof of such a crime, the absence of that evidence affects the analysis of the President's intent and requires consideration of other possible motives for his conduct. Third, many of the President's acts directed at witnesses, including discouragement of cooperation with the government and suggestions of possible future pardons, took place in public view. That circumstance is unusual, but no principle of law excludes public acts from the reach of the obstruction laws. If the likely effect of public acts is to influence witnesses or alter their testimony, the harm to the justice system's integrity is the same.
Although the series of events we investigated involved discrete acts, the overall pattern of the President's conduct towards the investigations can shed light on the nature of the President's acts and the inferences that can be drawn about his intent. In particular, the actions we investigated can be divided into two phases, reflecting a possible shift in the President's motives. The first phase covered the period from the President's first interactions with Comey through the President's firing of Comey. During that time, the President had been repeatedly told he was not personally under investigation. Soon after the firing of Comey and the appointment of the Special Counsel, however, the President became aware that his own conduct was being investigated in an obstruction-of-justice inquiry. At that point, the President engaged in a second phase of conduct, involving public attacks on the investigation, non-public efforts to control it, and efforts in both public and private to encourage witnesses not to cooperate with the investigation. Judgments about the nature of the President's motives during each phase would be informed by the totality of the evidence.

Finally, the Conclusion section to the Obstruction of Justice section makes it far more clear that Mueller's team is saying that there is evidence that Trump obstructed justice.

Quote:The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

Lad, I'm not sure that gets you where you think it does.

Obstruction of justice requires three basic elements, 1) an act that may be obstructive, 2) nexus to an ongoing or potential investigation, and 3) criminal or corrupt intent. There are some things that may fulfill element 1), and some of them may even fulfill element 2), but finding criminal intent in the absence of an underlying crime is extremely difficult. Not impossible, as Barr noted in his testimony today, but damned near it.

In that context, Mueller is saying, there are some things that might look like element 1), and some maybe even element 2), but there really is nothing that would prove culpable intent. He can't exonerate Trump with respect tp obstruction, because that is outside the scope of his investigation, but he doesn't have anything on one of the three critical elements. And the public view comments are significant in this sense--I think intent often goes with secret, hidden actions, whereas when things are done in the open, it's a lot harder to establish culpable intent.

By the way, note in passing that, "wanted to fire X, Y, or Z," is not an act, and therefore fails element 1).

One could not unreasonably argue that, as the nation's chief executive officer, the president has both a right and a duty to obstruct and even terminate investigations that are improper. And there is a mounting pile of evidence that this investigation was improper, at least to the extent it was directed at Trump or his administration.

As I think I've written before, this case is easily distinguishable from both Watergate and Hillary's server. Watergate started with a crime--the breakin--and was always an investigation of a crime, so any efforts to inhibit the investigation could clearly be seen as motivated by criminal intent. Here we have an investigation in search of a crime, which it never found--at least not any related to Donald Trump--and thus establishing any kind of culpable intent is highly problematic at best, if not downright impossible. As for Hillary's server, the national security crimes involved do not include intent as a requisite element--negligence or even simply carelessness are just as culpable as harmful intent (although intent may raise the level of the crime to a higher degree). That makes Comey's decision not to prosecute for the stated rationale of difficulty proving intent highly suspect at best. Moreover, two primary indicia of intent are repetition (if you did it once, you might have been simply careless, but if you do it over and over you probably meant to do it) and destruction of evidence (Bleachbit, smashing cell phones, "lost" emails), and both of those are present with Hillary. My bottom line with Hillary is that anyone who is that careless with classified information is a sufficient treat to national security as to disqualify her from the White House.

I guess this wasnt a boycott:

Mayor Pete heckled

I personally am sorry to see this. But it is not unexpected. Some people have strong viewpoints on homosexuality and gay marriage, and even Christians are allowed to protest and speak. It's not like nobody ever heckled Pence or Trump.

On a personal basis, I like Mayor Pete. I do not like his platform, such as it is so far. But if we have to suffer under a Democrat, he is certainly not the worst choice.

I have expressed my thoughts that Beta would be a very likely VP choice for any non white male POTUS nominee. But would it be possible to have two white males on the ticket if one was gay?

I would be interested in hearing people's opinions on that.

***Beta is a nickname reserved for Robert (Beto) O'Rourke. It is not meant to be used for any other person.

**** My cousin Roberto thinks Beta is funny. The nickname AND the man.

Just used my Keurig to make my morning coffee. Think I'll keep it. I love having my morning coffee, watching the wildlife troop through my yard, and posting here with my friends. Life is good today.

For the record, over time I have seen deer, turkey, wildcat, raccoon, coyote, and of course the many rabbits/squirrels that live about here. Neighbor about a mile away reported seeing a puma.

killing it

So, in 2020, which will win, economy or innuendo?

(05-04-2019 09:45 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  killing it

So, in 2020, which will win, economy or innuendo?

Well, of course, the old adage is that at the end of the day, people vote their pocketbooks. It is hard to come up with an example of an incumbent president who was not reelected despite a good economy - certainly none in modern times (although really, cast in those terms, the sample size is ludicrously small).

But with that said, a few caveats:

(1) The election is in 18 months, not today. There are certainly indicators that a downturn could be coming.

(2) Even if the national economy is still fine in 18 months, what if it's not so fine in Michigan? Pennsylvania? Ohio? Florida? Etc. As the challenger, Trump benefited in 2016 from areas that lagged the rest of the country, but he can't play that role any more.

(3) Trump is an utterly unconventional president and figure. He's broken plenty of rules and molds and it wouldn't surprise me if he managed to break the one about incumbents presiding over good economies being invincible.

(05-04-2019 10:43 AM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(05-04-2019 09:45 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  killing it

So, in 2020, which will win, economy or innuendo?

Well, of course, the old adage is that at the end of the day, people vote their pocketbooks. It is hard to come up with an example of an incumbent president who was not reelected despite a good economy - certainly none in modern times (although really, cast in those terms, the sample size is ludicrously small).

But with that said, a few caveats:

(1) The election is in 18 months, not today. There are certainly indicators that a downturn could be coming.

(2) Even if the national economy is still fine in 18 months, what if it's not so fine in Michigan? Pennsylvania? Ohio? Florida? Etc. As the challenger, Trump benefited in 2016 from areas that lagged the rest of the country, but he can't play that role any more.

(3) Trump is an utterly unconventional president and figure. He's broken plenty of rules and molds and it wouldn't surprise me if he managed to break the one about incumbents presiding over good economies being invincible.

Good points, all. Similar to my thinking.

Personally, I want the good times to continue. I live off my investments. I also have to support my sister in a senior residential home. So a downturn is not good for me.

As an American, I want the good times to continue, for all of us.

As a conservative, I want the Republicans to win and keep doing their job, as I think those measures are good for me, the country, and all within.

However, I must think that senior Democrats, from a political viewpoint, must be hoping that the economy stumbles. They would never say so in public, but I think they would not be unhappy to see a crash.

(Senior Democrats does not include anybody here)

JMHO.

I am kind of neutral on abortion, seeing pluses and minuses both ways, but this makes me happy I have no daughters or granddaughters.

(05-03-2019 12:03 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I guess this wasnt a boycott:

Not sure what they are boycotting?

Looks like yet another clash in Portland. The most liberal city in the US surrounded by areas infested by white nationalists. Ugly setup.

You mean the white nationalist photographer author of the tweet there who was bear-sprayed?

Having looked at the videos of the entire thread, I dont think I could have readily identified more than one or two 'white nationalists' amongst the counter demonstrators. Or is that the nom de jure of anyone counter-protesting an antifa rally in Portland these days?

(05-05-2019 08:29 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  You mean the white nationalist photographer author of the tweet there who was bear-sprayed?

Having looked at the videos of the entire thread, I dont think I could have readily identified more than one or two 'white nationalists' amongst the counter demonstrators. Or is that the nom de jure of anyone counter-protesting an antifa rally in Portland these days?

No. I was just commenting in general as to how Portland is a flashpoint for violence between the antifa and white nationalists. I didn't dig deeply into this particular skirmish. Not sure exactly who was involved on either side. I guess that I assumed that it was more of the same that has been so prevalent in Portland over the past couple years.

Also trying to figure out the term "boycott" in the original post. How was this a boycott?

(05-05-2019 08:29 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  You mean the white nationalist photographer author of the tweet there who was bear-sprayed?

Having looked at the videos of the entire thread, I dont think I could have readily identified more than one or two 'white nationalists' amongst the counter demonstrators. Or is that the nom de jure of anyone counter-protesting an antifa rally in Portland these days?

No. I was just commenting in general as how how Portland is a flashpoint for violence between the antifa and white nationalists. I didn't dig deeply into this particular skirmish. Not sure exactly who was involved on either side. I guess that I assumed that it was more of the same that has been so prevalent in Portland over the past couple years.

Also trying to figure out the term "boycott" in the original post. How was this a boycott?