Margaret Brennan just completed an interview with Attorney General Bill Barr on CBS Face the Nation. For days, the allegation from politicians, the press, protesters, and pundits has been that the Park was cleared for the purpose of the widely criticized photo op held by Trump in front of St. John’s Church. For example, in an uncorrected segment still up on the Internet, NPR declares “Peaceful Protesters Tear-Gassed To Clear Way For Trump Church Photo-Op.” (Tear gas was also not actually used as opposed to pepper spray — though that distinction is technical at best since pepper spray has much of the same impact on individuals even if it is based on capsicum). The photo op allegation continues to be repeated on the Internet despite various media reports debunking it. This morning Barr confirmed the details in those reports and offered some new details. Barr however continues to support the level of force used in the Park and the decision to go forward with the clearing of the Park
Barr confirmed that the plan to clear the park came from the Park Police, which asked for the expansion of the perimeter on Sunday night. He reviewed the plan Monday morning and, with others, approved the plan. The order was transmitted to Park Police at 2 pm. (I will return to that issue). Here is the key exchange:
BARR: I’m going to- let me get to this, because this has been totally obscured by the media. They broke into the Treasury Department, and they were injuring police. That night,–
MARGARET BRENNAN: Sunday night?
BARR: Sunday night, the park police prepared a plan to clear H Street and put a- a larger perimeter around the White House so they could build a more permanent fence on Lafayette.
MARGARET BRENNAN: This is something you approved on Sunday night?
BARR: No. The park police on their own on- on Sunday night determined this was the proper approach. When I came in Monday, it was clear to me that we did have to increase the perimeter on that side of Lafayette Park and push it out one block. That decision was made by me in the morning. It was communicated to all the police agencies, including the Metropolitan Police at 2:00 p.m. that day. The effort was to move the perimeter one block, and it had to be done when we had enough people in place to achieve that. And that decision, as I say, was communicated to the police at 2:00 p.m.. The operation was run by the park police. The park police was facing what they considered to be a very rowdy and non-compliant crowd. And there were projectiles being hurled at the police. And at that point, it was not to respond–
MARGARET BRENNAN: On Monday, you’re saying there were projectiles–
BARR: On Monday, yes there were.
MARGARET BRENNAN: As I’m saying, three of my colleagues were there.
BARR: Yeah.
MARGARET BRENNAN: They did not see projectiles being thrown–
BARR: I was there.
MARGARET BRENNAN: –when that happened.
BARR: I was there. They were thrown. I saw them thrown.
Even at 2 p.m. the movement of the Park Police was not related to a decision to walk to the church and such a plan was not known to him or the Park Police since it came later in the day. Brennan did not challenge the reporting supporting that timeline or the fact that the order was unrelated.
Brennan does challenge what she said was Barr’s assertion that the Secretary Mark Esper did not rule out the use of the Insurrection Act. This may have been a lost in legal translation moment. It think Barr was making a narrower legal point while Brennan thought it was a more general statement. Here is what Barr said:
“The option to use active duty forces in a law enforcement role should only be used as a matter of last resort, and only in the most urgent and dire of situations. We are not in one of those situations now. I do not support invoking the Insurrection Act.”
Esper was not saying that the Act could not be used but should only be used as a “last resort.” Neither Barr not Esper supported invoking the Act, i.e., ordering deployments under the Act. Both however agreed it could be used as a legal matter if circumstances warranted. Here is what Barr said:
MARGARET BRENNAN: So in this Monday meeting with the president, when the Defense Secretary, who has now publicly said that he opposed using the Insurrection Act, you said what to the president?
BARR: I don’t think the Secretary of Defense said he opposed it. I think he said that it was a last resort and he didn’t think it was necessary. I think we all agree that it’s a last resort, but it’s ultimately the president’s decision. The- the reporting is completely false on this.
Both Esper and Barr seem to agree that the Act is available but that current circumstances do not warrant their use. Both agree it should be used as a “last resort.”
Here is where I disagree with Barr. If the park was to be cleared, it should have been done before the protesters appeared. Barr earlier said that he wanted it done in the morning for that reason. It was delayed waiting for reinforcements. In my view, it was mistake not to either clear the park in the morning or wait for the next morning. Barr’s position is that 150 federal officers had been injured and the park had to be cleared. He also insisted that the level of force was warranted. I again disagree. The move escalated the tension. We have seen the same decisions by District police and state police across the country. Indeed, a federal judge today issued an order to restrict state and local police in Oregon in the use of such means.
However, there continues to a common narrative being promulgated on the photo op. There are various investigations being demanded and we will likely get more information on whether Barr is outright lying on these details. However, it would be perfectly insane to do so when you are citing Park Police plans that will be available to Congress and the public in time.
Here is the transcript: Barr interview
For the slow learners the 1st Amd to the USC says ”
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. ”
Can you & Prof Turley understand those words mean?
” Peaceably Assemble”
These are not peaceful protesters, they are Rioters, Murders, Rapist, Arsonist, Robbers, another typical Coup against our Govt this time, not unlike the recent Obama/Hillary/Brennan used against Ukraine & other such Coups against other sitting gov’ts.
So yes, maybe someone should call for a congressional hearing to make sure AG Barrs Tie didn’t conflict with his Ph’k Socks.
See, here’s what today’s new meaning of “Peaceful Public Protesting” looks like
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=GBB8iRkmUKc&feature=emb_logo
Oh, and just look these “Peacful Public Protesters” are remodleing the USA, how sweet of those American hating Commies. LOL;)
A video from Buffalo or elsewhere is irrelevant to the question of whether the protesters in Lafayette Square Park on June 1 were peaceful.
There were lots of reporters there, lots of video, and all of it shows that the protest was peaceful prior to the police/National Guard action. Reporters and others who were there (including clergy) have stated that it was peaceful.
If Barr has video of it not being peaceful, let him present it. If he wants to claim it wasn’t peaceful, let him be questioned under oath.
Are you asserting a constitutional right to protest wherever you wish ?
Are you claiming that there was no arson at nearby St. John’s the prior night ?
That shop’s on H & I streets were not looted ?
We have plenty of evidence of both.
I do not know if the assembly was peaceable in the moments before the NG and Park Police removed them from the park. But clearly it had not been earlier.
It is perfectly reasonable to clear the area arround St. John’s and where other looting and violence had taken place.
Go to the Mall, there was enough space there for everyone to protest, and social distance by a full football field each.
You ask a bunch of questions about what I’m asserting.
You can answer all of them by looking at what I actually wrote.
The answer to “Are you asserting a constitutional right to protest wherever you wish ? Are you claiming that there was no arson at nearby St. John’s the prior night ? That shop’s on H & I streets were not looted ?” is: no, I didn’t assert any of those things.
The answer to “Are you asserting a constitutional right to protest wherever you wish ? Are you claiming that there was no arson at nearby St. John’s the prior night ? That shop’s on H & I streets were not looted ?” is: no, I didn’t assert any of those things.
Then there is no constitutional claim that Barr can not clear Laffeyette park.
Further there is far more government interest than the courts typically require.
If you want to argue that “a significant government interest” should have some real meaning – I will be happy to agree. But it doesn’t.
The fact is this entire incident is a tempest in a tea pot.
In my experience Barr has been incredibly truthful. I think he is wrong occasionally.
but he has integrity. Certainly more than Holder,
But you are free to disagree.
I do not beleive the WH and DOJ coordinated a photo op.
But if they did – I do not care.
If Trump wanted a photo in front of St. John’s after an arson – so what ?
And you know damn well that if Trump is walking from the WH to St. John’s Laffeyette park is going to get cleared – whether there is a protest going on or not.
I have my issues with Trump, even with his handling of this.
It should be trivial to understand that at this moment in time risking even the appearance of conflict with protestors over something that is not necescary is a poor idea.
At the same time – From Trump to every mayor with active protests going on, I have zero problems with using the police or the national guard to keep protestors from gathering anywhere EXCEPT legitimate places of protest or public petition of the government.
I do not think Trump should have expanded the exclusion zone arround the whitehouse.
While for the life of me I do not grasp why left wing nuts think that what happened to George Floyd should involve protesting at the white house – the white house is a clear place of public protest. even if it is incapable of handling the number of protestors that the mall can.
At the same time it is not merely legitimate but incumbant on the DC mayor and if not her then the president to protect private property – including businesses on H & I streets as well as St. John’s – whether the bishop likes that or not.
But there is a gigantic gulf between politically unwise actions and unconstitutional or authoritarian ones.
And the left constantly conflates any action they do not like with unconstitutional, tyranical and authoritarian.
The sky is not falling, the wolf is not coming, but the cackles on the left are without clothes.
I don’t see any video links you’ve posted, so again it’s all blow, and reporters said it is 5 pinocchios by default.
Turkey’s innocence may bring tears to your eyes. Please, please give the benefit of doubt to Barr, he implores. Who can not be touched by such innocence.
Now think whether this paragon of both-sideism have extended the same courtesey to Eric Holder. You probably know what he would have done. Holder was different, wasn’t her – in other ways?
Yeah, holder fooled the black folks into thinking that banker’s werent in charge, when they obviously were, since he didnt charge anything but little fish for the 2008 credit crisis.
but holder was black so he fooled them into thinking, bankers not in charge.
maybe Trump fooled us into thinking, bankers were not in charge? i mean, maybe the election was just to fool white voters like obama fooled the blacks.
but bankers are in charge, big ones I mean, they were, they are, and will be.
that’s the most cynical take I can provide on this, and probably the most accurate one.
Just “Win,” Baby.
“Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything.”
– Joseph Stalin
____________
President Trump needs to study how Lincoln won 1864 and how Kennedy won 1960.
President Trump needs to grab the bull by the horns.
That is sacrilege, to put Trump’s name in the same sentence with Kennedy’s and Lincoln’s. How dare you?
Let Barr testify about it under oath.
At this point, given his many public false statements, including official statements (such as his mischaracterization of the Mueller Report), I have no reason to believe his public statements if they’re not under oath, unless there’s no evidence to the contrary.
And it’s easy to find clearly false statements from Barr in the transcript. For example:
“there were not chemical irritants. Pepper spray is not a chemical irritant. It’s not chemical.”
This is a lie. And part of it — “It’s not chemical” — is a ludicrous claim, as ALL substances on Earth — including pepper balls — are composed of chemicals.
Pepper balls do contain chemical irritants: https://www.factcheck.org/2020/06/the-semantics-of-tear-gas-versus-pepper-spray/
If he’d lie about something so easy to disprove, why on earth should anyone assume he’s telling the truth about the clearing of Lafayette Square Park and surrounding streets?
Let Barr testify about it under oath (and/or before Congress, where it’s also illegal to lie even if one is not under oath). Also call others to testify. For example, Barr claims “Sunday night, the park police prepared a plan to clear H Street and put a- a larger perimeter around the White House so they could build a more permanent fence on Lafayette,” and in response to Brennan asking “This is something you approved on Sunday night?,” Barr says “No. The park police on their own on- on Sunday night determined this was the proper approach.” So call the head of the Park Police to testify about who decided to clear Lafayette Square, why, and when.
Indeed commit, that JT quotes this self interested JO as proof of anything is a bad joke. It defies logic and the smell test. I saw him in real time checking it out, huddling with higher up cops, and the approach of the photo op was obviously driving that. What a liar.
What a stooge.
And I forgot that the ACLU and others have already filed a civil suit against Trump, Barr and others re: these events: https://www.acludc.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/blmdc_v._trump_complaint.pdf
So hopefully they will eventually have to testify about it under oath.
Yeah, and the ACLU is a really OBJECTIVE party, right? Darn, they sent me a request for money a few weeks ago and the whole spiel was an Anti-Trump diatribe. This case will get thrown out of court, is my GUESS.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Unlikely, there was no infringement on the first amendment.
If you think there was – give me your address I will petition the govenrment in your bedroom.
Let Obama and “The Obama Coup-Coup Gang That Couldn’t Lie Straight” testify about it under oath.
“Here Comes the Judge”
– Deputy John Durham
__________________
The Obama Coup D’etat in America is the most egregious abuse of power and the most prodigious criminal act in American political history.
The co-conspirators are:
Bill Taylor, Eric Ciaramella, Rosenstein, Mueller/Team, Andrew Weissmann, Comey,
Christopher Wray, McCabe, Strozk, Page, Laycock, Kadzic, Yates, Baker, Bruce Ohr,
Nellie Ohr, Priestap, Kortan, Campbell, Sir Richard Dearlove, Steele, Simpson,
Joseph Mifsud, Alexander Downer, Stefan “The Walrus” Halper, Azra Turk, Kerry,
Hillary, Huma, Mills, Brennan, Gina Haspel, Clapper, Lerner, Farkas, Power, Lynch,
Rice, Jarrett, Holder, Brazile, Sessions (patsy), Nadler, Schiff, Pelosi, Obama,
James E. Boasberg et al.
So, that’s what Trump’s Obamagate is all about, a coup d’etat? Now you can go and tell Trump. That blithering idiot will believe anything and it will be on tonight’s tweets.
Yes, Barr mischaracterized the Mueller Report – as we niw know it is chock full of lies and misrepresentations from end to end,
And Rosenstein just testified that Mueller knew there was no Russian Collusion by August 2017 – though Given that the FBI knew in Dec. 2016 one wonders what took Mueller so long.
Barr was incredibly kind to Mueller who appears to be a doddering figured head suffering from Biden syndrome, sent in to put a veneer of respectability on a partisan hit job.
I will be happy to jail Flynn for lying – if you use the same standard for the rest of those in this mess.
Pleadings to the court require the attornies to affirm the accuracy on penalty of prosecution.
Numerous representations of Van Grack to the court were FALSE.
Jail him.
Brennan, Clapper and Clinton lied to congress – Jail them.
McCabe and Comey lied to Horowitz – Jail them.
Vindman and Yavonovitch lied to Congress – jail.
“as we niw know it is chock full of lies and misrepresentations from end to end”
No, we don’t *know* that. You *believe* that. But just because you believe it doesn’t imply it’s true. Only a subset of beliefs are knowledge. Other beliefs are false or have an unknown truth values or aren’t T/F in the first place.
“And Rosenstein just testified that Mueller knew there was no Russian Collusion by August 2017”
I have no reason to assume your claim is correct. I doubt that you care, but if you do, simply quote what Rosenstein actually said. Here’s the transcript: https://www.c-span.org/video/?472540-1/deputy-attorney-testimony-fbis-russia-investigation&live=
“Numerous representations of Van Grack to the court were FALSE.”
You don’t provide any evidence for your claim, and I again have no reason to assume it’s true.
“Jail him.”
Hmmm, don’t you think he should be indicted and tried first? Or do you just advocate jailing anyone you oppose?
Ditto for the rest of your claims (“Brennan, Clapper and Clinton lied to congress – Jail them. McCabe and Comey lied to Horowitz – Jail them. Vindman and Yavonovitch lied to Congress – jail.)
Really ?
Do you live on the moon ?
Skipp the diatribe on beleifs. I am talking facts.
I have no interest in beleifs.
The reason that Grassley asked for 4 footnotes in the Horowitz report declassified was because they contradicted Mueller.
One of them is misrepresenting. Given that the Horowitz declassified footnotes are excepts from actual documents – that means it is Mueller.
That is a single example. Down has actually testified that the Mueller report Falsely reports on his statements, and that records exist to prove that.
As to Van Grack. He told the court he had provided Flynn with all Brady material.
He did not. The recently released declassified documents are all brady material that was never provided to Flynn.
The documents from Flynn’s own prior attorney documenting exchanges with Van Grack that Flynn was never informed of confirm that Van Grack lied to other courts – in violation of Gigglio.
Actually you have excellent reason to assume my Rosenstein quote is correct.
The Horowitz report established Jan 17, 2017 as the last date at which the FBI/DOJ had the reasonable suspicion necescary for an investigation.
It is Arguable that Rosenstein and Mueller are sufficiently thick that it took another 8 months for them to know what was already known. But even they are not so mentally challenged to beleive it would take longer
But as you need a cite
—-
“The whole concept, that the campaign was colluding with the Russians, there was no ‘there’ there in August of 2017, do you agree or not?” Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., asked Mr. Rosenstein.
“I agree with the general statement,” he replied.
——
When you say “I know…,” you’re referring to knowledge, and the definition of “knowledge” is “justified true belief” (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/#KnowJustTrueBeli ), so knowledge is a subset of beliefs. That any of us believes something to be a fact doesn’t guarantee that it *is* a fact. If you’re not interested in beliefs, then you’re not interested in the subset of beliefs that are knowledge.
“The reason that Grassley asked for 4 footnotes in the Horowitz report declassified was because they contradicted Mueller.”
You assert this, but you don’t provide actual evidence of it. To provide evidence, you’d need to quote text in the Mueller Report that each footnote contradicts.
Re: “Down has actually testified that the Mueller report Falsely reports on his statements,” I’m not sure who you’re referring to. Perhaps you mistyped someone’s name. I assume you don’t meant John Dowd, as he isn’t mentioned in the Mueller Report.
Re: Van Grack, we’d need to look at his actual testimony. Also, if the DOJ has evidence that he lied under penalty of perjury about something material, they should indict him. They haven’t, and if they did, he still has a right to contest it in a trial.
“The Horowitz report established Jan 17, 2017 as the last date at which the FBI/DOJ had the reasonable suspicion necescary for an investigation.”
I just searched the Horowitz report for “Jan 17” and “January 17,” and the text search showed no results. Perhaps you meant some other date. Why don’t you just quote whatever you’re referring to?
Your earlier claim was “Rosenstein just testified that Mueller knew there was no Russian Collusion by August 2017,” but the exchange that you just quoted isn’t at all equivalent to that; in fact, Mueller isn’t mentioned in what you just quoted. Moreover, in order to understand Rosenstein’s statemet “I agree with the general statement,” you also have to listen to what Graham said prior to what you quoted. My sense is that the relevant exchange starts ~37:04 of the video I already linked to. We know that there was *some* evidence of collusion with the Russians, as some of it has been quite public (e.g., the Trump Tower meeting, Trump publicly asking Russia for help).
“When you say “I know…,””
Lets see a standford link on epistemology on a plato cite that repeatedly references Hillary Clinton ?
It is more than 2000 years since Plato.
Regardless, we do not need a debate on epistemology.
First, a legitimate investigation requires meeting a legal standard – reasonable suspicion.
The legal system is not interested in Plato. Regardless, Horowitiz’s conclusion was that reasonable suspicion did NOT exist after Jan 17, 2017.
We are dealing with ~JTB
~(A+B+C) == ~A ^ ~B ^ ~C a pretty easy standard to meet
So you are on the wrong side of Plato’s epistemology.
“You assert this, but you don’t provide actual evidence of it.”
Google is your friend. It is not my job to think for you.
John Dowd – yes.
IDowd is quoted by Mueller in the report, and a federal judge has release the transcript of the VM that Mueller quoted and they contradict each other.
“Re: Van Grack, we’d need to look at his actual testimony.”
Please read what I wrote – it is in his submissions to the court.
Those are not “testimony” but they are sworn and false representations are an ethics violation and a crime – though DA’s are rarely prosecuted
“Also, if the DOJ has evidence that he lied under penalty of perjury about something material, they should indict him. They haven’t, and if they did, he still has a right to contest it in a trial.”
You seem to beleive that prosecutors are every indicted for lying.
Horowitz notes that FBI “interviews of the Primary Sub-source in January, March, and May 2017 that raised significant questions about the reliability of the Steele election reporting … he/she made statements indicating that Steele misstated or exaggerated the Primary Sub-source’s statements in multiple sections of the reporting.” For one example, while Steele claimed Trump’s supposed sexual activities at the Moscow Ritz Carlton had been “confirmed by a senior, western staff member at the hotel, the Primary Sub-source explained that he/she reported to Steele that Trump’s alleged unorthodox sexual activity at the Ritz Carlton hotel was ‘rumor and speculation.'”
“Why don’t you just quote whatever you’re referring to?”
It is bad enough that the rest of us have to memorize thousands of pages of this bullshit because those like you are too lazy to become informed.
If you are incapable of reading this on your own, or if having read it – which you appear to be claiming you have missed all the relevant portions – but still manage to cling to the thinest threads of hope – the problems is with you and not fixable.
“Your earlier claim was “Rosenstein just testified that Mueller knew there was no Russian Collusion by August 2017,” but the exchange that you just quoted isn’t at all equivalent to that; in fact, Mueller isn’t mentioned in what you just quoted.
So you are going to hang your hat on the beleif that the Deputy AG supervising Mueller knew that an investigation was without foundation, and that he found that out on his own, without consulting the SC ?
“Moreover, in order to understand Rosenstein’s statemet “I agree with the general statement,” you also have to listen to what Graham said prior to what you quoted. ”
You do ? Why ? You realize that you are appealing to your own authority ?
Graham asked a question, Rosenstein answered it.
“My sense is”
I do not care what your sense is. FACTS.
You chastized me for failing to give you the evidence you demanded in the form you demanded. Now you are providing a “sense” or what something at a time code in a video that you do not link, and where we have a transcript, followed by some mush that appears to be a fractional quote wrapped in your own paraphase ?
In response to my saying “You assert this, but you don’t provide actual evidence of it,” you said “Google is your friend. It is not my job to think for you.”
I haven’t asked you to think for me. I’ve asked you to satisfy your burden of proof. The latter isn’t the former.
Burden of proof means that if person X makes true/false claim Y, the onus is on person X to demonstrate that Y is true. If you’re not going to take your own burden of proof seriously, then we’re not going to be able to make progress.
For example, you say “Dowd is quoted by Mueller in the report, and a federal judge has release the transcript of the VM that Mueller quoted and they contradict each other” and “Mueller misquoted Dowd.”
To satisfy your burden of proof, you’d have to say something along the lines of “The quote from Dowd’s voicemail to Kelner is on p. 121 of the Mueller Report, and the court transcript is here: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.80.1_8.pdf, and I’m claiming that they contradict each other because ____,” filling in the blank by stating what you assert the contradiction or “misquote” is. Then we’d be able to see whether your assertion is actually true. Instead, you’ve only asserted that your claim is true, but you’ve so far refused to substantiate it or even to specify what you’re claiming is misquoted.
I’m not going to do your work for you. I have a burden of proof for my claims, and you have a burden of proof for yours.
“something at a time code in a video that you do not link”
I linked to it earlier, the C-Span link I gave you, which includes the entire video of Rosenstein’s testimony along with an automatically created transcript that’s imperfect. The video is better than the transcript, as there’s some overlapping talk. The issue is that when Rosenstein says “I agree with the general statement,” you have to determine what he’s referring to by “the generaal statement,” and there’s no reason to think that the referent is simply the last sentence of what Graham had said to Rosenstein.
If you aren’t willing to really dig into the evidence at the level of detail necessary to assess whether your claims are true or not, then continuing this exchange is pointless.
“I haven’t asked you to think for me. I’ve asked you to satisfy your burden of proof. The latter isn’t the former.”
It is not my job to do anything for you.
Regardless you are hypocritcal in you standards.
You make demands for evidence up to court standards from others,
and you dont deliver anything or you deliver tangents or things you clearly have not read, or that you cherry picked, or …
If you want me to treat you as honestly interested in assessing information you have to act as if you are.
I do not owe you, what you want on your terms without your conforming to the same standards in return.
All the information to support anything I say is readily available from easy to find sources, usually official records.
Nope, I hold myself to the same burden of proof standards. If you quote a T/F claim I’ve written and ask for evidence, I’ll provide it (sometimes I also provide it without being asked).
You still haven’t explained why you’re claiming “Mueller misquoted Dowd,” even after I gave you the relevant page number from the Mueller Report and a link to the transcript of the entire voicemail, doing half of your work for you.
Honest people are open to changing their minds in response to evidence. I’m open to doing that. But I’m not going to take your word as a substitute for actual evidence, and I’m not going to chase down evidence for *your* claims.
Since you’re not going to take your own burden of proof seriously, I won’t put any more time into this.
“Nope, I hold myself to the same burden of proof standards. If you quote a T/F claim I’ve written and ask for evidence, I’ll provide it (sometimes I also provide it without being asked).”
So the standard is I just have to provide cites, but I must ask to get them ?
And you claim to use the same standard ?
Sorry, no dice.
Further it is 2020 not 2017. If you are going to challenge what is at this point a huge body of publicly available facts – the burden is on you not me.
Those of us challenging the narative for years had to prove our case depite the fact that the “deep state” was hiding the ball. Now that the cat is out of the bag.
That problem is YOURS not mine.
I expect that you will actually be familiar with what is publicly available before commenting
So far you have failed at that. I said the Sanction EO cited by Van Grack was not discussed in the Flynn Transcripts. You responed with the actual EO’s – thank you,
But did not address the fact that Flynn did not discuss them – which is self evident from the transcripts. The vast majority of Flynn’s discussion was about whatever non specific future actions Obama might take, and the rest was the diplomats.
Neither of which are in the EO’s
So Van Grack lied. Your own links prove it.
Much worse that whatever lie it is that Flynn is alleged to have. Which no one still seems to know.
“You still haven’t explained why you’re claiming “Mueller misquoted Dowd,”
You have the actual transcripts, you have the Mueller report.
While there are misquotes the fundimental problem is of misrepresentation.
Mueller claimed Dowd’s remarks meant something that in portions Mueller did not cite Dowd explicitly ruled out.
If you compare the two it is easy to see that even if the words are mostly the same the edits substantially change the meaning.
Mueller is not filing an OpEd. His report is required to be objective. It is also technically exparte – that means he is required to include all exculpatory information.
It is not my job to teach you to read or spoon feed you.
You are relatively good at linking things.
But as with the Sanctions EO;s you provide information but do not read it.
“Honest people are open to changing their minds in response to evidence. I’m open to doing that.”
Not so far as I have seen. You do not even seem to actually look at what you cite.
“But I’m not going to take your word as a substitute for actual evidence”
Those of us who have disagreed with this witch hunt have been told exactly that for 4 years – “trust us, trust experts, you do not get to see the evidence”
Sorry, it is your turn – except you are atleast allowed to see the evidence.
You do not need to trust me. I do not expect that.
But unless you live in a cave you know that the Trump/Russia collusion narrative has enormous holes in it – it has Sunk.
Anyone still selling is is either a stooge or deceiptful. and way too many still are.
But with respect to you “burden of proof” that has implications.
Those who have challenged the “Witch hunt” in the past, are entitled to credibility.
Our claims have proven true, the facts have born us out.
We have earned the presumption of truthfulness.
Those who have been selling the “witch hunt” conversely face the opposite.
They are NOT entitled to crediblity, they have earned the presumption of error.
They are obligated to prove every single inconsequential fact.
Turn about is fair play.
Regardless, you want to ask me to prove assertions – fine I will decide whether I do so.
But we are way past that as a requirement.
There are consequences to selling falsehoods.
One of those is the “burden of proof” shifts.
“and I’m not going to chase down evidence for *your* claims.”
You do not need to. But given the lack of credibility of the prior false narative,
the obligation to disprove is now yours.
“Since you’re not going to take your own burden of proof seriously, I won’t put any more time into this.”
The burden of proof for those selling snake oil for three years, is much higher than those who have condemned the snake oil for three years and proven to be right.
For Three years the rest of us have had to put up or shutup.
Had to “beleive the experts”
Had to try to rebut nonsense when the facts were being deliberately hidden.
Right now Alex Jones is more credible than those selling “trump russia”,
And Alex Jones is a nut.
There is more to the world that “burden of proof” there is also credibility
ONE aspect of credibility is being able to cite evidence.
Another is merely a long history of being right,
Or a long history of being wrong.
Another aspect of credibility is whether some allegation is consistent with known facts,
And another is whether it can be falsified.
John, why do debate this smarmy troll?
“smarmy troll” means someone who doesn’t agree with mespo’s desire to kill those he disagrees with.
John:
See here’s an example of a variety of smarmy troll who’s also a know-nothing. Not rare but worth pointing out when they slime by.
Sometimes it is the issue not the person that drives the choice of who to debate.
Often the objective is to develop a specific argument.
That is done better if the other party is more capable.
I have not been here in a while. I do not know all the smarmy Trolls.
Besides
“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion… Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them…he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”
― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
It is sometimes debating the “smarmy trolls” that leads to improvements in our own arguments.
John, you and I agree on something.
“Burden of proof”
There is no burden of proof in an internet exchange. This is not a trial.
Following any comment chain it is not even a valid argument.
Fallacies are sprayed like rain, No one conforms to standards of logic or debate.
That said – if you are prepared to agree to some set of standards, I will agree to the same. So far I have seen no evidence that your demands are anything but efforts to obstruct. You do not take serious the requirement to actually prove your assertitons.
Finally the vast majority of the assertions I make are as I said from readily available source. If you are familiar with the public informatuion that purports to be contra, then you are either familiar with atleast some of the evidence of my assertions or you are hopelessly biased and uncurious.
“He who knows only his one side, knows little of that”
J.S. Mill
“There is no burden of proof in an internet exchange. This is not a trial.”
Philosophic burden of proof exists whenever someone makes a T/F claim, not just in trials.
>“There is no burden of proof in an internet exchange. This is not a trial.”
“Philosophic burden of proof exists whenever someone makes a T/F claim, not just in trials.”
False – this is also not a formal debate.
Your first problem is you are fixated on “burden of proof”.
As noted that is applicable to trials. To a small extent to formal debates.
In THIS context is it ONE element of the much larger issue
CREDIBILITY
You can enhance your credibility by proving your argument – in the same way as a debate or in court.
Though the standards are not the same.
But those are not the only ways to enhance your credibility.
Even in court – evidence is quite often evaluated by weaker standards than you assert.
Challenges to The credibility and bias of a witness in court is always admissible.
In other words you can disbeleive someone merely because they have a track record of falsehood. Or beleive them because they have a track record of truthfulness.
I can expound on this forever,
But my fundimental point is that you are elevating as the only standard, something that is actually an uncomon standard. ‘
Probably the domain where your demands are closest to met is that of scientific papers,
Though even there other factors often influence credibility.
Regardless, the Trump Russia narartive is a falsehood, nit only has it been overall falsified, nearly every single element has been falsified.
You are incredulous about some of my assertions – but if you actually check them you will find them true. But honestly I am surprised at some of what has been established.
The transcripts of 56 witnesses from 2017 and 2018, that were only just released
Why did that take 2 years ? All completely sink Trump/Russia.
But worse they sink Mueller completely.
That testimony occured well before the Mueller report – so Mueller knew it.
Yet bludgeoned forward anyway.
I did not expect Horowitz to conclude that Trump/Russia predication died in Jan 2017.
I really did not expect to find that the FBI had concluded the same on the record.
I have felt like Obama’s fingers were on this from the start – there are still Strzok texts and other evidence that suggests Obama involvement starting in 2015.
I never expected PROOF of Obama’s involvement.
And the discovery that Biden was involved was a total shock.
Unmasking has been a known problem for a long time.
The “left” is possibly correct that those unmasking Flynn might not have known they were unmasking Flynn – that is the nature of unmasking.
But that does not change the fact that also by its nature unmasking is supposed to be rare, and structually it is supposed to be done by those at the Bottom of the chain, where they can demonstrate that the identity of the US person would effect the results of the analysys. Unmasking by intelligence consumers rather than producers and analysts is supposed to be rare to non-existant, yet the list Grennel produced has no low level people, it is entirely the people with no justification for doing so.
Further this unmasking is After the election. By the top people in a lame duck.
There are few conceivable good explanations
I can go on and on.
Yes, much of what I say is incredible.
But pretty much all of what we know is incredible.
“Finally the vast majority of the assertions I make are as I said from readily available source. …”
“Readily available” does not necessarily mean factual or accepted by someone other than crackpots. Perhaps sourcing your conspiratorial tending beliefs in the future and keeping them down to maybe 1 or 2 points and a few of short paragraphs would better facilitate discussion. I’m not wading into your epic poems.
BTW, among that long list of those who acknowledged the fact that Russia interfered in the 2016 election and with an eye to helping Trump win , was the Senate Select Intelligence Committee in a report of 1 month ago. You may take note that the Committee has a GOP majority.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/21/senate-intel-report-confirms-russia-aimed-to-help-trump-in-2016-198171
“Readily available” does not necessarily mean factual
Correct, but I leave you free to find sources on your own.
And you have done well.
You found Rosensteins testimony on CSPAN, you found a transcript, you found the references to Dowd’s voice mails in the Mueller report, you found the publicly released transcript.
Your “burden of Proof” demands that I provide you the sources that you will accept.
I leave you free to determine the sources you deem credible on your own.
I have separately argued credibility and integrity as standards,
Your own standard ultimately rests on credibility once removed.
Instead of making determinations based on my credibility you choose to do so based on the credibilty of sources.
But you fail to grasp that credibility and integrity are inescapable criteria.
“or accepted by someone other than crackpots. Perhaps sourcing your conspiratorial tending beliefs in the future and keeping them down to maybe 1 or 2 points and a few of short paragraphs would better facilitate discussion. I’m not wading into your epic poems.”
Why are you offering a long diatribe about the credibility of hypothetical sources I have not provided ?
Why is anyone who is still selling Trump/Russia snake oil credible ?
“BTW, among that long list of those who acknowledged the fact that Russia interfered in the 2016 election”
Russia attempts to influence elections all the time. That is not new.
For their efforts are small and laughable.
The US influences elections all the time. And when we do not like the outcome we foment coups or sanction assassinations.
You can pass whatever laws you wish. But unless you are prepared to go to war, you can not stop any other nation from voicing its views on any election.
Free speech is more that a phrase in the first amendment. It is a fundimental right that can only be infringed on by force. Russia is one of many actors whose speech sometimes offends me. I am free to speak out in response. I am not free to use force to suppress it. Not as an individual, not as a government.
Finally while Russian influence efforts were miniscule, even if they were ginormous and effective – it is still speech. If Russia is capable of persuading enough people to alter the outcome of an election – so be it.
Speech – persuasion is the most legitimate means to influence peoples choices – regardless of who the speaker is.
“with an eye to helping Trump win”
Again evidence within the last your demonstrates that is false.
The actual assessement of the intelligence community as evidenced by lots of memos by analysts, rather than the conclusions of Brennan’s hand picked select committee, was that Putin favored Clinton, trump was unpredictable and his proposed policies were hostile to Russia.
But intelligent people do not need NSA feeds or CIA analysts to note that Trump’s policies were near universally contrary to Putin’s interests, and Putin’s contacts with Clinton dwarfed those with Trump.
After all Clinton was instrumental in the U1 Deal, received over 100M in contributions to the Clinton Fund, and Bill got 500K for a Russian speech.
You would think if Putin favored Trump – that Trump Tower Moscow that Cohen tried to negotiate would have been fast tracked, or that with so called “russian Agents” met Trump Jr at Trump tower they would have actually brought useful dirt on Hillary Clinton, rather than random crap about international adoption.
Long before Mueller came to town Trump/Russia collusion was a litmus test for intelligence.
Do you beleive – fill in the blank with whatever experts you prefer, or do you beleive the facts ?
The fact is a Clinton presidency was in Putin’s interest, A russian presidency has not been.
What is fascinating is that Obama was litterally in bed with Russia from day one.
The Obama administration suspended FBI investigations to get the U1 deal approved by congress, Obama was putin’s toady right up until the day after the 2016 election.
Scanning your epic screed, I note you disagree with the determination of the GOP led Senate Select Committee that the Russians intended to help the Trump campaign in 2016, in a report released approx one month ago.
It’s a free country.
Did I say I was a republican ?
Yes, I disagree with any conclusion that flies in the face of logic and facts, regardless of what party made it.
That said – I do not accept an assertion merely because you offer it.
If as you say some body has found that “the Russians intended to help the Trump campaign” please cite to that specific finding.
John, your response is purposefully obtuse, or if not, you aren’t as sharp as I thought.
The point of the GOP led committee affirming the intelligence communities determination that the Russians intended to help Trump in 2016 is not that you are a Republican – that’s actually irrelevant – but that Trump is and the congressional GOP has been nothing if not subservient to him, and of course that they would also be in a better position to know this than you would. In another words, self interest does not apply, but information does.
Secondly, I did not make the assertion as you claim, the GOP led Senate Select Committee on Intelligence made the assertion. They are of course not the only authorities – regardless of partisan interests – who have asserted it.
“John, your response is purposefully obtuse, or if not, you aren’t as sharp as I thought.”
Ad Hominem is not argument.
“Secondly, I did not make the assertion as you claim”
Until you cite the specific Finding the only assertion is yours.
Your credibility is poor. I have no reason to trust that because you assert that some finding exists that it does, or that it says what you claim it does.
Pretty much since Alinsky posted his rules for radicals, the frequency with which first the left, then democrats, and more recently the media and even republicans are willing to make blatantly false claims has escalated.
If the Senate Found precisely what you claim – the evidence we have today demonstrates that finding is in error. Frankly, logic has always indicated that Putin favored Clinton over Trump.
Regardless todate aside from assertions by the media, the left and democrats and Brenan’s ICA I am not aware of evidence that Putin favored Trump.
The documented Russian Social Media campaign ran approximately equal adds for Sanders, Clinton and Trump.
The only contact between Russian operatives and a political campaign was GRU sources feeding Clinton.
Even the “operative” from the notorious Trump Tower meeting – provided nothing useful to the Trump campaign and met with HFA political consultant Glenn Simpson before and after the meeting. I can speculate many reasons for the Trump Tower or Fusion GPS meetings, but none of those were to help the Trump campaign.
We have been bombarded by the purportedly proven claim that The Russians provided the DNC emails to Wikileaks. Wikileaks has consistently denied that. But purportedly Crowdstrike found that Russia had hacked the DNC.
crowdStrike credible determined that the DNC was hacked.
But in testimony only recently declassified by DNI Grennell
we find that Crowstrike confirmed they neither know who the hackers are nor have evidence that the DNC emails were acquired through that hack. Crowdstrike found logs of files retrieved by the Hackers – these did not include the DNC emails. Further the volume of the emails provided to WikiLeaks makes that highly unlikely.
VIPS has provided expert analysis of the actual files on Wikileaks that set the probability they were aquired by hacking very low, and if they were the hacker would have had to have been in the US with a very high speed link to the DNC, and that it was much more likely the files were leaked.
Contra the claims that Russia had agents in the Trump campaign, we know know that Carter Page was a CIA Asset working against Russia, and the Flynn was similar providing US inteligence information about the Russian, and was briefed before every contact with Russians and debreifed after.
The FBI ran spies purporting to be russians at Papadoulis and other Trump staff and in all instances their approaches were rebuffed – and we have transcripts.
Thus far the only evidence of efforts to “help” Trump were fake Russian’s run by the FBI.
If the Senate Comittee actually found that the Russians intended to aid Trump – I would expect they cited evidence to support that. We know to day that Crowdstrike did not provide that evidence. We know that the FBI did not provide that evidence We know the ICA was a fraud produced by Brennan cronies not standard IC process, and we know that the evidence used was the thoroughly discredited Steele Dossier.
So what if the Senate Committee found as you claim – what is the evidence they used ?
All of use would like to know.
I am not interested in Trump or Partisan Politics. Though the claim that the GOP was in Trump’s pocket at that time (or any time) is laughable.
I am interested in facts.
So many lies have been told – by the media, by the left, that I am not going to trust naked assertions.
I expect you to prove your claim.
John I admire your energy – I guess – but I’m not reading all that. You’re not that rewarding.
No, my “assertion” was a paraphrase of the reporting of others. That you can type that much without even keeping your eye on the ball hints at a mania of some sort.
I never heard of Alinsky until right wingers began insisting I much be a disciple. I still have never read a word he spoke or published, nor am I even minutely interested in doing so.
Carry on, but maybe come up for air more frequently – it seems to be affecting your brain.
“I’m not reading all that.”
Read, don’t, your choice.
But do not claim to know what I think if you are unwilling to read what I write.
“No, my “assertion” was a paraphrase of the reporting of others.”
When you offer a paraphrase of the work of others under your name – that is an assertion.
“That you can type that much without even keeping your eye on the ball hints at a mania of some sort.”
So when you can not manage an argument, your response is amateur psychology over the internet ?
“I never heard of Alinsky until right wingers began insisting I much be a disciple.”
His rules for radicals can be found in wikipedia.
It is irrelevant whether you have read them.
You use them. So does Trump. To a point the are effective.
The bitterness and vitriol particularly on the left today is a consequence.
It is a demonstration of the limits of political tools that fixate on power rather than truth.
“Carry on, but maybe come up for air more frequently – it seems to be affecting your brain.”
Alinsky Rule 5 “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”
Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals:
“Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.”
“Never go outside the expertise of your people.”
“Whenever possible go outside the expertise of the enemy.”
“Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”
“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”
“A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”
“A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.”
“Keep the pressure on.”
“The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”
“The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.”
“If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside.”
“The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.”
“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”
Now you are familiar.
You should recognize techniques used by Trump.
But you should also recognize that the same techniques have been used by the left – including you, long before Trump.
Regardless, Alinsky’s rules are effective.
But they are also destructive, they will tear the fabric of society apart.
We will not return to civility until the broad use of Alinsky’s methods is radically reduced.
Because the consequences of those methods are to polarize, divide, enflame, and destroy.
These are the methods of the french revolution, or of the Russian, or Chinese or leftist revolutions throughout the world. Many of these were used by Hitler.
If the left continues on the current path there are only a few possible futures.
Trump wins re-election by a landslide is probably the least bad.
The left brings about the modern equivalent of the french revolution.
Trump loses, and is shortly followed by Trump II, who will be more like Pinochet.
What will not happen is peace and harmony.
The more extreme the left gets the more extreme the right will get.
The more divided the country will be and the more likely political violence becomes.
The Floyd killing sparked a powder Keg, but it is not the only body of building anger in the country.
I happen to beleive that one growing well of anger is legitimate and the other is not.
But that will not matter when the bleeding starts.
I hope sanity prevails first. I actually beleive we will avoid going over a precipice.
But we just did go over a small one, and only rationality will stop us from going over others.
The more every minor inconsistancy is painted as a major moral failure threatening the republic the more likely violence errupts.
I was surprised that the Floyd protests have had as little violence as they have.
But that is not to say they were non-violent.
The potential was there.
The lockdown protestors were completely non-violent proving that can be done.
But they were also heavily armed and that was an open threat.
They were clear they had no intentions of starting the fighting, but they were fully prepared to end it.
There are more guns in this country than people that increases significantly everytime there is political stress. The overwhelming majority of those guns are in the hands of conservatives and libertarains, not progressives.
They are ready and waiting when you lose control.
And that is where you are headed.
“To satisfy your burden of proof, you’d have to say something along the lines of “The quote from Dowd’s voicemail to Kelner is on p. 121 of the Mueller Report, and the court ”
No, Actually I would not.
You previous asserted Dowd was not referenced in the Mueller report,
now you are citing Dowd in the Mueller report.
What is self evident is that you are not trustworthy, that you make your own claims as absolute without having checked them.
Your own demonstration of “burden of proof” evidence, makes it clear that,
When you asserted that my claim was false – their was no such thing,
That you failed to meet your own “burden of proof” standards.
Further it proves that when you are motrivated, you actually can do the work,
And finally. You are self evidently so deeply predisposed that the only way you are going to change your mind on anything is to do the hard work yourself.
This is not a court room, this is not a debate stage.
If you are actually honest and inquisitive – I have provided more than enough for you to determine that my generalizations are correct and to find the details which are usually even more damning to back them up.
And if you are not honest, there is no reason for me to waste time, meeting your “burden of proof” – which will never change your mind anyway.
The audience to my replies to you only includes you – if you are honest and inquisitive.
“Actually I would not.”
We clearly disagree about that. But since you seem to think that burden of proof is limited to trials, that explains your error.
“You previous asserted Dowd was not referenced in the Mueller report,
now you are citing Dowd in the Mueller report.”
When I said “I assume you don’t meant John Dowd, as he isn’t mentioned in the Mueller Report,” I was basing that on the fact that Dowd’s name doesn’t appear in the report, as I’d searched on his name. He’s referred to only as “the President’s personal counsel.” So I was wrong that he isn’t mentioned, though it’s true that he’s not mentioned by name. See how easy it is to admit a mistake? You should try it. I change my mind whenever there’s good evidence for changing it, just like I did here. Not that that prevents you from falsely claiming that I’ll “never change [my] mind anyway.”
But I’m not going to do your work for you, no matter how many times you attempt to push it off onto me.
“We clearly disagree about that. But since you seem to think that burden of proof is limited to trials, that explains your error.”
And you would be wrong. Each person gets to decide for themselves and in every situation what they are willing to do to enhance their argument and what they are willing to accept.
Put simply, you concept that there is some absolute is obviously false.
In several instances I have met your standard, sometimes with links provided by you.
Yet I have no evidence that you have been persuaded.
So even your claim to some clear obvious universal “burden of proof” standard is false.
as you do not adhere to your own standards. That does not surprise me, outside of libertarians, most people are near impossible to move from entrenched positions with logic and evidence. For libertarians only logic and evidence matters.
Regardless, my point is that whatever you wish to call it what is necessary to persuade an individual is individual and variable. I doubt you will change my mind on anything, but I am equally certain that I am far more persuadable by facts and logic than you are.
“So I was wrong”
I am impressed.
“You should try it.”
I have done so in the past week several times in other sections on JT’s blog.
“But I’m not going to do your work for you”
The work is for you – not me.
I have already done the work, and I have already made my assessment of the facts and evidence.
You are free to set whatever standards you want me to meet to persuade you.
And I am free to ignore them.
There is a separate issue which I have not addressed yet, and that is it is highly unlikely that you are going to change your mind about anything – unless YOU do the work.
That is true of most of us.
You corected yourself on Dowd because YOU did the work.
“no matter how many times you attempt to push it off onto me.”
I am not pushing it off – it is always on you.
You are responsible for your own evaluations, no one else is.
If you choose to beleive something false, because no one will make it easy for you to discover the truth – that is your problem.
Just to be clear, I am not stating some absolute rule.
I may well demand from you exactly what you are demanding of me,
I would do that when
I am debating someone with a history of poorly sourced arguments.
Or my own understanding of the facts is solid, and you are expecting me to revise my assessment of something that is at odds with what is known.
Or as with most of what you are arguing, you are pushing the status qui from 3 years ago that has been more roundly disproven than anything I have ever seen in politics.
As I said earlier – Alex Jones is likely to have been right more often than Anderson Cooper. Even some of Alex Jones more bat shit claims have proven ultimately true.
That should terrify you. Anderson Cooper has an excellent reputation for rationality – even if he leans slightly left. Alex Jones is bat shit crazy.
How many times has bat shit crazy proven more accurate than rational left centrists ?
Regardless, you are for the most part arguing from a position that has been solidly discredited.
As an example – it is not likely that every single claim of misconduct by Mueller and his attorney’s made by anyone is correct. But the mere fact that the predicate for the investigation was destroyed – and DOJ/FBI knew it before Mueller was appointed, alters the presumption against Mueller.
Has he violated every ethical claim anyone made ? No.
But he went forward with an investigation that had no legitimate legal predicate.
Doing so required multiple ethical violations.
It is fair to assume that when one is claimed – the burden of proof is NOT on the person claiming it.
“I linked to it earlier”
Everything I have provided to you has a link from somebody often me somewhere on the intenet. Don;t play games.
You are not the center of the universe, nor I am.
You talk of “burden of proof” – lets address the norms for internet comments,.
Except in “asked and answered” situations – comments stand alone or at the least can rely only on the immediate successors.
That you linked something in some prior exchange with someone else on some other day on some blog is irrelevant.
These are not “rules of god”, they are not “the rules of civil procedure” – this is not a court. They are the norms that are loosely followed.
If posters on the internet had better norms that would be great, but they do not and you know it. When you assert some “Burden of Proof” – you are making a demand of others.
one that so far the evidence is that you do not meet when you deal with others.
You want me to meet your “burden of proof” – establish that you are not a hypocrite.
Meet the same standards yourself. Prove your assertions – every single one, step by step. The same as you would do in formal argument – though I would note that even in formal argument justification it optional not manditory, it is required that you are able to justify each step in an argument – not that you actually do so.
“The issue is that when Rosenstein says”
Absolutely we know that Rosenstein is being incredibly careful – and evasive.
Durham is in the midst of a criminal investigation. Rosenstein has no immunity in testifying. And he is either a target or could easily make himself one.
He has tried to paint himself as non-partisan, and defending the rule of law.
But there is lots of evidence that suggests otherwise.
Further he is in a very tenuous position. Much of his actions that he purports were following the rule of law, now appear obstructive.
It is self evident at this time that the Mueller investigation was “not properly predicated”
That problem is HUGE and it is inescabably Rosensteins.
You want to get nit picky about this specific testimony – Frankly Grassley was offering Rosenstien an olive branch.
Whether Rosenstein is prosecuted by Durham inevitably hinges on what he knew and when he knew it. Claiming that McCabe did not adequately inform him and that he did not figure out he had authorized a witch hunt before August 2017 is highly improbable, but squishy enough that he might evade culpability.
But the elephant in the closet is – that Horowitz correctly found XFH lost predication in Jan 2017. This was not some judgement call. He openly admits that he gave DOJ/FBI the benefit of the doubt from July through January. The predication they had during that time was crap, but the standard to have an open investigation is low.
That means everything that followed requires some new evidence that no one has produced, and that frankly does not exist or it would have been used in the later FISA apps.
Horrowitz Finding means that Everyone – Mueller, Rosenstein, McCabe, Strzok, is going to be playing games about what they knew and trying to claim that it took a long time for them to find things out.
And that was what Grassley was pressing for. You can try to microparse Rosensteins response, but the ambiguity is there to try to save his bacon – to avoid perjury and to aslo avoid a section 1983 civil rights claim from Flynn and Papadoulus and alot of others which you can bet your sweet bippy is coming.
Rosenstein was responsible to Know this. He was responsible to know prior to appointing Mueller, He was responsible to know regardless of whether McCabe was lying to him.
And everything just said of Rosenstein applies to Mueller too.
Rosenstein can respond vaguely, but both Rosenstein and Grassley KNEW, that XFH and the entire mess went down the toilet in Jan 2017 (or possibly early),
And that the question was NOT When was it that the SC investigation was “toast”.
But when was it that you are prepared to admit that you KNEW it was toast.
So do not push this interpretation of Rosensteins response nonsense on me.
Because the question wasn’t – when did this die, But when are you prepared to admit that YOU KNEW it died.
This is not a grammar game. They both knew exactly what was being asked and exactly what was meant by the answer.
Frankly, these hearings are not mostly to find out what happened.
But to find out who was at fault,
And to make public facts that are already well known by the congressmen.
“That you linked something in some prior exchange with someone else on some other day on some blog is irrelevant. ”
No, I linked to it in a response to YOU, here:
https://jonathanturley.org/2020/06/07/barr-confirms-details-that-park-clearing-was-unrelated-to-church-photo-op/comment-page-1/#comment-1962988
And you responded to that comment, so presumably you saw the link.
“Meet the same standards yourself. Prove your assertions – every single one, step by step.”
Don’t lie about what my standards are. As I said: “I hold myself to the same burden of proof standards. If you quote a T/F claim I’ve written and ask for evidence, I’ll provide it.” What you just substituted — “Prove your assertions – every single one, step by step” — is another straw man claim on your end. I haven’t ever asked you to “prove … every single one [of your assertions], step by step.” I asked you about a small subset of your T/F claims, and I quoted the ones I was asking about.
And I’ll add now that I’m not going to play a game where you refuse to meet your own burden of proof but expect me to meet mine. For example, I’m still waiting for you to provide evidence of your claim “Mueller misquoted Dowd” / “[the Dowd quote in the Mueller Report and the transcript of the VM] contradict each other.” I already gave you the page # in the Report and a link to the VM transcript. You’ve yet to say what was misquoted / what your claimed “contradict[ion]” is. After you state what was misquoted, then just *quote* a T/F claim I’ve made that you want evidence for and ask for evidence, and I’ll show you that I’m quite willing to meet the same standard. For the record, I already provided evidence for a number of my claims without being asked, such as providing you with links to Obama’s EO’s to substantiate my claim about what was meant by “sanctions.”
“Grassley … Grassley … Grassley …”
You can’t even keep straight that it was an exchange between Rosenstein and Sen. Graham, not Sen. Grassley.
Wow you linked a transcript of video!
This is a near perfect example of what you DO NOT need to link
Something that anyone with half a brain can find on their own.
I did not watch the entirety of Rosensteins testimony.
But I watched a video of atleast 30min of excerpts.
If there is a reason I need to watch the entirety of his testimony, or some section that was not covered in the 30m – then make an argument for that.
Regardless, you do not need to link things that people can easily find on their own.
Further while your link was to cspan which can usually be trusted to provide accurate unedited records. Thank you.
Quite often links, are not to raw sources but to spun naratives.
I do not know the number of times I have had people say “Trump said X” and provide me a link to an article by a reporter that says “Trump said X” – not a quote of Trump but a reporter explaining for us what Trump said.
Only to chase down the actual remark to find that what Trump actually said differed dramatically.
And you wonder why we do not trust the press.
Regardless you keep offering this concept of burden of proof and your personal rules for what that means and how it is accomplished.
Maybe that is what you personally want or need – but do not presume that is universal.
Much of the time I do not want links, I want to know what you think the evidence is – with enough information I can find the evidence myself.
If I search for what you claim to be true and find the same thing – your claim gains credibility.
If you spoon feed me – then I have to decide if I trust your source.
Your idea of the gold standard, is not gold, and it is not universally prefered.
“Don’t lie about what my standards are. As I said: “I hold myself to the same burden of proof standards. If you quote a T/F claim I’ve written and ask for evidence, I’ll provide it.”
Your right – I confused your personal standard with that of logic.
Regardless, the point is made – it is YOUR standard not THE standard.
It is not some objectively correct one.
And there is no requirement that anyone else conform to it.
My Standard – the “burden of proof” in logic is that you prove your assertions – every single one, step by step.
“And I’ll add now that I’m not going to play a game where you refuse to meet your own burden of proof”
I do not recall proposing my own “burden of proof” standard – therefore it would be hard for me to not live up to my own standard.
Regardless I have noted that credibility is subjective.
You bought into the Trump/Russia nonsense – so your credibilty is pretty poor.
My request that YOU “prove your assertions, every single one, step by step” seems fair given your past errors.
Conversely I have not bought any of that malarkey, given that I have shown good judgement in my choices as to what to accept and reject, that would make my credibilty good, and it is not reasonable that I should have to cite or prove my assertions, but that you should be required to prove them wrong.
Dowd:
You seem to think that a list of things you have provided creates an obligation in others.
Read/Don’t up to you.
Mueller’s credibility sucks. He spent 22 months on a snipe hunt, and lead you and the country down it.
Don;t you think there should be a consequence for that ? For him ? For you ?
I do, and so do lots of others, That consequence is your credibility is shot.
Dowd made his own case quite well.
Google it, I am sure you can find it.
You found Mueller’s reference.
You found the transcript of the voice mail.
You can compare them YOURSELF,
Further you can find and read Dowd who will explain in detail why Mueller’s edits, substantially alter the meaning, and constitute an ethics violation and defamation.
As well as why Mueller in doing so effectively demonstrates he was not a nuetral reporter of the truth – but an advocate. And that was never his role.
But it was what you expected of him. Reveiw the past 4 years. Mueller was not exhorted to find the truth whatever that might be. Your hopes, your payers, your exhortations was that Mueller was going big game hunting, and he was going to “bag Trump”.
But that was not his job. If Pelosi wants to do that – she and her party are answerable to voters. But Mueller was appointed to find the truth – not your desired outcome.
And what is patently obvious in the Mueller report – specifically from all the places where the media and the left like to say “but mueller did not, or mueller said something is possible” is that it is not the job of a investigator seeking the truth to speculate on what might be. It is to report what he found. When Mueller offer’s hints or even states “there might be more” he is either exposing that he failed to complete his job, or demonstrating that he was not an investigator – but a big game hunter making excuses for the one that got away.
Mueller’s credibility is self evidently shot.
You continue to fixate on the “Burden of proof” as if it is some objective construct.
Nit only isn’t it – but even you do not beleive that. You have already stated that you have YOUR own standard – which you seem to think can be imposed on everyone.
You keep making demands of me – that I show you this or I show you that.
Basically that I conform to YOUR burden of proof.
Well I told you the standard that I seek from YOU, based on your credibility or lack thereof. Yet you flinch at that. If you are free to impose on me, YOUR subjective standard, Why am I not equally free to impose on you MINE ?
“I already provided evidence for a number of my claims without being asked, such as providing you with links to Obama’s EO’s to substantiate my claim about what was meant by “sanctions.””
Thank you for the links, Read them and then read the Flynn Transcripts.
What was in the EO’s – whatever you wish to call it, was not in the Transcripts.
Further Van Grack did not provide the transcripts to Flynn despite the Brady requirement to do so, and a court order. He actually had the termidity to say to the court that his claim that Flynn lied in his calls with Kislyak did not rest on what Flynn said to Kislyak.
Only in Leftganistan would that make sense.
“Hmmm, don’t you think he should be indicted and tried first? Or do you just advocate jailing anyone you oppose?”
The point which you missed, is that by YOUR standards, the entire Obama administration would be in jail.
There is real evidence of serious criminal misconduct by some of these people.
But the majority are merely liars and scoundrels who no one should ever trust again.
Please quote what you’re referring to by “by YOUR standards, the entire Obama administration would be in jail.” I suspect that you’re trying to put words in my mouth that aren’t mine, which would be dishonest and counterproductive.
“Please quote what you’re referring to by “by YOUR standards the entire Obama administration would be in jail.” I suspect that you’re trying to put words in my mouth that aren’t mine, which would be dishonest and counterproductive.”
Go back and read your own nonsense about Barr lying.
Regardless, I am not going to “cite you”
If you are unfamiliar with your own standards, that is not my problem.
In the last few exchanges – you are certain beyond a doubt that Barr is lying – presumably meeting the platonic epistemological criteria from your stanford link.
While at the same time unable to determine that Down is misquoted by Mueller,
or what Rosenstein meant in his testimony, or able to find horowitz’s references to the multiple FBI interviews or the Steele Primary subsource where the source asserts the claims in the dossier are gossip or made up and he did not expect anyone to beleive them.
When you think that some House committee finding – which you fail to quote much less link to is more meaningful that the transcript of Hillary’s own words in a phone call on the night of the attack, and I could go on and on.
It is self evident that you do not consistently use the same standards.
If you won’t quote what you’re referring to, there’s no way to determine which of us is wrong.
I’m struck that you again refer to someone named “Down” but won’t clarify who you’re referring to.
“you are certain beyond a doubt that Barr is lying ”
Well, I know for certain that he made false statements this morning. I quoted some of them here: https://jonathanturley.org/2020/06/07/barr-confirms-details-that-park-clearing-was-unrelated-to-church-photo-op/comment-page-1/#comment-1962854
It’s possible that he’s just astoundingly ignorant instead of lying. But it’s not “nonsense.” It’s a fact that everything — including pepper balls — is made of chemicals. It’s also a fact that pepper balls contain chemical irritants. In fact, one company that makes them, Pepperball.com, brags about how effective their irritant is.
Obviously, Barr’s lies this morning aren’t illegal, as they weren’t made under oath.
And since you’re choosing not to provide evidence for your own claims (i.e., you’re not going to meet your burden of proof), I’m unlikely to respond further.
“If you won’t quote what you’re referring to, there’s no way to determine which of us is wrong.”
How am I supposed to quote a quote you did not provide ?
“I’m struck that you again refer to someone named “Down” but won’t clarify who you’re referring to.”
Dowd, you correctly guessed the typo. Which was obvious in context.
Mueller misquoted Dowd, and a federal judge released the transcript.
That is at the very least an ethic violation.
“It’s a fact that everything — including pepper balls — is made of chemicals. It’s also a fact that pepper balls contain chemical irritants. In fact, one company that makes them, Pepperball.com, brags about how effective their irritant is.”
I really do not give a crap about this. But I will take your assertion that Barr is lying as a fact – using the standards you are using just as you state them.
Now when do we get to indict half the Obama adminstration for lying using that standard ?
“Obviously, Barr’s lies this morning aren’t illegal, as they weren’t made under oath.”
True, but Clapper, Brennan, Comey. McCabe, Vindman, Yavonovich” to name only a few made more significant and less innocent misstatements under oath.
In fact even Mueller made a more significant misstatement before congress – though I beleive he corrected it
“And since you’re choosing not to provide evidence for your own claims (i.e., you’re not going to meet your burden of proof), I’m unlikely to respond further.”
My burden of proof is your standards.
I said that before.
Regardless the misstatements of most of those I have cited are well documented.
You can argue whether the mistatements are consequential – material.
In the pre mueller, pre wigged out left, everything Trump related is a lie world, few of these would be considered prosecutable.
But by the standards of the Papadoulis, Van Zant, Stone and Flynn prosecutions – they could all lead to serious time.
for my part I would be satisfied if John Brennan and McCabe were both tried for sedition and hung. Then Peter Sztroke can get off with ten years for perjury. Some other rats can just be fired and sued.
The rest can go scot free for all I care, provided there are a couple big heads on a stake, after a due process trial of course, and then another one confined in the jibbet. this would be a sufficient deterrent i believe, to future saboteurs who would misuse their powers of office.
I know i will sound moderate here. but i am not convinced that either obama or biden committed a crime in conjunction with this
hillary committed negligent handling of her classified materials and should have been charged for that, but, i i have not seen the evidence that would support any charges against her
the main thing should not be to try and target political rivals like obama, hillary, or biden,
rather, the purpose would be to caution future capos leading agencies, and their flunkies below, that the law may not be abused to harass candidates or sabotage winners of elections.
targeting obama, biden, and hillary would actually be counterproductive and dilute the important point which should be made against the seditious conspirators, perjurers, and corrupt abusers of office who operated below them.
John, putting aside your other emotional accusations, “collusion” was not relevant to the report, as Mueller has explicitly explained under oath, though numerous examples were recounted in the report.
So according to you – the central thing that Mueller was tasked with investigating, was not relevant to his report ?
So what – we have 400+ pages of dribble about the world cup ?
“though numerous examples were recounted in the report.”
npr disagrees
https://www.npr.org/2019/03/24/706385781/mueller-report-finds-evidence-of-russian-collusion
John, as Mueller has explained in broad public daylight and which is also a fact regarding the law, “collusion” is not a legal standard. “Criminal conspiracy” is and the report found insufficient evidence to indict on that basis (without explicitly clearing the campaign on).. Collusion is somewhat subjective, but under any reasonable understanding of English, an act which the Trump campaign engaged in with the Russians and may still be performing.
“John, as Mueller has explained in broad public daylight and which is also a fact regarding the law, “collusion” is not a legal standard.”
Correct.
““Criminal conspiracy” is and the report found insufficient evidence to indict on that basis”
aka ZERO evidence.
“Collusion is somewhat subjective,”
Or it is a bad synonym for conspiracy.
“but under any reasonable understanding of English, an act which the Trump campaign engaged in with the Russians and may still be performing.”
Yes, the Trump campaign is made up of super spies like George Papadoulis and Roger Stone and Manafort, and Cohen. Who are better than James Bond and left no fingerprints that Comey could find, that Mueller could find, that the entire world press could find.
Putin has actually perfected brain wave communication between contents.
No one with an IQ above rock should by any of this nonsense any more.
Frankly no one should have bought it on day one.
As has ALSO come out more recently – the ICA that Putin wanted Trump elected was garbage – the actual analysts in the FBI, CIA, NSA had concluded that Putin sought to sew disruption, and that beyond that he was more inclined to favor Clinton than Trump,
That the Russians beleived they could work with Clinton but that Trump was unpredictable and problematice.
Add to that what even Greta Thunberg can grasp – Trump’s policies – especially his fracking and pipeline policies where directly in conflict with Russia.
Putin did NOT provide the Trump campaign with dirt on Clinton – despite the near certainty they had it.
But they did provide the Clinton campaign with dirt on Trump.
So who was “colluding” with who ?
So you really beleive that Trump and papdoulis and … pulled off something even James bond could not ? That it is ongoing ? and that they did all this for the absolutely idiotic crappy FB adds that almost no one saw ?
You do understand that Trump could have just written a small check to Cambridge analitics and had a boatload of actually good FB adds ?
You want us all to beleive Trump is smarter than Bond and too stupid to realize that he could get better results cheaper and easier without russian help ?
Thanks for admitting that your use of “collusion” was ill formed, or more likely intended to be a false and sweeping clearance when that is not what the Mueller Report found, though in sync with Trump’s claims, and Trumpster lawyers like Barr and JT who do know better but choose to pretend otherwise.
We agree there were no master criminals at work here, but then most criminals aren’t. Stupid or not, we know Manafort gave polling data to a Putin crony and FB adds were then targeted to critical swing states, that the top campaign principles willingly met with a Putin tool in Trump Tower and then the President personally concocted the cover lie – remember when the Gore campaign turned over stolen Bush W debate prep notes and tape to the FBI, which led to a conviction? – publicly requested the Russians to get Hillary’s emails – they only got DNC emails like that same day, and they occupied the national news for more than a week in October, telling Flynn to undermine Obama sanctions over election interference, and according to our intelligence services and Trump appointee DNI Dan Coats we know they wanted Trump to win for obvious reasons. Maybe his loyalty to US gas and oil buddies is more powerful, but Trump has been Putin’s asset or useful idiot on retreating from the world stage and our allies, weakening NATO, screwing the Ukraine, not standing up to Russian interference in European elections, murder on the soil of allies, political murder at home, and especially doing anything about interference in the 2020 election. It’s not just Trump campaign criminals who are stupid, it’s the people who still support him and believe disinformation from right wing sources..
“Thanks for admitting that your use of “collusion” was ill formed”
I did not come up with the word, I did not spend the past 4 years claiming there was collusion or that collusion was a crime ro that Mueller had found collusion.
Regardless substitution conspiracy – still none.
Need I remind you that 56 witnesses who were privy to whatever the Obama administration might have known – had no knowledge, evidence, they did not even hear gossip from an identified source.
Many of these same people before and after testifying – said precisely the opposite publicly. They either lied under oath or lied to the public – which do you think was likely ?
If none of these people – most of whom where part of the investigation knew of anything derogatory – what have you got ? A witchhunt ?
” or more likely intended to be a false and sweeping clearance”
So I am being deceptive by using the same words all the left wing conspiracy nuts used for 4 years ?
Sorry, You made the standards, You framed the language, your stuck with it.
“when that is not what the Mueller Report found”
Mueller found NOTHING. Mueller admits he found nothing. But because he is not honest, he refused to admit that the absence of evidence when thoroughly investigated is the closest thing you can possibly get to proof of absence.
“though in sync with Trump’s claims, and Trumpster lawyers like Barr and JT who do know better but choose to pretend otherwise.”
So what is it we purportedly know ? Everything I have learned Since the Mueller report makes all this worse.
Horowitz found that the FBI knew by mid Jan 2017 that they had no predicate to continue the investigation – and yet on it went.
We now have McCabe and rosenstein pissing on each other in public
Rosenstein claims McCabe did not fully inform him.
MCabe says rosenstein knew everything.
Well anyone who knew and signed the FISA warrant committed a crime.
Rosenstein has already admitted that if he knew then what he knows now he would never have signed the FISA warrant twice. And the spat between McCabe and Rosenstein is significant because there is no reason he should not have known then/
And if the last two FISA warrants were invalid, then every warrant and subpeona Mueller issued was equally corrupt.
We are no longer fighting over whether Mueller found anything. We are now dealing with the fact that Mueller, McCabe. Rosenstein, …. all KNEW or should have known there was nothing to find in Jan 2017.
And I fully expect as things move forward – that date moves further into the past.
We know as an example that Carter Page was a CIA asset at the time he was being spied on by the FBI and the FBI was telling the FISA court he was a Russia asset.
And the CIA told the FBI
“We agree there were no master criminals at work here, but then most criminals aren’t. Stupid or not”
But for your Mueller wasn’t able to catch them nonsense to work, these guys would have to be better than James Bond.
As I said before – you really think that these guys left nothing that the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, probably every intelligence agency in the world and the entire world press could not find ?
The fact that Mueller was a perjury trap pit bull works against you.
You really think everyone of these guys is so loyal to Trump ?
The only one that really knew him from before the start of the campaign was Cohen.
You want me to believe Cohen would not rat out Trump in a moment for a deal ?
“we know Manafort gave polling data to a Putin crony”
Nope, Manafort gave polling data to an FBI agent.
Regardless, we are talking about a person who worked for Manafort, and whose government work Manafort was ignorant of.
Oh God, no Polling data – Whew, I thought it was something valueable -0 like nuclear codes,. Have you heard of the internet. De you think that the russians – or pretty muich anyone else can not find polling data for every district in the country ?
“and FB adds were then targeted to critical swing states”
Actually no. There was no targetting – that is a myth. The adds were crap, few ran before the election. as many favored clinton as Trump.
And the shift in the rust belt from 2012 to 2016 was 2.5M votes – are you saying that a couple of crappy FB adds did that ?
And I know you think Trump is stupid, but given a choice between this espionage scheme that Bond could not have pulled off that had he actually been caught would have resulted in orange jumpsuits all arround, and given Cambridge Analyitics a few more bucks to do the job right – what would you pick ? I know- risking jail for life.
“that the top campaign principles willingly met”
Yes, on the promise of dirt on Hillary that they never got.
Only a load of crap on Adoption.
” with a Putin tool”
That would be the putin tool that met with Fusion GPS immediately before and after the meeting ?
“in Trump Tower and then the President personally concocted the cover lie”
Absolutely everyone involved – including people not in the meeting who helped set up the meeting has testified to the same thing.
Promises of dirt on Hillary, and delivery of Maginsky act bunk.
Which campaign actually received dirt from Russia ?
“publicly requested the Russians to get Hillary’s emails”
Nope requested they produce them.
They already had them.
Regardless, you should be thankful they did not.
If it can be proven Russia has the Clinton emails, then Clinton violated the espionage act.
“they only got DNC emails”
And yet after years of being told “the Russians hacked the DNC” we find that Cloudstrike testified under oath that they do not know who hacked the DNC.
And The VIPS report says that whoever did it, it was an inside job, the emails were transfered to a USB stick, not sent over the atlanic.
Oh and the Crowdstrike President said – they found no evidence showing how the emails were transfered.
“like that same day, and they occupied the national news for more than a week in October,”
Then I guess Hillary should not have conspired to Frack Bernie.
The big problem with the emails – is what they say.
“telling Flynn to undermine Obama sanctions over election interference”
Read the Transcript.
“and according to our intelligence services and Trump appointee DNI Dan Coats we know they wanted Trump to win for obvious reasons.”
And according to more recently released information from analysts at CIA, NSA, FBI – Putin wanted Clinton.
And to anyone who has a brain – Putin did not want the candidate whose policies were a giant FU to russia.
Trump let the Franken loose, got the popelines moving, and guaranteed Europe’s NG supply to prevent Putin from blackmailing them.
Brought the price of oil down putting Russia into recession.
So this is the guy you think is Putin’s best bud ?
“Maybe his loyalty to US gas and oil buddies is more powerful”
Yeah, the guys who are putting the screws to Russia’s economy.
“but Trump has been Putin’s asset or useful idiot on retreating from the world stage and our allies, weakening NATO, screwing the Ukraine, not standing up to Russian interference in European elections, murder on the soil of allies, political murder at home, and especially doing anything about interference in the 2020 election.”
Wow – what world is it you live in ? the EU is building up their military, and thanks to Trump;s NG guarantee Russia can not threaten them.
NATO is stronger not weaker. Russia is Weaker not stronger – the only Carrier they have is pretty much scrap metal, It is unlikely they can put 15% of their navy to sea, and probably about the same for their airforce.
Hiw did Ukraine get screwed – you mean by providing them with the anti-tank missles that Obama refused to give them that they need ?
Putin is too busy trying to rig his own elections.
Russia has been murdering people at home and abroad for a long long time.
Ever hear of Trotsky ?
And yes we know you are already reheating Russia as the excuse when you lose in 2020.
“It’s not just Trump campaign criminals who are stupid, it’s the people who still support him and believe disinformation from right wing sources..”
Ah, now it is Fox’s fault ? Can you name something about Trump that the MSM has reported in the past 4 years that is true ?
John. thanks for the pile of crazy, which includes selective acceptance of crackpot assertions and the belief that the Mueller conspiracy included all the intelligence agencies and it’s head for much of the Trump administration, Dan Coats, previously long running GOP US Senator from Indiana. I’m sure the folks in Muncie will be very disappointed.
“thanks for the pile of crazy”
All documented
“which includes selective acceptance of crackpot assertions”
Nope, pretty much a survey of what is now known.
If you are still buying any legitimacy to the entire XFH/SC mess then you are not paying attention of incapable of critical thinking.
The outstanding questions are
How much actual criminality there was rather than mere misconduct,
How broad and organized was this.
How high did it go.
But this is disturbing beyond belief.
I am hard pressed to recall any time in history where a “crack pot conspiracy theory” has so thoroughly proven true.
“the belief that the Mueller conspiracy”
Mueller is mostly the same DOJ/FBI people from XFH with new desks.
“included all the intelligence agencies and it’s head”
All agencies but so far the evidence is only thin layers near the top.
“for much of the Trump administration”
Yes, that is near impossible to beleive
“Dan Coats, previously long running GOP US Senator from Indiana”
Coats appears to one of the peripheral suckers rather than a participant. ‘
People who moved in and beleived what they were told,
and like you were unable to beleive what has proven to be true.
Actions of the past often from people at the top of their career, develop a presumption of legitimacy.
Regardless, we have had a very large body of information declassified in the last 6 months.
None of it is things that should have been classified ever.
Being classified does not speak to conspiracy.
Government overclassifies all the time.
But taking years to be declassified after review was over is inexcusable.
Grennell released more in 90 days than has been released in 4 years and says that it is just the stuff that was easy.
The next part he says is coming is whistleblower information.
People in these agencies that were saying “wait-a-minute” this is incorrect,
who followed the rules and were effectively shutdown by classifying their emails and memos.
We saw in realtime from 2016-2018 the holy war between house republicans and Rosenstein over documents.
A significant portion of which are now available.
Why was Rosenstein balking at sharing with Congress information that we now see that it does not even make sense that it was classified ?
Why has it taken almost 4 years to see the Flynn Kislyak Transcripts ?
The unmasking requests ?
The CYA memos ?
We still do not have the Flynn 302’s
The emails that the investigation was being closed – in early jan 2017.
The analysts assessment that Russia favored Clinton ?
The crowdstrike testimony that they had no idea who hacked the DNC and had no evidence that the DNC emails were acquired by hacking ?
None of this reveals methods and sources. None of it is an actual National Security issue.
Why has it taken 4 years to make public ?
Separately why weren’t all of Mueller’s targets provided the information that was relevant to them.
Brady requires disclosure of exculpatory information. And the prosecutor does nto get to excercise discretion on that determination.
Further even discover rules require disclosure.
In some cases Gigglio requires disclosure if you wish to use someone you made a bargain with a witness.
But really the most daming is why did this continue ?
Purportedly it started in July 2016 – there there is tiny bits that have leaked out that suggest that Obama asked for surveilance of 3 GOP candidates in late 2015.
Regardless by Oct 2016 the FBI knew they had nothing – that is when the Steele Dossier which they had previously assessed(correctly) as Russian disinformation took center stage, By December it was obvious that the Dossier was going to be a flopp,
By mid january it was without credibility.
Through this period the FBI – Comey were bending over backwords to find new ways to manufacture an investigation. They were not investigating based on what they had – which then really knew had no leggs. They were throwing hail mary’s to get a new hook.
They were playing games like the Trump steele briefing intended to make news, and create the appearance of legitimacy for known garbage. Why the luducrously stupid Logan act nonsense ? Conspiracy theorists peddle logan act claims with every election – but no administration previously ever took them seriously.
As Cruz said a few days ago – John Kerry is violating the Logan Act 10 times today, no one is prosecuting him
Mueller must of known he had nothing shortly after starting.
Why did he waste another 22 months ?
Why did he issue a single Warrant or Subpeona when he had no legitimate pedicate – no probable cause ?
Why did he brutalize “targets” he knew were innocent – often questioning them for 70 hrs when they had nothing to provide and he knew it.
Why did he prosecute people for tiny process offenses, when he already knew there was no underlying offense ?
Why did he fail to provide defense teams with the records they requested often material they were obligated to get – without request ?
. I’m sure the folks in Muncie will be very disappointed.
John, I appreciate that you have apparently all day and all night to spew one dubious claim after another, the rebuttal of which is beyond my available time, as well as my interest. In the meantime, on Crossfire Hurricane, Mueller, “collusion”, Flynn et al, I’ll go with Coats , known events demonstrating Trump campaign willingness to collude and then cover up – all innocent no doubt -. and Horowitz’s recent report which found legitimate and non-partisan basis for the counter-intelligence investigation – kept hidden from the public while a reboot of Hillary’s was declared on headlines – which also was absent “spying”, and also not predicated on the Steele Dossier.
As to Biden and the Ukraine, among those who thought Shokin needed to go were not only the EU, the World Bank, and our State Department, but also the Ukrainian Parliament. career State Department officials, and a now GOP US Congressman from Pennsylvania who served in the FBI in Ukraine as a transition advisor. No doubt all were very concerned about Hunter Biden, as were the CFR meeting attendees, who probably couldn’t find Kiev on a map and certainly didn’t care That Joe bragged about bailing his son out.
Maybe you could keep your pile of crazy a little smaller and include links? I would for mine if you require, but they are basic and widely acknowledged facts to everyone but you and Rudy.
“I appreciate that you have apparently all day and all night to spew one dubious claim after another, the rebuttal of which is beyond my available time, as well as my interest.”
My time is my choices – as is yours.
Regardless, it is not like after saying you have not time, you do not do precisely what you say I do.
So how about skipping the editorializing.
Stop pretending you know how I think to feel
and just stick to the facts.
“In the meantime, on Crossfire Hurricane, Mueller, “collusion”, Flynn et al, I’ll go with Coats”
The very fact that it took Grennell 90days to release things that had been held up for years, that now that they are available there is no obvious national security reason for not releasing them, that alone destroys Coates credibility.
I do not know why he was unable to do what Grennell did easily.
But he failed. I will give him the benefit of the doubt regarding his intentions, and whether his conduct was lawful. But I have zero reason to trust his judgement or rely on anything else he says.
Finally – I take NO ONEs word over primary sources.
All the evidence of contact between the Trump campaign and Russia is publicly available – as is that of Clinton.
There is zero evidence of “willingness to collude” in fact there is the opposite.
Papadoulis explicitly rejected entreities and When Downer asked him about getting the emails – he said no chance that would be illegal.
Nor is Papadoulis the only example.
You do not understand the effect on your perspective of a media that spins everything and instead of quoting people in context – tells you what they meant.
“Horowitz’s recent report which found legitimate and non-partisan basis for the counter-intelligence investigation”
Correct – but even Horowitz noted that the bases was very weak and the investigation only legitimate because the standard is low. The standard for a counter intelligence investigation not targeting an american is ZERO.
The standard where no spying is done, and no warrants are issued is NEAR zero.
And ultimately they could not reach that.
“kept hidden from the public”
Are you saying we do not have everything ? I have not heard that claim in a long time.
All the basis for the Page FISA warrant is public at this time.
“while a reboot of Hillary’s was declared on headlines”
I guess Huma Abedin should have stopped her husband from sending Dick Pics to under age women. While Comey handled the Clinton investigation horribly from start to finish,
Almost all of Clinton’s problems were of her own making.
And some of the reverse is true. Many of Trump’s public remarks about Putin were stupid. but they were public and voters judged him.
The Trump Tower meeting was perfectly legal, but STUPID.
Those who try to make it some crime need to put up evidence.
But anyone who says – that was an unforced error is correct.
Trump and Clinton both made mistakes, and those mistakes caused them harm.
That is how elections work.
“which also was absent “spying”, and also not predicated on the Steele Dossier.”
Yes, Clinton’s espionage problems were not based on spying or the steele dossier
Did you mean something else.
“As to Biden and the Ukraine, among those who thought Shokin needed to go were not only the EU, the World Bank, and our State Department:”:
Yes, all based on information provided by Biden’s FBI task force.
“but also the Ukrainian Parliament”
The strongest (and only) argument that Shokin was corrupt, is that everyone in Ukraine is corrupt.
“needed to go” is a judgement that Ukraine gets to make on their own, without blackmail from Biden. While the US blackmailing Ukraine over corruption is something that needs to be established. Isn’t that what impeaching Trump was all about ?
And he did NOT deprive them of Billions or force them to fire prosecutors.
“career State Department officials”
Sorry but that title is a reason for disbelief.
“a now GOP US Congressman from Pennsylvania who served in the FBI in Ukraine as a transition advisor.”
Cite
“No doubt all were very concerned about Hunter Biden”
VP Biden was ethically – by actual Government rules barred from particpating in decisions involving Ukraine so long as his son had a financial interest that could be effected”
That alone is a problem and justified a criminal investigation.
“but they are basic and widely acknowledged facts to everyone”
It is 2020, not 2017. There are lot more “widely acknowledged facts” today.
ALL of which run counter to those in 2017 and support what I say.
Today the burden is on you to prove what diverges from what is known.
Well done John.
Accepting your premise for the sake of argument, are we jailing people for what they say to reporters now ?
Good, Clinton, Powers, and Rice – Jail, Jail, Jail
Comey, McCabe – Jail.
Lets we have 56 witnesses who testified under oath they had no knowledge direct or otherwise of “collusion” between the Trump campaign and Russia – and yet most of them claimed the opposite repeatedly on the news,
Since imprecision with reporters is now a fellony as you say – Jail them all.
Newly release state department Transcripts – Hillary knew while the attack at Benghazi was going on that it was Al Queda – jail.
And now we have the transcripts of Biden actually blackmailing the Ukrainians – Jail.
If we jail the politicians who have ACTUALLY lied – the jails will be full
IF you want to go so far as those you merely think lied – we are going to have to build lots of new prisons.
“Since imprecision with reporters is now a fellony as you say ”
I didn’t say that. Why do you lie about what I said?
On the contrary, I want Barr questioned in a context where it *is* illegal to lie.
“Accepting your premise for the sake of argument…”
I have no idea what premise you’re referring to, and given the above, I suspect that you’re attributing a premise to me that isn’t mine.
Sounded to me like you are prepared to jail Barr over your beleif that his remarks to a reporter were innaccurate.
Am I incorrect ? Are you now saying that Barr’s remarks were accurate ?
Or that any errors were inconsequential ?
It is fairly well known that there is little coordination between Barr and the white house and that Barr frequently gets angry with Trump because his tweets and public remarks interfere with Barr’s investigations and potentially prosecutions.
John, it is not fairly well known and i can tell you from watching it that Barr was on the scene for at least 10 minutes overseeing and planning with police higher ups just before they began their clearing of the park and maybe 5 minutes before Trump’s WH speech and then photo op. Yeah, probably just a coincidence.
Or something meaningless.
You do not seem to understand.
I do not give a shit if Trump wanted the park cleared for a St. John’s photo op.
I think the whole St. John’s photo thing was “a political mistake”.
But there is no crime, no abuse of power, no infringement on the 1st amendment.
So you are asking me to beleive that Barr is lying about something of no consequence ?
“Sounded to me like you are prepared to jail Barr over your beleif that his remarks to a reporter were innaccurate.”
That’s a false inference on your end.
“Am I incorrect ?”
Yes, you’re incorrect about what I said.
“Are you now saying that Barr’s remarks were accurate ? Or that any errors were inconsequential ?”
No, I’m not saying those things. The false statements I quoted from Barr were significant. But that doesn’t imply that he can be jailed for making those false claims. It’s legal for him to make false statements to a reporter; he wasn’t under oath.
You’re inferring things I never said and never implied, and when you assert that I did say them, it’s a straw man fallacy. That’s a problem. You’ve now done this multiple times. It’s counterproductive and tiresome to deal with.
“You’re inferring things I never said and never implied, and when you assert that I did say them, it’s a straw man fallacy. That’s a problem. You’ve now done this multiple times. It’s counterproductive and tiresome to deal with.”
Yes, I am making inferrences, because you are playing games.
Atleast this nailed you down.
Barr’s remarks were NOT significant. Pretending that Barr lied significantly, over a characterization of Pepper Spray is just stupid.
The reporter knew, the public knows, you know what pepper spray is and what the differences between it an CS are.
Everyone knew what was used.
We are fighting over the label.
Further the entire event is not significant. Driving non-violent protestors out of the national mall would be significant. Laffeyette park is not. Away from St. John’s which they previously burned is not, Away from H & I which they previously looted is not.
The possibility that the people in the park at the time of the action were not at that moment violent is not. There was sufficiently close nexus to the prior nights violence.
It is not even necescary to conclude that the people in the park were the same people – though many likely were, only that the park was likely to be used in the future as a staging ground for violence elsewhere because it had been used in the immediate past
Regardless, you say this is significant. I expect you to use the same standards for the assorted missrepresentations for all the players in the entire Trump/Russia hoax.
I do not want to hear claims that Comey’s or McCabe’s or Rosentsteins inconsistencies or misstatements are deminimus – if you are unnwilling to afford that to Barr,
You do not get to do so with others.
Absolutely my remarks that provoked you were over the top sarcasm.
But they were just applying your own standards to the conduct of people you are more favorable towards.
1. A forced lie on an insignificant matter demonstrates an easy willingness to lie, an already known fact about Barr.
2. Aggressively running peaceful citizens out of a Park to accommodate a photo op for another citizen without warning, or even an announcement just before proceeding, demonstrates poor policing practice and an arrogant and bullying dictator wannabe run amok. Lying about it doubles that judgement and other citizens should be alarmed. Against your wish, most view it as significant.
1. A forced lie on an insignificant matter demonstrates an easy willingness to lie,
Agreed
An already known fact about Barr.
False. I have serious disagreements with Barr over policy issues.
But thus far his integrity has been exemplar.
If you are accusing Barr of lying – the burden is on you and that burden is high.
Nearly all the attacks on Barr are political,
And while Barr is absolutely disgusted – and rightfully so at the DOJ/FBI misconduct in the outgoing Obama administration, he has dealt with it far more cautiously than I would.
The conduct of the Mueller prosecutors has been repugnant.
I would have fired Van Grack long ago, as well as those handling Stone.
I think Barr would have done more and faster if Trump stayed out of his way.
I think Barr was ticked over Trump’s excursion into Ukraine – not because Trump did something wrong. but because Trump is a lightning rod, and Trump’s actions made Barr’s job harder.
Attacking Barr is like an exploding dye marker flagging you as a partisan idiot.
While I do not agree with Barr on some policy issues.
He is the right man to clean up DOJ.
But the next problem is that Wray is a mistake.
You do not restore trust in the FBI by circling the wagon’s and hiding past misconduct.
You get it out in the open, you fire those who need fired and you publicly establish new standards of conduct.
The entire federal government needs sterilzed of this partisan nonsense.
2. “Aggressively running peaceful citizens out of a Park to accommodate a photo op for another citizen without warning, or even an announcement just before proceeding,”
The freedom to protest, does not mean anywhere anytime.
Barr is agressively pushing back against the claim these were peaceful protestors,
I am far more inclined to beleive Barr than you or the media.
The “already know fact” is not that Barr’s integrity is questionable, it is that of the left and the media – and you, if you think Barr is a known liar.
This is the same media that had a reporter infront of a burning building and rioters bashing a police car saying the protests were mostly peaceful.
This is the same media that is putting people on saying looting is a form of free expression.
It is entirely plausible that Barr is correct by normal standards,
And to the media these were peaceful protestors – because well looting and roiting are peaceful expression.
Regardless, you are going to need alot more than I have heard to disbeleive Barr.
And finally – people were looting and burning from that part within 24hrs.
Probably the same people. There peacefulness in the minutes before eviction is inconsequential.
I support Peaceful protests. but not anywhere anytime.
The national mall is a perfect place to protest.
Go there.
‘demonstrates poor policing practice and an arrogant and bullying dictator wannabe run amok.”
There is alot of evidence of arrogant bullying dictator wannabe’s run amok right not – they are on the left, not the right.
“Lying about it doubles that judgement”
Would be meaningful if you or the media were credible.
This nation has been repeatedly lied to by the media and the left for 4 years (actually much longer).
There is a price to be paid.
You are not to be beleived.
“and other citizens should be alarmed.”
I have seen lots of misconduct over the past week.
Some of it by law enforcement.
But let me remind you – for weeks before the lockdown protestors – of all races, often armed protested peacefully – no one behaved badly
We have problems with our policing.
But it is self evident they are capable of dealing with well behaved protestors.
I expect them to deal with unruly ones too.
But unlikely you I grasp that is harder and in a nation of 330M people mistakes will be made.
Again for weeks before we saw peacefull protests.
We know that it is possible to petition govenrment to be angry about unfair treatment, and still not rob, and loot and burn and resort to violence.
The fact that this is not as bad as 1968 is to be commended.
But it is NOT good enough.
Nor do I care what your oppinion of what most think is.
Again – you, the left, the media have demonstrated you are not trustworthy.
John, your understanding of the news is an inch deep and smells like Fox. None of the “witnesses” ever claimed fist hand knowledge.
Hillary was cleared by the GOP controlled House Committee report on Benghazi, as she was by the Senate and independent commission reports – look it up.
Biden bragged about blackmailing the Ukrainian Government to fire the “prosecutor” who everyone in Europe and the State Dept knew was corrupt – it was official policy, and none of those entities GAF about Hunter Biden or knew who he was – and that was his assigned job as VP to help ensure the billions about to be loaned and granted to the Ukrainian Government would not disappear down a rabbit hole…
Come back when you have read more.
“John, your understanding of the news is an inch deep and smells like Fox. None of the “witnesses” ever claimed fist hand knowledge.”
No, they claimed they had no knowledge of any kind. they were even asked if they had heard gossip.
I can not help the fact that you are still certain that something happened that did not leave a single clue anywhere.
When you still beleive something without evidence – that is called “faith” – religion.
“Hillary was cleared by the GOP controlled House Committee report on Benghazi, as she was by the Senate and independent commission reports – look it up.”
No one has alleged a crime with respect to Benghazi.
The investigation was into competence.
Lots of incompetence was found no malfeasance.
If course Hillary lied to all the assorted committees that investigated Benghazi.
And she and cronies lied to the american people in the midst of an election.
Was there a crime ? I do not know. Were here actions immoral and unethical ?
Yes. And no committees necescary to establish that.
“Biden bragged about blackmailing the Ukrainian Government to fire the “prosecutor””
Yup.
“who everyone in Europe and the State Dept knew was corrupt”
The SOLE source of that claim was Biden’s Ukraine team in the FBI.
Todate no one has found actual evidence that Shokin was corrupt.
He is retired, and he lives very modestly with no connection to any oligarch.
You would think if he was corrupt – he would either live high on the hog off his graft, or some Ologarch would be rewarding him ?
“– it was official policy,”
Corruption is a fact – it is either true or false.
If you say it was Policy that Shokin was corrupt you are admitting it was not a fact but merely a government policy position.
“and none of those entities GAF about Hunter Biden or knew who he was – and that was his assigned job as VP to help ensure the billions about to be loaned and granted to the Ukrainian Government would not disappear down a rabbit hole…”
So convoluted.
biden was ethically precluded from involvment with Ukraine, because of his sond involvement. It is irrelevant whether anyone “GAF”
Biden was aware of Hunter’s dealings with Burisma and Shokin’s investigations into Burisma. NYT – based on a story planeted by Clinton probably for the purpose of keeping Biden out of the election asked Biden for comment in Oct 2015.
There are numerous instances between then and Shokin’s firing when Biden was contacted about Hunter’s problems in Ukraine, by reporters, by the state department.
This was even testified to in the Trump impeachment hearings.
There is zero doubt that Joe Biden knew his sone was involved with Burisma, and knew Shokin was investigating Burisma.
Even the timing of Biden’s blackmail is damning. Biden’s deadline for Firing Shokin was 24hrs BEFORE Shokin’s interview of Hunter.
This is all incredibly well documented. Information has come from FOIA requests, from information provided by Hunters law firm to the Ukraine, from information from the Ukraine, from information provided by Hunters Law firm to the state department.
Joe Biden had a massive conflict of interest, and should not have been “point man” on the Ukraine.
Come back when you have read more.
John, if I am not mistaken you posted that Hillary and the entire Obama administration should be in jail and are now backpedaling less gracefully than the old guy in Buffalo. I accept your surrender.
As to Biden and the Ukraine, how stupid would he have to be and you to believe, that if the bribe was intended to protect his son, that he would brag about it before a Council on Foreign Relations meeting – not exactly dummies who wouldn’t know jack s..t about the Ukraine and Shokin.. Or are you saying they all wanted to prop up Hunter Biden too?
Getting rid of Shokin – no, he was not pursuing Burisma which was one of the problems – was official US State Department policy – see speech by an ambassador before somebody (i’m too tired to look it up and I fear you’re not worth it) – as well as the World Bank and European Union policy – look that up too. Unless you are also of the mind that they were all in on propping up Hunter Biden, I think you’re done.
“John, if I am not mistaken you posted that Hillary and the entire Obama administration should be in jail”
Read what I wrote, it was sarcasm. It was asking you to conform to your own standards.
I do not beleive the entire obama administration should be jailed any more than I beleive Barr is lying.
But if YOU beleive Barr is lying then you owe the rest of us an explanation as to why you do not think the entire Obama administration should not be in jail.
“As to Biden and the Ukraine, how stupid would he have to be and you to believe, that if the bribe was intended to protect his son, that he would brag about it”
Have you been listening to Joe Biden ? Lately ? or pretty much any time in his entire life ?
“who wouldn’t know jack s..t about the Ukraine and Shokin.. Or are you saying they all wanted to prop up Hunter Biden too?”
Why am I to presume that the CFR knew about an investigation by Shokin ?
Prior to the NYT article – likely planted by Clinton I am not aware of anyone outside of a small circle in State, and possibly the FBI that knew.
Is the CFR an investigative body ?
“Getting rid of Shokin – no, he was not pursuing Burisma”
Which is why all the correspondence between Hunters attorney’s and Shokin’s office, and why Hunter was scheduled to be interviewed 24hrs after Biden’s firing deadline.
“was official US State Department policy”
You keep seeming to think that policy manufactures facts.
You also forget who sets policy.
” – see speech by an ambassador before somebody (i’m too tired to look it up and I fear you’re not worth it) – as well as the World Bank and European Union policy – look that up too. Unless you are also of the mind that they were all in on propping up Hunter Biden, I think you’re done.”
So I am supposed to google some speech by some ambassador ?
As to WB and EU – there source of information is Biden’s FBI task force on Ukraine.
This entire mess is incredibly nepotistic.
Do you have an actual investigation by some non-US law enforcement body to cite ?
Do you have actual evidence of corruption by Shokin ?
It has been 4+ years since he has been fired – somebody should have some evidence ?
I do not want to here some amb. or other flunky claiming he was corrupt.
I want some actual facts, maybe not proof, but atleast strong evidence.
After all VP Biden destroyed this man, don’t you think we should know the evidence that rests on ?
It is not like Biden was equivocal. this was so important he was willing to hold up a Billion in aide to an allie that WAS actually under military attack at the time.
You would hope there was more than “everybody knows” or vague claims it has been proven, or he was sitting on the Burisma investigation ?
You do realize that last one is a real self contradictory problem.
If you are claiming Shokin was doing nothing about corruption and not investigating Burisma is your example – that means Burisma was corupt.
If Barr wasn’t known to be almost as big a liar as his boss, we might care what he says. We don’t.
I watched this episode in real time for about 30 minutes before the police pushed to the end of the President’s BS photo op. The crowd was peaceful. I saw it and that is the report of all journalists on the scene. If an isolated individual threw something, the best way to diffuse that is not to start aggressively and without an any announcement begin pushing the crowd back. That’s both stupid and fascist BS. Barr was on site for a full 10 minutes looking over the scene and talking with higher up police. He certainly did have something to do with it and given the tight time frame for the AH-in chiefs’ photo op I have no doubt it was clear these mfers.,You have to be a sap or on the Trump train to think otherwise.
Which is it JT? Pretty sure he’s on the Trump train.
Ralph Waldo Emerson said, “The eyes of men converse as much as their tongues”
IMHO, Barr is lying.
Watch his eyes during the interview.
I did not have sex with that woman.
What, like with a cloth?
I did not inhale.
Secession is unconstitutional.
George love this…..it’s almost Haiku, too! 😉
We decide whether something is a lie based on facts.
start with his pepper spray comments. he lied.
How so ?
If your going with the “everything is a chemical” argument you have already lost.
“The crowd was peaceful”
So ?
The entire mall was available for them to protest.
We can debate the politics of this,
Regardless, the constitution and the first amendment were not infringed on.
Further, the crowd was not violent – while you watched.
But someone burned St. John’s and looted the nearby businesses on H & I
I have no problems with moving protestors to the appropriate spaces for protest.
There was a huge protests today in Phila – running from logan square to the art museum
An appropriate venue for public protest in Phila.
Jonathan Turley’s pal said this:
From the transcript:
MARGARET BRENNAN: There were chemical irritants the park police has said–
BARR: No, there were not chemical irritants. Pepper spray is not a chemical irritant.
It’s not chemical.
It’s not a manufactured chemical except as it is put in a form for delivery. It is a natural chemical but that’s splitting hairs. the key issue was it was not a peaceful assembly. Same thing that applies to the vast majority of these constitutionally illegal assemblies The weight of proof is on the heads of those who were engaging in or supporting the action of Terrorism which has no threshold or ultimate line of definition as to minimal or some level of maximum. One citizen of any age made fearful is sufficient. this placed for the preceding but applies as well as to the following form Steve J
No, it’s not splitting hairs. Barr’s claim was “It’s not chemical,” and that’s a lie.
“it was not a peaceful assembly” is false. I dare you to show anything not peaceful on the ample video of the area prior to the police and National Guard starting their attack.
“these constitutionally illegal assemblies”
They aren’t illegal. To the contrary, the 1st Amendment specifically protects “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
“The weight of proof is on the heads of those who were engaging in or supporting the action of Terrorism”
No, the weight is on the person who claims that the protesters “were engaging in or supporting the action of Terrorism”
Your claim that “One citizen of any age made fearful is sufficient” is bullsh*t.
“To the contrary, the 1st Amendment specifically protects “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.””
Absolutely, and no one prevented that.
These rights are not ANYWHERE, ANYTIME.
You can not petition the government in the lincoln bedroom.
Nor at the local starbucks, nor infront of a church you set on fire the night before.
DC has a perfectly good mall – more than enough space for a couple of million protestors.
A bit more than a week ago – armed protestors “petitioned the government” – they did so at their state capitals and county courthouses. They did so without anyone being shot. killed beaten, any police cars getting bashed in and not the slightest looting. or burning.
The KKK, the Arian Brotherhood, the DSA, BLM, the black panthers, the weather underground – all free to protest – non-violently.
But not at 3am, not anywhere they damn well please.
This was a protest about police brutaily – what is the nexus with St. John’s, 7-11, or Neiman Marcus ?
If you want to be taken seriously – Act seriously
Accepting your view, for the sake of argument, about the protesters in Lafayette Park who had shown up for a number of days, best not to have a photo-op at the exact time you clear them out. Politics 101.
Barr is a lawyer, in other words a liar. Pepper spray is not a chemical irritant. I didn’t say ‘go and do it’ I said ‘get it done’. Not the same thing? Obfuscate, lie, exaggerate, mislead, deceive, and slander. In other words, Trump. Barr is a Trump tongue.
Turley, all Barr is really saying is he didn’t give the order. And he’s trying to give the best CYA he can for this fiasco. I am quite open to his role in this spectacle being minimal.
Your statement: “If the park was to be cleared, it should have been done before the protesters appeared.” is a little off.
Rather, that is what would have happened if inferences from Barr’s statements are interpreted a certain way. Barr’s statements and the so-called “media” narrative are not in conflict at this point.
This reply was for you but got unthreaded: https://jonathanturley.org/2020/06/07/barr-confirms-details-that-park-clearing-was-unrelated-to-church-photo-op/comment-page-2/#comment-1962897
Your claim that “Barr’s statements and the so-called “media” narrative are not in conflict at this point” is false.
Absurd: “Can we please reorganize federal law enforcement? ”
Barr may have to act because some of the agencies are no longer trustworthy. A number of FBI agents took a knee along with antifa and other protesters. Every one of them, and their immediate supervisor, should be fired. This is an agency that has failed the country time and again and those kneeling agents show why. Next Chridtopher Wray will be on his knees begging foregiveness not from the country he has failed but the anarchists who are destroying it.
If the park was to be cleared, it should have been done before the protesters appeared.
So you admit the clearing of the park was warranted, but disagree on the timing. When you get called to testify before Congress, what hat will you wear?
Barr is the guy Diogenes was looking for. I’ll take him at his word.
I realized that this column wasn’t Turley when I read “Barr” and “outright lying” in the same sentence.
Esper needs to quit talking out of turn. The call isn’t his and it isn’t Barr’s.
Can we please reorganize federal law enforcement? The division of labor as we speak is such that these guys keep bumping into each other.
While we’re at it, can we retrocede the District of Columbia to Maryland?
Absurd: “Can we please reorganize federal law enforcement? ”
Barr may have to act because some of the agencies are no longer trustworthy. A number of FBI agents took a knee along with antifa and other protesters. Every one of them, and their immediate supervisor, should be fired. This is an agency that has failed the country time and again and those kneeling agents show why. Next Chridtopher Wray will be on his knees begging foregiveness not from the country he has failed but the anarchists who are destroying it.
Absolutely. Fire them summarily.
What’s distressing is that there have been so few whistle-blowers in the FBI.
Grennell was on Dave Rubin recently and suggested there were plenty of whistleblowers throughout the govenrment reporting the entire mess. But their emails, and memos were all classified and we can expect to see Ratcliff release those soon.
This was a reply to you that became unthreaded: https://jonathanturley.org/2020/06/07/barr-confirms-details-that-park-clearing-was-unrelated-to-church-photo-op/comment-page-2/#comment-1962877
He reviewed the plan? Why is the nation’s chief prosecutor micromanaging the Park Police?
Absurd– “Why is the nation’s chief prosecutor micromanaging the Park Police?”
If he is it is because the nation’s agencies can no longer be trusted.”
Well, there you have it. If Barr says so, it must be true. He also said on Face The Nation that “Pepper spray is not a chemical irritant”
Quite the coincidence!
Why does this matter ?
The government – whether local, state, federal, whether at the direction of Barr, or Trump can not infringe on the first amendment.
That prohibition precludes the government from preventing protests.
HOWEVER restrictions on time and place are allowed.
Neither Trump nor Barr can preclude protestors from protesting.
But the can remove them from the area near St. John’s.
They can remove them from the Comerical areas of H & I streets.
And they can do so, so that the president can have a photo-op at St. John’s.
Previously, the church was a target for Arson – it it perfectly reasonable to clear protestors away from the church to prevent further damage.
Washington DC has public forumns for protest and assembly that are unequalled in the country – from the lincoln memorial to the capital.
No one has precluded these protestors from assembling and speaking.
But that is not a right to assemble and speak ANYWHERE you please.
Protesters are generally allowed in the public spaces arround the whitehouse.
They are not allowed in the rose garden or the oval office, or the situation room.
There was no effort to silence protestors. Only to preclude them from doing so near St. Johns and in Commerical areas.
They were protesting government – not starbucks.
And Trump didn’t have permission from the Church to use their property.
The attack by the police and National Guard also forced clergy from St. John’s who were **on church property** to leave: https://religionnews.com/2020/06/02/ahead-of-trump-bible-photo-op-police-forcibly-expel-priest-from-st-johns-church-near-white-house/
BTW, re: “restrictions on time and place are allowed,” those restrictions must satisfy the following, per SCOTUS: “the government may impose reasonable restrictions on the time, place, or manner of protected speech, provided the restrictions ‘are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, that they are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and that they leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information.'”
There was no significant government interest in clearing the area right then.
Laffeyette park is public property.
Trump did not enter the church or church property.
Trump was in front of St. John’s Church — across the street from Lafayette Square Park — for a photo op. You can listen for yourself to what the Bishop said about Trump using her church as a prop in a photo-op: https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2020/06/02/mariann-budde-bishop-st-johns-trump-bible-photo-ac360-vpx.cnn/video/playlists/ac360-videos/
“In front of” not quite the same as tresspassing.
Why do I care what the Bishop says ?
Whether she likes it or not – St. John’s is a legitimate prop for a photo op.
I guess she could build a giant wall arround it.
Further when arsonists attack your church, what do you expect ?
Do you really think this is a compelling argument ?
I am pretty sure that ofc. Chauvin did not appreciate being a “photo op” either
SCOTUS has found cow farts “a significant government interest”.
There was no content based proscription,
In fact there was no proscription at all.
The limitation was on Where.
“There are various investigations being demanded and we will likely get more information on whether Barr is outright lying on these details. However, it would be perfectly insane to do so when you are citing Park Police plans that will be available to Congress and the public in time.”
Yes, it is insane, but you forget that they will just deny Congress the documents that they request. And even if it does come out, they don’t care.
Who cares ?
Constraints on time and place do not violate the first amendment.
There was no effort to suppress free speech.
The entire Mall was available to protestors.
Dragging them away from a famous building they had burned the night before does not offend the constitution.
If Trump wants a photo Op with a burned church, he can push those who burned it to the mall or somewhere else, so long as they remain free to speak.
There is a first amendment right to petition the govenrment – not St. John’s.
Bar none. Bar exam. Bar keeper. Bar the door Katie. Add an r. Barr mitzfa.
I think Barr is telling the truth, but the Left and the DNC do not care about TRUTH. Sooo, I predict they will continue to pump their phony talking points.
Watch what I say. btb, Seth, and committed will show up and post opinion pieces from their usual media shills to contradict this.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Yes, they will continue with their talking points just as Book and Seth do here despite the truth. They have learned from Goebbels that if they repeat a lie often enough it will be believed.
The Democratic Party is a collecting pool of all the jerks in America.
Sounds about right.
20 Secret Service agents have been injured.
Oh clear the streets of rock throwers. This is the President’s neighborhood. They could be there to kill him.
Liberty: “They could be there to kill him.”
That is probably what some are hoping for. Celebrities have been indulging in public assasination fantasies for some time in what appears to be a hope that some of the lunatics in the country will carry the idea into action.
I keep asking myself, “What is wrong with these people?” I still have no answer.
I do know that if they get the society they say they want they will hate it.
The truth disappeared a long time ago. The press and poltroons, sorry politicians have stirred up a witches brew and now the public has to drink it.
Trump would never have been President if the middle classes hadn’t been so completely sold out over the last 20 years.
And the solution is Joe Biden? I don’t think so.