Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

You write a lot for someone with limited reading comprehension.

You attempt droll a lot for someone with a 115 IQ.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Republicans in DC are looking to curry favor with the administration and establish enough distance so they won't have to be embarrassed the rest of their lives. Rosenstein has successfully done the second and now wants to do more of the first. Surprise.

Rosenstein's a thirty year civil servant who's going to cash out doing white collar defense and corporate investigations. Is he walking the tightrope you cite? Sure, as minimally as he can. Is he going to tell the WSJ he supports Barr, putting his neck out there, without basis to do so, or to curry favor with Trump? No. That's anything but minimal.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Rosenstein's a thirty year civil servant who's going to cash out doing white collar defense and corporate investigations. Is he walking the tightrope you cite? Sure, as minimally as he can. Is he going to tell the WSJ he supports Barr, putting his neck out there, without basis to do so, or to curry favor with Trump? No. That's anything but minimal.

You don't seem to get that in DC, the goal is not to hoard your political capital but to invest it.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

You don't seem to get that in DC, the goal is not to hoard your political capital but to invest it.

Rosenstein's been a civil servant for 30 years. Worked with Ds and Rs in that position. Had to. The only thing he'll be selling in his new career is access to insiders at DOJ/FBI/Regulatory Agencies.

Is fear of alienating Trump Admin a calculation in his head? Yes. You are correct. But is it a big enough one for him to cross swords with certain of Mueller's people, who supposedly don't agree with all of what Barr said? Is it a big enough concern for him to possibly ruin his name at a time when he's job searching? I just don't see him making the investment you reference.

But much like Barr's motivations, I don't know. You could be correct. I think Trump has converted everyone in DC from set offenses to run and gun, so assuming anything is unwise.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You asserted Barr was putting his finger on the scale. I said I found that assertion a bit unhinged.

Sometimes I wonder if you were literally born yesterday. You know you're talking about the guy who okayed pardons for all of the Iran-Contra criminals, right? There's nothing unhinged about this particular person being willing to use all available power to minimize GOP wrongdoing. He's done it before.

Perhaps you want to make a distinction between doing everything he has a colorable argument he's allowed to do and going too far. But it's not unhinged to believe he's not an unbiased mediator.

I can't say Barr is up to something. I think he thinks there might have been improper surveillance, which is what he said.

He said he believes there was spying and then walked it back saying he doesn't know but intends to find out.

The first statement alone is completely irresponsible, especially if what he meant was the second. And that's leaving aside that the whole conversation is a stupid right-wing conspiracy that doesn't stand up to the fact that whatever "spying" happened apparently didn't uncover anything for the Dems to use in the election (except Russian attempts to interfere and repeated Trump campaign contacts with them).

And yeah, it sounds like Mueller confirmed all of the counterintelligence reasons for opening an investigation and initiating surveillance.

So hey, even if you've no evidence, fuck it -- claim Barr is in league with Trump.

The GOP AG appointed by the president is in league with the president in preserving GOP power. How is that a statement that even needs to be made?

The Mueller Report will come out Thursday and confirm what we all know: Trump is a lying, rotten shit.

Just like the Right has screamed that justice has never been done in investigations of Democrats.

Just wanted to put those two statements next to each other. Your powers of false equivalence are astounding.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You attempt droll a lot for someone with a 115 IQ.

This may be your best in a while- the “115” as an insult is quite a nice turn.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You asserted Barr was putting his finger on the scale.

It's not a scale, and he's not a judge. As you said yesterday, what he is doing is shading things to establish a narrative favorable to Trump. Misleading Congress, like he has done before.

To assert that Barr is in a conspiracy now is to assert Rosenstein is also in the conspiracy. Or as Rosenstein put it, to raise a "bizarre" allegation.

No one but you is talking about a conspiracy.

I can't say Barr is up to something. I think he thinks there might have been improper surveillance, which is what he said.

Don't be stupid. He very intentionally used the word "spying" to get the headlines, and then he very intentionally explained that by "spying" he meant something different.

None of us knows what he knows, so I have no way of guessing the reason for what he said. And you have no evidence to assume he's "up to something."

You have any easy time imputing a reason for opinions you don't like. People are unhinged or irrational or anti-Trump or hysterical. But when the shoe is on the other, you become empirically flaccid. "None of us knows what he knows," so you can't even guess what's going on.

But the lack of evidence has never stopped the Left or the Right in the past 30 years. Since the days of Clinton, each side believes it is right, goddamnit. They know in their bones that they are on the side of righteousness, justice (or in the case of many Right wingers, "preserving the character of the country"). So hey, even if you've no evidence, fuck it -- claim Barr is in league with Trump. Even if there's no evidence, fuck it -- Obama's a socialist, and Bill Clinton has committed everything from campaign violations to the murder of Vincent Foster. The FBI said it lacked basis to charge Hillary, but thought she grossly mishandled documents? Fuck it. She's guilty. Nevermind the difference between negligence and intent. That's too confusing.

The Left sees everything a GOP President does with an extremely jaundiced eye. Conclusion or suspicion first, facts second. The Right does exactly the same thing with Democrat presidents.

And both sides defend their Presidents on almost everything they do. It's teams, tribes, parties... And when they're sure they've got a win in their sights, as the GOP did with Starr, Benghazi, Hillary's emails, etc., and the Democrats have done with every investigation of Trump, and the win never materializes, they melt down.

The Mueller Report will come out Thursday and confirm what we all know: Trump is a lying, rotten shit. And the Left will then melt down. It will scream that justice has not been done. Just like the Right has screamed that justice has never been done in investigations of Democrats.

Thankfully, hopefully, as the NYTimes recently noted in its study comparing the loudest advocates on social and regular media to actual voters, nobody who matters will give a shit about the stupid spectacle.

Not sure whom you're talking to here, or what you're hoping to persuade them of.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

It's not a scale, and he's not a judge. As you said yesterday, what he is doing is shading things to establish a narrative favorable to Trump. Misleading Congress, like he has done before.

Okay. He's putting his finger on the scale of public opinion.

No one but you is talking about a conspiracy.

If Barr is shading things to aid Trump, and Rosenstein is supporting Barr to aid Trump, what is that relationship called?

Don't be stupid. He very intentionally used the word "spying" to get the headlines, and then he very intentionally explained that by "spying" he meant something different.

Maybe he thinks there was spying and realized after saying so that the word was loaded?

You have any easy time imputing a reason for opinions you don't like. People are unhinged or irrational or anti-Trump or hysterical. But when the shoe is on the other, you become empirically flaccid. "None of us knows what he knows," so you can't even guess what's going on.

I think Barr has a bias. It is not toward the GOP or pro-Trump. He believes in a near imperial unitary executive.

I do not think Rosenstein has any significant bias.

Not sure whom you're talking to here, or what you're hoping to persuade them of.

I am hoping, in vain, to shame people into ceasing to pick parties to be for or against. I think the two party system is a bug that needs to be eradicated.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Rosenstein's been a civil servant for 30 years. Worked with Ds and Rs in that position. Had to. The only thing he'll be selling in his new career is access to insiders at DOJ/FBI/Regulatory Agencies.

The idea that DOJ takes a partisan Republican (can we please remember that, after he worked for Ken Starr on the Clinton Impeachment, and got a political appointment from George W. Bush in 2005, Rosenstein got the job as Jeff Sessions' deputy in the Trump Administration) and turns him into an apartisan, equal-opportunity seller of access is touchingly naive.

Is fear of alienating Trump Admin a calculation in his head? Yes. You are correct. But is it a big enough one for him to cross swords with certain of Mueller's people, who supposedly don't agree with all of what Barr said? Is it a big enough concern for him to possibly ruin his name at a time when he's job searching? I just don't see him making the investment you reference.

But much like Barr's motivations, I don't know. You could be correct. I think Trump has converted everyone in DC from set offenses to run and gun, so assuming anything is unwise.

Instead of spending all of this time impugning Rosenstein's motives, can we just assume that he is both a conservative Republican, of the sort who gets multiple political appointments, and a good lawyer, and someone who is committed to the DOJ as an institution and wants everyone to trust the Attorney General? I never said he was a hack, or liar, or a conspirator. I just think that using his WSJ to exonerate Barr from what we can see him doing with our own two eyes is wishful thinking. Wouldn't it be pretty to think so?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

If Barr is shading things to aid Trump, and Rosenstein is supporting Barr to aid Trump, what is that relationship called?

If my boss is doing something, and I make comments publicly supporting my boss, what is that relationship called? Hint: Not a "conspiracy."

Maybe he thinks there was spying and realized after saying so that the word was loaded?

Maybe you were born yesterday.

I think Barr has a bias. It is not toward the GOP or pro-Trump. He believes in a near imperial unitary executive.

How can that be? You just explained that none of us know what he knows. How could you begin to think he is biased? Sounds unhinged to me.

But let's suppose that Barr is not "biased" towards the political party in which he has been involved for decades, or towards his President boss and the party's leader. He just a well-intentioned believer in a near-imperial unitary executive. Doesn't that give him a strong motive to mislead Congress about what's in the Mueller Report?

I do not think Rosenstein has any significant bias.

You have gone from empirically flaccid to empirically turgid in the blink of an eye, for no apparent reason. I guess Republican law enforcers who exculpate just turn you on.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

My ex-daughter -in-law was granted permanent green card status today. She is the hardest working person I've met, a great addition to the country.

While married she got her green card. They were really on the rocks by the time she could apply for permanent. The divorce was finalized so she could apply for a waiver- essentially one must show the marriage was legit and not just to get in the country.

I understand that a few years ago, the grant of the waiver would have been routine- they were legit and had a half dozen affidavits to attest, plus interviews. Problem is she is from a "shithole country" (Haiti) and it is not a few years ago.

I guess the staff people working the files are lifers though and not so swayed by the fuckhead-in-chief? Anyway, a good piece of news today.

And I assure you if she does eventually petition for citizenship she is quite pragmatic and will not squander her vote on a 3rd party candidate.

I've been on vacation and away from the boards, but congratulations to your ex-daughter-in-law! That is outstanding news.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If my boss is doing something, and I make comments publicly supporting my boss, what is that relationship called? Hint: Not a "conspiracy."



Maybe you were born yesterday.



How can that be? You just explained that none of us know what he knows. How could you begin to think he is biased? Sounds unhinged to me.

But let's suppose that Barr is not "biased" towards the political party in which he has been involved for decades, or towards his President boss and the party's leader. He just a well-intentioned believer in a near-imperial unitary executive. Doesn't that give him a strong motive to mislead Congress about what's in the Mueller Report?



You have gone from empirically flaccid to empirically turgid in the blink of an eye, for no apparent reason. I guess Republican law enforcers who exculpate just turn you on.

What I think and what I know are not the same thing.

You and Adder and GGG, OTOH, are certain of Barr’s and Rosenstein’s motives.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You and Adder and GGG, OTOH, are certain of Barr’s and Rosenstein’s motives.

No. Try responding to what people say, instead of the straw men or the people you see on MSNBC or whatever it is you're doing.

I don't need to speculate about Barr's motives. I have a serious problem with what I see him doing. I can infer his motives, but that's secondary. I have been posting about what he has said to Congress, in writing and in person. You, on the other hand, say we should trust him because of motives you ascribe to him -- he's going to worried about his reputation in DC, you say. I think that's nonsense on stilts, but let's be clear, your argument about Barr is that we should trust him because we should assume that his motives are, if not pure, self-interested in a way that will work out for us.

But, you ducked my question, which was about the implications of something you just said. Let's suppose that Barr is not "biased" towards the political party in which he has been involved for decades, or towards his President boss and the party's leader. He just a well-intentioned believer in a near-imperial unitary executive. Doesn't that give him a strong motive to mislead Congress about what's in the Mueller Report?

As for Rosenstein, I literally just posted that we should assume that he is well intentioned. I'll wait here while you go back and look the post, which was at 9:32 am Pacific Time. No really, it's OK, I'll just wait. OK. Back now? See?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

No. Try responding to what people say, instead of the straw men or the people you see on MSNBC or whatever it is you're doing.

I don't need to speculate about Barr's motives. I have a serious problem with what I see him doing. I can infer his motives, but that's secondary. I have been posting about what he has said to Congress, in writing and in person. You, on the other hand, say we should trust him because of motives you ascribe to him -- he's going to worried about his reputation in DC, you say. I think that's nonsense on stilts, but let's be clear, your argument about Barr is that we should trust him because we should assume that his motives are, if not pure, self-interested in a way that will work out for us.

But, you ducked my question, which was about the implications of something you just said. Let's suppose that Barr is not "biased" towards the political party in which he has been involved for decades, or towards his President boss and the party's leader. He just a well-intentioned believer in a near-imperial unitary executive. Doesn't that give him a strong motive to mislead Congress about what's in the Mueller Report?

As for Rosenstein, I literally just posted that we should assume that he is well intentioned. I'll wait here while you go back and look the post, which was at 9:32 am Pacific Time. No really, it's OK, I'll just wait. OK. Back now? See?

1. If you think Rosenstein is well intentioned, how do you square that with your opinion that he is being swayed by party and the fact that he works for Barr (for 2 more weeks)? He’s well intentioned but ethically malleable?

2. Barr’s belief in a strong unitary executive should lead him to state the President cannot be guilty of obstruction, rather than explain why reasonable prosecutorial discretion precludes charges. If you believe in the former, citing the latter as basis to refrain is self-contradiction. But yes, as a pragmatist, Barr could see that if he ran with the former as justification for refraining, he’d face scrutiny.

Barr could not win here. What he did may have been the only way to duck a showdown on unitary exec power he might lose before even this SCOTUS. In the end, he may have been protecting his untested unitary exec theory rather than misleading Congress. Ultimately, he has no reason to mislead Congress to protect that theory as it speaks to merely criminal prosecution, not impeachment.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

1. If you think Rosenstein is well intentioned, how do you square that with your opinion that he is being swayed by party and the fact that he works for Barr (for 2 more weeks)? He’s well intentioned but ethically malleable?

I didn't say he was "swayed." He is Barr's deputy, he worked for Ken Starr, and he got a senior political appointment in the Trump Administration. I think he sincerely believes that Barr is basically a good guy and wants people to trust Barr, which is what he said. It's not shocker and doesn't require a conspiracy theory to believe that when the #2 guy at the DOJ says, hey, the DOJ is acting in good faith and everyone should trust the DOJ, he really believes it. It's like if Pence were to tell you to trust Trump. Maybe he believes it, but it's also his job, so why would you put any stock in it?

2. Barr’s belief in a strong unitary executive should lead him to state the President cannot be guilty of obstruction, rather than explain why reasonable prosecutorial discretion precludes charges. If you believe in the former, citing the latter as basis to refrain is self-contradiction. But yes, as a pragmatist, Barr could see that if he ran with the former as justification for refraining, he’d face scrutiny.

DOJ was never going to charge the President, because it has a pre-existing view that the President cannot be charged while in office, and no one was going to stick their neck out (and lose their job) to challenge that. The real issue is whether Congress gets to see Mueller's work, and how redacted it is.

Barr could not win here. What he did may have been the only way to duck a showdown on unitary exec power he might lose before even this SCOTUS. In the end, he may have been protecting his untested unitary exec theory rather than misleading Congress. Ultimately, he has no reason to mislead Congress to protect that theory as it speaks to merely criminal prosecution, not impeachment.

If you think Barr is acting in good faith there, out of some commitment to neutral principles, you are incredibly naive and have not been paying attention. You say again that Barr would "face scrutiny." Seriously? I posted a link this morning explaining how Barr misled Congress three decades ago. He "faced scrutiny" there, too, for all the good he did. Barr is a partisan. You are so quick to attribute any criticism from the left to anti-Trump hysteria, and so prone to assume that someone like Barr is acting from some Solomonic place of deep wisdom. "He has no reason to mislead Congress"? WTF, girlfriend? He has a boss who just fired his predecessor for not going more to protect him from the Mueller investigation. He has every reason to mislead Congress.