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

[Adder]

Just the first few of these do not make Barr look at all good: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/18/u...gtype=Homepage

Yeah, Sebby's gonna say "we couldn't prove a crime" is the same as "not a crime" but it isn't.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

No Bond villain, but his public indictment means we know about him. "According to the charges filed by the special counsel’s office, a top Trump campaign official had dispatched Mr. Stone to get information from WikiLeaks about thousands of hacked Democratic emails stolen by Russians." That's the NYT. I'm sure Mueller knows a lot more that hasn't been made public yet.

Go here and follow the thread:

https://twitter.com/KevinMKruse/stat...18835246551041

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Go here and follow the thread:

https://twitter.com/KevinMKruse/stat...18835246551041

This is your greatest find. This is awesome.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I shouldn't have said "lying." I think Barr is doing his utmost to defend the President's personal interests without lying, acting as an advocate for the individual rather than the chief law enforcement officer of the nation. This morning makes that clear.

On the other hand, other people think Barr lied. E.g., from Twitter:

Barr lied when he said the report found no collusion.

The report found no illegal conspiracy.

What Stone did was coordinate, legally, with Wikileaks.

Maybe it's not a "lie" if he is just intending to do everything but lie to defend the President, and he inadvertently crosses it. Fortunately, we know that Barr is worried about his reputation and what others will think of him in the future.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Just the first few of these do not make Barr look at all good: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/18/u...gtype=Homepage

Yeah, Sebby's gonna say "we couldn't prove a crime" is the same as "not a crime" but it isn't.

I was driving to a meeting and stopped for coffee and missed some of start. I heard that he said "no collusion" a lot. The part I did hear sounded boring. He's clearly trying to defend his positions and protect Trump.

But it might be because Trump didn't do something which a prosecutor would find warrants or merits prosecution.

I know it's heresy here, in the hair on fire world of Trump haters, but Trump acted like Trump in response to the investigation. Which is to say he reacted like a dumb thug. Barr characterized this as emotional, "frustrated." I think that's a half truth. Trump is not only emotional, but dumb. I think Trump is a reactive child who reacts like a fool when criticized. He's just too stupid and immature and ADD-addled to develop real intent.

Barr is protecting Trump, but strangely, Trump is probably worthy of protection here. He's a dimwit doing as dimwits do, not a master villain, or even a Nixon.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

On the other hand, other people think Barr lied. E.g., from Twitter:



Maybe it's not a "lie" if he is just intending to do everything but lie to defend the President, and he inadvertently crosses it. Fortunately, we know that Barr is worried about his reputation and what others will think of him in the future.

Here's what I wrote before I heard any of Barr's press conference:

The reality is, Trump opportunistically exploited Russian interference. And this is not a crime. What you have here are pissed off voters who still can't accept that he won pissed off now a second time because what he did wasn't technically criminal. "It ought to be a crime!" Right. I hear ya. Go pass a law.

I've not read the report and cannot do so. How close was I?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Here's what I wrote before I heard any of Barr's press conference:

The reality is, Trump opportunistically exploited Russian interference. And this is not a crime. What you have here are pissed off voters who still can't accept that he won pissed off now a second time because what he did wasn't technically criminal. "It ought to be a crime!" Right. I hear ya. Go pass a law.

I've not read the report and cannot do so. How close was I?

The press conference and the report were each utterly damning in their own way. If you want to fixate on the question of whether Mueller or DOJ should have brought more criminal charges, you can focus only on that, but to me it's more important to have a public accounting of what the President and his people did.

You evidently are more bothered by (some) people reacting to Trump than by Trump. If that's where your contrarianism takes you, well, I guess you're stuck there.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

The press conference and the report were each utterly damning in their own way.

You read it already?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Here's what I wrote before I heard any of Barr's press conference:

The reality is, Trump opportunistically exploited Russian interference. And this is not a crime. What you have here are pissed off voters who still can't accept that he won pissed off now a second time because what he did wasn't technically criminal. "It ought to be a crime!" Right. I hear ya. Go pass a law.

I've not read the report and cannot do so. How close was I?

Go to the table of contents, find the section on Manafort's contacts with the Russians, and start there if you really want to know. Of course the juiciest bits are redacted.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

You read it already?

My Twitter is full of people sharing excerpts. I have a job and haven't read it. The excerpts are awful for the President.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Go to the table of contents, find the section on Manafort's contacts with the Russians, and start there if you really want to know. Of course the juiciest bits are redacted.

Ken White's account is (always) worth a read:

https://twitter.com/popehat

He's a former AUSA whose overall views are probably highly simpatico with Sebastian.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

You read it already?

It will be the weekend before I get all the way through it.

Because every now and then I have to put it down, curse out the fuckers under my breath, and cool down for a little while.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

A very small detail, but one that I find hugely problematic: Trump's personal lawyer, Jay Sekulow, says that he saw the Mueller report on Tuesday afternoon. I think there's a case to be made that DOJ can share the report with the White House (and before Congress sees it), because constitutionally, the Attorney General serves the President. But Sekulow serves Trump personally, not the President. Government officials should not be privileging private parties, even high-ranking government officials, particularly when they are denying access to Congress. If Sekulow saw the report -- and for that I'm relying on Jonathan Swan at Axios, who says that Sekulow told him he did -- then there is no excuse for withholding it from Congress.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Ken White's account is (always) worth a read:

https://twitter.com/popehat

He's a former AUSA whose overall views are probably highly simpatico with Sebastian.

I think he should have his name legally changed to Popehat at this point.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I think he should have his name legally changed to Popehat at this point.

It's funny when people @ him thinking he is the Pope.

I found him years ago because he was blogging about the Prenda scheme. Good times.