The Robert Mueller Investigation

[jimmyjazz 46979]

Trump may only be a symptom of the underlying disease, but he's so utterly brazen and unbalanced that it's as if we flipped on the light in the kitchen and are only now realizing the extent of our cockroach infestation.  For that, we should probably be grateful.

[yaqdum 182]

38 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Trump may only be a symptom of the underlying disease, but he's so utterly brazen and unbalanced that it's as if we flipped on the light in the kitchen and are only now realizing the extent of our cockroach infestation.  For that, we should probably be grateful.

oh, absolutely.  as awful as this is, it has been going on in the dark, probably all our lives.  now it is out in the open and vying to take over.  previously there was no chance we could deal with this in an effective way.  any attempt would be characterized as bullying or some such and the presumed shield of innocence would be drawn across their bloated and fetid grins.  with their coming out, we are invited to deal with them.  if we don't, they win either now or later.

[triplehorn 2664]

2 hours ago, Dertyberd said:

It should be the elected leadership because they're the ones who actually control how the money is spent and raised, but that won't happen.  There are bundlers (Cohen, Wynn, Romney types) who serve as legal buffers for the electeds, and they control access to lawmakers on a certain level.   I'd imagine we may get lucky and bring down the RNC apparatus, but it will be difficult to pin it on any lawmakers outside of leadership. That could change if there is evidence they knew of the dirty money and  personally directed it's spending. Lets hope there are emails.   

Emails?  After hearing Clint Watts talking last night, I'm thinking wiretaps.  In talking about the detail of Mueller's affidavits for the Cohen warrants, he went through the hierarchy of intercepts discussing Title III and FISA and the qualifications.  I got the impression that the FBI was on some shit early on and got a lot, potentially on tape, well before anyone suspected they were being scrutinized.  

Remember when Mitch McConnell threatened Obama if he went public over the IC's flashing red light warnings of ongoing Russian interference in the the election campaign in the Fall of 2016 ?  He put a bullseye on himself.  Smart move, Mitch.  Remember Kevin McCarthy taped in Paul Ryan's inner sanctum talking about who Putin pays ?  yeah.  good times.

[Dertyberd 394]

God I hope you're right and if they were able to get the proper surveillance you will be.  I just know on a smaller level that smart pols in leadership only have those conversations over dinner and whatnot.  No phones, no email.  The one thing that gives me hope to this day is how the fuck did that conversation with Paul Ryan and House leadership get out?  What a bazaar thing to have recorded and leaked. If there are more of those conversations recorded it could be a lot of fun.  The other is that McConnell and Co. have been insulated in power so long that they got lazy and didn't realize the threat of Trump's ragtag dumbass criminal enterprise being so damn sloppy.  Who would've thought Trump could've gotten away with shit for so many years with the mental all stars in his orbit of stupidity.  

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

51 minutes ago, Dertyberd said:

 The one thing that gives me hope to this day is how the fuck did that conversation with Paul Ryan and House leadership get out?

I can’t prove this but I’d speculate it was Evan McMullin who was in the room and ex-CIA.  There’s some other circumstancial evidence to support this but I’m not digging it up.

[kevwun 16269]

He would make sense.  He was anti-Trump from the start.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

13 minutes ago, kevwun said:

He would make sense.  He was anti-Trump from the start.

He didn’t leave the party and run for President until after the Paul Ryan recording.  

Paul Ryan recording June 15, 2016

McMullin declares independent run for President in August 2016

Comey fired May 9, 2017

Robert Mueller appointed May 16, 2017

Report of the “Putin pays Trump” conversation emerges in Wapo May 17, 2017 

[triplehorn 2664]

Here's the Clint Watts segment from last night on the Cohen affidavit where he talks about Pen Register vs Title III tap vs FISA.  He notes that there is no indication of a wiretap in this affadavit, but at the very end, he leaves open the possibility that those are interventions that we may simply not know about yet.  The use of Pen Registers to examine all of the incoming and outgoing calls for Cohen appear to have used at a minimum.

The main takeaway is that the feds were scrutinizing Cohen well before Mueller was appointed and Watts references the Summer/Fall of 2016 when national security threats re Russia involvement were in full effect.  And again, we know that at that time, Mitch McConnell, for one,  had some reason to in effect preserve ongoing Russian election interference.

 

 

Edited March 20, 2019 by triplehorn

[TwiceHorn 31989]

https://www.chron.com/news/article/Trump-Mueller-report-ridiculous-but-should-be-13703323.php

 

hmmm

[triplehorn 2664]

^^^ from that article:

Quote

Mueller is required to produce a confidential report that at a minimum explains decisions about who was and was not prosecuted. Attorney General William Barr is then expected to produce his own report for Congress and has said he wants to make public as much of Mueller's findings as he can under the law.

Compare that representation with Ted Lieu's comments on the Mueller report (starts at 2min mark):

 

 

 

[Gil Bang 26177]

 

[Mdhorn 6153]

Trump is again threatening to use his base when discussing allegations against him.  Also, I don't think he likes things written down since he's a crook and everything coming out is from others recordings and testimony of him.  It's had to be explained to him that tweets can't be deleted.  Additionally, he doesn't read so whatever reports get released will come from either his lawyers or Fox News.  He's really is an idiot.  

[DDD Dad 14572]

9 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

^^^ from that article:

Compare that representation with Ted Lieu's comments on the Mueller report (starts at 2min mark):

 

 

 

Based on comments from Neal Katyal (who was deeply involved in drafting the special counsel regulations), it doesn't sound to me like Lieu understands how the regulations work.

[Mdhorn 6153]

6 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

 

regarding the Emoluments Clause, not going well with MD and DC with Conservative judges in Richmond:

A federal appeals court panel was indisputably hostile Tuesday to a lawsuit accusing President Donald Trump of violating the Constitution by profiting from his business dealings with foreign countries seeking to curry favor with his administration.

The uphill battle the suit faces was evident before the arguments even began Tuesday morning when it was revealed that all three 4th Circuit Court of Appeals judges assigned to the case are GOP appointees, including two of the court’s most conservative jurists.

 

Full story:  

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/19/trump-emoluments-lawsuit-1226687

[Biff Tannen 46061]

4 minutes ago, Mdhorn said:

regarding the Emoluments Clause, not going well with MD and DC with Conservative judges in Richmond:

A federal appeals court panel was indisputably hostile Tuesday to a lawsuit accusing President Donald Trump of violating the Constitution by profiting from his business dealings with foreign countries seeking to curry favor with his administration.

The uphill battle the suit faces was evident before the arguments even began Tuesday morning when it was revealed that all three 4th Circuit Court of Appeals judges assigned to the case are GOP appointees, including two of the court’s most conservative jurists.

 

Full story:  

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/19/trump-emoluments-lawsuit-1226687

Quote

Shedd suggested that Trump was being put in a no-win situation, where if he made more aggressive efforts to avoid business from foreign sources he would face further litigation.

“If he then said — a little reminiscent of the travel ban — no foreigners can stay in any of my properties, how long before the State of Maryland would sue him for discrimination?” the judge asked. “What you want to do is make it a guessing game for him.”

Uh, this judge can get fucked.  If you can't see the difference in a blanket ban on Muslims and obvious attempts at bribing the President, you don't deserve your fucking position.  The easiest emoluments argument to me is Maralago anyway.

[TwiceHorn 31989]

2 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Based on comments from Neal Katyal (who was deeply involved in drafting the special counsel regulations), it doesn't sound to me like Lieu understands how the regulations work.

The article upthread quoted Katyal and then went almost totally off the reservation in a way that I think was intended to appear to reflect Katyal's views, but actually did not.  Probably couldn't because it was an outlandish misinterpretation of the rules.  If that was Katyal's view, then he's a horrible drafter.

Lieu's comments I think are pretty fair.  Again, I think the privilege claim is bs, because executive privileged material is exempt from disclosure to Mueller and to congress, not just the public.  But I suppose it might have come from wiretaps, or a white house staffer's recounting of a privileged convo, or something where there has been no opportunity to raise the privilege.

[DDD Dad 14572]

32 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The article upthread quoted Katyal and then went almost totally off the reservation in a way that I think was intended to appear to reflect Katyal's views, but actually did not.  Probably couldn't because it was an outlandish misinterpretation of the rules.  If that was Katyal's view, then he's a horrible drafter.
Lieu's comments I think are pretty fair.  Again, I think the privilege claim is bs, because executive privileged material is exempt from disclosure to Mueller and to congress, not just the public.  But I suppose it might have come from wiretaps, or a white house staffer's recounting of a privileged convo, or something where there has been no opportunity to raise the privilege.

I didn’t read the article you mentioned but listened to several recent interviews with him (I think on The Daily podcast from NYT).

IIRC the Special Counsel regulations are DOJ executive branch regulations, not legislation like the Independent Counsel Act. Accordingly Katyal would have had limited options as a drafter. Also IIRC from his interviews he commented about how it’s impossible to foresee all possible attempts at malfeasance to avoid the intent of the regulations.

It’s worth listening to the interview to understand better how it all operates and why Congress doesn’t have a separation of powers “right” to see the whole report.

Here are links to the three part series that aired about a week ago:

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 1 is the episode where Katyal is most prominently featured.

Edited March 20, 2019 by DDD Dad

[pyrohornIII 4844]

More dominoes falling.

[pyrohornIII 4844]

On 3/18/2019 at 8:57 AM, triplehorn said:

Another RNC deputy national finance chair, Eliot Broidy, is in the news again today over the raid of his office last summer (Michael Cohen held the same RNC title as you recall).  Broiy resigned from that position in April 2018 amidst revelations of payoffs to a former playmate over an affair and abortion.

From Reuters Leah Millis:

"A sealed search warrant issued by the Justice Department and obtained by ProPublica gives new details about a raid on the offices of Republican fundraiser Elliott Broidy last summer. According to the warrant, the investigators were looking for records “related to his dealings with foreign officials and Trump administration associates.” They were searching for any ties to China, Saudi Arabia, and a Miami Beach club promoter, ProPublica reports. The raid was first reported by The Washington Post last summer. The warrant suggests the government was much more aggressive with Broidy than previously known, “entering his office and removing records—just as it did with Trump’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen,” the news site says. Before becoming a Trump megadonor, Broidy pleaded guilty to his role in a New York state public corruption and bribery case. The previously sealed warrant suggest investigators are now focused on “conspiracy, money laundering, and violations of the law barring covert lobbying on behalf of foreign officials,” ProPublica writes, adding that agents were reportedly authorized to use Broidy’s hands or face to unlock any devices that required fingerprint or facial scans."

That makes two RNC deputy national finance chairs getting raided and having the contents of their offices hauled off and devices unlocked with fingerprints and facial scans.  Most of us know that Senate Republicans are Trump's ultimate firewall.  The feds appear poised to breach that ring.  Exposing corrupt R's covering-up their conspiracy with Trump around laundering foreign cash donations and covert quid pro quo could be the linchpin in removing Trump for his abuses and crimes.

 

link to the full ProPublica article:

Federal Authorities Raided Trump Fundraiser’s Office in Money Laundering Probe

The underlined is the main game.  Trump and band of idiots are the appetizers. 

On 3/19/2019 at 12:02 PM, triplehorn said:

I don't think Trump gets a pass unless complicit in Congress also get a pass.  Mass resignations?  I just don't see it.  

Also Trump Org --> DonJr, Ivanka, Eric, and Jared for his part getting off w/o prison ?  Again, don't see it breaking that way at all.

My hope is Mueller blows up a massive multi-faceted foreign campaign contribution laundering operation that blows up key members of Congress/RNC which in turn tenderizes what's left of the Senate for impeachment and conviction/removal.

This has been my stance for quite a while now.  I hope we are right.

[Mdhorn 6153]

4 hours ago, pyrohornIII said:

The underlined is the main game.  Trump and band of idiots are the appetizers. 

This has been my stance for quite a while now.  I hope we are right.

One can dream right?  Let's hope the guilty lose and get what coming to them.

[notre dame joe 202]

3 hours ago, Mdhorn said:

One can dream right?  Let's hope the guilty lose and get what coming to them.

We're hoping the Obama team parades in handcuffs?

[TornACL 7792]

10 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

Uh, this judge can get fucked.  If you can't see the difference in a blanket ban on Muslims and obvious attempts at bribing the President, you don't deserve your fucking position.  The easiest emoluments argument to me is Maralago anyway.

That dumb bitch needs to understand that the problem is "my properties". 

[Fudge Nuggets 19407]

18 hours ago, yaqdum said:

oh, absolutely.  as awful as this is, it has been going on in the dark, probably all our lives.  now it is out in the open and vying to take over.  previously there was no chance we could deal with this in an effective way.  any attempt would be characterized as bullying or some such and the presumed shield of innocence would be drawn across their bloated and fetid grins.  with their coming out, we are invited to deal with them.  if we don't, they win either now or later.

This is bullshit.  If Obama had committed treason like dotard, no way the republicans would have let him skate.

[wildcat09 29559]

1 hour ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

This is bullshit.  If Obama had committed treason like dotard, no way the republicans would have let him skate.

Yeah, but Republicans get to betray our country and skate all the time. See Nixon nuking the Vietnam peace talks and Reagan's campaign negotiating with the Iranians to stall the hostage negotiations. Don't forget Iran/Contra.

Come to think of it, it may be possible that our pattern of letting Republicans get away with betraying this country over and over just might have set the stage for our current predicament.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

9 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Yeah, but Republicans get to betray our country and skate all the time. See Nixon nuking the Vietnam peace talks and Reagan's campaign negotiating with the Iranians to stall the hostage negotiations. Don't forget Iran/Contra.

Come to think of it, it may be possible that our pattern of letting Republicans get away with betraying this country over and over just might have set the stage for our current predicament.

The democrats being pussies has a lot to do with this.  I understand why they’re pussies though, they don’t want to hurt the country by being too hard on the republicans.  Need to focus on the issues and healing the nation. The republicans will be punished in the next election anyway.

 However, at some point the republicans will get away with enough there won’t be much of a country left to hurt.  And it will happen because the democrats let them do it.  

They’re doing it right now.

[SmokeyTheBear 5569]

6 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The democrats being pussies has a lot to do with this.  I understand why they’re pussies though, they don’t want to hurt the country by being too hard on the republicans.  Need to focus on the issues and healing the nation. The republicans will be punished in the next election anyway.

 However, at some point the republicans will get away with enough there won’t be much of a country left to hurt.  And it will happen because the democrats let them do it.  

They’re doing it right now.

I don't view the D's as pussies, I view them as being guided by a stronger ethical code than the R's (generally speaking). Wanting to do what's right while the other side bends and breaks rules. It's a harder fight but one that should be won if the voters were intelligent enough to value it. Problem is, the deadly sins crowd of the Right have been brain washing (Fox) and creating new rules (gerrymandering) to hold onto and increase their power. 

So it's a philosophical question of continuing a more judicious path and being pussies, or get in the mud and fight by their rules. The latter seems like a perilous proposition.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13619]

...outing a CIA operative whose spouse correctly pointed out Iraq having WMDs was far from slam dunk in order to sell a war that would "pay for itself"...

 

...ignoring the Constitution to deny a Democratic administration its Supreme Court pick...

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

17 minutes ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

I don't view the D's as pussies, I view them as being guided by a stronger ethical code than the R's (generally speaking). Wanting to do what's right while the other side bends and breaks rules. It's a harder fight but one that should be won if the voters were intelligent enough to value it. Problem is, the deadly sins crowd of the Right have been brain washing (Fox) and creating new rules (gerrymandering) to hold onto and increase their power. 

So it's a philosophical question of continuing a more judicious path and being pussies, or get in the mud and fight by their rules. The latter seems like a perilous proposition.

The democrats tend to fight for the greater good but they somehow lack the conviction and necessary political will to stand up to the Republicans who are fighting for the destruction of democracy tooth and nail it seems.  

The Republicans know how to fight, they’re professionals at it, even when they’re fighting for the biggest nothing.

I think the democrats want to fight but they choose not to because it isn’t politically advantageous.  The republicans have worked hard to make it this way.  Party over country works both ways.  If our political leaders don’t stand up for the democracy they serve someone else will and it will be bloody.  

Edited March 21, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Nice Guy Eddie 13708]

In the case of the emoluments, why are the appeals judges openly stating their concerns that the people behind it are looking to have the president impeached?  Does the appeals court get to decide a legal matter based on their personal opinion of someone else’s motivation?

In that world, I wouldn’t be allowed to sue someone for damages if the judge thought I would use the awarded money for something he disagreed with? “Sir, you were definitely wronged, but as I think you are going to waste the money in Vegas, therefore I find for the defendant.”

[TwiceHorn 31989]

15 hours ago, DDD Dad said:

I didn’t read the article you mentioned but listened to several recent interviews with him (I think on The Daily podcast from NYT).

IIRC the Special Counsel regulations are DOJ executive branch regulations, not legislation like the Independent Counsel Act. Accordingly Katyal would have had limited options as a drafter. Also IIRC from his interviews he commented about how it’s impossible to foresee all possible attempts at malfeasance to avoid the intent of the regulations.

It’s worth listening to the interview to understand better how it all operates and why Congress doesn’t have a separation of powers “right” to see the whole report.

Here are links to the three part series that aired about a week ago:

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 1 is the episode where Katyal is most prominently featured.

Ah ok.  I had not heard that.  Very different from the extrapolations of the article above.

Totally agree with his view that as internal DOJ rules/regs they cannot create a substantive "right" in Congress to get the report.  They would only govern the conduct of the DOJ.

Thanks. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[Biff Tannen 46061]

Fascinating.

[TwiceHorn 31989]

14 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Ah ok.  I had not heard that.  Very different from the extrapolations of the article above.

Totally agree with his view that as internal DOJ rules/regs they cannot create a substantive "right" in Congress to get the report.  They would only govern the conduct of the DOJ.

Thanks. 

Gave it a listen.

Two takeaways:  the rules don't require a comprehensive report (either from OSC to AG or AG to Congress).  They don't require the AG to deliver a comprehensive report to Congress.  Nor do they forbid it or create any grounds for withholding the Report.

Here's where triplehorn-style speculation about Mueller the man comes in.  Although he is not required to do so, my impression of Mueller the man is that he prepares a comprehensive, Congress- and public- ready report so that if and when the shit hits the fan, he doesn't have to rely on a pile of evidence, memos, and oral testimony to report the results piecemeal.

The disclosure of that report to the public will be governed by FOIA-type principles weighing public vs. governmental interest in secrecy/disclosure.  Or, possibly, Congress gets it and leaks or otherwise discloses it.  I think initially congress would agree to take it confidentially in closed session, just to remove any objections and get their grubby paws on it. Whether congress or a congressman unilaterally decides to disclose it without court action may be a different story.

I think it would be a real disservice not to prepare a comprehensive report and leave the evidence to piecemeal disclosure (a series of memos or testimony) to congress or the public, although it is conceivable that that is done under these rules.  Piecemeal disclosure leaves it too open to further political spinning.

[TwiceHorn 31989]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The democrats tend to fight for the greater good but they somehow lack the conviction and necessary political will to stand up to the Republicans who are fighting for the destruction of democracy tooth and nail it seems.  

The Republicans know how to fight, they’re professionals at it, even when they’re fighting for the biggest nothing.

I think the democrats want to fight but they choose not to because it isn’t politically advantageous.  The republicans have worked hard to make it this way.  Party over country works both ways.  If our political leaders don’t stand up for the democracy they serve someone else will and it will be bloody.  

I sense that Hugo is right on this.  Despite having some actual ideas and maybe even principles, the Ds seem extremely reticent to actually engage the Rs on anything of substance, instead mostly retreating to sound bite advocacy.just like the dbags across the aisle.  It may be that neither side really understands "the base" that put Trump in office, and both are wildly afraid of offending it.

It's like "the base" is happy fun ball for both sides.  And it's smoking.

[yaqdum 182]

3 hours ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

This is bullshit.  If Obama had committed treason like dotard, no way the republicans would have let him skate.

what i said had nothing to do with obama.  i'm talking about the far right underground.  murdoch, talk radio, koch bros, &c.

 

more:  my belief is the far right had this coup in mind with nixon, but they hadn't done anything like enough prep.  so murdoch, radio, &c patting down the grass for reagan but still not enough.

Edited March 21, 2019 by yaqdum

[TwiceHorn 31989]

36 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Gave it a listen.

Two takeaways:  the rules don't require a comprehensive report (either from OSC to AG or AG to Congress).  They don't require the AG to deliver a comprehensive report to Congress.  Nor do they forbid it or create any grounds for withholding the Report.

Here's where triplehorn-style speculation about Mueller the man comes in.  Although he is not required to do so, my impression of Mueller the man is that he prepares a comprehensive, Congress- and public- ready report so that if and when the shit hits the fan, he doesn't have to rely on a pile of evidence, memos, and oral testimony to report the results piecemeal.

The disclosure of that report to the public will be governed by FOIA-type principles weighing public vs. governmental interest in secrecy/disclosure.  Or, possibly, Congress gets it and leaks or otherwise discloses it.  I think initially congress would agree to take it confidentially in closed session, just to remove any objections and get their grubby paws on it. Whether congress or a congressman unilaterally decides to disclose it without court action may be a different story.

I think it would be a real disservice not to prepare a comprehensive report and leave the evidence to piecemeal disclosure (a series of memos or testimony) to congress or the public, although it is conceivable that that is done under these rules.  Piecemeal disclosure leaves it too open to further political spinning.

Kind of an interesting add-on.  Although Katyal is identified with the Obama administration, he authored the rules at 28 CFR 600 in the Clinton administration as a junior in the SG office shortly after the Independent Counsel law expired.  And at about the same time as OLC issued the can't-indict-the-President opinion.  The Clinton administration was fairly active after his ordeal.

[triplehorn 2664]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Gave it a listen.

Two takeaways:  the rules don't require a comprehensive report (either from OSC to AG or AG to Congress).  They don't require the AG to deliver a comprehensive report to Congress.  Nor do they forbid it or create any grounds for withholding the Report.

Reading that reminds me of Rosenstein's announcement this week that he's remaining DAG for an indefinite period, acting as "a heat shield."  Also keep in mind that Jessie Liu, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, was expected to be nominated for a promotion to No. 3 at DOJ - to be the Associate Attorney General (reported first week of March).

If Barr decides to act with integrity and provides Congress with an unadulterated Mueller report, having Rosenstein at No. 2 and Liu at No. 3 creates quite a bit of insulation in the event Trump attempts a Saturday Night Massacre in retribution.  Firing the AG would be one thing, but firing the top 3 is entirely something else.  No Whitakers in that group. 

I can't help but wonder how Trump decided (agreed) to move Liu to No.3, unless it was more about 'removing' Liu as DC US Atty.  Having the top 3 positions at DOJ stacked without any toadies is more important at this stage.

All eyes on AG Barr.

 

 

Edited March 21, 2019 by triplehorn

[TwiceHorn 31989]

19 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

Reading that reminds me of Rosenstein's announcement this week that he's remaining DAG for an indefinite period, acting as "a heat shield."  Also keep in mind that Jessie Liu, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, was expected to be nominated for a promotion to No. 3 at DOJ - to be the Associate Attorney General (reported first week of March).

If Barr decides to act with integrity and provides Congress with an unadulterated Mueller report, having Rosenstein at No. 2 and Liu at No. 3 creates quite a bit of insulation in the event Trump attempts a Saturday Night Massacre in retribution.  Firing the AG would be one thing, but firing the top 3 is entirely something else.  No Whitakers in that group. 

I can't help but wonder how Trump decided (agreed) to move Liu to No.3, unless it was more about 'removing' Liu as DC US Atty.  Having the top 3 positions at DOJ stacked without any toadies is more important at this stage.

All eyes on Bob Barr.

 

 

An observation, not a commentary.  Liu is a Trump appointee to USAO DC, yet she seems to be regarded as a person of integrity and professionalism.  Granted Trump has nominated a fairly large number of hacks, but he's also made some decent appointments.  May be blind squirrel/nut, but it's difficult to automatically assume that a Trump appointee is a hack that will do his bidding.  You may be correct that she's being moved to a less influential position because she's a pro, but you juat can't quite tell.  Appointees have backfired on much better Presidents than Trump with fair regularity.

Edited March 21, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[triplehorn 2664]

9 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

An observation, not a commentary.  Liu is a Trump appointee to USAO DC, yet she seems to be regarded as a person of integrity and professionalism.  Granted Trump has nominated a fairly large number of hacks, but he's also made some decent appointments.  May be blind squirrel/nut, but it's difficult to automatically assume that a Trump appointee is a hack that will do his bidding.

Taking a closer look (Reuters):

"...If confirmed by the U.S. Senate, Liu would serve as associate attorney general - a job that involves overseeing the department’s civil litigation, including antitrust matters, civil rights, and environmental law.

A White House representative did not immediately respond to a request for comment. U.S. Attorney General William Barr confirmed the plan in a statement, adding that he had recommended Liu for the post.

“With her record of public service, particularly in civil justice and federal law enforcement matters, it is clear that she will be an outstanding addition to our leadership team at the Department,” Barr said.

The associate attorney general’s job at the Justice Department does not involve overseeing criminal cases or national security.

However, it became a focus of interest in February 2018 after then-Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand quit the job to take a position with Walmart.

At the time of her exit, she was next in the line of succession to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein for oversight of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into potential collusion between Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and Russia.

At the time, speculation was high about whether Trump might try to fire Rosenstein in an effort to kill Mueller’s probe, a step Trump never took.

Brand’s departure came only nine months into her tenure, after Trump unleashed blistering attacks against many top Justice Department officials including former FBI Director James Comey, whom Trump fired in 2017.

Reuters previously reported that Brand was starting to feel increasingly uncomfortable with Trump’s attacks on her department and the FBI.

Since her departure, the No. 3 post has been filled by Jesse Panuccio, who has not been confirmed by the Senate.

cont." ____

 

A couple thoughts here: first, AG Barr appears to have tapped Liu, not Trump, or other Trump lackey who has his ear. Second, with Barr in place as AG, it could be pointed out to Trump that Liu's position would have nothing to do with overseeing criminal cases or national security matters.  If this was explained to Trump, it potentially allayed any Trump fears of Liu, particularly since Trump has no reason to believe (yet) that Barr could align with Mueller.  Recall Barr got Trump's attention in the first place as a potential Sessions replacement due to that cheeseball essay that tickled Trump's fancy.  There was speculation at time that Barr, a former AG and career DOJ type individual, played Trump's tune to get the easy nomination with no real intentions of being a criminal co-conspirator in a judicial cover-up.

I wouldn't be surprised to eventually learn that it was Barr who convinced Rosenstein to remain in place indefinitely.  In addition to getting the DC US Atty promoted, Barr will have created quite the phalanx against the mad emperor.

All eyes on Barr.

[Kringelbert Fishtybuns 945]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

It's like "the base" is happy fun ball for both sides.  And it's smoking.

Well, there were specific instructions on not taunting it.

[atomheartbevo 90549]

3 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The democrats tend to fight for the greater good but they somehow lack the conviction and necessary political will to stand up to the Republicans who are fighting for the destruction of democracy tooth and nail it seems.  

The Republicans know how to fight, they’re professionals at it, even when they’re fighting for the biggest nothing.

 I think the democrats want to fight but they choose not to because it isn’t politically advantageous.  The republicans have worked hard to make it this way.  Party over country works both ways.  If our political leaders don’t stand up for the democracy they serve someone else will and it will be bloody.  

How old are you?  Because there’s been plenty of times in my lifetime where the Democrats did engage in those fights, and did stand up to the Republicans, even if it wasn’t always visible to most Americans (particularly before the internet access became widespread), or at a more localized level. If you’re younger, I can understand why it feels like they aren’t standing up - they’ve shit the bed in Congress plenty of times in the past few decades.  

The important thing to remember is that this is a very long-game that’s being fought, and The Report is not out yet.  If this were a game of cards, you’re asking the Dems to start betting before the dealer has finished dealing.  

The Republicans are fighting hard for two reasons - the first, to maintain what they already have, or to at least fill their duffel bags on the way out of the bank vault as the cops are closing in.   The second, the more nefarious, we don’t fully know yet, but there is a reason why people like Graham are willing to go down on the SS Trumptannic (Butthead: “you said Graham’s willing to go down, huhuhuhuh”).  

The Republicans are fighting what feels almost like a rear-guard action, torching everything they can’t carry with them.  They are running out of time, either because of demographic changes or the nefarious stuff, so of course they are going to be more desperate and fight harder.   

[atomheartbevo 90549]

27 minutes ago, Kringelbert Fishtybuns said:

Well, there were specific instructions on not taunting it.

Or exposing it to sunlight.  Or taking it out of its package.  Or smiling at it. Or breathing around it.  Or exposing it to the air.   

Edited March 21, 2019 by atomheartbevo

[jimmyjazz 46979]

1 hour ago, triplehorn said:

I can't help but wonder how Trump decided (agreed) to move Liu to No.3, unless it was more about 'removing' Liu as DC US Atty. 

He thought this was Jessie Liu:

 

Easy mistake, they all look alike.

[retread 2951]

6 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Because there’s been plenty of times in my lifetime where the Democrats did engage in those fights, and did stand up to the Republicans, even if it wasn’t always visible to most Americans (particularly before the internet access became widespread), or at a more localized level.

Even if it's only perception (i.e. RushFox indoctrination), the 40% think that the Ds have run up the score for the last 20-30 years on the Rs. As long as Trump gives it back to the Ds, they don't care what he says or does that's unseemly or illegal.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

4 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

How old are you?  Because there’s been plenty of times in my lifetime where the Democrats did engage in those fights, and did stand up to the Republicans, even if it wasn’t always visible to most Americans (particularly before the internet access became widespread), or at a more localized level. If you’re younger, I can understand why it feels like they aren’t standing up - they’ve shit the bed in Congress plenty of times in the past few decades.  

The important thing to remember is that this is a very long-game that’s being fought, and The Report is not out yet.  If this were a game of cards, you’re asking the Dems to start betting before the dealer has finished dealing.  

The Republicans are fighting hard for two reasons - the first, to maintain what they already have, or to at least fill their duffel bags on the way out of the bank vault as the cops are closing in.   The second, the more nefarious, we don’t fully know yet, but there is a reason why people like Graham are willing to go down on the SS Trumptannic (Butthead: “you said Graham’s willing to go down, huhuhuhuh”).  

The Republicans are fighting what feels almost like a rear-guard action, torching everything they can’t carry with them.  They are running out of time, either because of demographic changes or the nefarious stuff, so of course they are going to be more desperate and fight harder.   

The report isn’t important.  Trump is going to weaponize whatever it says to his advantage.  Democrats are going to act shocked and hold more hearings to “get the facts”.  Never mind the obvious that this criminal has been working and obstructing for the Kremlin the entire time. 

Democrats are going to fold their royal flush because they like their chances in the upcoming deal, the next election. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

8 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The report isn’t important.  Trump is going to weaponize whatever it says to his advantage.  Democrats are going to act shocked and hold more hearings to “get the facts”.  Never mind the obvious that this criminal has been working and obstructing for the Kremlin the entire time. 

Democrats are going to fold their royal flush because they like their chances in the upcoming deal, the next election. 

The dems don’t have a royal flush. Independents oppose impeachment, much less the republicans. Hell support has gone down among dems, probably due to pelosi’s comments and a sense let’s just vote this asshole out in 2020.

The only thing that can change that is the mueller report. Which none of us know what it will say. 

Edited March 21, 2019 by JimmyJames

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

12 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

The dems don’t have a royal flush. Independents oppose impeachment, much less the republicans. Hell support has gone down among dems, probably due to pelosi’s comments and a sense let’s just vote this asshole out in 2020.

The only thing that can change that is the mueller report. Which none of us know what it will say. 

If the tables were turned and Trump was a democrat, how would the Republicans approach the situation?  

The republicans would put Trump’s shit on blast and ridicule the democrats relentlessly 24/7 for selling out the country.  They would brow beat the piss out of Schumer and Pelosi for looking the other way and they would be right to do so. They would make the case for impeachment openly and repeatedly in the media using actual facts.  The American public would go along with it because it’s obviously the right thing to do.  They just needed to be persuaded. 

The democrats aren’t even trying to do that. 

The Democrats have a royal flush, they just aren’t interested in playing it.

Edited March 21, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[JimmyJames 12271]

3 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

If the tables were turned and Trump was a democrat, how would the Republicans approach the situation?  

The republicans would put Trump’s shit on blast and ridicule the democrats relentlessly 24/7 for selling out the country.  They would brow beat the piss out of Schumer and Pelosi for looking the other way and they would be right to do so. They would make the case for impeachment openly and repeatedly in the media using actual facts.  The American public would go along with it because it’s obviously the right thing to do.  They just needed to be persuaded. 

The democrats aren’t even trying to do that. 

The Democrats have a royal flush, they just aren’t interested in playing it.

While true, that’s because they have become the party of criminality and treason. Roger stone, the criminal with a tattoo of Richard Nixon on his back, is the best example of what they have become. They are nihilists only interested in “da moonay,” and it’s exhausting. 

But the dude had a picture of Nixon bowling on his wall in the living room for a reason. And the reason is if the dems follow that path as well, well trodden by Nixon, Reagan and his urban achievers, W, and now trump, then the country is truly lost. 

[triplehorn 2664]

Best case : Barr used what amounts to a trojan horse maneuver to gain the AG nomination and rolled with it during confirmation.  He sits on the side of justice from within the Trump camp.  He's appropriately working in concert with Mueller and Rosenstein and suggested Liu assume No 3 at DOJ to further fortify against anticipated Trump blowback when Mueller acts.  

It sounds crazy because it'd be the right thing to do.

Imagine if Barr poses no meaningful obstacle to Mueller, as appears to be a real option per TwiceHorn's reasoning above.  But we can' have that, right ? 

all eyes on Barr.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

4 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

While true, that’s because they have become the party of criminality and treason. Roger stone, the criminal with a tattoo of Richard Nixon on his back, is the best example of what they have become. They are nihilists only interested in “da moonay,” and it’s exhausting. 

But the dude had a picture of Nixon bowling on his wall in the living room for a reason. And the reason is if the dems follow that path as well, well trodden by Nixon, Reagan and his urban achievers, W, and now trump, then the country is truly lost. 

It’s also because the Republicans create the political reality they want while the democrats sit back and adjust to the reality the Republicans create.  

The Stormy Daniels scandal and cover up alone is an impeachable offense.  Individual 1 is an on the record unindicted felon that committed his crimes in pursuit of the presidency.   There’s also the very public conspiracy to obstruct the Russia investigation.  But the democrats have just let that go because....

But we have to wait for Mueller?!?  

“Democrats only get one shot.”  Says who? Why can’t they take multiple shots?  How much criminality and malfeasance is needed?  The republicans would never ask these questions, they would make the slightest criminal act (like lying about a BJ) an impeachable offense, wouldn’t think twice about it, and suffer minimal political consequences if it didn’t work out.

The GOP has weaponized not giving a fuck and it works.