RugbyRebels

Why, why, why would you let Rudy make a report to the AG? That basically announces in crystal clear fashion he isn't just a private citizen that Trump could try and distance himself from. They can't even do basic cover up of a crime in remotely competent fashion if that's their thinking

Btw, if anyone ever has to make a speech to the Israeli American Council maybe don't include some of the phrases did Trump at the 2019 summit just gone, Trump went with such inspirational moments as:

on peace between Israel and Palestine '...they say that's the toughest of all deals, if Jared Kushner can't do it it can't be done...'

on security at the US Southern border '...we're winning after years and years of losing, we're stopping drugs at a level that has never happened, unfortunately the drugs become worse, they become bigger quantities, you have no idea what's happening, they're being smuggled in from all parts of the world, but we've never had anything like it and we're building a wall...' - tough to say what I like more in this section, whether it's that the drugs are getting worse in the face of all the winning, or that whilst he's giving them an update he's conceding that even with the benefit of his update people can have no idea what's happening

but probably my favourite line in the speech to the very pro Israeli audience, and clearly big fans of Trump was the very weird comment

'I know you very well, you're brutal killers'

You forgot the reference to money-hording stereotypes of past propaganda.


Meanwhile, President whiny little bitch doesn't like that his FBI head hasn't fabricated a glowing endorsement of his actions in an internal inquiry of FBI actions over suspected election interference in 2016. An inquiry set up by whiny bitch's own people. With monotonous predictability, the smart phone-warrior attacks on credibility have started, presumably as a prelude to dismissal. Not thick enough to do that twice,I hear you say?

[quote="morepork”] Not thick enough to do that twice,I hear you say?[/quote]

When it comes to president Trump and his well established MO, there is no such thing.

He is hammering Fox News every time they host a Democrat or he doesn’t get glowing endorsements. Surely He will hammer his own administration for the same reasons.

It's not even just Trump attacking his own Department of Justice, the Inspector General and the head of the FBI, the head of the DoJ William Barr is attacking his own troops too, almost certainly to try and placate Trump.

Barr is in simple terms failing to act as the Attorney General, he's representing Trump and not the American people. What consequences there might be for that I don't know, but it's shameful for a party that once supposed it was strong on law and order, and they show no signs of growing up.

Digby wrote:It's not even just Trump attacking his own Department of Justice, the Inspector General and the head of the FBI, the head of the DoJ William Barr is attacking his own troops too, almost certainly to try and placate Trump.

Barr is in simple terms failing to act as the Attorney General, he's representing Trump and not the American people. What consequences there might be for that I don't know, but it's shameful for a party that once supposed it was strong on law and order, and they show no signs of growing up.

So... not much different from our Attorney General then.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote:It's not even just Trump attacking his own Department of Justice, the Inspector General and the head of the FBI, the head of the DoJ William Barr is attacking his own troops too, almost certainly to try and placate Trump.

Barr is in simple terms failing to act as the Attorney General, he's representing Trump and not the American people. What consequences there might be for that I don't know, but it's shameful for a party that once supposed it was strong on law and order, and they show no signs of growing up.

So... not much different from our Attorney General then.

That would have to be pretty bad indeed. Barr is astounding in his hypocrisy and outright lies. The DOJ is fucked. It certainly no longer serves the public interest. America will take decades to recover from this shit show, if ever. This government desperately needs some diversity before Jim Crow laws make a come back.

morepork wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote:It's not even just Trump attacking his own Department of Justice, the Inspector General and the head of the FBI, the head of the DoJ William Barr is attacking his own troops too, almost certainly to try and placate Trump.

Barr is in simple terms failing to act as the Attorney General, he's representing Trump and not the American people. What consequences there might be for that I don't know, but it's shameful for a party that once supposed it was strong on law and order, and they show no signs of growing up.

So... not much different from our Attorney General then.

That would have to be pretty bad indeed. Barr is astounding in his hypocrisy and outright lies. The DOJ is fucked. It certainly no longer serves the public interest. America will take decades to recover from this shit show, if ever. This government desperately needs some diversity before Jim Crow laws make a come back.

I don't think our AG is at the same level. Okay he might be supporting a government position I happen to think batshit crazy, but he is only advising the government on that position, he's not acting as a personal lawyer to the PM

Digby wrote:

morepork wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: So... not much different from our Attorney General then.

That would have to be pretty bad indeed. Barr is astounding in his hypocrisy and outright lies. The DOJ is fucked. It certainly no longer serves the public interest. America will take decades to recover from this shit show, if ever. This government desperately needs some diversity before Jim Crow laws make a come back.

I don't think our AG is at the same level. Okay he might be supporting a government position I happen to think batshit crazy, but he is only advising the government on that position, he's not acting as a personal lawyer to the PM

I take your point, but it doesn't seem too different in effect. He is acting for Johnson and not in the interest of the British people, unless advising that a five week prorogation is legal or saying that an elected parliament has no moral right to stand is in the interest of the people.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote:

morepork wrote:

That would have to be pretty bad indeed. Barr is astounding in his hypocrisy and outright lies. The DOJ is fucked. It certainly no longer serves the public interest. America will take decades to recover from this shit show, if ever. This government desperately needs some diversity before Jim Crow laws make a come back.

I don't think our AG is at the same level. Okay he might be supporting a government position I happen to think batshit crazy, but he is only advising the government on that position, he's not acting as a personal lawyer to the PM

I take your point, but it doesn't seem too different in effect. He is acting for Johnson and not in the interest of the British people, unless advising that a five week prorogation is legal or saying that an elected parliament has no moral right to stand is in the interest of the people.

But that's still government policy, as mental as I might find it. And it'd be worth noting a lot of legal experts weren't expecting the decision we got as they like Cox assumed the courts wouldn't want to get involved. Barr is getting stuck into the crimes of Trump including spinning his conspiracy theories even above the findings of his own DoJ, and that seems to be very different, at least to me

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote: I don't think our AG is at the same level. Okay he might be supporting a government position I happen to think batshit crazy, but he is only advising the government on that position, he's not acting as a personal lawyer to the PM

I take your point, but it doesn't seem too different in effect. He is acting for Johnson and not in the interest of the British people, unless advising that a five week prorogation is legal or saying that an elected parliament has no moral right to stand is in the interest of the people.

But that's still government policy, as mental as I might find it. And it'd be worth noting a lot of legal experts weren't expecting the decision we got as they like Cox assumed the courts wouldn't want to get involved. Barr is getting stuck into the crimes of Trump including spinning his conspiracy theories even above the findings of his own DoJ, and that seems to be very different, at least to me

Honestly, I don't know what the remit of the US Attorney General is. Is he meant to act for a President when being impeached?

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: I take your point, but it doesn't seem too different in effect. He is acting for Johnson and not in the interest of the British people, unless advising that a five week prorogation is legal or saying that an elected parliament has no moral right to stand is in the interest of the people.

But that's still government policy, as mental as I might find it. And it'd be worth noting a lot of legal experts weren't expecting the decision we got as they like Cox assumed the courts wouldn't want to get involved. Barr is getting stuck into the crimes of Trump including spinning his conspiracy theories even above the findings of his own DoJ, and that seems to be very different, at least to me

Honestly, I don't know what the remit of the US Attorney General is. Is he meant to act for a President when being impeached?

I wouldn't think so. But this wouldn't be the first president to confuse government lawyers with his own, Clinton really annoyed a lot of Republicans during his impeachment with his use of DoJ resources

The AG would be able to speak to whether the process impacted any official functions/duties, beyond that I assume it would be private advice to a friend if the AG wanted to say anything. And the AG would probably be able to speak to what they should have done, so for example the AG I'm sure could advise it isn't legal for Trump to have put a hold on money being paid to Ukraine, but I don't see how an AG could speak to what the defence for that criminality should be during an impeachment for abuse of power

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote: But that's still government policy, as mental as I might find it. And it'd be worth noting a lot of legal experts weren't expecting the decision we got as they like Cox assumed the courts wouldn't want to get involved. Barr is getting stuck into the crimes of Trump including spinning his conspiracy theories even above the findings of his own DoJ, and that seems to be very different, at least to me

Honestly, I don't know what the remit of the US Attorney General is. Is he meant to act for a President when being impeached?

I wouldn't think so. But this wouldn't be the first president to confuse government lawyers with his own, Clinton really annoyed a lot of Republicans during his impeachment with his use of DoJ resources

The AG would be able to speak to whether the process impacted any official functions/duties, beyond that I assume it would be private advice to a friend if the AG wanted to say anything. And the AG would probably be able to speak to what they should have done, so for example the AG I'm sure could advise it isn't legal for Trump to have put a hold on money being paid to Ukraine, but I don't see how an AG could speak to what the defence for that criminality should be during an impeachment for abuse of power

That may be true, but it's just an educated guess. Does anyone here actually know (or have the inclination to look it up)?

When trumpeting your debating prowess, it never hurts to populate pages of the ether with wise, rich and subtle prose as permanent record of testament to such:

I look very much forward to debating whoever the lucky person is who stumbles across the finish line in the little watched Do Nothing Democrat Debates. My record is so good on the Economy and all else, including debating, that perhaps I would consider more than 3 debates.........The problem is that the so-called Commission on Presidential Debates is stacked with Trump Haters & Never Trumpers. 3 years ago they were forced to publicly apologize for modulating my microphone in the first debate against Crooked Hillary. As President, the debates are up.......to me, and there are many options, including doing them directly & avoiding the nasty politics of this very biased Commission. I will make a decision at an appropriate time but in the meantime, the Commission on Presidential Debates is NOT authorized to speak for me (or R’s)!


Doing a debate directly. That is the best way to do one.

Does doing a debate directly mean simply a monologue style campaign advert? Or one hosted by that honest Infowars chap, one hosted by Ben Shapiro, and one hoisted by Roger Stone? With the understanding the hosts will act in unbiased fashion to praise Donny and play the walking off music every time (I assume) Biden talks? (and as a footnote, please don't let it be Biden, or anyone else so actuarially likely to die in the next few years)

morepork wrote:When trumpeting your debating prowess, it never hurts to populate pages of the ether with wise, rich and subtle prose as permanent record of testament to such:

I look very much forward to debating whoever the lucky person is who stumbles across the finish line in the little watched Do Nothing Democrat Debates. My record is so good on the Economy and all else, including debating, that perhaps I would consider more than 3 debates.........The problem is that the so-called Commission on Presidential Debates is stacked with Trump Haters & Never Trumpers. 3 years ago they were forced to publicly apologize for modulating my microphone in the first debate against Crooked Hillary. As President, the debates are up.......to me, and there are many options, including doing them directly & avoiding the nasty politics of this very biased Commission. I will make a decision at an appropriate time but in the meantime, the Commission on Presidential Debates is NOT authorized to speak for me (or R’s)!


Doing a debate directly. That is the best way to do one.

Where is that from? I figured anything longer than tweet length would at least getting a glance from somebody who knows how to structure a sentence.

“The debates are up.........to me” is such a profoundly strange thing to read.

I'm not sure a cartoon Mussolini face and a vocabulary of approximately 120 words (most of them adjectives) will be enough to do a debate regardless of who hosts the event.

Mikey Brown wrote:

morepork wrote:When trumpeting your debating prowess, it never hurts to populate pages of the ether with wise, rich and subtle prose as permanent record of testament to such:

I look very much forward to debating whoever the lucky person is who stumbles across the finish line in the little watched Do Nothing Democrat Debates. My record is so good on the Economy and all else, including debating, that perhaps I would consider more than 3 debates.........The problem is that the so-called Commission on Presidential Debates is stacked with Trump Haters & Never Trumpers. 3 years ago they were forced to publicly apologize for modulating my microphone in the first debate against Crooked Hillary. As President, the debates are up.......to me, and there are many options, including doing them directly & avoiding the nasty politics of this very biased Commission. I will make a decision at an appropriate time but in the meantime, the Commission on Presidential Debates is NOT authorized to speak for me (or R’s)!


Doing a debate directly. That is the best way to do one.

Where is that from? I figured anything longer than tweet length would at least getting a glance from somebody who knows how to structure a sentence.

“The debates are up.........to me” is such a profoundly strange thing to read.

It's cut and paste from a tweet you pedantic elitist shit.

Hu???

Is Mikey B representing the elites here? Is he swamp? I thought it was Digby.

I just don’t get who is elite these days. Must be some new code word, like “patriots”, that we use to identify our side or the other.

Very confusing, I am not sure who will I vote in 2020.

But I like that Trump guy. He was on “the apprentice”. I liked that show.

morepork wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:

morepork wrote:When trumpeting your debating prowess, it never hurts to populate pages of the ether with wise, rich and subtle prose as permanent record of testament to such:

I look very much forward to debating whoever the lucky person is who stumbles across the finish line in the little watched Do Nothing Democrat Debates. My record is so good on the Economy and all else, including debating, that perhaps I would consider more than 3 debates.........The problem is that the so-called Commission on Presidential Debates is stacked with Trump Haters & Never Trumpers. 3 years ago they were forced to publicly apologize for modulating my microphone in the first debate against Crooked Hillary. As President, the debates are up.......to me, and there are many options, including doing them directly & avoiding the nasty politics of this very biased Commission. I will make a decision at an appropriate time but in the meantime, the Commission on Presidential Debates is NOT authorized to speak for me (or R’s)!


Doing a debate directly. That is the best way to do one.

Where is that from? I figured anything longer than tweet length would at least getting a glance from somebody who knows how to structure a sentence.

“The debates are up.........to me” is such a profoundly strange thing to read.

It's cut and paste from a tweet you pedantic elitist shit.

If this is a joke then I think it’s quite funny, but either way I have no idea what you mean by this.

Sarcasm in the style of the rancid political debate dominating online discussion these days.

Don’t over think it. The syntax of the Trumpet quote has pauses imposed by twitter word limits, and I cut and pasted multiple twitter posts by Orange Jebus.

This explanation likely adds little to Clarity.

gransoporro wrote:Hu???

Is Mikey B representing the elites here? Is he swamp? I thought it was Digby.

I just don’t get who is elite these days. Must be some new code word, like “patriots”, that we use to identify our side or the other.

Very confusing, I am not sure who will I vote in 2020.

But I like that Trump guy. He was on “the apprentice”. I liked that show.

Exactly.

morepork wrote:Sarcasm in the style of the rancid political debate dominating online discussion these days.

Don’t over think it. The syntax of the Trumpet quote has pauses imposed by twitter word limits, and I cut and pasted multiple twitter posts by Orange Jebus.

This explanation likely adds little to Clarity.

I just accepted it as verbatim. He does genuinely seem to think when using an ellipsis that more dots = more drama.

Weirdly enough I think I now see why you thought I was blaming you for the incoherence.

morepork wrote:

gransoporro wrote:Hu???

Is Mikey B representing the elites here? Is he swamp? I thought it was Digby.

I just don’t get who is elite these days. Must be some new code word, like “patriots”, that we use to identify our side or the other.

Very confusing, I am not sure who will I vote in 2020.

But I like that Trump guy. He was on “the apprentice”. I liked that show.

Exactly.

We used to dream of living in a swamp

Digby wrote:

morepork wrote:

gransoporro wrote:Hu???

Is Mikey B representing the elites here? Is he swamp? I thought it was Digby.

I just don’t get who is elite these days. Must be some new code word, like “patriots”, that we use to identify our side or the other.

Very confusing, I am not sure who will I vote in 2020.

But I like that Trump guy. He was on “the apprentice”. I liked that show.

Exactly.

We used to dream of living in a swamp

Flush 10-15 times. It has to make it onto Facebook.