May 2, 2019 6:05 AM
Morning Reads – Thursday, May 2, 2019
Today is the National Day of Prayer.
Peaches
- State set to execute a man this evening.
- Plan to move USDA jobs, possibly to Georgia, pits Perdue against ally
- Georgia Finds Many Valid Complaints Against Health Insurers.
- Could Augusta leaders get into the medical marijuana business using city land?
- The past is a university, not a prison.
- “Criticism of Spaceport Officials Unwarranted.”
Jimmy Carter
- Even documents from the extraterrestrial world are sealed from the public.
- Permanent renewal of NSA law possible.
- Voters say Trump’s Twitter use could cost him reelection.
- US military stops releasing Afghanistan war information.
- Gillibrand Proposes Giving Every Voter $600 To Donate to Campaigns.
- Bernie’s Senior Economic Advisor Sees No Problem in Printing Unlimited Money.
Sweet Tea
About Author
Jessica Szilagyi
40 Comments
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
“Those making more than $1 million or 25 times the median salary of their employees—whichever is less—would finance Democracy Dollars with $60 billion in additional taxes over 10 years, according to Gillibrand’s plan.”
One possible solution would be for CEO’s to declare themselves as running for political office. Instead of receiving direct compensation from the stockholders, they could then receive campaign contributions……..
Half-baked ideas lead to half-baked solutions. It is not even 2020, and the silly season is already upon us.
Talk about half-baked ideas: How about the idea that a corporation has a right to free speech, and that since money is the same as free speech, can’t be regulated!
Right, Mr. B. the added benefit of running for office is you can’t be accused, investigated, arrested, indicted, convicted or incarcerated for any crime because that would be a political attack. Candidates and elected officials are beyond the reach of the law.
Are the Democrats just using their continuing focus on muller’s report just as a fundraising mechanism? If so, I guess it makes sense. Otherwise, logically it makes no sense. Muller found no collusion and Barr said there was no evidence to bring charges on obstruction. So, those two topics have no legal path forward. Unless this is a build up toward an impeachment action, I do not understand the political thinking of the Democrats. And Biden is the only viable choice to face Cheeto Mussollini. Every other of the 20 has no chance.
Fundraising? Because it worked so well for Benghazi and Hillary’s email server, why not? The evidence is clearly stated in Mueller’s report concerning obstruction, or attempting obstruction, as is the duty for Congress to bring charges as warranted against the president et al. It was never under Mueller’s authority to bring charges against a president, that was known from day one. It is up to Congress to take the legal path forward. The Senate sychophants will see to it no one touches the president, no matter how heinous the evidence may be, now or in the future.
Trump has lied about a lot of things, but one thing he was apparently right about:
“I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters.”
Well, what would you expect of King Cyrus? Or is it Queen Esther? I keep getting them confused re Trump.
Muller found no collusion
Please cite that finding in the report.
Barr said there was no evidence to bring charges on obstruction
Barr also said that he never looked any of the underlying evidence for the report. So it’s kind of hard to trust when he says there’s “no evidence” when he hasn’t even bothered to look at the evidence.
I do not understand the political thinking of the Democrats.
1) Congress is an separate and co-equal branch of the government with the power and responsibility to investigate and hold the Executive Branch to account. They’re just doing their jobs.
2) This issue is still a loser for Trump. Despite Barr’s attempts to get out in front of the report and shape the “no collusion, no obstruction” narrative, it hasn’t done anything to change Trump’s numbers. Their refusal to release a full, un-redacted version of a report that purportedly exonerates the President, makes them look guilty and the efforts the Trump Admin. is going to makes them look extra swampy.
And Biden is the only viable choice to face Cheeto Mussollini. Every other of the 20 has no chance.
Biden obviously has the ability to connect with the mythical “Obama-Trump” voters in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin. But I’ve had the chance to see Warren on the stump a few times and, I’ve got to tell you, she’s fantastic.
Actually there are several things going on here. First,there is still a degree of delusion among the democrat- media axis. Also, there is a good bit of Stacy Abramsism, ( sore loserism) here. But also, imo, they are preparing the field for the upcoming real bombshell. The Horowitz IG report along with the Barr investigation concerning the genesis of the democrat- media inspired coup attempt that just failed. The fact that elements of the intel community/fbi counter terrorism division along with high ranking members of the Obama DOJ were spying on American citizens for political purposes is a scandal of the highest order.
Oh, and Grindelwald, did you get that one little nugget yesterday from Barr’s testimony? The nugget concerting why Mueller did not indict on obstruction? Barr stated he asked Mueller, not once, but three times, if he wasn’t indicting due to the DOJ policy of not indicting a sitting president. According to Barr, Mueller stated that was not the reason .
If Mueller had the goods on him , he would have indicted.
As Senator Graham so eloquently stated, this is over.
( But the genesis investigation most certainly is not)
Barr stated he asked Mueller, not once, but three times, if he wasn’t indicting due to the DOJ policy of not indicting a sitting president. According to Barr, Mueller stated that was not the reason .
1) I’m not sure Barr said that.
2) If Barr did say that, then he lied to Congress (again).
Here’s an excerpt from page 213 of the Mueller Report:
“First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding “the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions” in violation of “the constitutional separation of powers.” Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations, see 28 U.S.C. § 515; 28 C.F .R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC’s legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction.”
Amazing the things you learn when you actually, you know, read the report.
You obviously did not actually watch much or any of Barr yesterday. There is NOTHING in what you just linked that states the DOJ policy was THE REASON Mueller did not indict. Aren’t you an attorney? Read what you posted a little bit closer.
Anyway, we will soon find out if “ Barr lied”. As Sen. Graham has sent a letter to Mueller specifically asking him if he disagreed with Barr’s recitation of events. Graham stated if Mueller disagrees with Barr, he will reopen the hearing and call Mueller to testify. So if we hear nothing from Mueller, that is tantamount to agreeing with Barr.
Oh, and when did Barr “ lie” to Congress the first time? I am hoping you are not referring to what Pelosi embarrassingly referred to this morning in her ignorant statement about Barr lying to Congressman Crist earlier. That was most certainly not a lie.
As to everything else you posted about the Fisa Warrant et al, I will just let IG Horowitz and AG Barr answer that question. I suggest you do the same.
The Mueller report literally states that the Special Counsel was not making a prosecutorial judgment because of DOJ policy. I cited the page number and bolded the pertinent portion for you.
If you think I’m wrong, point me to the page in the Mueller report that supports your position.
As for the FISA warrant stuff. I’ve actually worked on FISC issues. It is a subject area where I am incredibly confident I know more than you. You’ve acted incredibly confident there was malfeasance… prove it.
Another Mueller Report quote while you’re trying to find those cites that prove your point:
But the evidence does indicate that a thorough FBI investigation would uncover facts about the campaign and the President personally that the President could have understood to be crimes or that would give rise to personal or political concerns.
P. 76
You are delusional. Justice, law enforcement, and Intelligence agencies should always follow and investigate any criminal or foreign influence over candidates, elected officials, corporations, entities and individuals. It’s their job. Any candidate or elected official should welcome investigation or surveillance for protection and possible clearing of wrongdoing. The tired “political purposes” excuse to shut something down or stop checks and balances is just childish. So is your assertion that Mueller ever had any authority to indict a president. It has always fallen to Congress to bring hearings and possible charges.
This is the part where I point out that EVERY. SINGLE. JUDGE. that signed off on the Page FISA warrant and subsequent renewals was 1) appointed to the judiciary by a Republican President and 2) appointed to FISC by a Republican president.
That doesn’t even get into the whole thing about how the Justice Department obtained the initial FISA warrant with more evidence than just the Steele dossier. Nor does it even get into the whole thing about how getting a FISA renewal requires evidence of criminal conduct obtained FROM THE AUTHORIZED SURVEILLANCE.
You and I have been over this multiple times. Not once have you come armed with an iota of evidence to support the argument that there was no probable cause for the initial FISA warrant.
I appreciate the information you provide. It has benefit beyond the dining room chairs its ostensibly addressed to.
Spying? Because when you’re a Republican, your candidate’s campaign requesting foreign criminal intervention, delighting in it, sending the interveners information to be used to further assist the campaign, benefiting from it in an election, denying it ever happened, doing nothing to prevent it from happening again and lying again and again about it all makes a leader to be protected and revered.
For everyone else, it’s common treason, though not at the legal standard. (Legal treason is ethical. Barr couldn’t even answer in the affirmative that he thought hostile foreign power outreach to a campaign should be reported to US intelligence agencies without stammering and qualifying there there had to be a foreign intelligence involvement to do so in his opinion.
Sorry, dude. It’s on your permanent record…https://www.newser.com/story/274626/school-pooper-sues-police-for-releasing-mug-shot.html
The opposition to Barr will intensify exponentially in the coming months. Ever since he opined that Trump’s campaign was spied upon and that he had ongoing criminal probes regarding leaks, the opposition is appropriately worried of an investigation into the investigators.
Didn’t Devin Nunes already do that?
Yes, and he wound up with egg on his face as his decision to reveal the “truth” about the FISA applications wound up demonstrating that DOJ had demonstrated a heightened level of probable cause, on multiple occasions, to Republican judges, using evidence beyond just the Steele dossier, justifying the surveillance.
The Republican position appears to be this:
The judiciary, the Justice Department, the intelligence community, and law enforcement are all blatantly partisan and irreparably corrupt and they’ve organized in an attempt to overthrow Donald Trump as President of the United States.
Now the problem with that argument is that the judges who approved the FISA warrant and renewals were all appointed to the bench by Republicans and were all appointed to FISC by Republicans. Rod Rosenstein – Republican – signed off on those FISA warrant applications.
At the end of the day, the question for the American people is going to be this:
What’s more likely – there’s a massive conspiracy at all levels of government to take down Donald Trump – or – a guy with a history of shady behavior surrounded himself with equally sleazy operators and they may have committed some crimes.
Smh. Pope, Benevolus, noparty, Greg’s et al. You folks would do better by reading/watching a bit more Fox news/ Wall Street Journal, and a bit less of the democrat- media axis.
One of the true journalists in this debacle has been Kim Strassel of the WSJ. You folks won’t like her. But she has been SPOT ON for 18 months. She has nailed this sucker from the jump.
Which brings me to this Grindelwald. I will not link it. But you need to read her column today. But beware. You are really not gonna like it. You will prolly attack it and her. But you cannot change the fact that she has aced this thing, while abc,nbc,cbs,cnn,wash post, ny times have whiffed. Yes they have whiffed. That’s why you guys are so shell shocked about Mueller’s findings.
I am betting Strassel has the goods yet again.
I subscribe to and read WSJ. I’ll look for the article. However, I’ll avoid the nut-wing media axis of “FauxNews” et al thank you.
I liked Adanm Schiff’s tweet:
Ever wonder what happened to the “counter report” Rudy Giuliani said he would issue after Mueller’s own report came out?
Apparently, it was only four pages long.
And Barr released it for him.
Adam Schiff??? Really? Embarrassing.
“You folks would do better to watch programming that shares my biases and viewpoints.”
Spoken like a true beta.
Kim Strassel is an opinion columnist. She is not dealing in objectivity. I’d also add that she isn’t a lawyer and, as a result, has been incredibly off the mark on a number of topics throughout Russia-gate. I’ll go into further detail if you want, but her “legal hot takes” are depressingly bad.
My encouragement to you (and to everyone) is to actually read primary sources. That’s what I’m citing to. The FISA applications and the Mueller report are out there and publicly available for you to consume at your leisure. I’m happy to answer questions on redaction codes, FISA process, etc. if you’ve got them. But you’re a lot better off if you start getting your news from the source instead of having it chewed up and regurgitated to you by the empty-headed heir to the Swanson Frozen Dinners fortune.
The problem was aptly defined by Trump himself when he told you that he could commit murder in the middle of fifth Avenue and not lose a single vote. Trump evangelists will not read anything that might contradict Trump’s gospel.
The Mueller report provides clear evidence of obstruction. His report did not find collusion that was indictable. We all know Trump, Don Jr, Jared and others colluded with Russian because they did it in plain sight.
So, Grinde, what are you gonna say when Horowitz and Barr end up agreeing with her?
Horowitz isn’t going to wind up agreeing with her.
The first FISA application disclosed the political etiology of the dossier and relied on a host of evidence outside of it. (I’d also note that the portion of the dossier it did cite to – that the Russian government was attempting to interfere in the election with the goal of helping elect Donald Trump – has been confirmed by Mueller’s investigation). Subsequent FISA renewals were obtained with evidence collected from the surveillance. Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of how FISC operates knows this is the GOP tilting at windmills.
Ok, it’s an opinion piece “For Fear of William Barr”. I always take opinion columns as just that. Her swooning over potential Barr investigations has not been seen since Benghazi or Hil’s email server. I love the is quote,”We have to stop using the criminal-justice process as a political weapon,” Mr. Barr said Wednesday. That is almost as hilarious as Mitch McConnell’s opinion article whining about Democrats obstructing nominations for positions with the current administration. Ms. Strassel also conveniently hides the irony of the Republican funded Steele Dossier, which now, is somehow tainted once weaponized by Democrats. I’m not attacking her or her “opinion”, just reacting. I’ll gladly read more of her articles.
Both sides of the “media axis” are guilty of presenting far too much opinion as “news” and some blatantly create lies and present them as fact. This leads to the current “opinion” that certain media are allegedly crying in the corner because their oft repeated view didn’t pan out. Sour grapes, eventual everyone will eat with a side order of cold crow.
The real story for both political media sides should be outrage over the constant hypocrisy from our elected officials and Congress. Dirty tricks are only good when they benefit your team. When the tables are turned, cry foul and call it a “partisan attack”. Which of course, always stops anything. NOT. End of my opinion.
Not even gonna respond to your ignorance except to call you out on one big flat lie.
The Steele dossier was funded by the Democrats. Period.
Quit lying.
In October 2015, the Washington Free Beacon – a conservative political website – initially hired Fusion GPS to provide general opposition research on Donald Trump. The Free Beacon stopped its backing in May 2016.
The Clinton campaign and the DNC separately hired Fusion GPS in April 2016.
So your assertion that the Trump-Russia dossier was “funded by the Democrats” is, at best, partially true.
I’d also note, John McCain – at the encouragement of Lindsey Graham – was the one who gave the dossier to the FBI in December 2018. By that point, counterintelligence investigations were already underway into possible links between the Trump campaign/Trump Organization and the Russian government.
If you don’t even understand the timeline of events, why should any of us lend any credence to anything you say.
You got nothing . I was not “ partially true” . I was TOTALLY accurate. The conservative group used Fusion PRIOR to Chris Steele being contracted. They were long gone from dealing with Fusion by the time Steele came on board. He was funded totally by the Democrats,
Do better Pope.
Fusion GPS was conducting opposition research that was initially funded by a conservative group looking into Trump’s relationship with Russia, among other things. Steele was brought on to contribute to Fusion’s ongoing investigation. So I’m a little confused as to what you find objectionable? Just Steele’s portion? Or is it the notion of opposition research to begin with?
Something you’re conveniently ignoring, by the way, is the fact our intelligence agencies, our allies’ intelligence agencies, and now the Special Counsel have all verified the central conclusion of Fusion/Steele’s report: the Russian government was engaging in efforts to undermine the US election with the intention of electing Donald Trump and the Trump campaign was content to benefit from their efforts.
It’s also worth noting that the FBI briefed the Trump campaign way back in August of 2016 about Russia’s efforts to interfere in the election (this is around the same time when Manafort was passing polling data to a guy Mueller has identified as a Russian asset). The Trump campaign had advance freaking warning that Russia would try to infiltrate his campaign and they did absolutely nothing to stop it.
Russia hacked American citizens. Russia hacked one of our country’s two biggest political parties. It did so because it vastly preferred Donald Trump to Hillary Clinton. This was a coordinated effort by the Russian government to engage in cyberwarfare against the United States and, at best, the current President of the United States shrugged his shoulders and did nothing to report this to the appropriate intelligence and law enforcement agencies. That you’re willing to overlook it because it “owns the libs” is galling to me.
While we’re all speculating about plot twists. Who knows if Russia only hacked one political party? Wouldn’t it be special if we found out they hacked the Republican party? and what do they have?
This is now laughable. You folks are now in full gaslight mode. That’s all you got.
I will make this simple. It is called the “ Steele dossier” because, wait for it, it was concocted by Christopher Steele. No conservative or gop group had ANYTHING to do with Steele or his dossier. They did not fund it. The Democrats funded Steele and his dossier. Period. This is not debatable.
If you are actually this misinformed, rather than just gaslighting, you are making my previous point about you folks being ensconced in you leftist democrat media bubble. And you folks actually mock Fox News! Laughable.
I am now realizing while most of the right thinking posters have left this site. You leftists are patently unable to engage in facts.
AM. Too busy name calling to even read when I concede one of your points? You can get stuck on labels and even suck me into your petty vortex of using similar taunts. I find it difficult that SOME people on this site are stuck labeling people into ill defined groups and whining about imagined beliefs of said derogatorily defined groups. Sadly that is also the crux of our discussions here about the news media. Too much opinion and not enough relative reporting of events and facts. There is a place for both opinion media and news media. It’s stupid when people won’t bother to understand the difference. It’s deplorable when any media tricks the sheeple into believing lies as news and facts.
I mean, if he can’t be bothered to read the FISA apps, or the IG reports, or the Mueller report, why should we assume he’s gonna read the comments. He’s aggressively ignorant of competing information.
Even if I concede the pedantic argument, it doesn’t negate the reality that much of the Steele dossier has been corroborated. The lack of a pee tape and the source of funding doesn’t undo the definitive truth: the Russian government was engaging in organized hacking and espionage activities to help Donald Trump win and was actively attempting to work with the campaign or close affiliates of Trump to coordinate efforts.
If your wife has photos of you cheating, it’s no defense to tell the judge that the photos were taken by a private investigator she hired.
I have a post waiting moderation. Probably due to links in response to your comment. The point is… some media point out the Steele dossier began with the Conservative funded research, other not so much. It’s a matter of which press did proper research or just copy-paste-and-sloppy-edited the facts.
RE: Health Insurance Complaints.
Here is my experience with filing a complaint with the Insurance Commissioner (IC).
Send complaint to IC office.
IC office does not read complaint.
IC office forwards complaint to Insurer.
Insurer’s lawyers send response to IC.
IC does not read response.
IC office does not investigate.
IC forwards lawyer’s response to consumer.
IC does no followup of circumstances, policy facts or events in complaint.
End of action by IC office.