Welcome!

Welcome to our community forums, full of great people, ideas and excitement. Please register if you would like to take part.

This is extra text with a test link..

Register Now

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

President Trump

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by SeanAvery2point0 View Post

    It is Trump's DOJ that rejected his appeal.

    I.e. this looks like Trump getting payback against Andy, because former Obama and Clinton counsel was recently acquitted on similar charges.
    its a Trump appointee who is deciding if charges will be pressed against McCabe. But Craig's trial was similar to Manafort's or Page in regards to Ukraine. I don't see them as related. Mueller recommended charges against Craig as I recall.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Bern View Post

      The DOJ is supposed to be non partisan, glad you agree that Trump is pulling the strings at the DOJ. Another example of him not upholding the constitution and more grounds for impeachment.
      No different than Eric "Obama's wingman" Holder.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by SeanAvery2point0 View Post

        No different than Eric "Obama's wingman" Holder.
        We shall see, Holder and Obama were friends, still are. Overall I think Holder did a good job as AG.
        I think prosecuting McCabe is perhaps overkill. He was fired and lost a good portion of his pension. A jury in Washington might not see the case against him like a prosecutor. I doubt McCabe will have any issues with finding good representation. If the judge opens it up to show malicious intent on the side of the prosecution, they better have case histories to show equal offences have been equally persued. Juries frown upon malicious prosecutions. So I actually look forward to seeing what happens.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by SeanAvery2point0 View Post

          No different than Eric "Obama's wingman" Holder.
          I would say completely different. Barr's reputation will be in tatters for his defence of Trump. His behaviour has tarnished the DOJ in misrepresenting the Mueller report to the Congress, the Senate and the American people. What in particular did Holder do? I never heard his name mentioned in a negative light until you brought him up.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Bern View Post

            The DOJ is supposed to be non partisan, glad you agree that Trump is pulling the strings at the DOJ. Another example of him not upholding the constitution and more grounds for impeachment.
            Non partisan in decision making but few are. The AG is appointed by the president so they usually have the same agenda. Bobby Kennedy served at JFK's AG. I think lawmakers hope that the WH doesn't try to influence decisions like the Saturday Night Massacre. But even that is debatable.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Bern View Post

              I would say completely different. Barr's reputation will be in tatters for his defence of Trump. His behaviour has tarnished the DOJ in misrepresenting the Mueller report to the Congress, the Senate and the American people. What in particular did Holder do? I never heard his name mentioned in a negative light until you brought him up.
              His views on Holder can be found here.
              https://www.torontogolfnuts.com/foru...trump/page1097

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Bern View Post

                I would say completely different. Barr's reputation will be in tatters for his defence of Trump. His behaviour has tarnished the DOJ in misrepresenting the Mueller report to the Congress, the Senate and the American people. What in particular did Holder do? I never heard his name mentioned in a negative light until you brought him up.
                Holder was held in contempt of Congress for refusing to turn over documents to the House regarding the fast and furious scandal...

                patiently waiting for you to explain how Barr being held in contempt by a partisan Democrat held House has tarnished the DOJ, but it was different when it happened to Holder because it was a partisan move by a GOP controlled House....
                Last edited by SeanAvery2point0; Sep 12, 2019, 07:33 PM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by SeanAvery2point0 View Post

                  Holder was held in contempt of Congress for refusing to turn over documents to the House regarding the fast and furious scandal...

                  patiently waiting for you to explain how Barr being held in contempt by a partisan Democrat held House has tarnished the DOJ, but it was different when it happened to Holder because it was a partisan move by a GOP controlled House....
                  It is different and will be different when a judge rules. Holder was trying to protect inner deliberate documents so DOJ members can have open and honest debate about topics without them becoming prone to sepeonas. This has a long history of respect and protection in law. As we discussed before, the court ruled mostly in favour of Holders protection of those documents.
                  Barr and Wilbur are trying to prevent seeing who recommended the census question and who received and advocated for Heofelors agenda. Those documents are not deliberative as Heofelors was not a gov't official or lawyer. He was an outside consultant. I believe a judge will rule quite easily those documents have to be released. In the court cases outside of the house investigations, judges have already ruled those documents will be allowed in evidence.
                  So while you see them as equal, I believe courts have already ruled they are not equal at all. Barr is delaying the release because the DOJ and DOC both relied on an outside consultant who agenda can easily be viewed as trying to minimize the power of minority votes. That's racist in many people's eyes.

                  Comment


                  • Holder had every right to withhold the documents he did as they were internal DOJ docs. Even Sessions wouldn't release the majority of them. Barr on the other hand communicated his position on covering for Trump with he was awarded with the position of AJ. At any rate it does little to further your defense of Trump.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Bern View Post
                      Holder had every right to withhold the documents he did as they were internal DOJ docs. Even Sessions wouldn't release the majority of them. Barr on the other hand communicated his position on covering for Trump with he was awarded with the position of AJ. At any rate it does little to further your defense of Trump.
                      The DOJ made almost identical statements wrt not prosecuting Holder and Barr based on contempt citations.

                      DOJ on not prosecuting Holder: "across administrations of both political parties, the longstanding position of the Department of Justice has been and remains that we will not prosecute" in such a circumstance. "The department will not bring the congressional contempt citation before a grand jury or take any other action to prosecute the Attorney General,"

                      DOJ on not prosecuting Barr: “The Department of Justice’s long-standing position is that we will not prosecute an official for contempt of Congress for declining to provide information subject to a presidential assertion of executive privilege,”

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by SeanAvery2point0 View Post

                        The DOJ made almost identical statements wrt not prosecuting Holder and Barr based on contempt citations.

                        DOJ on not prosecuting Holder: "across administrations of both political parties, the longstanding position of the Department of Justice has been and remains that we will not prosecute" in such a circumstance. "The department will not bring the congressional contempt citation before a grand jury or take any other action to prosecute the Attorney General,"

                        DOJ on not prosecuting Barr: “The Department of Justice’s long-standing position is that we will not prosecute an official for contempt of Congress for declining to provide information subject to a presidential assertion of executive privilege,”
                        Other than the words not prosecute the statements are completely different and cite very different reasons as the events are completely different. Holder was proven correct and Barr's position has yet to be tested.

                        ​​​​​​

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by SeanAvery2point0 View Post

                          The DOJ made almost identical statements wrt not prosecuting Holder and Barr based on contempt citations.

                          DOJ on not prosecuting Holder: "across administrations of both political parties, the longstanding position of the Department of Justice has been and remains that we will not prosecute" in such a circumstance. "The department will not bring the congressional contempt citation before a grand jury or take any other action to prosecute the Attorney General,"

                          DOJ on not prosecuting Barr: “The Department of Justice’s long-standing position is that we will not prosecute an official for contempt of Congress for declining to provide information subject to a presidential assertion of executive privilege,”
                          That's not really the point. No surprise they will not pushed the contempt charges. Wilbur and Barr's cases in regards to withholding docs will see a judge, although it's expected they will delay as long as possible. As for Barr's case I'm not clear on just how much of this is related to unredeacted Mueller report and how involved he is with protecting DOJ officials and Wilbur on the census question. But I have a lot of confidence no judge will allow them to withhold docs on the census issue.
                          A summary of the many cases hoping to pry the docs from Wilburs hands are here.
                          https://www.brennancenter.org/analys...s-and-hearings
                          i think Wilbur resigns when the first case gets a final ruling.

                          Comment


                          • New budget deficit numbers are out.
                            https://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-bu...180511637.html
                            In rough numbers, spending is up 7%
                            Deficit for 2019 expected to come in around $1Trillion. (Increase of almost $200b over 2018)
                            (only time it's been higher was during financial crisis years)
                            Overall revenue is up 3.4%.
                            Personal income tax revenue up 2%.
                            Corporate revenues down 2%.
                            much of the revenue growth is actually tariffs. Not income tax.

                            Even with 0 increases in spending he would need about 6-7% economic growth over 6-8 years to close the gap to a balanced budget. Nobody thinks that possible in the US economy. But the key to the the tax cuts is that increased economic activity (capX) will result in higher returns. In two years that's not happening and not forecast to happen in the next two years. Next year's budget will only add to the deficit and no way Trump cuts spending in an election year.
                            So drastic cuts of around 10-15% of gov't spending are required to get to a balanced budget with 10 years or a significant increase in tax revenues. Economic growth will not deliver the tax revenues.
                            This is Reagonomics part II and it really didn't work the first time.


                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by pudubny View Post
                              New budget deficit numbers are out.
                              https://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-bu...180511637.html
                              In rough numbers, spending is up 7%
                              Deficit for 2019 expected to come in around $1Trillion. (Increase of almost $200b over 2018)
                              (only time it's been higher was during financial crisis years)
                              Overall revenue is up 3.4%.
                              Personal income tax revenue up 2%.
                              Corporate revenues down 2%.
                              much of the revenue growth is actually tariffs. Not income tax.

                              Even with 0 increases in spending he would need about 6-7% economic growth over 6-8 years to close the gap to a balanced budget. Nobody thinks that possible in the US economy. But the key to the the tax cuts is that increased economic activity (capX) will result in higher returns. In two years that's not happening and not forecast to happen in the next two years. Next year's budget will only add to the deficit and no way Trump cuts spending in an election year.
                              So drastic cuts of around 10-15% of gov't spending are required to get to a balanced budget with 10 years or a significant increase in tax revenues. Economic growth will not deliver the tax revenues.
                              This is Reagonomics part II and it really didn't work the first time.

                              Classic case of short term gain for long term pain. Trump keeps touting how strong the economy is, but doesn't highlight how much pain is ahead to pay for the short term boost via his tax cuts for the rich and corporate America (i.e. more rich people). I thought Republicans were supposed to be fiscal conservatives. Any moron (or in this case, stable genius) can spend like a drunken sailor in the short term. Ironic that Republicans are spending like socialists, except for the fact that the benefits of the spending are going to the rich individuals and corporations only.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by luv2kruz View Post

                                Classic case of short term gain for long term pain. Trump keeps touting how strong the economy is, but doesn't highlight how much pain is ahead to pay for the short term boost via his tax cuts for the rich and corporate America (i.e. more rich people). I thought Republicans were supposed to be fiscal conservatives. Any moron (or in this case, stable genius) can spend like a drunken sailor in the short term. Ironic that Republicans are spending like socialists, except for the fact that the benefits of the spending are going to the rich individuals and corporations only.
                                We can coin a new term (Maybe new) as Fiscal Corporate Socialists. As making sure the richest increase their wealth, it has to trickle down eventually as they will create more service related jobs as they need to maintain their 3rd, 4th or 5th homes. Then, Socialism isn't a bad word as it creates jobs, bigly guud! But they won't mention that those 3rd, 4th and 5th homes aren't in the US... Clever basturds!

                                Comment


                                Join The TGN Email List

                                Collapse

                                Recently Joined

                                Collapse

                                Topics: 172,421   Posts: 1,800,944   Members: 46,956   Active Members: 256
                                Welcome to our newest member, Str8downthepipe.

                                Today's Birthdays

                                Collapse

                                PGA Leaderboard

                                Collapse


                                TGN Sponsors

                                Working...
                                X