All Things Trump: Is it over yet?

[Brian Peacock]

'King Troll.

[Animavore]

Last surviving prosecutor at Nuremberg trials says Trump's family separation policy is ‘crime against humanity’

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... YwaDlHJvHw

"Never forget", they said. But forget they did.

[Animavore]

[Forty Two]

Last surviving prosecutor at Nuremberg trials says Trump's family separation policy is ‘crime against humanity’

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... YwaDlHJvHw

"Never forget", they said. But forget they did.

What's this old man smoking? He said, “the lamp went out when [Trump] said no immigrants allowed unless they meet the rules that we laid down”. Every country in the world says "no immigrants allowed unless they meet the rules that we laid down."

And, he said "What could cause more great suffering than what they did in the name of immigration law?" Err, a ton of stuff. Like murder, rape, genocide, mass incarceration in concentration camps, stowing families in detention centers together like they do in France and Australia, you know - a ton of stuff can cause a lot more suffering than "not allowing children to be detained in detention centers with parents, but instead putting them Department of Health and Human Services custody, pending vetting and resolution of any immigration claims being made by the parents.

This isn't his first nutball commentary, though. In 2011, Ferencz wrote a letter which was published in the New York Times in which he said that the Obama Administration's "illegal and unwarranted execution - even of suspected mass murderers - undermines democracy." That was his response to the news that Osama Bin Laden had been killed.

So, excuse me if I don't put much stock in what this guy says. He obviously did the right thing 70 years ago when he was prosecuting Nazi war crimes by the SS's mobile death squads. But this guy's memory must be fading for him to ask "what could cause more great suffering than [temporarily separating 2,000 children from adults traveling with them]...?" The trial he prosecuted involved the SS murdering more than one million Jews and tens of thousands of "partisans", Romani, people with disabilities, political commissars, Slavs, homosexuals and others. I'm pretty sure that caused a bit more suffering, for fuck's sake.

[JimC]

Are the cars in Ani's post above liable to legal sanction? I'm pretty sure they would be in Oz (just because of the language stuff...)

[Brian Peacock]

You wouldn't want to pick your kids up from school in it.

[Tero]

[Tero]

Yeah they know Trump is a loser!

[Joe]

FBI director tells Congress he has no evidence of ‘spying’ on Trump campaign

FBI Director Christopher A. Wray said Tuesday that he would not call the investigation of Trump campaign advisers in 2016 “spying’’ — distancing himself from language used by President Trump and Attorney General William P. Barr.

“That’s not the term I would use,” Wray said in response to a question from Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) during a congressional hearing about the FBI’s budget.

Wray, who took over the bureau in 2017, urged lawmakers to wait for the findings from Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz, who is expected to issue a report in a month or two about the origins of the FBI investigation into the Trump campaign, and the law enforcement tools that were used, including foreign intelligence surveillance court orders.

The FBI director’s comments are in contrast to those made by Barr at a Senate hearing on April 10, when he said “spying did occur, yes,” calling it “a big deal.”

Don't tell Trump. He's in on the coup.

You may remember that our mutual friend has equivocated on 'spying' at some length - despite your clarification on the matter. Does anybody really see Barr's comment about spying as anything other than part of the President's cheap PR campaign to discredit the authority of the FBI, the validity of their investigatory role, and the legitimacy of their conclusions; to cast the FBI into shadow in order to illuminate the virtues of The Glorious Leader? I mean, who or what is the Attorney General actually representing here?

I'd actually forgotten that little bit of rambling, but I've seen so much of it from our friend that it all runs together over time.

I did find him writing, "If Trump is guilty of something, hang him. But, so far, I haven't seen any evidence, have you?" to be amusing in retrospect though.

[Brian Peacock]

Then again, you're easily amused.

We hear a lot about how those dreadful self-serving elites have eroded public trust and confidence is politicians and the political process etc, but I to me the double-dealing mealy-mouthed spin, of which Barr's public regurgitations are but the latest example, entirely reflects that elitism and is responsible not only for eroding public trust in politics but for eroding the general principles of truth, honesty and personal probity in public office. Barr after all is a civil servant not a politician - the role of the Attorney General should be to represent the truth in the public interest, not to obfuscated it for the president's benefit.

No doubt Barr is currently working on an 18-page, single-spaced memorandum outlining how and why the Attorney General, as the nation's most senior lawyer and the administrative head of the judiciary, is exempt from the compulsions of a Congressional subpoena - it seems to be his kind of speciality.

[Tero]

66FAF6D5-51FE-4A80-B45C-2D19731DCF3A.jpeg (83.12 KiB) Viewed 1100 times

[Tero]

Sooner or later, Trump's Watergate is coming. I would time it for Nov 2020.

There is yet another way to enforce a contempt citation, which is that the House can send its own officers to arrest and detain a noncompliant witness. But think about it. Picture the congressional sergeant-at-arms and his staff mounting a police operation against the armed security details that guard the attorney general or the Treasury secretary. Once again, good luck.

In short, as I said above, no clever technical trick will do the job. If Democrats try to fight the administration through procedural means alone, they’ll become mired in processes that will likely last well beyond the 2020 presidential election — which may be the Trump re-election. Instead, they have to do something harder: Mobilize public sentiment by refusing to “move on” from the Mueller report.

In judging the House Democrats’ options, it’s impossible not to think of Watergate, in which the House articles of impeachment against President Richard M. Nixon were substantially similar to the charges against Trump today: financial corruption, obstruction of justice, resisting lawful congressional subpoenas.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/a ... cna1003291

[Brian Peacock]

If the Attorney General's security detail resisted the congressional sergeant-at-arms wouldn't they be protecting him against The Law - in both senses of the word?

I wonder how constitutional literalists are taking this?

[Tero]

Must appropriate the sergeant at arms a full swat team. Tear gas and flash bang!

[Sean Hayden]

--and let CNN know when it's going down.