Good, but short, interview about the Barr testimony today. If anyone wants to look it up on youtube later.
Trump is very pro-choice...he said. Very short clip.
About 18:40 he talks about business agreements to keep workers bound, to suppress wages. People in the working class being required to have hundreds of hours of training to do basic work. Unnecessary hoops to jump through for the working people. Min. wage should be $15.
This is NOT criticism of Biden in any way, but a real question.
Biden has great appeal in the Rust Belt. PA, MI, WI. But if enough of them voted for Trump because of jobs lost, bad economies, trade deals, how is it that Biden still has appeal there, when he was part of the administration that those guys blamed for their woes? Part of the administration that worked on trade deals?
He DOES have appeal in that area of the country. Is it possible that the reasons some went for Trump was for other things than economy and jobs? Or is it that Russia targeted those states? (I personally think Russia targeted PA.)
I was reminded today of the following:
In 1976, Reagan challenged incumbent President Gerald Ford in a bid to become the Republican Party's candidate for president. Ford won.
I, like others, have concerns about Biden's prior two runs before. I would think a candidate learns a few things each time he runs. Also, there are just circumstances that come together against a win for a particular candidate, through no fault of his own. Let's face it, no one had a serious chance against Obama.
I'll be paying close attention to the debates. His announcement by video, although unusual, was perfect, IMO. He presented himself with the seriousness that this time in history deserves. The camera closed in on him, as if he were speaking one on one. You could see his eyes as he spoke of what could happen with a second term by Trump.
I can't wait for the debates to start in June.
By J. W. Verret, Professor of law at George Mason University, Antonin Scalia Law School
I was a Trump transition staffer, and Ive seen enough. Its time for impeachment.
Lets start at the end of this story. This weekend, I read Special Counsel Robert Muellers report twice, and realized that enough was enoughI needed to do something. Ive worked on every Republican presidential transition team for the past 10 years and recently served as counsel to the Republican-led House Financial Services Committee. My permanent job is as a law professor at the George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School, which is not political, but where my colleagues have held many prime spots in Republican administrations.
In time, my work for the transition became awkward. I disagreed with Trumps rhetoric on immigration and trade. I also had strong concerns about his policies in my area of financial regulation. The hostility to Russian sanctions from the policy team, particularly from those members picked by Paul Manafort, was even more unsettling.
I wasnt very good at hiding my distaste. We parted ways in October amicably; I wasnt the right fit.
I wanted to share my experience transitioning from Trump team member to pragmatist about Trump to advocate for his impeachment, because I think many other Republicans are starting a similar transition. Politics is a team sport, and if you actively work within a political party, there is some expectation that you will follow orders and rally behind the leader, even when you disagree. There is a point, though, at which that expectation turns from a mix of loyalty and pragmatism into something more sinister, a blind devotion that serves to enable criminal conduct.
The Mueller report was that tipping point for me, and it should be for Republican and independent voters, and for Republicans in Congress. In the face of a Department of Justice policy that prohibited him from indicting a sitting president, Mueller drafted what any reasonable reader would see as a referral to Congress to commence impeachment hearings.
This is a very compelling article. I hope he's right that "many other Republicans are starting a similar transition." I wonder if he means politicians or voters.
The latest activities by House Oversight, Intelligence, and Foreign Affairs committees.
Investigations of Russian election interference (snip)
Security Clearance Subpoenas (snip)
Three Census Subpoenas (snip)
Agencies Failure to Comply with Border Separation Subpoenas (snip)
So the obstruction case...Mueller stated the guideline of the OLC of the DOJ is that a sitting President can't be indicted, so that's why he doesn't recommend that. But he says he doesn't reach a conclusion either way as to whether Trump obstructed justice. (the female expert talks about this)
As I recall, Barr's summary specifically said that it was not because Mueller couldn't indict that Mueller didn't reach a conclusion about obstruction. Maybe I'm remembering incorrectly, but that's what I recall.
Profile InformationGender: Do not display
Member since: Sat Feb 10, 2007, 12:29 PM
Number of posts: 37,648