Will Atty. Gen. Barr shoot himself tonight? If he doesn't, he'll have to go before Congress and explain why he lied to the Senate while under oath.
I don't expect he will shoot himself. That would require self-respect.
On a more interesting front, Sen. Cory Booker, candidate for the democratic nomination for president, has called for eliminating the plutocratic preference for capital gains in paying federal taxes.
RtO has already explained why this is the proper thing to do, but it does not correct the impolitic and unjust transfer of wealth over the past many decades. In order to have that more perfect union the Founders spoke about, it wil be necessary to undo the plutocratic preference.
One way to go about this is to form a monte di pieta (mountain of piety) --as the Venetians called called it -- which is a forced loan from the rich for the benefit of the state. It worked well for the Serene Republic although I have no more expectation that it will be put into effect than I do that Barr will find self-respect and shoot himself. It's still an excellent idea.
It was used to raise money to protect the Venetian Empire from the attacks of the Ottoman Turks and while it did not ultimately preserve the empire, it saved it for many years.
One of the things I like about a monte di pieta is that the mulcting was done in the form of interest-bearing bonds. After about 100 years the republic redeemed the bonds at a paltry eight ducats per hundred with no interest, but it did recognize them as a liability of the fisc. Better yet, to forestall what today we call vulture capitalists, if the bond was no longer held by the family to whom it was originally issued, the republic bought them in at two ducats.
Will Atty. Gen. Barr shoot himself tonight? If he doesn't, he'll have to go before Congress and explain why he lied to the Senate while under oath.
ReplyDeleteNo.
And he didn't.
But keep spinning your virulent conspiracy theories.
Sen. Cory Booker, candidate for the democratic nomination for president, has called for eliminating the plutocratic preference for capital gains in paying federal taxes.
ReplyDeleteRtO has already explained why this is the proper thing to do
Then give us the link.
You're right, he didn't explain why he lied but he got pantsed by Mazie Hirono. And I was right. Barr lacks self-respect
ReplyDeleteHarry, I have an idea.
ReplyDeleteNow that you have Barr's summary of the investigation, and the investigation itself, using actual specifics -- after all, they are available -- explain exactly how Barr got it wrong.
Oh, and Hirono is loathsome. Denunciations absent evidence -- something you are very good at -- should arouse moral ire in everyone who isn't a progressive zealot.
[Harry:] RtO has already explained why this is the proper thing to do
ReplyDelete[Skipper:] Then give us the link.
Link not forthcoming.
Reminds me of you claiming all the times you had savaged Thomas Sowell.
All manner of searches returned [crickets].
As numerous commenters have pointed out -- so I can restate it -- Barr testified that Mueller told him that the reason he did not make a recommendation on obstruction was not the OLC guidance about whether a president can be indicted. See p.1 of the Mueller report.
ReplyDeleteBarr testified that Mueller told him that the reason he did not make a recommendation on obstruction was not the OLC guidance about whether a president can be indicted. See p.1 of the Mueller report.
ReplyDeleteAre you kidding me, is that it?
Although I'm not at all sure what it is, because I just took a look at page 1 of the Mueller report, and don't see anything remotely resembling what you have written.
So, now that I have so thoughtfully provided you a link to the report itself, how about taking a few seconds to do a bit of copy and paste so we can all see exactly what you are talking about.
Shouldn't take you more than a few seconds. Although the last time I tried to get a direct reference, you spent a hundred more times more effort in whingeing than doing so would have taken.
And you never did.
I'm betting you won't here, either.
No, that isn't all, there is much more, but that oe amuses because it reveals Barr to e a moron as well as a corrupt shyster
ReplyDeleteSo, in other words, your response is a complete fact void, as any more will continue to be.
ReplyDeleteMuch easier to quote the report, should there actually be any quotes in the report to substantiate your position.
There aren't.
Of course, you could prove wrong.
You won't.
Caution: herein lie actual facts.
ReplyDeleteHard to quote the report on such subjects as Barr's claim that a president can lawfully shut down an investgation if he feels he is innocent.
ReplyDeleteThe report says nothing wither about his lie when Harris asked him whether the president or his minions had asked him to open an enemies list investigation.
But keep up with the Fox and friends talking points; you just expose yourself
Hard to quote the report on such subjects as Barr's claim that a president can lawfully shut down an investgation if he feels he is innocent.
ReplyDeleteI have an idea. Give us a direct quote where Barr says that, and why, in his own words, he says that.
Until then, which will be forever, I'll bet you are blowing it out your hat.
Also noted: ad hominem attacks are the sure sign of a bankrupt argument.
ReplyDeleteRead 'em and weep: http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/05/barr-its-not-obstruction-of-justice-if-obstruction-works.html
ReplyDeleteLet's start with this para:
ReplyDeleteThis argument stacks several astonishing assumptions atop each other to produce a perverse conclusion. First, Trump could not possibly know that an investigation was unfounded, because it covered his entire campaign. Indeed, his first attempt to obstruct the inquiry came on behalf of Michael Flynn. Trump did not and could not know everything Flynn had done. He claims not to know much about the various contacts with Russia made by his subordinates, including the Trump Tower meeting. So the whole premise that Trump could know the investigation was groundless is not even a theoretically plausible description of his motives.
It is pure bollocks between carriage returns. Trump could very well, indeed, know the investigation was unfounded, because its predicate was that vaporous dossier over which you progs so mindlessly slobbered.
He also knew the investigation was groundless, because it had no legal predicate.
Second, Mueller did not say Trump was innocent, and nothing about the report concludes he or his subordinates were “falsely accused.” The report simply notes Mueller did not establish crimes at the level of certainty needed to prove them in a court of law.
Earth to Jonathan Chait, if you cannot establish in a court of law that an activity was a crime, then the consequence is, by definition, innocence. In the US, anyway. Collectivists have a different approach.
And the rest of it is equally vaporous nonsense. The Mueller investigation had unlimited access to executive branch personnel and documents. Trump's ranting about a facially bogus investigation does not constitute obstruction absent actual acts.
It is singularly astonishing that the result of this Mueller investigation was bloody obvious from the outset -- I'll bet I said as much in a comment thread here -- yet progs flogged that poor horse for all they were worth.
Then two and a half years later, it's all a bunch of never mind.
Oh, and epic political corruption in the upper reaches of the FBI, CIA, and Obama DOJ.
About which, I am quite certain, you will say nothing.
Because you are a zealot.
It was a counterintelligence investigation; even if Trump was himself not involved, he could not know that no one else was -- and, in fact, many of his associates were involved.
ReplyDeleteTake a pill. The investigation began before the dossier existed, so calm yourself. A timeline of events -- available on the interwebs -- will assist you.
Furthermore, some of the counterintel events occurred after the dossier was completed.
Take a pill. The investigation began before the dossier existed, so calm yourself. A timeline of events -- available on the interwebs -- will assist you.
ReplyDeleteThat from a publication that hates Trump.
Earth to Jonathan Chait, if you cannot establish in a court of law that an activity was a crime, then the consequence is, by definition, innocence. In the US, anyway. Collectivists have a different approach.
ReplyDeleteHow about you start there.
Unless, of course, you are happy with guilty until proven innocent.
Oh, by the way, for those of you not keeping up with timelines, if this was only a CI investigation, then it would have ended two months after it started.
Which is when it found there was no there there.
It wasn't only a counterintel investigation. There were indictments, convictions. That's what happens when you open an investigation; you learn stuff. Please try to keep up
ReplyDeleteHarry, the indictments and convictions (ignoring the pointless ones against Russians) were for actions completely unrelated to the "counterintel" investigation, and would never been an issue, save for the investigation.
ReplyDeleteWhich was fraudulent to its core.
Just like you to focus on irrelevant trivialities, while completely ignoring the elephant in the room.
Oh, and if you mentioned it, I missed it. So you are now in favor of guilty until proven innocent?
Since the investigation found what it was premised on, it cannot have been fraudulent, could it? My copy of the report is titled 'Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election.'
ReplyDeleteSince the investigation found what it was premised on, it cannot have been fraudulent, could it?
ReplyDeleteIt was fraudulent, through and through.
Which, if you weren't such a hack, you'd have seen from the outset.
There are a great many people who belong in prison -- all of them your people.