Flying Monkeys
By Nobody
11 Mar 2011 1:42 pm in No Holds Barred Political Forum
6 Mar 2020 11:59 am
6 Mar 2020 12:20 pm
https://twitter.com/PodSaveAmerica/stat ... 84544?s=09
Another campaign promise broken.
"Save Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security without cuts.
Have to do it," he said in his presidential campaign announcement speech.
6 Mar 2020 12:22 pm
Why are you so hysterical?Termin8tor » 06 Mar 2020 12:15 pm » wrote:Why are you censoring my posts, psycho?
6 Mar 2020 1:12 pm
Newly obtained documents show $157,000 in additional payments by the Secret Service to Trump properties.
President Trump’s company charged the Secret Service $157,000 more than was previously known — billing taxpayers for rooms at his clubs at rates far higher than his company has claimed, according to a new trove of receipts and billing documents released by the Secret Service.
Many of the new receipts were obtained by the watchdog group Public Citizen, which spent three years battling the Secret Service over a public-records request from January 2017.
When added to dozens of charges already reported by The Washington Post, the new documents show that Trump’s company has charged the Secret Service more than $628,000 since he took office in 2017.
The payments show Trump has an unprecedented — and still partially hidden — business relationship with his own government.
The full scope of that relationship is still unknown because the publicly available records are largely from 2017 and 2018, leaving huge gaps in the data.
The new documents include bills from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Fla., showing charges for 177 additional nightly room rentals in 2017, 2018 and 2019.
The rate was $396.15 per night per room, the receipts show.
In Bedminster, N.J., the new receipts also show that a rental arrangement that began in summer 2017 — in which Trump’s club charged the Secret Service $17,000 per month to rent a cottage near the president’s — continued in summer 2018 and for at least part of summer 2019.
That rate is unusually high for homes in the area, according to local rental listings.
Trump’s son Eric Trump, who is helping to run the Trump Organization while his father is in the White House, suggested in an interview last year with Yahoo Finance that the company charges a very low rate to federal employees accompanying the president.
“If my father travels, they stay at our properties for free — meaning, like, cost for housekeeping,” said Eric Trump, the company’s executive vice president.
Later in the interview, he said, “We charge them, like, 50 bucks.”
In response to questions from The Post about the Secret Service payments, Eric Trump has said the company charges the Secret Service “at cost” but declined to provide more details.
The rate charged to the Secret Service at Mar-a-Lago was more than double what the club charged another government customer, a visiting official from the Department of Veterans Affairs, according to VA records.
Asked about the spending, the Secret Service responded with a brief statement.
“In the execution of our protective mission, the Secret Service balances operational security with judicious allocation of resources,” a spokeswoman said.
The White House declined to comment.
Donald Trump still owns his company but says he has given day-to-day control to his eldest sons.
The Secret Service accompanies the president and his family members wherever they go, and while on protective duty its agents are exempt from federal limits on hotel room spending.
But there appears to be no requirement that presidents must charge the Secret Service.
In fact, most recent presidents and vice presidents have allowed the Secret Service to use space on their properties free, according to their spokesmen or presidential library staff.
Before Trump, the one recent exception had been then-Vice President Joe Biden, who charged the Secret Service $2,200 a month to rent a cottage at his home in Delaware.
A Biden spokesman said that was a fair market rate.
Biden’s payments were formalized in a federal contract and listed in public databases of federal spending.
The Secret Service’s payments to Trump’s companies have been made through federal credit cards, not formal contracts.
They are not listed in public databases.
The Post and watchdog groups including Public Citizen have assembled some details of the Secret Service’s spending at Trump properties through public-records requests, one receipt at a time.
The documents reviewed by The Post so far have included charges for more than 590 nights in rooms at Trump properties.
At Mar-a-Lago, the rate for the Secret Service started at $650 per night, according to people who have seen unredacted versions of the receipts from early 2017 viewed by The Post.
The rate then fell to $396.15 per night by fall 2017, other receipts show.
At Bedminster, the monthly cottage rent worked out to $566.64 per night.
The Post has not yet found any instance where a Trump property charged the Secret Service $50 per night for a room or any rate under $100 per night.
Public Citizen submitted the public-records request with the Secret Service on Jan. 6, 2017 — before Trump took office.
They asked for records related to the cost of Secret Service agents accompanying Trump on trips to his private homes.
After three years of legal wrangling, the Secret Service last month sent Public Citizen 60 pounds of documents, the group said.
The Secret Service had produced thousands of pages of receipts, mostly related to Trump’s visits to two properties — Mar-a-Lago and Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster — where he has spent a combined 219 days of his presidency.
The receipts were largely from 2017 and 2018.
Trump has spent 355 days — 30 percent of his presidency so far — visiting his own properties, according to a Washington Post tally.
Robert Weissman, the president of Public Citizen, said the group was happy to get the documents — but dismayed that most of them were so old.
“That is not how the process is supposed to work,” Weissman said.
“Responding in 2020 with information from 2017 and 2018 is not okay.”
The Secret Service said in a statement that it adheres to all rules governing public-records requests.
Some of the documents were for bills from the clubs.
Around Christmas 2017, for instance, the Secret Service paid for 57 nights in Mar-a-Lago’s guest rooms, for a total bill of $22,580.
On many bills from Mar-a-Lago, the $396.15 nightly rate for these rooms was listed as “Room Rate at Cost.”
The Trump Organization has not explained how it calculates that cost or why that figure differs so widely from Eric Trump’s public claim that the cost was “like 50 bucks.”
Hotel industry experts say that the cost of housekeeping for a luxury hotel room is typically $40 to $50 per night.
Could the cost be as high as $396.15 at Mar-a-Lago?
“No. That’s not possible,” Diego Bufquin, a professor at the University of Central Florida’s Rosen College of Hospitality Management told The Post this month.
“Let’s say that you use the best shampoos, the best soaps, the best conditioners, the best coffee,” Bufquin said.
“At the end of the day you may have something approaching $100, if you have the top products in the world in your guest room. . . . I’ve never seen variable costs per room sold at $400.”
Experts said that cleaning a room typically takes a housekeeper a half-hour and noted that — according to documents filed with the Labor Department — the starting salary for housekeepers at Mar-a-Lago is $11.17 per hour.
In a recent interview with a Fox News podcast, Eric Trump called a prior Post story on Secret Service payments to the Trump Organization “disgusting” and said that the company does not make a profit on these payments.
“I joke all the time that I would like nothing more than to never have another person from the government stay at one of our properties because it displaces a true paying guest,” he said.
Eric Trump did not respond to questions from The Post asking him to elaborate on his remarks in the interview.
It is difficult to estimate what Mar-a-Lago charges its nongovernment customers, as the club does not publish its room rates.
As a private club, the rooms are open only to guests of members, and even members are told to call and ask for price quotes.
But another receipt makes clear that $396.15 is not the lowest the club’s rates can go.
In April 2018, the chief of staff at the Department of Veterans Affairs, Peter O’Rourke, stayed overnight at Mar-a-Lago, according to a hotel bill obtained by ProPublica.
At the time, ProPublica reported, O’Rourke was visiting the club to meet with a Mar-a-Lago member and two associates who were unofficially advising the department.
O’Rourke was charged only $195.
That is the maximum rate a non-Secret Service government employee was permitted to spend on a hotel in the Palm Beach area under federal rules.
O’Rourke has since left VA and did not respond to requests for comment.
The Secret Service happened to be renting four rooms on the same night, other receipts show. Mar-a-Lago charged them $396.15 each — more than double O’Rourke’s rate.
In Bedminster, the receipts show that — as in 2017 — the club charged $17,000 a month for the “Sarazen Cottage.”
The monthly arrangement meant the Trump Organization company got paid by taxpayers, even when Donald Trump wasn’t at the club — or even in the country.
On June 12, 2018, for instance, Trump was in Singapore for a summit with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un.
Even with the president 9,500 miles away, the Secret Service still paid rent on the cottage in New Jersey.
A former government official with direct knowledge of Secret Service operations told The Post that because equipment was stored in the cottage, it could not be rented to other guests.
The official spoke on the condition of anonymity to preserve relationships in the administration.
The Post has now filed more than 60 public-records request of its own, seeking details about payments by the Secret Service, the State Department, the Defense Department and other agencies.
The House Oversight and Reform Committee has also asked the Secret Service for an accounting of its spending at Trump properties, but the service has not yet provided it.
“The Secret Service has a statutory duty to report its expenditures at Trump properties,” committee chairwoman Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.) said.
“And the incomplete record further underscores the need for transparency.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html
President Trump’s company charged the Secret Service $157,000 more than was previously known — billing taxpayers for rooms at his clubs at rates far higher than his company has claimed, according to a new trove of receipts and billing documents released by the Secret Service.
Many of the new receipts were obtained by the watchdog group Public Citizen, which spent three years battling the Secret Service over a public-records request from January 2017.
When added to dozens of charges already reported by The Washington Post, the new documents show that Trump’s company has charged the Secret Service more than $628,000 since he took office in 2017.
The payments show Trump has an unprecedented — and still partially hidden — business relationship with his own government.
The full scope of that relationship is still unknown because the publicly available records are largely from 2017 and 2018, leaving huge gaps in the data.
The new documents include bills from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Fla., showing charges for 177 additional nightly room rentals in 2017, 2018 and 2019.
The rate was $396.15 per night per room, the receipts show.
In Bedminster, N.J., the new receipts also show that a rental arrangement that began in summer 2017 — in which Trump’s club charged the Secret Service $17,000 per month to rent a cottage near the president’s — continued in summer 2018 and for at least part of summer 2019.
That rate is unusually high for homes in the area, according to local rental listings.
Trump’s son Eric Trump, who is helping to run the Trump Organization while his father is in the White House, suggested in an interview last year with Yahoo Finance that the company charges a very low rate to federal employees accompanying the president.
“If my father travels, they stay at our properties for free — meaning, like, cost for housekeeping,” said Eric Trump, the company’s executive vice president.
Later in the interview, he said, “We charge them, like, 50 bucks.”
In response to questions from The Post about the Secret Service payments, Eric Trump has said the company charges the Secret Service “at cost” but declined to provide more details.
The rate charged to the Secret Service at Mar-a-Lago was more than double what the club charged another government customer, a visiting official from the Department of Veterans Affairs, according to VA records.
Asked about the spending, the Secret Service responded with a brief statement.
“In the execution of our protective mission, the Secret Service balances operational security with judicious allocation of resources,” a spokeswoman said.
The White House declined to comment.
Donald Trump still owns his company but says he has given day-to-day control to his eldest sons.
The Secret Service accompanies the president and his family members wherever they go, and while on protective duty its agents are exempt from federal limits on hotel room spending.
But there appears to be no requirement that presidents must charge the Secret Service.
In fact, most recent presidents and vice presidents have allowed the Secret Service to use space on their properties free, according to their spokesmen or presidential library staff.
Before Trump, the one recent exception had been then-Vice President Joe Biden, who charged the Secret Service $2,200 a month to rent a cottage at his home in Delaware.
A Biden spokesman said that was a fair market rate.
Biden’s payments were formalized in a federal contract and listed in public databases of federal spending.
The Secret Service’s payments to Trump’s companies have been made through federal credit cards, not formal contracts.
They are not listed in public databases.
The Post and watchdog groups including Public Citizen have assembled some details of the Secret Service’s spending at Trump properties through public-records requests, one receipt at a time.
The documents reviewed by The Post so far have included charges for more than 590 nights in rooms at Trump properties.
At Mar-a-Lago, the rate for the Secret Service started at $650 per night, according to people who have seen unredacted versions of the receipts from early 2017 viewed by The Post.
The rate then fell to $396.15 per night by fall 2017, other receipts show.
At Bedminster, the monthly cottage rent worked out to $566.64 per night.
The Post has not yet found any instance where a Trump property charged the Secret Service $50 per night for a room or any rate under $100 per night.
Public Citizen submitted the public-records request with the Secret Service on Jan. 6, 2017 — before Trump took office.
They asked for records related to the cost of Secret Service agents accompanying Trump on trips to his private homes.
After three years of legal wrangling, the Secret Service last month sent Public Citizen 60 pounds of documents, the group said.
The Secret Service had produced thousands of pages of receipts, mostly related to Trump’s visits to two properties — Mar-a-Lago and Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster — where he has spent a combined 219 days of his presidency.
The receipts were largely from 2017 and 2018.
Trump has spent 355 days — 30 percent of his presidency so far — visiting his own properties, according to a Washington Post tally.
Robert Weissman, the president of Public Citizen, said the group was happy to get the documents — but dismayed that most of them were so old.
“That is not how the process is supposed to work,” Weissman said.
“Responding in 2020 with information from 2017 and 2018 is not okay.”
The Secret Service said in a statement that it adheres to all rules governing public-records requests.
Some of the documents were for bills from the clubs.
Around Christmas 2017, for instance, the Secret Service paid for 57 nights in Mar-a-Lago’s guest rooms, for a total bill of $22,580.
On many bills from Mar-a-Lago, the $396.15 nightly rate for these rooms was listed as “Room Rate at Cost.”
The Trump Organization has not explained how it calculates that cost or why that figure differs so widely from Eric Trump’s public claim that the cost was “like 50 bucks.”
Hotel industry experts say that the cost of housekeeping for a luxury hotel room is typically $40 to $50 per night.
Could the cost be as high as $396.15 at Mar-a-Lago?
“No. That’s not possible,” Diego Bufquin, a professor at the University of Central Florida’s Rosen College of Hospitality Management told The Post this month.
“Let’s say that you use the best shampoos, the best soaps, the best conditioners, the best coffee,” Bufquin said.
“At the end of the day you may have something approaching $100, if you have the top products in the world in your guest room. . . . I’ve never seen variable costs per room sold at $400.”
Experts said that cleaning a room typically takes a housekeeper a half-hour and noted that — according to documents filed with the Labor Department — the starting salary for housekeepers at Mar-a-Lago is $11.17 per hour.
In a recent interview with a Fox News podcast, Eric Trump called a prior Post story on Secret Service payments to the Trump Organization “disgusting” and said that the company does not make a profit on these payments.
“I joke all the time that I would like nothing more than to never have another person from the government stay at one of our properties because it displaces a true paying guest,” he said.
Eric Trump did not respond to questions from The Post asking him to elaborate on his remarks in the interview.
It is difficult to estimate what Mar-a-Lago charges its nongovernment customers, as the club does not publish its room rates.
As a private club, the rooms are open only to guests of members, and even members are told to call and ask for price quotes.
But another receipt makes clear that $396.15 is not the lowest the club’s rates can go.
In April 2018, the chief of staff at the Department of Veterans Affairs, Peter O’Rourke, stayed overnight at Mar-a-Lago, according to a hotel bill obtained by ProPublica.
At the time, ProPublica reported, O’Rourke was visiting the club to meet with a Mar-a-Lago member and two associates who were unofficially advising the department.
O’Rourke was charged only $195.
That is the maximum rate a non-Secret Service government employee was permitted to spend on a hotel in the Palm Beach area under federal rules.
O’Rourke has since left VA and did not respond to requests for comment.
The Secret Service happened to be renting four rooms on the same night, other receipts show. Mar-a-Lago charged them $396.15 each — more than double O’Rourke’s rate.
In Bedminster, the receipts show that — as in 2017 — the club charged $17,000 a month for the “Sarazen Cottage.”
The monthly arrangement meant the Trump Organization company got paid by taxpayers, even when Donald Trump wasn’t at the club — or even in the country.
On June 12, 2018, for instance, Trump was in Singapore for a summit with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un.
Even with the president 9,500 miles away, the Secret Service still paid rent on the cottage in New Jersey.
A former government official with direct knowledge of Secret Service operations told The Post that because equipment was stored in the cottage, it could not be rented to other guests.
The official spoke on the condition of anonymity to preserve relationships in the administration.
The Post has now filed more than 60 public-records request of its own, seeking details about payments by the Secret Service, the State Department, the Defense Department and other agencies.
The House Oversight and Reform Committee has also asked the Secret Service for an accounting of its spending at Trump properties, but the service has not yet provided it.
“The Secret Service has a statutory duty to report its expenditures at Trump properties,” committee chairwoman Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.) said.
“And the incomplete record further underscores the need for transparency.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html
6 Mar 2020 1:13 pm
Termin8tor » 06 Mar 2020 12:15 pm » wrote:
You are a LIAR and a GUTLESS COWARD running away from the FACTS AGAIN . This has been ANSWERED and you are a LIAR I debunk it and you just tell the lie AGAIN. I deleted the LIES and spin you repeated WITHOUT ADDRESSING THE FACTS TRAITOR
Mueller said he agreed with Barr's conclusions.
Then why did Mueller write a letter to Barr complaining that he MISREPRESENTED his report?
https://www.vox.com/2019/4/30/18524663/mueller-barr-letter-trump-russiaMueller to Attorney General Barr: You “did not fully capture” my report
For the soft-spoken special counsel, that is quite the statement.
It turns out that special counsel Robert Mueller was just as upset with Attorney General William Barr’s characterization of the Trump-Russia report — and the ensuing public discussion — as many Americans were.
On March 24, Barr released his
four-page summary of the special counsel’s report in which he said Mueller found no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. And while Mueller didn’t absolve President Donald Trump of an obstruction of justice charge, Barr did, saying he didn’t think the evidence the special counsel’s team provided met that standard.
But according to
multiple
reports, Mueller was unhappy with Barr’s synopsis, and the type of media coverage that synopsis prompted.
Days after the attorney general sent his summary to Congress,
Mueller wrote the Justice Department leadership to say that Barr’s letter “did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance” of the full report.
“There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations,” he continued. To rectify the situation,
Mueller recommended that Barr release the
full 448-page report’s introduction and executive summaries.
https://www.justsecurity.org/64441/a-side-by-side-comparison-of-barrs-vs-muellers-statements-about-special-counsel-report/A Side-by-Side Comparison of Barr’s vs. Mueller’s Statements about Special Counsel ReportComparison of Attorney General William Barr’s and Special Counsel Robert Mueller’sStatements about Special Counsel Report1. Evidence of conspiracyAdded analysis:Mueller’s statement is more explicit, in some respects, than what’s in the Report. He states that the bottom-line conclusion in Volume 1 is that there was “insufficient evidence” to bring a charge for conspiring with the Russians. That’s also very different from any suggestion that theinvestigation found “no evidence,” or that allegations against the president were proven false, or that the conspiracy with Trump campaign associates did not occur. What’s more, Mueller frames the issue importantly in terms of insufficient evidence to charge “a broader conspiracy.” That’s a significant way of framing the investigation’s scope and findings.Mueller“The first volume of the report details numerous efforts emanating from Russia to influence the election. This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign’s response to this activity, as well as our conclusion that there wasBarr (1) “f the president is being falsely accused, which the evidence now suggests that the accusations against him were false….”This is an entire article about how Muellers PUbLIC STATEMENTS contradict what Barr has said often DIRECTLY
Has Mueller expressed one single word of dissent in the many, many months since then?
YES a BUNCH as that ENTIRE ARTICLE SHOWS LIAR
Imbecile.
GUTLESS COWARD and TRAITOR ADDRESS the FACTS or STFU
6 Mar 2020 1:19 pm
Hey, he knew all of that before he was elected, but he still said that he would never cut SS, Medicare or Medicaid.Termin8tor » 06 Mar 2020 12:24 pm » wrote:Hey, let's let the entire country's economy collapse, like Greece's did, right psycho?Misty » 06 Mar 2020 12:20 pm » wrote:Another campaign promise broken.
"Save Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security without cuts.
Have to do it," he said in his presidential campaign announcement speech.
The US has between $100 and $200 trillion in unfunded liabilities.
What's your plan to prevent national bankruptcy?
IOW he lied.
You seem to be hysterical again.
6 Mar 2020 2:31 pm
Oh my gosh, what a massive scandal.Newly obtained documents show $157,000 in additional payments by the Secret Service to Trump properties.
You've got him this time for sure!
Your corrupt party is going to impeach him again I hope.
6 Mar 2020 2:38 pm
YES you are that is EXACTLY what you do LIAR and TRAITORTermin8tor » 06 Mar 2020 2:32 pm » wrote:I'm not the one citing Fake News sources day after day after day after day.
We've had the Russian Collusion Hoax.
NOT a hoax and you KNOW it you GUTLESS COWARD and TRAITOR. I have SHOVED the FACTS down yoru throat DOZENS of times and you have run away CRYING every time
https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/09/politics ... index.htmlThe Justice Department's inspector general found that the FBI properly opened its investigation into Russian election interference
The report released Monday by inspector general Michael Horowitz did not find "documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the decisions" to open investigations that initially focused on campaign advisers Carter Page, George Papadopoulos, Michael Flynn and former campaign chairman Paul Manafort.And the report goes on to say Trump, your GOD is a LIAR and the FBI did NOT spy on him
Then the FACTS show that they found PLENTY of dirty dealing WITH the Russians even if it was not enough to prosecute for conspiracy it was DEFINITLY enough to justify
investigation
https://www.factcheck.org/2017/06/timel ...July 2016,
the FBI began investigating the Russian government’s attempt to influence the 2016 presidential election, including whether President Donald Trump’s campaign associates were involved in those efforts.The START of the whole thing was a bunch of intelligence agencies like Estonia and Germany and Britian was telling OUR intelligence agencies that whenever they were spying on KNOWN and suspected Russian intelligence assets they kept hearing Trump campaign people
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... nks-russia
GCHQ first became aware in late 2015 of suspicious “interactions” between figures connected to Trump and known or suspected Russian agents, a source close to UK intelligence said. This intelligence was passed to the US as part of a routine exchange of information, they added.Over the next six months, until summer 2016, a number of western agencies shared further information on contacts between Trump’s inner circle and Russians, sources said.The European countries that passed on electronic intelligence – known as sigint – included Germany, Estonia and Poland.Australia, a member of the “Five Eyes” spying alliance that also includes the US, UK, Canada and New Zealand, also relayed material, one source said.Another source suggested the Dutch and the French spy agency, the General Directorate for External Security or DGSE, were contributors.It is understood that GCHQ was at no point carrying out a targeted operation against Trump or his team or proactively seeking information.
The alleged conversations were picked up by chance as part of routine surveillance of Russian intelligence assets. Over several months, different agencies targeting the same people began to see a pattern of connections that were flagged to intelligence officials in the US.Trump was getting advance notice from wikileaks about their dumps wikileaks was called by Trumps own pick for head of the CIA a hostile intelligence agency but Trump touted them at LEAST 100 times
https://www.vox.com/2019/4/19/18507743/ ...
Trumps campaign manager repeatedly gave a man he KNEW was connected to Russian Military Intelligence INTERNAL polling data and Manafort discussed their strategy for the midwest with him
https://www.newsweek.com/paul-manafort- .
The report noted that Manafort instructed his longtime colleague Rick Gates to provide Kilimnik with internal Trump campaign polling data and briefings on the campaign's strategies. For years, Manafort and Kilimnik worked together closely on political campaigns in Ukraine. Manafort even nicknamed Kilimnik his "Russian brain." The FBI has determined that Kilimnik, who was once a Russian military translator, has links to Russian intelligence services.
Sessions, Page, Manafort, Papadopolous, Jared, Don jr, Gates, Mcfarland ALL had contacts with Russians then LIED about them. Either you can cough up an innocent explanation for all that LYING or that alone justifies the investigation
The Trump campaign had more than 140 contacts with Russians the normal presidential campaign has ZERO
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... e=REGIWALLJan 26, 2019 -
Donald J. Trump and 18 of his associates had at least 140 contacts with Russian nationals and WikiLeaks, or their intermediaries
ADDRESS THE FACTS or STFU you GUTLESS COWARD
6 Mar 2020 2:39 pm
6 Mar 2020 2:51 pm
Now I know you're hysterical.Termin8tor » 06 Mar 2020 2:29 pm » wrote:I'm having a hilarious time frantically censoring my posts to protect your Fake Reality thread.
You're making even less sense than usual.
Not in this letter he didn't.Termin8tor » 06 Mar 2020 2:29 pm » wrote:Mueller said he agreed with Barr's conclusions.
Third paragraph:
6 Mar 2020 3:42 pm
Digging through the fine print?Termin8tor » 06 Mar 2020 2:55 pm » wrote:I'm not digging through the fine print of a letter that many conservative source have already refuted in detail.Misty » 06 Mar 2020 2:51 pm » wrote:Not in this letter he didn't.Termin8tor » 06 Mar 2020 2:29 pm » wrote:Mueller said he agreed with Barr's conclusions.
You're a **** riot.
It's basically a one page letter and I even cut out the pertinent paragraph for you, so there is nothing for you to dig through.
As usual you refuse to look at the actual facts and prefer to remain willfully ignorant.
Barr is a **** liar.Termin8tor » 06 Mar 2020 2:55 pm » wrote:And Barr testified about this matter.
A Bush appointed federal judge just said so.
You don't need to 'dig' through anything.
Just read the part on bold print.
A federal judge on Thursday strongly criticized Attorney General William Barr's disclosure of the Mueller report last year, calling early statements about special counsel Robert Mueller's conclusions "misleading."
In an order in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit seeking access to the unredacted report, U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton said Barr's action caused him "to seriously question whether Attorney General Barr made a calculated attempt to influence public discourse about the Mueller report in favor of President Trump."
Walton focused on Barr's initial statement — before the report was released in full — that Mueller's team did not find that anyone in the Trump campaign conspired with Russian efforts to meddle in the 2016 election.
The judge said Barr left out the fact that the report identified contacts between members of the Trump campaign and people connected with the Russian government.
Barr's "lack of candor," Walton wrote in a 23-page ruling in Washington, calls into question the credibility of Barr and the Justice Department in making redactions to the report.
For that reason, Walton ordered government lawyers to give him the complete report so he can evaluate whether the material was properly blacked out.
Barr has previously defended his handling of the report, including his decision to make its main conclusions public even before the full document was released.
Walton said Barr "can be commended for his effort to expeditiously release a summary."
But Walton said he wondered whether Barr's intention "was to create a one-sided narrative about the Mueller report."
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justic ... t-n1151076
6 Mar 2020 3:53 pm
Weren't you the one who was all outraged yesterday about Biden's family supposedly enriching themselves with taxpayer dollars?Termin8tor » 06 Mar 2020 2:31 pm » wrote:Oh my gosh, what a massive scandal.Newly obtained documents show $157,000 in additional payments by the Secret Service to Trump properties.
You've got him this time for sure!
Your corrupt party is going to impeach him again I hope.
Of course you posted no proof of that at all.
The watchdog group Public Citizen has the receipts Precious.
All of this **** is going to continue to come out, and try as you might, you can't stop it.
Trump and his whole grifting family are enriching themselves off of this presidency.
6 Mar 2020 3:55 pm
Misty » 05 Mar 2020 5:57 pm » wrote:
Lieutenant Colonel Mark Phillip Hertling is a former United States Army officer. From March 2011-November 2012, he served as the Commanding General of U.S. Army Europe and the Seventh Army.
Hertling served in Armor, Cavalry, planning, operations and training positions, and commanded every organization from Platoon to Field Army.
He commanded the U.S. Army's 1st Armored Division and Task Force Iron/Multinational Division-North in Iraq during the troop surge of 2007 to 2008.
Will Moscow Mitch the bitch even sign such a bill? Kinda doubt it, if any Dems are on it! THE TRAITOR!
6 Mar 2020 6:20 pm
This story is picking up steam.
A federal judge said the AG is untrustworthy.
Can't call this one an Obama judge.
Holy ****!A Federal Judge Says William Barr's Spin on the Mueller Report Makes the Attorney General Untrustworthy
Were the Justice Department's redactions influenced by Barr's desire to exonerate the president?
A federal judge yesterday criticized Attorney General William Barr's "misleading public statements" about Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report on Russian efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election.
U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton, a George W. Bush appointee, said Barr's "lack of candor" makes it impossible to trust his claim that the redactions in the publicly released version of the March 2019 report were legally justified.
Walton concluded that he needs to review the unredacted report before ruling on Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests filed by BuzzFeed and the Electronic Privacy Information Center, which want to see the full report.
Walton's assessment of Barr's credibility echoes complaints by the president's critics that the attorney general, by trying to shape the public's impression of Mueller's findings, acted like Trump's personal lawyer rather than the federal government's chief law enforcement official.
Like Barr's intervention in the sentencing of Roger Stone, his damage control in connection with the Mueller report seems to contradict his self-portrayal as a straight shooter committed to the rule of law above all.
"The Court cannot reconcile certain public representations made by Attorney General Barr with the findings in the Mueller Report," Walton wrote in his opinion.
"The inconsistencies between Attorney General Barr's statements, made at a time when the public did not have access to the redacted version of the Mueller Report to assess the veracity of his statements, and portions of the redacted version of the Mueller Report that conflict with those statements cause the Court to seriously question whether Attorney General Barr made a calculated attempt to influence public discourse about the Mueller Report in favor of President Trump despite certain findings in the redacted version of the Mueller Report to the contrary."
If so, Walton said, it is plausible to suggest that the Justice Department's redactions may have been influenced by Barr's pro-Trump spin.
"These circumstances generally, and Attorney General Barr's lack of candor specifically," he wrote, "call into question Attorney General Barr's credibility and in turn, the Department's representation" that the redacted information "is protected from disclosure by its claimed FOIA exemptions."
In Walton's view, "Attorney General Barr's representation that the Mueller Report would be 'subject only to those redactions required by law or by compelling law enforcement, national security, or personal privacy interests' cannot be credited without the Court's independent verification in light of Attorney General Barr's conduct and misleading public statements about the findings in the Mueller Report."
He added that "it would be disingenuous for the Court to conclude that the redactions of the Mueller Report pursuant to the FOIA are not tainted by Attorney General Barr's actions and representations."
Walton questioned Barr's decision to publicly summarize Mueller's conclusions on March 24, 2019, nearly a month before the redacted report was published.
In a four-page letter to Congress that was made available to the public, Barr said "the Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election," which included social media activity and hacking of emails from the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman.
And although Mueller pointedly chose not to say whether Trump had illegally obstructed the Russia investigation, Barr concluded that "the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense."
As Walton noted, Mueller himself objected to Barr's summary of the report.
"The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office's work and conclusions," Mueller said in a March 27 letter to Barr.
"We communicated that concern to the Department on the morning of March 25.
There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation.
This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations."
While Mueller did not specify the nature of that "public confusion," Walton cited several ways in which Barr's summary was misleading.
"Attorney General Barr distorted the findings in the Mueller Report," he wrote.
Specifically, Barr did not mention that Mueller "identified multiple contacts—'links,' in the words of the Appointment Order—between Trump [c]ampaign officials and individuals with ties to the Russian government."
Nor did he note that Mueller's conclusions about "coordination" were based on a narrow definition of the term, drawn from conspiracy law, requiring "an agreement—tacit or express—between the Trump [c]ampaign and the Russian government on election interference," as opposed to merely "two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests."
While Mueller's definition was appropriate in determining whether campaign officials had done anything illegal, Barr's general denial that the campaign "coordinated" with Russia may have left the mistaken impression that there were no contacts or that Russia's assistance was unwelcome.
Walton also noted that Barr "failed to disclose to the American public" that Mueller did not reach a conclusion regarding obstruction because he accepted the Office of Legal Counsel's position that a sitting president cannot be indicted.
Yet Mueller strongly implied that the evidence of obstruction was more substantial than the evidence of an illegal conspiracy with Russia.
"If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state," the report said.
"Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment.
The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred.
Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."
Walton also expressed concern about Barr's remarks at a press conference on April 18, 2019, the day the redacted report was finally published.
Barr not only reiterated what he had said in his letter to Congress but emphasized that Trump "was frustrated and angered by a sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents, and fueled by illegal leaks."
The White House nevertheless "fully cooperated" with Mueller's investigation, Barr said, and Trump "took no act" that "in fact deprived" Mueller of relevant documents and witnesses.
The "evidence of non-corrupt motives," he said, "weighs heavily against any allegation that the president had a corrupt intent to obstruct the investigation."
In short, Walton suggests, Barr tried to persuade the public that Trump did nothing wrong and in fact was commendably patient and cooperative given the circumstances.
According to the Mueller report, Trump "told advisors that he wanted an Attorney General who would protect him."
In this case, Barr surely did not disappoint his boss.
https://reason.com/2020/03/06/a-federal ... ustworthy/
A federal judge said the AG is untrustworthy.
Can't call this one an Obama judge.
6 Mar 2020 6:23 pm
Senate passed it, and Sniffles signed it.nuckin futz » 06 Mar 2020 3:55 pm » wrote:Misty » 05 Mar 2020 5:57 pm » wrote:
Lieutenant Colonel Mark Phillip Hertling is a former United States Army officer. From March 2011-November 2012, he served as the Commanding General of U.S. Army Europe and the Seventh Army.
Hertling served in Armor, Cavalry, planning, operations and training positions, and commanded every organization from Platoon to Field Army.
He commanded the U.S. Army's 1st Armored Division and Task Force Iron/Multinational Division-North in Iraq during the troop surge of 2007 to 2008.
Will Moscow Mitch the bitch even sign such a bill? Kinda doubt it, if any Dems are on it! THE TRAITOR!
They had no choice.
6 Mar 2020 8:44 pm
President Trump on Friday seemingly compared tests being administered for the coronavirus to his call with Ukraine's president last year that was at the center of his impeachment, calling the tests "perfect."
Trump made the comparison while touring the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) headquarters in Atlanta with Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar, CDC Director Robert Redfield and Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp (R), among others.
"Anybody that needs a test gets a test; they're there, they have the tests, and the tests are beautiful," Trump told reporters during the visit, touting the administration's response as more than 270 cases of the virus were confirmed across more than two dozen states as of Friday.
"The tests are all perfect, like the letter was perfect, the transcription was perfect, right?" he added later.
"This was not as perfect as that, but pretty good."
https://thehill.com/homenews/news/48640 ... ll-perfect
6 Mar 2020 8:55 pm
Gatewaypundit.......Termin8tor » 06 Mar 2020 7:11 pm » wrote:We can call him confused and ignorant.Misty » 06 Mar 2020 6:20 pm » wrote:This story is picking up steam.
Holy ****!
A federal judge said the AG is untrustworthy.
Can't call this one an Obama judge.
And if he doesn't offer a correction, I'd say he's a Beltway hack.Justice Department Hits Back After Judge Slams Attorney General Barr, Orders DOJ to Turn Over Unredacted Mueller Report
Cristina Laila by Cristina Laila
....The DOJ hit back and said “the court’s assertions were contrary to the facts.”
“The original redactions in the public report were made by Department attorneys, in consultation with senior members of Special Counsel Mueller’s team, prosecutors in US Attorney’s Offices, and members of the Intelligence Community,” the DOJ said.
“In response to FOIA requests, the entire report was then reviewed by career attorneys, including different career attorneys with expertise in FOIA cases — a process in which the Attorney General played no role.”
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/0 ... er-report/
This is not about the redactions in the Mueller report, it is about Barr's 4 page summary of the Mueller report.
Did you even read your own link?
The Judge said US Attorney General Bill Barr ‘lacked candor’ and accused him of intentionally creating a misleading summary of ‘principal conclusions’ to create a “one-sided narrative” about the Mueller report.
“The inconsistencies between Attorney General Barr’s statements, made at a time when the public did not have access to the redacted version of the Mueller Report to assess the veracity of his statements, and portions of the redacted version of the Mueller Report that conflict with those statements cause the Court to seriously question whether Attorney General Barr made a calculated attempt to influence public discourse about the Mueller Report in favor of President Trump despite certain findings in the redacted version of the Mueller Report to the contrary,” Walton said.
6 Mar 2020 9:07 pm
7 Mar 2020 11:05 am
You didn't quote this part:Termin8tor » 07 Mar 2020 8:07 am » wrote:I not only read it, but quoted from it, psycho.Misty » 06 Mar 2020 8:55 pm » wrote:This is not about the redactions in the Mueller report, it is about Barr's 4 page summary of the Mueller report.
Did you even read your own link?
The Judge said US Attorney General Bill Barr ‘lacked candor’ and accused him of intentionally creating a misleading summary of ‘principal conclusions’ to create a “one-sided narrative” about the Mueller report.
7 Mar 2020 11:13 am
Speaking of fabricating things......why is Trump fabricating this?Termin8tor » 07 Mar 2020 8:03 am » wrote:Did Gateway fabricate the Justice Dept press release, psycho?
Is that true Precious?
Can anyone who needs to be tested for CORVID-19 get a test right now?
Mike Pence said that the U.S. does not have enough coronavirus tests to meet the expected demand.
So which one of them is lying?
Who is online
In total there are 4808 users online :: 17 registered, 15 bots, and 4776 guests
Registered users: Vegas, Johnny You, *Roshambo, Blackvegetable, ROG62, RebelGator, ConservativeWave, MR-7, Beekeeper, LowIQTrash, PhiloBeddo, Cannonpointer, Deezer Shoove, nefarious101, sole, Huey, PoliticalPopUp
Bots: Not, Offline Explorer, facebookexternalhit, Kinza, proximic, DuckDuckBot, YandexBot, ADmantX, DuckDuckGo, Applebot, curl/7, Googlebot, CriteoBot, Mediapartners-Google, bingbot