That’s irrelevant to the real crime they are pursuing, viz. the Justice Department that is a political tool of the President’s whims.

It's not totally irrelevant, but I agree it is considerably LESS relevant.

My niece is an FBI agent. She doesn't talk to me directly about anything, but my sister (her mom) has told me that she perceives a huge morale problem in the FBI (she said something like, "who would like to be referred to as 'scum'?). I expect the problem pervades the entire justice department. Regardless of whatever else is going on, it is appropriate for the head of the Justice Dept to at least give lip service to the ideals they are pledged to. It's better than being called "scum".

Interesting story.

My take: I use my real name and make no qualms about how I feel about the President on this forum. I think the career bureaucrats need to buck up and not be so sensitive and blow the whistle on any and every abuse of power by the President. I’m not afraid of retaliation because I know I’m right. When you are on the side of right, then there is no need for fear, unless you’re a coward.

I know your niece and her colleagues can be brave, too, for the sake of the country. Send her flowers with a note.

It really is remarkable how rightwing voters, and people who just listen to the media, don't know what socialism is, or how it benefits them. It's just a dirty word for them.

It's even worse here in the UK, with the drip feed of rightwing ideology in the popular press. Most people, except university educated politics aware folk, equate socialism with Communism and would go for a privelidged rightwing populist loon every time. The fact that he will just make many of them poorer and poorer with less and less rights and greater social division, is just more socialist(communist) propaganda.

Ah, so you disagree with Barr.

Our justice system is based on the premise of impartiality in its application. In his position as President, anything he says can potentially have an influence. So it is unequivocally wrong, and your inability to admit this suggests you truly think the man can do no wrong.

I agree it’s probably not helpful for the DOJ to receive so much scrutiny, but I’m not aware that he said anything about speaking out against an injustice. According to Barr’s re-recommendation we are in agreement about the unjust recommendation. Add on top of that the biased jury foreman who was only discovered after the conviction, we are long past the mere appearance of bias.

No, I just don’t understand how a tweet, whether it be from a president or celebrity or politician—anyone—can have an influence on a trial. I’m trying to understand a causal chain where that could be the case. Does the tweet enter into the evidence? Does the tweet stew in the head of the judge or jury so much that it changes their partiality? I just cannot see it. So no, to remain silent on matters of injustice is unequivocally right.

We could easily look at an exhaustive list of socialist states and cross-reference it with various indexes of quality of life, freedom, human rights records etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states

We could easily look at an exhaustive list of socialist states and cross-reference it with various indexes of quality of life, freedom, human rights records etc. — NOS4A2

From that link:

Self-identification is the only criterion used by the list, therefore it includes all countries that have claimed to be socialist, even if their claims are disputed. All countries that have not claimed to be socialist are excluded, even in cases where certain outside observers regarded those countries as socialist. This list includes countries that assert in their constitutions that they are based on socialism, regardless of their economic or political system. It does not list countries that do not have constitutional references to socialism as socialist states, even in cases where the government is currently run by a socialist party or other left-wing (centre-left and far-left) parties. On the other hand, countries that do maintain constitutional references to socialism are listed, even when those countries are ruled by non-socialist parties. As a result, this list is best understood as a list of countries that explicitly claim to be socialist and it does not reflect the actual economic systems themselves.

It's not particularly a reliable measure.

It really is remarkable how rightwing voters, and people who just listen to the media, don't know what socialism is, or how it benefits them. It's just a dirty word for them.

It's even worse here in the UK, with the drip feed of rightwing ideology in the popular press. Most people, except university educated politics aware folk, equate socialism with Communism and would go for a privelidged rightwing populist loon every time. The fact that he will just make many of them poorer and poorer with less and less rights and greater social division, is just more socialist(communist) propaganda. — Punshhh

What do you understand socialism to be? Is it just things like higher taxes on businesses, single-payer healthcare, regulated economy, welfare? Or is it comprehensive nationalisation? I think it's too vague to simply assert that "socialism is good" or "socialism is bad".

It looks like the trial against Stone is rigged. The jury foreman is an anti-Trump democratic candidate and Russia truther. — NOS4A2

This just in: Jury members not allowed to have opinions or political leanings. US justice system collapses. "All trials ever have been rigged", says official.

Why is it not a particularly reliable measure?

This just in: fair trials are for suckers. Bring back the Kangaroo court.

What do you understand socialism to be? Is it just things like higher taxes on businesses, single-payer healthcare, regulated economy, welfare? Or is it comprehensive nationalisation? I think it's too vague to simply assert that "socialism is good" or "socialism is bad".

Yes I agree it is to vague a term without any qualification. For me socialism is the principle of the many working for, or contributing to the well being of the few (the vulnerable, or the minority). As opposed to reliance on the market, charity, or philanthropy, for the well being of the few.

We could easily look at an exhaustive list of socialist states and cross-reference it with various indexes of quality of life, freedom, human rights records etc.

Socialism is a political principle, like capitalism. So called socialist states, may, or may not be practicing these principles. But analysis of these countries becomes complicated by the historical, cultural and social conditions. So is not a very helpful way of considering the principle.

Without socialist ideals there would not be universal suffrage or worker's rights. In certain areas, socialism has been much more succesful in promoting "equality" than other political theories.

Equality itself is a goal of social justice that is regularly ignored by other political theories where socialism considers there's a role for the government. Most obvious where it concerns equality of opportunity. That equality can be promoted by several means, access to healthcare, access to education, access to loans (Fannie Mae for instance) and even means (progressive taxation and subsidies). These have been the result of socialist ideals. Nowadays though, we need to prove the business case that a healthy and educated citizenry is good for the economy, which is a degradation of socialst ideals because it reduces people to a means for the economy.

We've just had a jobless recovery: yes, a lot of people are employed but labour share of GDP and resultant wealth is steadily declining so we see the next inequality that leads to social injustice - that between the owners of capital and labourers. We can only expect that this will be exacerbated with the further development of robotics replacing more complex labour (like writing contracts, eek!). See for instance: https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/employment-and-growth/a-new-look-at-the-declining-labor-share-of-income-in-the-united-states

Why is it not a particularly reliable measure? — NOS4A2

Because it says that it includes countries that don't have socialist economies/governments and excludes countries that do.

That might be an issue. According to Giuliani it was the state dept. that requested he travel to Ukraine. I think if Trump personally requested him to do it, Trump might be in trouble. — NOS4A2

Trump contradicts past denials, admits sending Giuliani to Ukraine

Emboldened after his impeachment acquittal, President Donald Trump now openly admits to sending his attorney Rudy Giuliani to Ukraine to find damaging information about his political opponents, even though he strongly denied it during the impeachment inquiry.

The reversal came Thursday in a podcast interview Trump did with journalist Geraldo Rivera, who asked, "Was it strange to send Rudy Giuliani to Ukraine, your personal lawyer? Are you sorry you did that?" Trump responded, "No, not at all," and praised Giuliani's role as a "crime fighter."

"Here's my choice: I deal with the Comeys of the world, or I deal with Rudy," Trump said, referring to former FBI Director James Comey. Trump explained that he has "a very bad taste" of the US intelligence community, because of the Russia investigation, so he turned to Giuliani.

"So when you tell me, why did I use Rudy, and one of the things about Rudy, number one, he was the best prosecutor, you know, one of the best prosecutors, and the best mayor," Trump said. "But also, other presidents had them. FDR had a lawyer who was practically, you know, was totally involved with government. Eisenhower had a lawyer. They all had lawyers."

Trump had previously denied that he sent Giuliani to Ukraine. Asked in November if he directed Giuliani to "do anything" in Ukraine, Trump said, "No, I didn't direct him," but went on to call Giuliani a "great corruption fighter." Giuliani says he's exposing legitimate corruption in Ukraine, even though his claims about former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden have been widely debunked.

So we've established that:

1. Giuliani is a liar, as he claimed it was the State Department, not Trump, who sent him to Ukraine
2. Trump is a liar, as he claimed he didn't send Giuliani to Ukraine
3. Trump might be in trouble, as per your own words above

And you wonder why we don't trust what Trump and Giuliani say about what did or didn't happen re. the Ukraine affair. They're liars, and they're lying to hide something, else why lie?

Trump explained that he has "a very bad taste" of the US intelligence community, because of the Russia investigation, so he turned to Giuliani.

This is bad enough on its own. The President is openly saying that he trusts his personal attorney more than the country's own intelligence agencies.

No, I just don’t understand how a tweet, whether it be from a president or celebrity or politician—anyone—can have an influence on a trial. I’m trying to understand a causal chain where that could be the case. — NOS4A2

Here's some potential effects:
-prosecutors wishing to curry favor might give him what he wants
-prosecutors might feel undercut and harden their position against Stone
-the judge may be influenced, either for or against
-the attorney general might feel prompted to review the sentencing recommendation. How often does THIS happen? He obviously can't do that in every case, so this is uneven justice.
- The attorney general might consciously or unconsciously apply more leniency that he would otherwise.
-per Barr: it makes it difficult for him to do his job
-it might have a negative effect on the people working in the justice dept if they perceive this as pressure to go soft on a friend.

"If there is a conflict of interest then it puts doubt on the whole process of justice."


Dumpertrumper,

Wow, we have a way to go, but that's okay. I will demonstrate that your character is in question and like Trump, what you say is highly suspect. For instance, we haven't even answered question #1 and already I see discrepancies/contradictions in your reasoning. Are you being truthful to yourself and other's here? Is this the way most of your base thinks? LOL.

Okay, so here's what we have thus far. Help me understand which interpretation best describes your attack (in quotes) on the prosecutors:

1. What does it mean when someone say's, "Both prosecutors who left the case were Obama stooges. Sounds like justice to me".

a. They were partisan Obama hacks and assumed to be biased, and now that they're gone it is likely fair/impartial justice will be served.
b. If there is a conflict of interest then it puts doubt on the whole process of justice.
c. I’d hope that their political affiliations did not come into play, that’s for sure.

Only one answer is correct. Which answer more closely describes your quoted attack on the prosecutors?

The answer you give will provide us a little insight into your character and honesty and/or lack thereof. LOL

No, I just don’t understand how a tweet, whether it be from a president or celebrity or politician—anyone—can have an influence on a trial. — NOS4A2

You usually do not achieve such a milestone of stupidity, nose4. Now I understand you're attempting to realize the rare triple-triple-triple trifecta of offensiveness. You're so close! Don't stop now! As to tweets, have you never encountered this?

"Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?"

"Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" — tim wood

Excellent point! For those who haven't googled the phrase: this.

In Trump's case, I see only two possiblities: 1) he wants to influence the outcome 2) he's extremely stupid.

Either of these possibilities show that he's unfit for the job.

Kudlow: New tax cuts will 'probably come out sometime in September' (link)

Great! Just the remedy we need for the current state of unsustainable deficits. By sheer coincidence, this is planned for September, 2 months before the election.

Yep... can't wait till the Dumpertrumper debates...I'm sure someone like Bloomberg will expose Trump's record of loan defaults viz our national debt. It's really scary. I remember when he campaigned and said he was the king of debt. What happened to the fiscal hawks of old/GOP party ?

And good job of speaking the truth y'all... !!

You actually think Trump will debate? I'm not so sure, but I do ponder who would be the best debate opponent. Mayor Pete is the most articulate and analytical, but this might result in only a technical victory on points. A debate with Sanders would be a battle between two outsider populists, both short on analytics - and that could result in peeling a few of the disenfranchised away from Trump, while turning off the analytically minded. I lean toward Pete, and anticipate that Trump will make an ass of himself by trying to ridicule Pete's homosexuality.

Emboldened after his impeachment acquittal, President Donald Trump now openly admits to sending his attorney Rudy Giuliani to Ukraine to find damaging information about his political opponents, even though he strongly denied it during the impeachment inquiry.

That’s a complete lie, and you’re falling for it. He admitted no such thing.

Here's some potential effects:
-prosecutors wishing to curry favor might give him what he wants
-prosecutors might feel undercut and harden their position against Stone
-the judge may be influenced, either for or against
-the attorney general might feel prompted to review the sentencing recommendation. How often does THIS happen? He obviously can't do that in every case, so this is uneven justice.
- The attorney general might consciously or unconsciously apply more leniency that he would otherwise.
-per Barr: it makes it difficult for him to do his job
-it might have a negative effect on the people working in the justice dept if they perceive this as pressure to go soft on a friend.

All of these effects are caused by personal motivations, desires and feelings. If a judge or attorney or attorney general are influenced by a tweet they are in the wrong job.

I’ve answered all your questions, so let’s hear your analysis.

All of these effects are caused by personal motivations, desires and feelings. If a judge or attorney or attorney general are influenced by a tweet they are in the wrong job. — NOS4A2

You must also believe juries should never be sequestered, since if they're doing their jobs, they will not be influenced.

You have a naive view of influence. It's not limited to conscious choices and perceived motivation.

Yep, agree with your initial thoughts there! Because Dumpertrumper lacks the discipline and temperament necessary in communicating sensitive subject matter, I agree he'll make and ass out of himself. Which all of that goes back to why his lawyers were not wanting him to testify in the Mueller case, as well as Barr admonishing him for his rampant tweets.

Speaking of that, what is your take on Barr's comments on Dumpertrumper's tweets ? Do you think there is an ulterior motive of sorts?

That’s a complete lie, and you’re falling for it. He admitted no such thing. — NOS4A2

He admitted to sending Giuliani to Ukraine to conduct his investigation, whereas previously both he and Giuliani denied it.

Whether or not that particular article frames it as an attempt to "find damaging information about his political opponents" isn't the issue here.

Trump admitted to send to Ukraine. Here's the audio: https://www.spreaker.com/user/9809239/roadkill-potus

It starts at 21:43.

Jesus Christ he rambles. Asked about Giuliani and spends forever talking about what Bloomberg did as Mayor.