Show me an elected official who isn't slightly better off than the average American in gains obtained by holding elected office. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Venality and corruption being rampant is not a justification of it. Vote for more honest and moral officials, please.

McGahn Affirmed That Trump Tried to Oust Mueller, Transcript Shows

Donald F. McGahn II, who served as White House counsel to former President Donald J. Trump, has told lawmakers that episodes involving him in the Russia report by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, were accurate — including one Mr. Trump has denied in which the president pressed him to get the Justice Department to remove Mr. Mueller.

...

The internal furor over Mr. Trump’s previous attempt to oust Mr. Mueller reignited in January 2018, when The New York Times and then The Washington Post reported on the encounter.

Mr. Trump was enraged and pushed Mr. McGahn to make a statement denying that the episode had happened, but he refused to do so — because, he said, The Times story was substantially accurate.

Who would have thought that Trump would lie and try to have others lie to cover up his attempts to obstruct justice. I for one am shocked and surprised.

Let me guess: you believed it, even when there was no evidence. You believe it still, even with evidence to the contrary.

No evidence of what? There is plenty of recorded evidence of what happened and when it happened. The report did not dispute that. Given Trump's nonstop lies, nothing that comes out of his administration is credible.

There was no evidence he cleared the park for a photo-op. This fantasy was the going rate for quite a time. It’s in the title of the article I posted earlier, which you responded to, and was the entire reason Congress wanted the investigation.

The report is limited to the US Park Police. Several other law enforcement agencies were involved. The report says nothing about them.

From the NYT:

But the report’s author was careful to warn it was not to be seen as a definitive account of the day, in part because so many other law enforcement agencies were involved. The inspector general, Mark L. Greenblatt, noted that it was not in his jurisdiction to investigate what the Secret Service and other law enforcement agencies knew and who may have ordered them to use force to clear the park.

“It was a fulsome review of everything in our jurisdiction,” Mr. Greenblatt said in an interview. “The unfortunate thing is not everything is in our jurisdiction.”

The report said Mr. Greenblatt did not seek to interview Mr. Barr, White House personnel or the Secret Service, among others, regarding decisions that did not involve the Park Police.

Other agencies involved that day included the National Guard, Capitol Police and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Mr. Trump issued a statement on Wednesday thanking the inspector general for what he called “completely and totally exonerating me in the clearing of Lafayette Park!”

In an interview, Mr. Greenblatt said he did not appreciate the comment.

“That’s uncomfortable for me,” he said. “We are independent from any political administration. This is not at all comfortable footing for anyone in my community.”

IIIIIT'SSS LIIIIIIIIEEESSSSSS!!!!!!

The report says quite a bit about other agencies.

Our oversight obligations are focused on the DOI, and our authority to obtain documents and statements from non-DOI entities is more limited. We nonetheless obtained radio transmissions from the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) related to its policing of the protests on June 1 and body camera video from an MPD liaison officer in Lafayette Park. At MPD’s request, we also interviewed an MPD assistant chief of police. We obtained videos from the Secret Service’s observation cameras positioned throughout the Lafayette Park area. The Arlington County Police Department (ACPD) also provided documents and radio transmissions related to its assistance at the park on June 1, and three ACPD members consented to voluntary interviews. We interviewed a DC National Guard (DCNG) major who served as the DCNG’s liaison to the USPP during the June 1 operation and testified before Congress regarding the events at Lafayette Park. We also received emails and other documents from the fencing contractor through the Secret Service and conducted voluntary interviews of the fencing contractor’s president/cofounder and project manager. The Secret Service also provided us with documentary evidence, such as operational timelines, documents and emails related to the procurement of the antiscale fencing, emails between Secret Service officials and USPP officials, and radio transmissions from the radio channel used by the Secret Service unit that deployed onto H Street.

https://www.doioig.gov/sites/doioig.gov/files/SpecialReview_USPPActionsAtLafayettePark_Public_0.pdf

But none of that matters because it is also clear from the report that the Park Police, with support of other agencies, cleared the park in order to allow contractors to build a fence, and did so in response to the continuing violence against officers and the vandalism of federal property.

Inserting other motivations into the minds of others, without the evidence to do so, is an act of fantasy or projection. That's what the media has done here and they spread this misinformation all over the world. Hell, even on this board people spread it and believed it. Sadly, I was the only one here—on a philosophy board of all places—that noticed the error in their reasoning.

From the report:

... we did not seek to interview Attorney General William Barr, White House personnel, Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) officers, MPD personnel, or Secret Service personnel regarding their independent decisions that did not involve the USPP.

The report clears the USPP. It says nothing about Trump's decision to appear, how this was coordinated, or what measures were taken to assure his safe passage. It simply states that the USPP played no role. But the USPP was not the only policing agency involved. The report does not exonerate Trump, as he claimed, at best it exonerates the USPP.

Not only that, but even if they had sought to interview "Attorney" General William Barr, that would mean exactly zero. Hell, even if he was under oath and a threat of perjury, it would mean exactly zero.

The report clears the USPP. It says nothing about Trump's decision to appear, how this was coordinated, or what measures were taken to assure his safe passage. It simply states that the USPP played no role. But the USPP was not the only policing agency involved. The report does not exonerate Trump, as he claimed, at best it exonerates the USPP.

All of that is irrelevant to the fantasy that Trump cleared the square for his photo op. The square was cleared to provide the contractor a safe environment to put up the fence.

NYT story: Protesters Dispersed With Tear Gas So Trump Could Pose at Church. False. They were dispersed to provide the contractor a safe environment to put up the fence.

NPR story: Peaceful Protesters Tear-Gassed To Clear Way For Trump Church Photo-Op. False. The often-violent protesters were cleared to provide the contractor a safe environment to put up the fence.

Dude, if you think you can convince anyone here that you have special access to Donnie's soul such that you can ascertain his pristine intentions re all this, you are a seriously lost soul. It is totally reasonably to infer the intention outlined based on character and history. He doesn't have to tattoo it across his orange mug.

Dude, if you think you can convince anyone here that you have special access to Donnie's soul such that you can ascertain his pristine intentions re all this, you are a seriously lost soul. It is totally reasonably to infer the intention outlined based on character and history. He doesn't have to tattoo it across his orange mug.

I'm not sure any of these inferences are reasonable if they are continuously proven false.

They were dispersed to provide the contractor a safe environment to put up the fence. — NOS4A2

So says the PP only.

The often-violent protesters were cleared to provide the contractor a safe environment to put up the fence. — NOS4A2

So says the PP only.

Too bad the PP were not in charge of protecting the Capital. They sound like some real Boy Scout go-getters.

Have you read the report?

You can't prove the unstated intention here true or false. You can only infer one way or the other. We are engaged in speculation. The fact you don't seem to understand that is comical.

You can't prove the unstated intention here true or false. You can only infer one way or the other. We are engaged in speculation. The fact you don't seem to understand that is comical.

The intentions of those who cleared the park were made explicit by everyone involved in doing so. It was backed up by testimony, video, emails.

So, Trump said he didn't clear the park for X reason and we should believe him because, what? He never lies? Sure, buddy.

Have you read the report? — NOS4A2

No. But then again, I didn't read the NYT or the NPR story either. I base my opinion of the dishonorable coward and liar solely upon that which emanates from his own cock holster, or what I have seen him do. Now, I'm sure Q would say all I've heard/seen that does not show him in a good light is simply deep fake, designed to harm dear leader, but I'm not there yet.

One thing I have pulled out of all this is the "look around" lesson. If you look around and find yourself on the same side as Nazis, fascists, racists, anti-intellectuals, etc. then you might want to rethink your position. Let's say you're just an old school Republican and fiscal and social conservative. You should really consider divorcing yourself from those who like the same guy you like, and the guy himself. You will legitimately be painted with the same brush.

Pretty simple. No-one can prove the intention of clearing the park for his photo op was part of Trump's input into the decision making process here. Because a) Maybe he was smart enough not to explicitly state that or b) It wasn't a consideration. We don't know. Only a clown would claim something has been proven here.

Guilt by association. Classic.

Pretty simple. No-one can prove the intention of clearing the park for his photo OP was part of Trump's input into the decision making process here. Because a) Maybe he was smart enough not to explicitly state that or b) It wasn't. We don't know. Only a clown would claim something has been proven here.

The evidence provided by the report proves quite a bit. Those who planned the operation explicitly stated their intentions and reasons for clearing the park. If any evidence to the contrary arises be sure to let me know.

Guilt by association. Classic. — NOS4A2

Yep, classically good. If you are going to hang with a POS then you can expect to get painted with the same brush, and deserve it. Now, if you can demonstrate that your efforts were directed at reforming said POS, then you get a pass. But when that POS has taken your good name, he should be your enemy. No? If not, then you too are a POS and can go down with him.

At least Liz Cheney has balls and integrity. She's damn sure not in bed with the left, but she does lose the right to distinction if she continues to fly the Republican flag. So there goes dignity. Anyone who stays under that party is, irredeemably, a Trumpster. Trump effectively killed the Republican Party and made it his own, because they lack leaders. For that, I thank him.

Funny, how you pretend to be cynical about politics and politicians, except when it comes to your master and suddenly you become as naive as a newborn lamb. Good luck with getting anyone to take you seriously.

The square was cleared to provide the contractor a safe environment to put up the fence. — NOS4A2

The timing is suspicious. The methods are suspicious. Barr's role is suspicious. The actions of SS are suspicious.

A report from the WP the day after the photo-op:

When Barr went to survey the scene, he was ‘surprised’ to find the perimeter had not been extended and huddled with law enforcement officials, the Justice Department official said,” according to our report. The official added that Barr “conferred with them to check on the status and basically said: ‘This needs to be done. Get it done.’ ”

So, there was a plan to erect the fence. The Trump administration saw this as a photo op. The Park Police may not have been aware of Trump's plan until meeting with Barr, but Barr expected the area would have already been cleared and demanded it get done. We don't know what would have happened if Trump had not used this as a photo op, but the immediacy with which Barr ordered them to act was irresponsible. Any investigation that does not look into the role his administration played is an incomplete report.

It's a common fallacy and you have every right to operate in that manner. But I suspect rather than respect that opinion.

That is fair and a far more reasonable approach. I even agree that Trump probably, if not obviously, used the opportunity for the photo op.

It is not simply that he used the opportunity for a photo op, he cleared the area to make way for that opportunity. The Secret Service and Park Police acted under the direction of Barr with a sense of urgency and immediacy. This was much more than just a plan to put up a fence.

An important statement from the report:

We also found weaknesses with the operation to clear the park, including the U.S. Secret Service’s deployment before the USPP had begun its dispersal warnings ...

The SS had no interest in erecting a fence. They acted to clear the way for Trump.

It's a common fallacy and you have every right to operate in that manner. But I suspect rather than respect that opinion. — NOS4A2

I don't want my opinion respected by anyone who fails to affirmatively divorce him- or herself from Trump. Any who continue to rise to his defense will have painted themselves (not Trump or the racists, fascists' that support him). Do you see the difference between that and the fallacy of guilt by association? You earn your own guilt by associating with him, if only by demonstrating a lack of judgement.

What do you think about his holding the bible in front of that church on the day in question? Never mind. It's irrelevant.

Yes, I defend Trump. Guilty as charged. So do millions of others. Over 70 million voted for him the last time I checked. But instead associating me with them you associate me with the one or two fascists you can think of.

You engage in the same species of thinking put to use by the very fascists and racists you pretend to oppose. So while I may be guilty by some tenuous association, you’re guilty of using the same fallacies, the same hatred, and the same behavior.