The US Presidency 2019

[PPCLI Guy]

Yes, makes me wonder about the toilets in the white house. Odds are they have the weakest toilets available. Unless somebody here can give us their personal experiences with using white house toilets. But fairly, that would be called an exaggeration by Trump. But of course to the NYT it would be called a lie and added to the list.

\
Sorry man.  That is not an exaggeration.  It is an untruth.  A lie.  And it is not being told by some random right wing crackpot on the internet.  It is being told by the man occupying the position that used to be called the Leader of The Free World, but is no longer, in part due to an inability to either tell the truth nor understand the import of doing so when you are supposed to be occupying the shining city on the hill.

 

[FJAG]

We had the same problem as President Trump. Too many flushes to clear the toilet.
The plumbers that service our apartment building recommended :
https://www.homedepot.ca/product/american-standard-reliant-48-lpf-round-front-toilet-in-white/1001054614?eid=PS_GOOGLE_D00%20-%20E-Comm_GGL_Shopping_PLA_EN_NowOnSale_Top%20Sellers_Top%20Sellers__PRODUCT_GROUP_aud-765569715521la-515164511167&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI1oLOzJSk5gIVC4iGCh3l9AKmEAQYAyABEgJlvPD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds

Now our toilets "always" work on the first flush.
MAGA with an American Standard toilet. 

I'm not sure if you were being sarcastic or not seeing that a 4.8 litres per flush American Standard toilet is the same as the 1.6 gallons per flush toilet that Bush's administration mandated by the regulations and that Trump is railing against.

:cheers:

 

[mariomike]

MAGA with an American Standard toilet. 

I had ours replaced with Kohler Santa Rosa's, equipped with the AquaPiston flushing system.

Trump said Friday...

“People are flushing toilets 10 times, 15 times as opposed to once."

Never have to flush our Santa Rosa's more than once.

Either way he can be fairly accused of talking a load of s**t?

Our installation guys put it this way, "It may seem like sh$t to you. But, it's our bread and butter."

 

[FJAG]

Personally we've been using dual flush toilets 4.8 LPF/1.3 US GPF (for the big jobs) / 3.0 LPF/0.8 US GPF (for the inconsequential jobs) in both our homes over the last ten years and I've never needed a second flush for either.

Where's the turd emoji when you really need it.  ;D

 

[mariomike]

Sorry man.  That is not an exaggeration.  It is an untruth.  A lie.  And it is not being told by some random right wing crackpot on the internet.  It is being told by the man occupying the position that used to be called the Leader of The Free World, but is no longer, in part due to an inability to either tell the truth nor understand the import of doing so when you are supposed to be occupying the shining city on the hill.

President Reagan spoke of the shining city on the hill in his farewell speech,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c32G868tor0

His daughter had this to say about her father and the current occupant,

Ronald Reagan's daughter says he would be 'horrified' by Trump's America
https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/20/politics/patti-davis-trump-ronald-reagan/index.html

 

[observor 69]

I'm not sure if you were being sarcastic or not seeing that a 4.8 litres per flush American Standard toilet is the same as the 1.6 gallons per flush toilet that Bush's administration mandated by the regulations and that Trump is railing against.

:cheers:

No sarcasm here. I wasn't aware of the numbers, thanks for the info. We are very pleased with our new toilets and much appreciate the advice from the plumbers.

 

[QV]

IG Horowitz's report has uncovered appalling behavior by the FBI in the Crossfire Hurricane investigation and FISA applications.  Looking forward to John Durham and his team getting to the bottom of all of this corrupt conduct (and do his part to drain the swamp).

Pretty big news, I'm surprised this garnered no discussion here.

   

 

[FJAG]

IG Horowitz's report has uncovered appalling behavior by the FBI in the Crossfire Hurricane investigation and FISA applications.  Looking forward to John Durham and his team getting to the bottom of all of this corrupt conduct (and do his part to drain the swamp).

Pretty big news, I'm surprised this garnered no discussion here.

Not really pretty big news.

The big news was that the IG found that the Russia investigation was legally justified.

Consequentially he found that mistakes were made even though those did not effect the overall finding of legal justification.

Shocker that in an organization as large as the FBI mistakes were made? Not really.

Feel free to believe that it stands for what you want it to believe. We won't stop you or change your mind.

:cheers:

 

[QV]

Just a few mistakes, eh?  Everything was justified with only a few mistakes which are understandable given the size of the FBI, is that your take?

 

[FJAG]

Just a few mistakes, eh?  Everything was justified with only a few mistakes which are understandable given the size of the FBI, is that your take?

Yup. Pretty much.

There were 17 errors which basically related to information left out of wiretap applications (and one lawyer altering an email). These are process errors and do not alter the facts uncovered by the investigation. When creating affidavits to support search warrants there's a large scope for the author to decide what particular fact is or isn't relevant to the application. Opinions differ and it is fairly easy to second guess and criticize with twenty-twenty hindsight. I've done it myself on defending against evidence obtained by a search warrant. The defence rule here is that if you can't beat the facts, try to beat the process that disclosed them.

Horowitz was being scrupulously meticulous in his evaluation of this case and disclosed everything that was questionable but nevertheless made the overall conclusion that this was an LSMFT moment. (for all you smokers out there, this doesn't mean Lucky Strikes Mean Fine Tobacco but Legally Sound - Mighty Fine Trial)

:cheers:

 

[QV]

Errors like omitting to disclose exculpatory information in the applications, or altering a document to reflect the opposite that it actually means.  All 17 significant errors somehow favoured and furthered the investigators.  What are the odds?  Slim to none. 

Here is what AG Barr had to say: "FBI officials misled the FISA court, omitted critical exculpatory facts from their filings, and suppressed or ignored information negating the reliability of their principal source,” he added. “The inspector general found the explanations given for these actions unsatisfactory.”

This is where Durham comes in, and motive will be determined in his investigation.   

Dismissing this is being disingenuous of what really happened here.     

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

information left out of wiretap applications (and one lawyer altering an email). These are process errors

Really??  To a lawyer fraud is a "process error"?  Well, as the Church Lady would say "How convenient".

 

[FJAG]

Errors like omitting to disclose exculpatory information in the applications, or altering a document to reflect the opposite that it actually means.  All 17 significant errors somehow favoured and furthered the investigators.  What are the odds?  Slim to none. 

Here is what AG Barr had to say: "FBI officials misled the FISA court, omitted critical exculpatory facts from their filings, and suppressed or ignored information negating the reliability of their principal source,” he added. “The inspector general found the explanations given for these actions unsatisfactory.”

This is where Durham comes in, and motive will be determined in his investigation.   

Dismissing this is being disingenuous of what really happened here.   

I'm really quite surprised Barr is capable of saying anything considering how far his nose is up Trumps ***. Horowitz conducted a comprehensive investigation which found the Russia investigation as legally justified regardless of the issues raised in the investigation's findings. The only purpose of the Durham investigation is to come to a different White House directed conclusion.

Really??  To a lawyer fraud is a "process error"?  Well, as the Church Lady would say "How convenient".

C'mon Bruce. You know full well what I meant. The action of the lawyer (and I actually read the Horowitz report, so I know what it was) were part of the investigation process. The thing he did, which was clearly a mistake on his part (and it will be up to a court to determine if it was fraudulent) was part of the investigative process but does not undermine the conclusion drawn by Horowitz that the Russian Investigation was legally justified. The number of convictions and guilty pleas arising out of it should make that obvious to any disinterested observer.

Seventeen "errors" in an investigation of the scope of this one with the numerous individuals involved (especially since some of these errors are merely repetitions of the same error made on previous FISA applications) is not proof of a Deep State conspiracy to overthrow a constitutionally elected president except to those people who want to ignore the actual conclusion of the Horowitz report in favour of furthering their belief in conspiracy theories.

(For anyone who wants to read the report, you can download it from here: https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/09/politics/inspector-general-justice-department-report-russia-fbi/index.html

:cheers:

 

[QV]

For anyone interested, AG Barr was interviewed on NBC a few days ago, it’s on YouTube, he gives a decent summary of the situation including differentiating between Horowitz’s role and Durham’s role.  His head certainly isn’t up anyone’s ass and it’s not ok for a crack team of investigators and lawyers to make all these one sided “errors”.  This is big and it’s going to get ugly for those involved. 

 

[Brad Sallows]

>I'm really quite surprised Barr is capable of saying anything considering how far his nose is up Trumps ***.

Well, there's the mark of a fair-minded observer giving a dispassionate analysis that is worth paying any attention to.

The IG's lane is to comment on whether policy and procedure were followed.  He doesn't read minds and can't meaningfully comment on partisan bias, without statements to that effect by the parties concerned.  Other than the Page-Strzok emails, I doubt much of that exists.  But the uses of the "Steele dossier" will continue to soil the reputations of everyone who used it, regardless how much fart-catching is attempted.

The orange man bad zealots will wave the IG's report and disparage Durham's efforts pre-emptively.  Meanwhile, another opportunity to set guidelines raising the bar considerably higher for poking noses into a presidential election campaign is ignored.

Kevin Williamson at NRO quoted a bit of Horowitz.

"Errors were made by three separate, hand-picked investigative teams; on one of the most sensitive FBI investigations; after the matter had been briefed to the highest levels within the FBI; even though the information sought through the use of FISA authority related so closely to an ongoing presidential campaign; and even though those involved with the investigation knew that their actions were likely to be subjected to close scrutiny."

Just mistakes any competent careful professional would make.  Somewhere on the spectrum between "rigorously legitimate" and "deep state conspiracy" there is a lot of room for putting thumbs on scales, or merely being incompetent in a convenient direction.

 

[FJAG]

>I'm really quite surprised Barr is capable of saying anything considering how far his nose is up Trumps ***.

Well, there's the mark of a fair-minded observer giving a dispassionate analysis that is worth paying any attention to.

I've given up all pretense about being fair-minded when it comes to Barr. I wear my confirmation bias proudly on my sleeve and stand four-square with Eric Holder on Barr.

Washington (CNN)Former Attorney General Eric Holder believes William Barr is "unfit" to serve as the nation's top law enforcement officer, writing in a Washington Post op-ed that recent controversial comments by his successor "have been fundamentally inconsistent with his duty to the Constitution."

In the opinion piece published Wednesday night, Holder, who served in the Obama administration between 2009 and 2015, excoriated Barr for "a series of public statements and ... actions that are so plainly ideological, so nakedly partisan and so deeply inappropriate" for an attorney general to make. He pointed to a number of recent headline-grabbing remarks by Barr, including his comments this week that the FBI may have acted in "bad faith" when it opened an investigation into the origins of the Russia probe despite the Justice Department's inspector general report that said the bureau was justified in doing so.
"(It) was infuriating to watch him publicly undermine an independent inspector general report -- based on an exhaustive review of the FBI's conduct -- using partisan talking points bearing no resemblance to the facts his own department has uncovered," he wrote.
...
"To me, his attempts to vilify the President's critics sounded more like the tactics of an unscrupulous criminal defense lawyer than a U.S. attorney general," Holder wrote, adding that in his comments, Barr "exposed himself as a partisan actor, not an impartial law enforcement official."
"Virtually since the moment he took office, though, Barr's words and actions have been fundamentally inconsistent with his duty to the Constitution," Holder wrote. "Which is why I now fear that his conduct -- running political interference for an increasingly lawless president -- will wreak lasting damage."

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/12/politics/eric-holder-william-barr-unfit-attorney-general/index.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eric-holder-william-barr-is-unfit-to-be-attorney-general/2019/12/11/99882092-1c55-11ea-87f7-f2e91143c60d_story.html

:cheers:

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

To paraphrase a well known TV show: The Attorney-General is there to represent "the People" , not "one person".

I fully endorse FJAG's position, as "partisan" as any one wants to see it.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>Eric Holder

Good choice when you want to call out someone for being "nakedly partisan".  Maybe next he'll hold forth on "obstruction".  FYI, Holder is just agitating for political advantage.

It is possible (and likely) for both of the following to be true:
1) Opening the investigation was justified (according to the rules as to how these things are opened).
2) The investigation was opened in bad faith.

And for the following to also be true:
1) The investigation was conducted within the rules.
2) The investigation was conducted with bad faith.

Other than in the fever swamps, who thought or even hoped the IG was going to deliver a report alleging a vast conspiracy, full of names and allegations?  For months the sane opinion columnists have stressed that Horowitz had a narrow scope of action, and predicted that findings would be limited to some wrist-slapping comments, not scathing indictments.  Holding up the report and shouting, "See? No evidence of a vast deep state conspiracy!" is...nothing.  What Horowitz described is bad enough.  I expect Durham to produce similar conclusions, but with some administrative or criminal sanctions recommended against a few people.

Widespread orchestration isn't needed.  All that is needed is people acting alone to shape political outcomes without due regard for constitutional rights and procedural safeguards (and professional duty).  And a safe bet is that Page and Strzok weren't the only two holding conversations involving only two, or a very few, people.  And there is the constant barrage of "will no one rid us of this turbulent president?", with no end of inventive ideas suggesting how that might be done.  A person might be moved to act, and to disrespect norms and customs while doing so.  A bit of exculpatory information omitted here.  A bit of source-impeaching information omitted there.  Misrepresenting the credibility of sources known to be untrustworthy.  Etc.  The "invisible hand".

The point of court review for certain kinds of intrusions is to safeguard constitutional rights.  Generally neither the people whose rights are about to be infringed nor their legal representation are present during deliberations to give the evidence favourable to themselves, so it is incumbent on everyone else present to do so.  In the case of the FISCs, very little will ever be revealed after the fact.  The decision maker must have all available relevant information in order to make a correct and just decision.  It is unethical and intolerable for applicants to withhold or misrepresent information which might shape the decision.  Without intent to deceive, it's merely incompetence.  With intent, it's bad faith.

>The Attorney-General is there to represent "the People"

Carter Page is one of "the People".  I notice that civil libertarians on both right and left think the whole affair stinks, so Barr's position is likely more commendable than Holder's and any other of Barr's critics.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Benghazi

 

[mariomike]

I've given up all pretense about being fair-minded when it comes to Barr.

I fully endorse FJAG's position, as "partisan" as any one wants to see it.

Donald Trump Wanted Another Roy Cohn. He Got Bill Barr.
Even better.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/12/opinion/trump-bill-barr-.html

For those too young to remember Roy Cohn,

I’m Roy Cohn’s Cousin. He Would Have Detested Trump’s Russia Fawning.

As dangerous as Cohn was to American institutions, he never wavered in defending the U.S. against the ‘evil empire.’

My cousin Roy Marcus Cohn—counsel to Senator Joe McCarthy, consigliere to Mafia bosses, mentor to Donald Trump—had almost no principles. He smeared Jews even though he was Jewish. He tarred Democrats even though he was a Democrat. He persecuted gay people even though he was gay.

Yet throughout his life, he held fast to one certainty: Russia and America were enemies. Roy often told me the Kremlin blamed the U.S. for Russia’s failure to prosper, so Russian leaders were bent on destroying our democracy.

Lately, I find myself wishing my cousin was around to become a true patriot—by exposing the perils of our president’s infatuation with an old KGB colonel. When it comes to Russia, Donald Trump might not like the answer to his question: “Where’s my Roy Cohn?”

Full article,
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/09/24/roy-cohn-trump-cousin-228167