I just realized that I may have used a term that is not generally understood. “Special pleading” is setting up standards, principles, or rules and then applying them to people you don’t like while finding one pretext or another for not applying them to people you do like. It is a logical fallacy.
I do not think that there is good or acceptable corruption. I think there is only corruption and it is all bad. The only question is to what lengths we should be willing to go to root it out.
I think it is possible to distinguish between executive logrolling and legislative logrolling or between domestic executive logrolling and international executive logrolling. But if you condemn an exchange of favors between heads of state, you should be prepared to delineate precisely what you are opposing and take care not to rule out negotiations between heads of state altogether. I do not think that receiving remuneration for you, your family, or your friends is one whit better (or worse) than receiving help with your re-election campaign.
In all human endeavors, bending or breaking the rules confers advantage. Done nimbly for a good cause brings admiration, done clumsily for gain draws scorn.
Blago famously said, “this is A big f’n deal! worth a million! Could’ve said, “this is a weighty but welcome responsibility and I welcome consultation and cooperation in the decision making process”.
Both ways, It’s understood the Senate seat is for sale, but the latter would’ve been a smoother sale and Blago would’ve still been free.
Trump’s in trouble not for what he did but the way he did it. Should have had Rudy make the pitch in person but Trump is overconfident.
(And Rudy many times is almost incomprehensible.)
Translation: When we do it, it’s all good, when you do it, it’s evil. ‘Cuz reasons.
Logrolling as I think of it is usually legislators trading votes. I will vote for your issue if you will vote for mine. Both votes are legal and the legislators are legally allowed to vote up or down on the proposed issues. In this case the one request is legal (we want to buy arms from the US) but the favor asked for in return is not (you need to investigate my political rival). Also, please note that this does not even include the actual selling of the arms ie no price for the arms was mentioned. For all we know Trump sent Giuliani to tell them they get an extra good price on those arms if they provide extra good stuff on Biden.
In short, this doesnt look like logrolling to me, but more like someone negotiating a side deal that will benefit only them, at the expense of the party they actually represent. So if this was a union leader who negotiated a deal that didnt get much for the union members, but he came out way ahead in a side deal that benefitted the leader and cronies, you guys would be all over it.
Steve
There is both legislative logrolling and executive logrolling. I’m not sure the lines are quite as bright as you’re suggesting. Is asking for a foreign head of state to investigate corruption out of bounds? Or is it only out of bounds when a political rival is involved?
Is there evidence that something illegal was requested?
Steve, is it your presumption that the Hunter Biden hire was completely ethical? If not then why does it only benefit Trump personally if the corruption involving the potential Democratic nominee is brought to light?
I always thought the Obama administrations policy with regard to Ukraine was a mess and it sure seemed like they simply wanted to replace Russian leaning corrupt oligarchs with a new group that wanted to deal with certain US and British financiers because they’d already tried and failed to do the “reset†with Russia. I think it’s pretty well accepted that we backed the coup in 2014. Whether or not that was something we should have done is to some degree a matter of opinion, but it certainly changes the color of things if we learn that our VP was profiteering off of it as well.
With that VP now seeking the presidency, that sure is something I think voters should know even if it also benefits Trump personally. If the media had any curiosity about potential scandals involving Democrats (particularly those in the Obama administration) then we should have already known about it but like the Clinton Foundation scams it was quickly swept under the rug.
CStanley, the key word in your post was “curiosity,†in questioning the media’s reporting methods. It seems journalists who actually seek documentation, public records, data that is verified, with names attached to their informant’s information, other than anonymous, the MSM never calls on them. Peter Schweizer and J Solomon, are two such journalists who haven’t been widely heard from, despite their comprehensive research – the former dealing with both Ukraine and China enrichment irregularities by Biden and his son.
BTW, details have emerged today that AG Barr earlier had asked Trump to introduce his name to the country leaders – Ukraine, Australia being two of them – who the DOJ is investigating for their counterintelligence involvement in the 2016 election.
What is legislative log rolling vs executive log rolling? In the US; with the intermingling of powers; I think the line gets blurry?
Is it granting patronage appointments for votes? Issuing regulation for votes?
How about between a President and a Governor – can logrolling occur there? Was politics a factor in Eisenhower appointing Warren to the Supreme Court?
By the way – as a motivating example. Why is Congressional Democrats attempt at getting Trumps tax return NOT an abuse of the Congress’s subpoena power to damage a political rival?
How do we draw a test that one is foul and one is okay?
CS- There are such widely different accounts it is hard to know the truth about Hunter Biden. What I think I know is that he was probably hired and paid a lot of money because of his father’s position. I dont think anyone yet has claimed he did anything illegal, but the appearance was bad and maybe we will eventually find that Joe profited in some way. On Trump, if he was interested in corruption as an issue and having that resolved which would benefit the US, then he would have asked them to investigate corruption. If he just wanted help with the upcoming election, he asks them to investigate Biden. Pretty straightforward. ( OK, if you are a tribal righty, see jan and Drew’s comments, then keeping any Democrat out of office benefits the country so any action taken towards that end benefits the US.)
” Why is Congressional Democrats attempt at getting Trumps tax return NOT an abuse of the Congress’s subpoena power to damage a political rival?”
Is there reason to suspect that Trump is using his office to financially benefit? Like, do we have foreign leaders in transcripts sucking up to Trump and telling Trump they stayed at one of his hotels? Indeed we do. Do we have Trump choosing his own hotels for international conferences? Yes we do. Do we know that Trump has signifiant foreign based loans? Yes we do just based on his financial disclosure form. Does Trump have business or has he sought business in countries with whom he is “making deals”? Yes. So you and your fellow conservatives trust the guy. He ranks somewhere between Jesus Christ and George Washington on the honesty scale for you guys. Having lived in the Northeast and been exposed to the guy through media, friends and family, I think he is just another crooked politician. I would rather verify, then trust.
“Was politics a factor in Eisenhower appointing Warren to the Supreme Court?”
Isn’t Bork a better example? In return for not resigning like the two guys ahead of him and doing the hatchet job Nixon wanted, he was rewarded with a SCOTUS nomination.
Steve
Just to illuminate how the preceding comment is an example of special pleading.
1a. Reason why Congressional Democrats subpoenaed Trump’s tax return
The preceding comment says it is to investigate possible corruption by Trump regarding his business interests
1b. Reason why Trump asked for Ukraine’s help investigating Biden
Trump says it is to investigate possible corruption by Joe/Hunter Biden regarding Hunter’s business interests in the Ukraine.
2a. What power allows Congress to investigate Trump’s tax return
Congressional democrats states it derives from Congresses oversight power and statute law to look into any tax return
2b. What power allows Trump to ask Ukraine to investigate Joe/Hunter Biden
The constitution grants the President the power to conduct foreign relations
3a. What is Trump’s argument that Democrats looking into Trump’s tax return is illegal
The treasury department (and Trump’s lawyers) argued it didn’t serve a legitimate legislative purpose. i.e. its a smokescreen to find damaging info on a political opponent.
3b. What is Democrats argument that Trump’s action is illegal
Democrats argue that Trump’s request was not a legitimate use of
the President’s foreign policy power to fight corruption. i.e. its a smokescreen to find damaging info on a political opponent.
4a. Is there any evidence that Trump’s tax return would show corruption.
The preceding comment shows circumstantial evidence.
4b. Is there any evidence that Joe/Hunter Biden had corrupt business dealings in the Ukraine.
There is circumstantial evidence. Hunter Biden got a board position in the Ukraine despite having no expertise in energy or the Eurasia while his father was given a role to formulate policy for Ukraine. Joe Biden got a prosecutor fired in the Ukraine.
5a. Is there evidence that Congressional Democrats just want politically damaging info.
It is an unprecedented use of the subpoena power, especially against a political opponent. Democrats never had interests in Trump’s tax returns until he ran for President.
5b. Is there evidence that Trump just wants politically damaging info?
It is unprecedented use of an American President’s foreign policy power, especially against a political opponent. Trump never had interest in Joe/Hunter Biden until Biden decided to run for President.
Is there a difference in the two cases?
One, Trump merely claims that Democrats are improperly using their power, he has not asked that Congressional Democrats be expelled from office for abusing Congresses powers.
On the other hand, Congressional Democrats seek to impeach and remove Trump from office for abusing the Presidents powers.
CuriousOnlooker, What a thoroughly interesting comparison and contrast of the two men!
Steve, It’s your conclusion that the inquiry into Ukraine and the Bidens was to “help Trump’s reelection” chances. What many others say, including Trump and Zelensky, is it was a conversation sharing their mutual intentions to investigate government corruption, especially following Trump’s experience of being hammered with 2 1/2 long years of the questionable Mueller investigations. Zelensky’s and Trump’s dialogue also syncs with the ongoing counterintelligence investigation, initiated by the DOJ, that includes looking at the Ukrainian involvement in the 2016 election. And, while the Biden’s slick monetary moves in Ukraine may not have been “illegal,” to many it appears to have been an exploitation of Biden’s role as VP and point man to Ukraine foreign policy.
Now, back to parsing that phone call……
“it was a conversation sharing their mutual intentions to investigate government corruption”
Then Trump should have asked for a broad investigation into corruption. What he asked for was an investigation into Biden.
CO- One of the big differences here is that Trump is POTUS and is using that power to do things. Biden doesn’t hold office anymore. He is just a potential candidate. Also, just to be clear, I have already supported the idea of investigating Biden, again. So…
“he has not asked that Congressional Democrats be expelled from office for abusing Congresses powers.”
But they have the authority to ask for his tax returns. They also have an obligation because of the continued concerns about self dealing. Also, what mechanism is in the Constitution that allows POTUS to expel Congress people?
“On the other hand, Congressional Democrats seek to impeach and remove Trump from office for abusing the Presidents powers.”
Yes. When the president breaks the law, the Constitution allows Congress to impeach. As has been noted before Congress has a lot of latitude about what is impeachable. For some political parties lying about sex meets the threshold. For others using presidential power to try to sway election outcomes through illegal means meets the threshold.
Steve
The comment just repeats Point 1 and 2. That both Congress and the President are using the powers given to them by the Constitution and by law. Both claim to be taking actions to fight corruption.
The rest is more special pleading — and doesn’t even address whether looking into Trump’s tax returns is an abuse of Congress power.
I will add a new point.
6a. What’s Congress power to remedy a Presidential abuse of power
Congress can impeach with a majority of the House and remove from office with 2/3 of the Senate. Congress will investigate complaints from the public (in the Ukraine case the whistleblower)
6b. What’s Congress power to remedy a Congressional abuse of power
Each House can expel a member from Congress with a 2/3 majority of that House. Each House can process complaints from the public (including the President) which can lead to an investigation.
If we apply the same standards to Congress as to the President, very soon we should have expulsion votes on a majority of the House for abusing their subpoena powers.
Special pleading works both ways and there’s also the broad brush fallacy to consider.
And I would think it’s pretty clear I’m not setting principles based on who I like and who I don’t like -particularly when it comes to politicians. In the earlier thread, I was talking about norms when it comes to corruption and the fact that corruption is present in almost every human society. That is just pointing out the reality, it’s not an argument stating that whatever level of established (“normal”) corruption here in the is ok.
I agree that all corruption is bad but think it is also evident that all corruption is not the same and I disagree with the notion that all corruption must be treated equally. And, in particular, I’m not swayed by arguments that suggest or imply that going after some instance of corruption is somehow illegitimate because of some other instance of corruption that went unchallenged.
My primary concerns are protecting the legitimacy of our political system and battling against the creeping normalcy that characterizes so much of our politics, to include corruption. It seems to me that new modes and methods of corruption are increasingly becoming normalized and there is no doubt, in my mind at least, that Trump is pushing those boundaries and doing so in his own Trumpian way. We shouldn’t stand aside and let Pres. Trump reset the boundaries, especially not for specious justifications that boil down to “he/she is corrupt too.”
I do not agree with the arguments that what Trump is accused of doing here with Ukraine is remotely the same thing as either the Steele Dossier or what we know about Hunter Biden based on currently available facts. Note that I don’t object to investigating either of those two incidents, but such investigations should be done through a legitimate process, not by one of the most corrupt countries on the planet (Ukraine) at the behest of a clearly self-interested President acting through his personal lawyer and utilizing aid as either a carrot or a stick. Process matters and if there is something illegal with Biden or Steele, we have a justice department and law enforcement agencies to investigate and adjudicate it.
And the bottom line is that serious and credible allegations against the President and his actions exist regarding his conduct and communications with the new Ukrainian President. They can’t be ignored. They shouldn’t be relegated to a highly partisan “debate” confined to social media and by yellow journalists and their mouthpieces.
What is to be done? What remedy is there? Throw up our hands or shrug and say, “well other people are corrupt too?”
“But if you condemn an exchange of favors between heads of state, you should be prepared to delineate precisely what you are opposing and take care not to rule out negotiations between heads of state altogether.”
I’m opposing the use of Presidential authority to either compel or entice foreign leaders to intervene in on our domestic politics, which is exactly what it appears President Trump did.
Susan Rice spells it out for you right here:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/01/opinion/trump-ukraine.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage#commentsContainer
I am quite amused by the sudden interest in high level government corruption.
Using disinformation from Russian intelligence agencies to obtain warrants for an intelligence investigation that leads to a special investigation is just peachy.
Please, spare me the histrionics.
Yes, but Tasty. HotelGate……..
“The rest is more special pleading — and doesn’t even address whether looking into Trump’s tax returns is an abuse of Congress power.”
I dont think that term means what you think it means. Just waving it around doesn’t get you anywhere. I guess you missed the argument over Trump releasing his tax returns to Congress. There actually exists a law that says Congress may look at Trump’s tax returns, or any president’s returns. The Trump team decided to challenge that law, but this is not something Congress made up just to go after Trump. That is opposed to Trump who used his office to go after a political rival. There is no law that allows that.
“very soon we should have expulsion votes on a majority of the House for abusing their subpoena powers.”
Except that Congress really does have the power to subpoena and there is no evidence of abusing that. Again, this term does not mean what you think it means.
“Using disinformation from Russian intelligence agencies to obtain warrants for an intelligence investigation that leads to a special investigation is just peachy.”
Look, a squirrel. Ignore Trump. The Trump DOJ has had almost 3 years to investigate this. Trump gets to name his people to the top positions in the intel sector. Yet no charges. Mueller did his investigation in less that 2 years. What I predict, and pretty safely, is that we will at least another 1 1/2 years of conspiracy theory and vague complaints about the deep state, or intelligence trying to form a coup or whatever idiocy you guys believe. Just like we have 4 years and 8 investigations of Benghazi. Nothing will come out of it.
Steve
“I think there is only corruption and it is all bad. The only question is to what lengths we should be willing to go to root it out.â€
I think materiality enters into it. But maybe that’s what you are getting at in the second sentence.
Equal application of the standard would be nice as well. But now I’m hallucinating.
@steve
The Steele dossier was filled with lies. Somebody created those lies. It was somebody within Hillary Clinton’s campaign, somebody hired by Hillary Clinton’s Campaign, or somebody feeding disinformation to either. You can pick which it is.
US intelligence used the dossier to obtain warrants to open an intelligence investigation. Either the heads of those agencies were too stupid or gullible to detect disinformation, or they were lying. Again, take your pick.
Muller and the gang were stupid, gullible, or lying. Again, you pick.
You will be pleased to learn that AG Barr is working to get to the bottom of this mess.
Tasty,
“I am quite amused by the sudden interest in high level government corruption.”
If that remark is aimed at me, then you haven’t been paying attention.
“Using disinformation from Russian intelligence agencies to obtain warrants for an intelligence investigation that leads to a special investigation is just peachy.”
And yet Trump, now President, has been talking for over a year about declassifying the FISA warrant itself, the supporting information for it and all the related documents – yet he still hasn’t done it. The only thing preventing the full truth about the Steele Dossier, the Page FISA warrant, et al is Donald Trump’s signature on an order.
“You will be pleased to learn that AG Barr is working to get to the bottom of this mess.”
And in the last two days the howling about Barr has reached a crescendo. Clearly he must be getting close to the target. Which of course is why we also have the current shit show.
“The only thing preventing the full truth about the Steele Dossier, the Page FISA warrant, et al is Donald Trump’s signature on an order.”
Its only speculation, but I’ve heard its being held up due to the Durham investigation.
@Andy
I am addressing anybody who is overcome by the vapors. If this is you, loosen your corset and get to the fainting couch.
I wish he would declassify everything, and at this point, I am tired of anything being classified. Of course, I would be treated to howls of how he is violating norms.
It is possible that the classified information has the evidence of his treason, and it is possible that my dog will come back to life and start solving differential equations.
We know that Steele dossier was filled with lies by somebody or somebodies who did not want Trump Elected, and we know that dossier eventually lead to a special investigation to have President Trump removed. We do not know who the somebody or somebodies are.
These same clowns went on to claim obstruction of justice, the 25th Amendment, and the emoluments clause as reasons to remove President Trump, and so far, everything they have claimed is false and much batshit crazy.
We now have new charges that President Trump wants to get elected by using the Ukrainian president. The charges are as laughable as everything else, but I will play along. I have been assured that President Trump is maniacal, egotistical, a braggart, and a blowhard but, now, I am assured that he believes that anybody other than himself can get him elected.
You can pick which it is. It is possible that he is guilty of this latest charge, but I am going to apply Occam’s Razor. It is most likely that my dog was the mastermind, and it is a conspiracy to have K-9’s rule the world.
We’d probably be better off.
Agree.
“within Hillary Clinton’s campaign, somebody hired by Hillary Clinton’s Campaign, or somebody feeding disinformation to either. You can pick which it is.”
We also know it had a bit of truth. Nonetheless, it is still not clear to me why the Trump administration and DOJ has just sat on this for almost 3 years. If they do find anything untoward, as I have said elsewhere, let’s impeach Hillary too. (Of course then they won’t have anything to get Drew all riled up about, so I am betting they just cant seem to find that little bit of information to justify charges for a long time, if ever. Surely is clear by now that the GOP MO is to just have endless investigations and claims that dont really find anything. Mueller was done in what, 18 months? Pussy amateur.)
“everything they have claimed is false and much batshit crazy.”
Nope, what they found is that Trump ordered obstruction of justice but his underlings refused to carry out his orders. Oh so much better.
“I wish he would declassify everything”
No you wouldn’t. You and yours just want to make assertions about stuff. Remember Lois Lerner? Surely you do. If she would just talk she would tell everyone how Obama ordered the IRS sandal. So that could have been resolved by granting her immunity. Didnt happen because the GOP wanted to keep it a campaign issue. So we arent getting a release, or if we do we get a heavily redacted release showing only stuff that supports Trump.
At some point dont you start to feel like a chump when you have investigations and claims made going on for much longer than the Mueller investigation, and nothing is ever found?
“It is possible that the classified information has the evidence of his treason, ”
Strawman. No one here has said he committed treason. Go argue with someone who makes that claim.
Steve
“I have been assured that President Trump is maniacal, egotistical, a braggart, and a blowhard but, now, I am assured that he believes that anybody other than himself can get him elected.”
Yeah, plus he’s now feeding illegal immigrants to the gators and plinking them in the legs from a secret turret.
I continue to be amused by the, ahem, analysis of legal minutia, innuendo, mind reading and out and out disinformation.
As I’ve said. Biden is a sacrificial lamb. I wonder how he feels to get shived by his BFF. They’d love to remove Trump, but its not their expectation. This is all a side show to obfuscate and delegitimize the investigators of the main event: the corruption in the 2016 election. The howling turned up to 11 is like the canary in the coal mine.
Tasty, you seem to be one of the few even discussing the Steele Dossier, it’s slimy derivative from HRC’s campaign, and how it was malevolently used to crowbar unwarranted FISA warrants for the unmasking and surveillance of citizens in order to disrupt a detested election result. Somehow, even the possibility of this happening should raise all kinds of red flags and bipartisan concerns.
Tragically, that’s not been the case. Instead, even curiosity to simply fact check & delve deeper into the political abyss of circumstances surrounding the Russian probe, have been absent. Only Barr seems interested in taking on a more thorough investigation, hiring a prosecutor with indictment capacities, and going directly to foreign entities and others involved in the beginnings of said Russian meddling allegations. And, by doing so he is being smeared and discredited. What Democrats seem to be demanding is to leave the unsuccessful Mueller Probe alone and stay transfixed and loyal to their latest controversy, aimed at impeaching a president they’ve been attempting to derail from the onset of his term in office!
In the midst of the Democrats newest investigation, troubling precedents are being set in motion by the democrats. Where in history has an opposition party been able to demand private transcripts, between two world leaders, and, when immediately provided, petulantly asked for more? When has formal impeachment hearings gone forward without first calling for a vote? When has one party, by skipping a full House vote, thus denying House minority members their own subpoena powers, been able to narrow the scope of evidence that would be provided by a wider (fairer) array of witnesses? When has it been appropriate for the House to tell State Department witnesses not to go through proper channels of the DOJ? Why has there not been more scrutiny over the disingenuous opening statement of Adam Schiff’s confusing “parody†of facts? For that matter, how was Adam Schiff able to recite, almost verbatim, the text of the Ukraine complaint before it was supposedly even submitted to Congress? Isn’t that rather suspicious as to the unbiased content of this complaint?
Finally, is this the new, one-party standard in which everyone wants government to function in future conflicts between parties?
Steve, you seem to think it possible for Trump’s DOJ to have run an investigation into the 2016 election in parallel with Mueller’s investigation. How would that have worked, exactly?
“I wish he would declassify everything, and at this point, I am tired of anything being classified. Of course, I would be treated to howls of how he is violating norms.”
I agree he should declassify as much as possible with few exceptions. One wonders why he hasn’t.
“We know that Steele dossier was filled with lies by somebody or somebodies who did not want Trump Elected, and we know that dossier eventually lead to a special investigation to have President Trump removed. We do not know who the somebody or somebodies are.”
The dossier was simply a collection of raw information/intelligence and yes, much of it (not everything) was not accurate, as is often the case with raw intelligence. But the dossier wasn’t as dispositive as you’re suggesting. There still would have been an investigation without it. And, as far as I know, we don’t really know how critical it was in the approval of the Carter Page FISA warrant or what portions of the dossier were even used.
Again, all this could be cleared up by the President tomorrow. Trump supporters are loudly confident about the President’s innocence as a victim of the deep state, yet seem strangely meek when it comes to Trump’s decision not to release the evidence they believe will exonerate him and expose his opponents for what they are.
And, looking at the bigger picture, many of us have expressed continuing concern about the FISA process generally, given all the concerning examples that have come out over the past couple of decades. And yet hardly anyone – including Donald Trump – has expressed any interest in reforming the process to prevent future abuses.
@steve
Let me be clear, I mean everything. I do not mean everything except classified redactions. I do not mean everything related to the Ukraine, Trump hotel, FISA, etc. I mean everything – NSA, IRS, DoD, Congress, FISA, Executive classified information.
The leak problems would be solved, and much of the information is already known by hackers anyway. I would stream the President’s phone calls and meetings. If you want President Trump’s tax returns, you could view them online.
It looks like AG Barr is investigating the origins of the Mueller investigation. So, you should be happy.
I assumed that Lois Lerner was not intentionally targeting conservative groups, and I wrote it in a comment. Since then, it appears that she was doing exactly that. I agree Republicans were using it as a campaign issue, but giving her immunity would have prevented her from being prosecuted.
I also still assume that Hillary Clinton setup the email server to make it easier to keep her private emails private, but it is possible that she wanted to avoid exposure of some nefarious plot. Using Occam’s Razor, I think she is just an idiot.
In both cases, I think there needs to be some probable cause to start investigating. In the case of Lois Lerner, I think that threshold has been met. In the case of Hillary Clinton, I think stupidity is the most plausible explanation. I also think that there is probably cause that she mishandled classified information, but again, I attribute it to stupidity.
It does not matter how many times you say it. There was no obstruction of justice. More importantly, there was nothing to obstruct.
The Steele dossier was a lie ridden document. I am not going to argue whether it was 90% or 99% lies. Yes, Moscow is a real place, and yes, Trump is a real person.
On CNN, Brennen called President Trump a traitor, and there are countless examples of other people, as well.
I welcome an impeachment. It will provide a record to be restated over and over. If you are right, there will be Democrats elected, ‘as far as the eye can see’.
@Andy
The Steele dossier was designed to be ‘not accurate’. It did not write itself. Steele did not go to bed, and Word wrote it overnight. Somebody or somebodies intentionally wrote those ‘not accurate’ assertions.
The only relation to intelligence was as disinformation from Russia, and if it was not from Russia, somebody or somebodies related to Hillary Clinton’s campaign was the source.
In any case, the assertions were so cartoonish that no intelligent person could believe it. Either our intelligence service people are idiots or criminals.
It is possible that there is incriminating evidence that President Trump is withholding. I assume that this is locked-up in the super-secret hideaway that cannot be leaked. Since everything else was leaked, I am again going to use Occam’s Razor and deduce that there is nothing incriminating.
President Trump has stated that he declassified information, and I think he is letting AG Barr decide what can be released. It is possible that AG Barr has suddenly become a partisan hack, but since nobody brought up the possibility before he was approved, it looks like a partisan attack.
It is also possible that President Trump is keeping his mouth shut about this, but since I have been assured that he cannot be trusted with classified information, I am going with partisan attack.
If he was colluding with the Russians, it would be “the best, most beautiful Russian collusion, ever.” If he was obstructing justice, it would be “the best, most beautiful obstruction of justice, ever.” If he was profiting from being president, it would be “the best, most beautiful illegal profiting, in history.”
To date, the only thing he has kept secret is his tax returns, and I guess that is because he claimed the Russian hookers were a business expense.
“President Trump has stated that he declassified information”
And you believe him. How sweet. Already putty marker down on this. Up until the day he leaves office we will hear the trump declassified the stuff and we will see it any day (or we get a heavily redacted version with a nice explanation about what is missing from the totally non-partisan Barr, and you will believe him.
” I have been assured that he cannot be trusted with classified information”
Just with his best bud Vlad.
Steve