I rarely get comments on this sparsely read blahg. Yesterday I got two. I had an email for each, asking if I approved the comment for “publication”. The comments were from the same person. I read the first, and then the second. The second email had this red warning banner at the top:
I see now that I have a third comment from Boxerpaws. So I’ll answer them all here, to err on the side of safety. I hope you read these replies, my friend, and thank you for your comments.
The comment on this post
the IRS would have busted Pres Trump if they had found any wrongdoing. What Fred Trump did or didn’t do is irrelevant.
The IRS has a special unit that deals with the tax returns of very wealthy citizens. Over the years they collected a tiny amount of money from Fred for his under-reporting income, undervaluing assets and other tax mistakes or violations. Young Donald and his siblings were lifetime beneficiaries of Fred’s tax avoidance schemes and certainly knew, as adults, that he was fraudulently funneling money to them using fake corporations they were officers of, and his other tax dodges. Did you read the massive NY Times investigative piece? The Failing NYT was never sued by the president’s many lawyers, in spite of the threat printed in the article itself.
President Trump will not produce any financial documents … because? There is every appearance that the president is lying about the longest tax audit in American history. His appeal of a judge’s decision in the Deutsche Bank case is another example of him being “the most transparent president in history”. He has been known, on occasion, to lie. This is something you have to admit, I think.
Also Fred, in old age, had lawyers summon Donald and the other siblings to make sure now President Trump’s plan to become sole executor of Fred’s wealth never happened. Don’t forget how many times Fred had thrown in tens of millions ($400,000,000 in today’s dollars) to insulate his reckless (or audacious, if you prefer) son from multiple business disasters.
Your comments on this post
“Barr did what Mueller asked, but he waited a few weeks before releasing anything from Mueller.” Barr had no requirement to release it at all. He released it both for public consumption and Congress.
OK. But as the sentences that follow the quote point out, during those weeks Barr waited, with Mueller’s fully redacted executive summary and a letter from Mueller disputing Barr’s conclusion of “no collusion, no obstruction, exoneration” in his hands as of March 27, Americans were deliberately misled by Barr. The narrative that Americans absorbed in the course of almost a month of redacting, in the absence of the details of numerous incidents of obstruction of justice that were laid out in the report (and in the executive summary) was false.
Have you read the Mueller summary outlining the ten or more examples of obstruction ? It’s a ten minute read, all Americans should read it.
Mueller told Barr in the presence of witnesses that the DOJ ruling that a sitting Pres cannot be indicted had no bearing on his decision. So which time did Mueller lie? The first time to Barr et al or the 2nd time at his ‘presser’. 2. there is no LAW stating that a sitting Pres can’t be indicted. It amounts to a DOJ guideline. Nothing more,nothing less. IF a sitting Pres couldn’t be indicted for a crime he could rob a bank/murder his wife and get away with it as long as he was in office. Use your head.
Let’s assume that Barr was telling the truth, and witnesses can verify that Mueller lied to him over and over at a meeting when he said under no circumstances could he have indicted President Trump using the evidence compiled in his report. How does that change anything dozens of witnesses said, under penalty of perjury, in Mueller’s report? Also note that Trump and Barr are the only two people we know of ever to accuse Republican Eagle Scout Mueller of dishonesty.
Do we assume, if Mueller lied to Barr about that policy decision, and even falsely claimed that a certain regulation required him to abide by the OLC guideline about indicting a sitting president, that he’s lying about everything in his report, including all of the sworn testimony of many witnesses?
If so, doesn’t the same assumption apply to President Trump, who sometimes lies?
The standard for impeachment is not the same as for a criminal trial — they do not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the president committed crimes. To remove an impeached public official from office they only have to show, to the satisfaction of the American people and 65 Senators, how he abused his power to undermine our constitutional system.
As candidate Trump himself observed, he could shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue and not lose any supporters. This seems to be the case, if you ignore all the findings in the Mueller Report and focus only on whether Mueller lied to Barr about one key point during a closed door meeting.
Let us turn to President Trump’s strong refutation of the Mueller report. Here is the president’s strong case that Mueller is a vicious enemy of his, with a giant “conflict of interest”.
How am I not using my head?
Thanks again for these comments.