Posts Made By: James Brown

Originally Posted by James Brown

Hi James:  I hate to say it, but CNN more or less supports Richard on this phone call angle:

CNN reported previously that Mueller also followed up with Barr in a phone call after he sent the March 27 letter.  While Mueller didn't think Barr's letter was inaccurate, the special counsel believed his report was more nuanced on the obstruction of justice issue, according to Justice Department officials. Mueller was frustrated by media coverage, and wanted more of the report to come out, those officials told CNN.  The call was described to CNN as polite, but there was clear disagreement. "This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the special counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations," Mueller wrote.


https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/01/politics/mueller-barr-letter-special-counsel/index.html

Originally Posted by James Lacey

Jim,

Mueller didn't write a letter of protest to Barr because he was happy about the way Barr handled the release of the Mueller report. It's pretty clear that first and foremost, Mueller was concerned about Barr's summary. Any concerns about media coverage came afterward as the timeline shows. I don't necessarily agree that a later release of the redacted version somehow excuses Barr's mischaracterizations. After all, once a narrative is created and used widely, it's almost impossible to rewrite.

Originally Posted by James Lacey

I don't see independents breaking for Trump unless the Democrats nominate a terrible candidate. In 2016, we had two highly unpopular candidates, and many people were willing to give Trump the benefit of the doubt because they didn't want to vote for Hillary. Trump barely won in 2016 despite what Trump flatterers would have you believe. Now that the American people have seen on full display the consequences of a Trump personality in the White House, do you think that independents are going to swing to him? I seriously doubt it when he continues to assail the most popular provisions of the ACA, and as you so tartly put it, continues to behave like an ass. Besides, Congressional oversight and investigations have drug on for years before and it didn't change the minds of independents. The content of Vol.2 of the Mueller report is a veritable treasure trove compared to anything the Republicans had on Hillary. As long as Trump continues to be a pathological lying narcissist who can't help but act on his worst impulses, then there will be no shortage of investigations.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

"The facts are these: More than a week after Barr received Mueller's letter expressing concern about how the AG's summary letter had characterized the obstruction evidence -- and talked to Mueller on the phone about it -- he appeared before Congress. And he had this exchange with Florida Democratic Rep. Charlie Crist:
CRIST: Reports have emerged recently, General, that members of the special counsel's team are frustrated at some level with the limited information included in your March 24 letter, that it does not adequately or accurately portray the report's findings. Do you know what they are referencing with that?
BARR: No, I don't.
Asked about that moment on Wednesday, Barr explained what looks like willful obfuscation -- basically -- this way: I didn't know what specific "reports" Crist was referring to or who on the special counsel's team he was talking about. Therefore, my answer is accurate.
Which is, well, whoa. Or, better put, it is a hugely legalistic answer to the question of whether Barr misled Crist and the broader country. Common sense dictates that, when asked about whether he was aware of any frustrations from the special counsel regarding his four-page letter, the letter from Mueller -- and their subsequent phone conversation -- would jump immediately to mind
Barr can make a lawyerly argument that he didn't understand what Crist was specifically referring to in his question. But that doesn't pass the smell test."

CNN put it very accurately in the above. Mueller had already communicated his overt concerns about the report to Barr and Barr knew it. Oh, I forgot, in Barr's word, Mueller was just being "snitty"... Yeah, right...

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Hi Again Jim,

  I just noticed this statement from you about the economy.  I'm glad to hear another conservative say that.

  This begs the question then, if Hick begins to mention anything whereby it appears he will target the OIL industry, will you change your mind about voting for him?
  
  Enjoy your day! 

Rich

Originally Posted by James Lacey

I don't disagree with you, and it is incredible how much a robust economy can insulate a politician from criticism. I think the idea that he will easily win in 2020, even with a good economy, is not supportable by the data we have in front of us today. For example, if he lost all the States where he is polling negatively today, he would get clobbered. He lost the popular vote by six million votes in 2016 and only won by squeaking out extremely narrow margins of victory in the by now famous rust-belt states of PA, WI, and MI. He is not even polling well in traditionally red states like Texas. However, as you said, what happens over the next 1.5 years will matter too. I hope we are all here to see what happens.

Originally Posted by Greg Shaffer

Trump won because a WHOLE LOT of normally side-liners got sick of the left's lies and BS and jumped in the game. The lies and BS have only gotten worse and I fully expect between the economy and disgust with the left he is a shoe-in for a 2nd term.

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Jared Polis and the lefties in Colorado have essentially stolen our electoral college here.  The State Assembly here just "decided" through legislation that from now on, they would simply AWARD all the electoral college votes to the candidate who got the most Popular votes even if we voted as a state for the person who rec'd fewer national votes. 

I'm baffled as to why a lawsuit hasn't been filed yet about this.  It strikes me that it is an absolute violation of my vote going to where I wanted it to go.  

Originally Posted by James Brown

Hold your horses on this one Richard.  The law, (which is a stupid law of course), only goes into effect when a majority of states (electoral college wise) pass a similar law.  Jared Polis and those like him would never give up our reliable blue electoral college votes, unless it was guaranteed that the national popular vote winner (presumably a D) would win.

Jim

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/02/21/colorado-join-national-compact-casting-electoral-college-votes/2940598002/

Originally Posted by James Brown

From the National Popular Vote website:

"The National Popular Vote bill will take effect when enacted into law by states possessing 270 electoral votes (a majority of the 538 electoral votes).  It has been enacted into law in 15 jurisdictions possessing 189 electoral votes, including 5 small jurisdictions (DC, DE, HI, RI, VT), 6 medium-sized states (CO, CT, MD, MA, NM, WA), and 4 big states (CA, IL, NJ, NY).   The bill will take effect when enacted by states possessing an additional 81 electoral votes."



I hope/think we are safe from this law for quite a while.  

Jim