Post inauguration Trump:

[pietillidie]

^Trump's also a serial bankrupt, and in monetary terms a teeny tiny fraction as successful as someone like Bloomberg. And once you add his bankruptcies onto his tab, Trump's a walking net loss; a net commercial failure.

But I didn't say he's not talented; rather, he can't build stable and credible organisations because of his malignant narcissism. This is why he's got so many government vacancies and no one will work for him except family and shabby chancers. He'd rather let government crumble than employ someone who doesn't fawn over him and do his every bidding, which means talented professionals with serious reputations steer clear of him like the plague.

Entire government departments will have to be rebuilt at enormous expense given the knowledge and human capital Trump's destroyed. Not to mention the legal overhaul needed to rebalance the executive due to his third-world abuse of power and custom. Then, there's the years of recovery from the unprecedented domestic hatred and instability he has fomented, and the urgent need to restabilise global economic growth.

Where there is a need to build lasting relationships, institutions and mutual arrangements, i.e., any complex life situation involving other humans, Toxic Terry is the last person you want around.

The paranoid communist purges would be comical if it weren't for the damage they're doing to government and governance, and the costs the walking bankrupt is transferring to everyone else in the process.

The bloke is organisational poison.

[pietillidie]

This is a better article on election interference that takes into account some of David's concerns without denying the basic facts:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/25/opin ... nders.html

[Wokko]

Hillary Clinton ordered to make, for the first time, a sworn deposition regarding her State Department emails.

Maybe Trump will get to "Lock her up" after all. Or the judge will commit suicide with two bullets to the back of the head.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/0 ... ion-118800

[Pies4shaw]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... unredacted

Before the Trumpinistas start frothing and gibbering about this one, I should mention that the judge who made this ruling is a George W Bush appointee.

'The Department of Justice has been ordered to turn over an unredacted copy of the Mueller report in a ruling that accuses the attorney general, William Barr, of misrepresenting the findings of the report before handing it over to Congress.

The department has been ordered to hand over the report by 30 March, so a judge can assess what can be further released publicly.

The court decision is the result of a BuzzFeed News lawsuit seeking to remove redactions from the report, which details the special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential elections.

In his opinion explaining the ruling, the federal judge Reggie Walton wrote that Barr’s public comments in April 2019 about the report did not fit with the actual findings and were misleading to the public.

“The inconsistencies between Attorney General Barr’s statements, made at a time when the public did not have access to the redacted version of the Mueller Report to assess the veracity of his statements, and portions of the redacted version of the Mueller Report that conflict with those statements cause the Court to seriously question whether Attorney General Barr made a calculated attempt to influence public discourse about the Mueller Report in favor of President Trump despite certain findings in the redacted version of the Mueller Report to the contrary,” Walton said.

Walton, who was appointed by George W Bush, delivered a harsh condemnation of Barr. “These circumstances generally, and Attorney General Barr’s lack of candor specifically, call into question Attorney General Barr’s credibility,” he wrote in the legal opinion.'

It goes without saying that, in a proper democracy, an Attorney-General who was the subject of comments like these would fall on his sword forthwith. In the present US administration, of course, questionable candour, dubious credibility and misleading statements seem to be pre-requisites for office.

[Wokko]

Considering Bloomberg spent $700M on advertising do you really think that a couple hundred thousand spent on crappy Facebook ads by Russian trolls (or whoever) had any impact on the election at all?

Regardless, I don't think it'd matter if the full report was released and said Trump obstructed, it's long gone in the news cycle and nobody cares besides a few weirdos clinging desperately to "Muh Russian interference" narrative. Those people were never going to vote Trump anyway.

Keep up man, it's Bernie Sanders who Russia is interfering for now and it was Gabbard before that. Don't worry though, it'll Trump again during the General and you can get all hot and bothered again.

[Pies4shaw]

You didn't read it, I guess, so you can be forgiven for posting an entirely irrelevant party-political broadcast.

This is only about the apparent impropriety of the Attorney-General's conduct and has nothing to do with Trump or Russia or electoral interference - and everything to do with what the Court has found to be mis-characterization in an important public document by the US' first law-officer. It is a matter of serious probity concern raised - in scathing terms - by a Republican-appointed bench. It should trouble everyone who is interested in the proper functioning of democratic systems around the World (because so many countries look to the US example). Of course, doing the orange guy's bidding seems to trump the distinction between right and wrong in some officials' minds.

Thus, I repeat that "It goes without saying that, in a proper democracy, an Attorney-General who was the subject of comments like these would fall on his sword forthwith. In the present US administration, of course, questionable candour, dubious credibility and misleading statements seem to be pre-requisites for office."

If you don't understand the role of the Attorney-General in a democratic system, you don't have to comment.

If you don't understand why an Attorney-General should leave office after a judge says such things about the Attorney-General's conduct in reasons for judgment, you don't have to comment.

[Wokko]

I do understand, I did read it and like I said, nobody will care. Nobody cared when Obama's AGs, both Holder and Lynch were corrupt, partisan hacks and nobody cared when GW Bush's AGs were corrupt, partisan hacks. The office of AG has been used as a political tool for a long time. It's meant to do the will of the President and is a member of his cabinet, not sure why you'd think they'd be some kind of non partisan no matter who the President was.

I think it's YOU who doesn't understand the role of the the US Attorney General. Sure you might think you know the theory but real life isn't a musty old law book.

[Pies4shaw]

I appreciate that you don't care. You should. Everyone should, because of the implications. It appears that he should be removed from office because he isn't fit. The World is full of lawyers of all political persuasions. Some of them are competent. There are enough competent ones who can act in the interest of the Government/President that is unnecessary to keep one who apparently can't manage basic professional standards.

This is not about a "musty old law book" (if I even had any). It's about us all needing better people in that office and the similar office in every other democratic system of government.

Lack of candour and questionable credibility. One simply cannot leave a first law officer in office who would be struck off the roll of practitioners for doing the same thing in private practice. The Attorney-General is not the President. Nor the Immigration Minister. That office is not supposed to have a liar in it. Democracy cannot function adequately if it does.

[Wokko]

I agree in principle, just like Holder and Lynch should've been impeached so should Barr. Jeff Sessions was principled and he got the arse for it. The US system is very corrupt and has been for a long time, not sure that just firing Barr (an old Neocon Bush holdover) would really fix anything.

You just know that Trump would replace him with someone like Giulliani so you'd go from the principled Sessions to the dodgy Barr to the outright Trump loyalist ally Giulliani.

[Jezza]

Chuck Schumer threatens Supreme Court judges

Schumer told two Supreme Court justices they would “pay the price” and “you won’t know what hit you” if they rule the wrong way. And then he suggested the chief justice is acting politically.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... war-words/

[Pies4shaw]

I’m not sure what there is to laugh about in that. Schumer’s comments are shameful. Judges have to be left to do their job to the best of their abilities. It’s a large part of the problems in the US that the appointment of judges is so political but treating them as targets really doesn’t help.

[Jezza]

^ I'm laughing at the hypocrisy of the Democrats who accuse the other side of the political spectrum of undermining the judiciary.

Threatening judges is a very serious matter.

[Pies4shaw]

Yes, it is. It’s also a very, very grave state of affairs. I wasn’t meaning to come across as criticising you, though. It’s plainly outrageous.

[Jezza]

^ No offence taken and I agree with you entirely.

[stui magpie]

I’m not sure what there is to laugh about in that. Schumer’s comments are shameful. Judges have to be left to do their job to the best of their abilities. It’s a large part of the problems in the US that the appointment of judges is so political but treating them as targets really doesn’t help.

The Donald agrees with you.

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
There can be few things worse in a civilized, law abiding nation, than a United States Senator openly, and for all to see and hear, threatening the Supreme Court or its Justices. This is what Chuck Schumer just did. He must pay a severe price for this!