Trump Dump: Internal Policy (Thread I)

[bilateralrope]

I accept that there is probably some stuff in the report that is best kept secret. But Barr's decision to protect reputations is worrying. Will he decide to hide things because they make Trump look bad or release them because Trump's reputation is already pretty bad and that detail won't change anything ?

I'm hoping for two things:
- That the redacted report doesn't get delayed over any arguments. The unredacted sections might render the redacted sections unimportant.
- That there is someone on the Democrats side who is in a position to know how truthful the reason is for any specific redaction.

[The Romulan Republic]

Those are good points.

The best bet for anyone seeing the full, unredacted report is probably the Gang of Eight (a Congressional group consisting of the Republican and Democratic leaders of both houses, and of the Intelligence Committees). They have the security clearance to read classified stuff, and as four of the Gang of Eight are Democrats (one of them is Adam Schiff), they presumably aren't going to just accept the Trump line or cover for Trump.

[The Romulan Republic]

Trump is now suggesting that he might decide not to allow the release of the Mueller report after all (surprising no one who's paid attention to Donald Trump for the last three years).

You know, for a totally exonerated man, he does a remarkably good impression of a guilty man.

[Broomstick]

Reminds me of Nixon's "I am not a crook" statement

Back in November 1973 if I recall correctly - look it up.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

Reminds me of Nixon's "I am not a crook" statement

Back in November 1973 if I recall correctly - look it up.

November 17, 1973. You still have all your marbles.

For now.

[FaxModem1]

Now to talk about actual domestic policy:

NPR

More Than 750,000 Could Lose Food Stamps Under Trump Administration Proposal
3:59
DOWNLOAD
TRANSCRIPT
April 1, 20195:00 AM ET
Heard on All Things Considered
Pam Fessler at NPR headquarters in Washington, D.C., March 19, 2019. (photo by Allison Shelley)
PAM FESSLER

Twitter

The Franciscan Center in Baltimore serves a hot lunch daily to those who need extra help, even if they receive food stamps. Those benefits could end for 755,000 able-bodied adults.
Pam Fessler/NPR
Three-quarters of a million people would likely lose their food stamps later this year under a new proposal by the Trump administration. The goal is to encourage able-bodied adults to go to work and get off government aid. But opponents predict people would go hungry instead, if the rule goes into effect.

A public comment period, which ends Tuesday, has so far drawn more than 28,000 comments overwhelmingly against the proposed rule.

Those affected by the proposed changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits are known as able-bodied adults without dependents, or ABAWDs. There were close to 4 million adults in this category receiving food stamps in 2016. About three-quarters of them did not work, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue says the administration thinks these people should be able to get jobs, especially now that the nation's unemployment rate is the lowest it has been in years.

"We believe the purpose of our welfare system should help people to become independent rather than permanent dependency," he recently told the House Agriculture Committee. "We think we are helping people to, again, move into the dignity of work and the respect of providing for their families."

To do that, the administration would stop food stamps after three months for ABAWDs who don't work, volunteer or get job training for at least 20 hours a week. That's already the law, but many states waive that requirement in high unemployment areas. The Trump administration would make those waivers much more difficult to come by.

It's part of a broader effort by the administration to impose tighter work requirements on recipients of government aid, such as housing vouchers and Medicaid. A federal judge last week blocked two states, Arkansas and Kentucky, from implementing the Medicaid work rule, calling it "arbitrary and capricious."

But the concept has strong Republican support.

"People believe that able-bodied people who can work, should work," Tennessee Republican Rep. Scott Desjarlais told Perdue, "Do you have any idea why there might be so much pushback and concerns on this measure?"

"I have no clue," Perdue responded.

At the Franciscan Center in Baltimore, where low-income individuals come every day for food, clothing and other help, people think they have a pretty good idea why opposition is so strong.

"Right now, I'm literally dependent on places like this," says 41-year-old Alton Royal, who carries a small plastic bag containing a couple of rolls and two peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. "This is my meal for the rest of the day."


Alton Royal of Baltimore depends on food stamps but fears he will lose them under the proposed rule because he can't find a job.
Pam Fessler/NPR
Royal says he gets $185 a month in SNAP benefits, but he worries he'll lose them under the proposed rules because he can't find work. He has a severely injured leg and a criminal record, which limit his options.

"But still I have to eat. I have to still try and find employment but I have those barriers against me," Royal says.

Others here are struggling with other barriers, such as homelessness, mental illness and drug addiction. Some already work, but not enough to meet the 20-hour-a-week threshold. One man says he has a janitorial job at the Baltimore Orioles' stadium, but only when the baseball team is in town. In the winter, he relies on food stamps.

"Everybody I know wants to work," says Royal. "Everybody."

Michael J. Wilson, director of Maryland Hunger Solutions, an advocacy group that opposes the rule, says threatening to take people's food away won't help them get a job. By the administration's own admission, the change would save $8 billion over five years, largely because 755,000 individuals will not meet the new requirements. Wilson estimates that about 30,000 of them will be in Maryland. He says that it's not just the lack of jobs, but the lack of other options.

Housing Department Slaps Facebook With Discrimination Charge
NATIONAL
Housing Department Slaps Facebook With Discrimination Charge
"If all those folks showed up at a job training site tomorrow, they would swamp the offices," he says. "There's not enough space for them to be able to do this."

Perdue notes that there would be exceptions for those who are disabled or can't work for one reason of another, but it's largely up to the states. States are not required to guarantee an individual a job, training or volunteer opportunity before stopping their benefits. Looking for work only counts toward the required 20 hours if it's paired with an education and training program.

Craig Gundersen, a professor of agriculture and consumer economics at the University of Illinois, questions the administration's assertion that imposing work requirements will move more SNAP recipients into the labor force. He says there's no evidence that receiving food stamps discourages work.

"This idea that people are ripping off the system or something, that's just not true," he says. In fact, food stamp benefits are structured to encourage work, he says, by reducing benefits gradually as income grows.

Gundersen also says the proposal "is just not consistent with the goals of the program," which is to reduce hunger.

For the most part, SNAP has enjoyed strong bipartisan support. A similar work requirement was rejected by Congress last year when lawmakers debated a new farm bill. President Trump announced the proposed rule the same day he signed that bill into law.

As a result, congressional Democrats have threatened to sue if the change goes into effect later this year, as the administration intends.

So, if this happens, expect a lot of poor people to be making tough choices between things like rent and food.

[The Romulan Republic]

The War on the Poor continues. Automate their jobs away, deny them a living wage, then blame them for being poor and punish them with a slow death by starvation.

As to Mueller, today is the deadline Congress gave for Barr to turn over the full report. The House is reportedly drawing up subpoenas this week.

[The Romulan Republic]

Trump and company are using Barr's summary of the Mueller report to try to shut down any and all criticism or scrutiny, even if it has nothing to do with the Mueller probe:

https://www.businessinsider.com/kushner ... egy-2019-4

In an an interview broadcast Monday night President Donald Trump's son-in-law and adviser Jared Kushner shrugged off questions over his White House security clearance, granting a glimpse of a political playbook that could loom large in the months to come.

Speaking to Fox News' Laura Ingraham, Kushner used the central finding of special counsel Robert Mueller's report — which did not established any collusion with Russia — to avoid answering about something totally unrelated.

Here is the exchange, with the relevant segment highlighted:

Ingraham: The left is going crazy about the security clearance issue. And a whistleblower from the White House has now given a private interview on Capitol Hill with Democrats, and she says that 25 individuals were able to leapfrog over the career people's concerns about security clearances, and they received security clearances, in her view, improperly. What's your reaction for that?

Kushner: Well, I can't comment for the White House's process, but what I can say is that over the last few years that I've been here, I've been accused of all different types of things, and all of those things have turned out to be false.

We've had a lot of crazy accusations, like, that we colluded with Russia. I complied with all the different investigations, whether it be the Senate, the House, the special counsel. I've sat for nearly 20 hours of interviews with them.

By grouping the claims together, Kushner implied that the questions about his security clearance were similarly unfounded, despite them being voiced to Congress by a White House whistleblower.

Kushner is not the first Trump ally official to cite Mueller's report to discredit unrelated investigations into the administration.

Senate Majority leader and Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell, in a recent message to supporters on Facebook, used Mueller to solicit funds for re-election, posting an image of Democratic leaders with the text "these investigations will never end" superimposed on them.

Watch Ingraham ask Kushner about his security clearance, and Kushner completely sidestep the question with absolutely no resistance from Ingraham.

This is why WH officials continue to give interviews to Fox pundits while ignoring its news division

The president's son, Donald Trump Jr, on Sunday cited the report to attack the media as a "blight on our republic."

President Trump in a tweet last week complained that "no matter what the Radical Left Democrats get, no matter what we give them, it will never be enough. Just watch, they will Harass & Complain & Resist (the theme of their movement). So maybe we should just take our victory and say NO, we've got a Country to run!"

Democrats are demanding more of Mueller's report than the summary provided to Congress by Attorney General William Barr, which Trump and his allies has inaccurately described as a "total exoneration."

House Judiciary Committee chairman Jerry Nadler, a Democrat, said on Monday that his panel plans to issue subpoenas to acquire the full 400-page Mueller report.

Also Trump Jr. calling the media (aka the free press) a "blight on our republic". I don't know how people can read shit like this and still pretend that Donald Trump is anything other than a fascist.

[The Romulan Republic]

Barr may have violated special counsel regulations and exceeded his authority by concluding that there was no obstruction of justice by Trump:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/02/opinions ... index.html

Michael Zeldin, a CNN legal analyst, has served as a federal prosecutor in the Criminal Division of the US Department of Justice and was a special counsel to then-Assistant Attorney General Robert Mueller. The opinions expressed in this commentary are his own. View more opinion at CNN.

(CNN)US Attorney General William Barr's March 24 letter to Congress summarizing the principal conclusions reached by special counsel Robert Mueller appears to have gone well beyond what the special counsel regulations authorize.

On their own initiative, and with no apparent authority in the regulations, Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein determined that the evidence that the special counsel provided was not sufficient to establish that President Donald Trump committed an obstruction of justice offense.

In his four-page letter, Barr explained that the special counsel's decision to describe the facts without reaching any legal conclusion left it to the Attorney General to determine whether the President's conduct constituted a crime.

Barr's action, however, appears to be in direct contravention of the letter and spirit of the special counsel regulations -- that is, to have a special counsel who is not a political appointee and who is independent of the Department of Justice make the decision whether to charge a crime.

This independence is especially important, where, as here, the attorney general appears to have had a predetermined point of view on whether Trump's actions could amount to obstruction of justice. (Barr, as a private citizen, wrote a memorandum to Justice Department officials in June 2018, saying that Mueller's obstruction inquiry was "fatally misconceived.")

Mueller's decision that he lacked sufficient evidence to make a criminal charging decision, however, is a decision. There is nothing in the special counsel regulations that would appear to authorize the attorney general to make another decision.

The appropriate course of action would have been for Barr not to have made a determination about whether Trump could or would be prosecuted for obstruction.

Instead, Barr should have transmitted Mueller's full report to Congress for Congress to consider the next step -- whether the evidence that Mueller assembled may be worthy of evaluation in a potential impeachment investigation. Lack of a determination of criminal liability does not resolve the question whether the President's conduct and intentions constituted an impeachable abuse of the powers of his office.

On March 29, 2019, Barr indicated in a follow-up letter to Congress that he was preparing to release a redacted version of the Mueller report in the coming weeks.

Specifically, Barr wrote that the Department of Justice, with the assistance of Mueller, were in the process of identifying and redacting: (1) grand jury material subject to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6 (e) that by law cannot be made public; (2) material the intelligence community identifies as potentially compromising sensitive sources and methods; (3) material that could affect other ongoing matters, including those that the special counsel has referred to other department offices; and (4) information that would unduly infringe on the personal privacy and reputational interests of peripheral third parties.

While a welcome development, the damage has been done: Barr's March 24 "no obstruction" finding has allowed the President to argue to the American public (albeit falsely) that Mueller, rather than Barr and Rosenstein, concluded that Trump did not commit obstruction of justice. In turn, this has provided the President and his allies with the political basis for declaring a complete victory, for further attacking the integrity of the special counsel investigation, and for laying the groundwork for an attack on congressional inquiries.

What Barr can do to remedy the harm

To help remedy his situation, Barr should go beyond releasing to the public the redacted version of Mueller's report. He should:

Issue a press release clearly reiterating that he and Rosenstein determined that the President's conduct was not criminal obstruction of justice and that Mueller did not make such a finding. (This is necessary because of the way that Trump and his allies have mischaracterized Mueller's obstruction of justice findings.)

Amend the special counsel regulations to allow specifically the Justice Department to release the full special counsel's report and the underlying documentation to Congress (something that the President and the Justice Department can do unilaterally).

Declassify all but the most sensitive classified information included in Mueller's report and the supporting documents (all classified information and documents should be assembled in a classified appendix to send to the House Intelligence Committee).

Request the grand jury supervisory judge to release grand jury protected testimony and documents to Congress, with appropriate protections, as was done successfully in the Ken Starr independent counsel investigation.

Make available to the House and Senate oversight committees all government witnesses who appeared before the grand jury.

As represented in Barr's March 29 letter, decline to invoke executive privilege, consistent with the approach taken by President Ronald Reagan in the Iran-Contra independent counsel investigation and President Richard Nixon in Watergate.

Conclusion

Until the full evidence that led Barr to usurp the prerogatives of the special counsel are made available to Congress and the American public, Congress and the public will not know whether Barr made a mistake in substituting his judgment for Mueller's, acted with political motives or acted for other reasons.

Barr's public testimony before Congress after the special counsel's report is released hopefully will shed light on his decision to make the no-obstruction call.

The more one looks at the Barr Report, the shadier it looks, and the less credibility it has.

[The Romulan Republic]

The House Judiciary Committee granted its chair the authority to subpoena the Mueller report in a straight party line vote. Nadler is holding off for now, but reiterates that he will subpoena if Barr does not reconsider:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/03/us/p ... house.html

WASHINGTON — The House Judiciary Committee authorized its chairman on Wednesday to use a subpoena to try to force the Justice Department to give Congress a full copy of the special counsel’s report and all of the underlying evidence used to reach his conclusions.

The chairman, Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, said he would not immediately issue the subpoena. But the party-line vote won by Democrats who control the committee ratchets up pressure on Attorney General William P. Barr as he decides how much of the nearly 400-page report to share with lawmakers.

“I will give him time to change his mind,” Mr. Nadler said in his opening statement. “But if we cannot reach an accommodation, then we will have no choice but to issue subpoenas for these materials.”

The committee also approved subpoenas for five former White House aides who Democrats said were relevant to an investigation into possible obstruction of justice, abuse of power and corruption within the Trump administration.

They included Donald F. McGahn II, a former White House counsel; Stephen K. Bannon, the president’s former chief strategist; Hope Hicks, a former White House communications director; Reince Priebus, the president’s first chief of staff; and Annie Donaldson, a deputy of Mr. McGahn.

The Judiciary Committee was not the only Democrat-led House panel taking steps to further scrutinize the president on Wednesday. Representative Elijah E. Cummings of Maryland, the chairman of the Oversight and Reform Committee, told reporters that he would ask for a vote on a subpoena of his own to compel Mazars USA, an accounting firm, to produce financial records it had for Mr. Trump.

“They have told us that they will provide the information pretty much when they have a subpoena,” Mr. Cummings said. “And we’ll get them a subpoena.”

Mr. Barr wrote in a letter to Mr. Nadler and other congressional leaders last week that he intended to give Congress a redacted version of the report by mid-April and would not share it with the White House before then.

Mr. Barr said that officials from the department and the office of the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, were scrubbing the document of four categories of information: classified material, secret grand jury testimony, details pertinent to law enforcement investigations and statements “that would unduly infringe on the personal privacy and reputational interests of peripheral third parties.”

Federal prosecutors are pursuing a number of criminal inquiries that grew out of the investigation of the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III.

That final category is so broad that House Democrats, who initially set an April 2 deadline for Mr. Barr’s delivery, have repeatedly said they will view as suspect anything short of an unredacted report and the evidence collected. During Wednesday’s hearing, Mr. Nadler argued that Republicans set the precedent for the subpoena during the last Congress, and they supported Democrats’ requests for documents and information during the investigations of Bill Clinton and Richard M. Nixon.

“The department is wrong to try to withhold that information from this committee,” Mr. Nadler said. “Congress is entitled to all of the evidence. This isn’t just my opinion. It is also a matter of law.”

But practically speaking, the subpoena does not ensure Congress will get what it wants. Mr. Barr could stall or outright defy the request, leaving the House with two options to enforce the subpoena: contempt of Congress proceedings or a court case. Both would take considerable time.

Republicans on the committee argued that Democrats were not on solid legal footing and were contorting past positions to serve their present political purposes. Representative Doug Collins of Georgia, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said that though he shared Mr. Nadler’s interest in scouring Mr. Mueller’s investigation, the committee would be asking the attorney general to violate the law.

“As much as the chairman or I may want to view this material, it is a fundamental underpinning of our justice system and law that we cannot,” Mr. Collins said. “In the face of laws and rules he finds inconvenient, the chairman demands our nation’s top law enforcement official break the law instead of supporting him in enforcing it. This is reckless. It’s irresponsible. It’s disingenuous.”

Mr. Barr said the “principal conclusions” of the investigation found that the Trump presidential campaign did not take part in a conspiracy with Russia to undermine the 2016 election and that the evidence laid out by Mr. Mueller was insufficient to establish that the president had obstructed justice.

[The Romulan Republic]

McConnell changes Senate rules to enable faster approval of Trump nominees:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... -mcconnell

Lower-level administrative nominees and US District Court judges will now require a mere two hours of debate, rather than thirty, before being approved. McConnell continues to turn the Senate into a rubber stamp for his master.

[The Romulan Republic]

Republicans are arguing that Congress can only request confidential information like the grand jury proceedings in the Mueller probe if they are conducting a "judicial inquiry", and that the only judicial inquiry Congress can initiate is impeachment proceedings. They're obviously betting that Democrats won't be willing to impeach to get the report (which is unfortunately a pretty safe bet, since a number of Democratic leaders have basically said they will base the decision to impeach on what's in the report).

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/ ... ts-1259917

Do Democrats have to begin the process of impeaching President Donald Trump in order to access special counsel Robert Mueller’s secrets?

That legal debate began raging inside the House Judiciary Committee on Friday after a new federal court ruling suggested that Congress’ access to some confidential evidence — like the kind obtained by Mueller — hinges on lawmakers launching a “judicial proceeding.”

Republicans on the committee say the only “judicial proceeding” Congress can lead is an impeachment inquiry -- a claim they say is backed up by legal precedent and history. Democrats would have to launch one against Trump if they want Mueller’s grand jury evidence, Republicans say.

That interpretation would be problematic for Democratic leaders in Congress, who have little interest in launching a politically explosive impeachment process at the moment. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has said it’s not worth the House’s time and other top Democrats have said it’s premature while they conduct their own investigations and await the details of Mueller’s findings.

But it’s a fight that could animate the next few weeks and months as Democrats attempt to pry loose as much information from Mueller’s probe as they can. They’re still awaiting access to a redacted version of Mueller’s 400-page report, which Attorney General William Barr has indicated he’ll deliver by mid-April. But Democrats say Congress must see an unredacted version of the report and Mueller’s underlying evidence -- even if Barr has to get a judge to unseal the grand jury material it contains.

That effort was complicated Friday by a D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that said judges are not permitted to unseal grand jury information at their own discretion but rather must follow existing court guidelines that limit the disclosure of such material. Those guidelines have been used to share grand jury material with Congress “preliminary to or in connection with a judicial proceeding.”

The meaning of that phrase is likely to become a flashpoint in Congress’ battle over the Mueller report. Complicating the matter further, the 2-1 court decision may not be the final word legally on the issue if the full D.C. Appeals Court or the Supreme Court takes it up. But in the meantime, the Justice Department is hailing the ruling as a legal victory, a potential indication that it intends to hew closely to the traditional secrecy of grand jury matters.

“We are pleased that the court re-affirmed the Department of Justice’s long-standing position and Supreme Court precedent that the proper functioning of the grand jury depends on the confidentiality of proceedings," said Justice Department spokeswoman Kelly Laco. "The Department of Justice will continue to defend the long established tradition of protecting grand jury information.”

Democrats have been demanding access to Mueller’s grand jury evidence for weeks, arguing it’s essential for them to review potentially damning information about Trump and his campaign’s contacts with Russians during the 2016 campaign, as well as evidence that Trump may have worked to obstruct the investigation. They note that Republicans joined them earlier this month in a 420-0 House vote to call for making Mueller’s “full report” available to Congress

Barr is also expected to redact other categories of evidence from Mueller's report, including classified material, material related to ongoing investigations and other details he deems damaging to "peripheral third parties" who aren't charged with any crimes. Democrats say they should get to see all of the information in those categories as well even if the broader public doesn't. Republicans, they note, received access to voluminous information in each category when they opened inquiries into how the FBI handled the Russia probe and the investigation of Hillary Clinton's email server. But grand jury information is the only category Barr is filtering out of the report that Democrats say would require judicial permission to reveal to Congress.

Judiciary Committee Democrats are also pushing back against the notion that impeachment would be a requirement to get Mueller’s grand jury evidence. Democrats say courts haven’t ruled out other avenues that would count as “judicial proceedings.”

“I can understand why Republicans would like to interpret this morning’s decision as cutting off all access by congress to these materials. There’s probably something very damaging to the president there,” said a Democratic Judiciary Committee counsel. “But no court, including the D.C. Circuit in this morning’s case has ever held that Congress must be in an impeachment proceeding in order to access grand jury materials.”


To bolster their case, Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) has argued that Congress received access to grand jury material amassed by prosecutors in investigations of Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton. Ken Starr, the independent counsel who investigated Clinton, turned over a mountain of grand jury material to Congress, Nadler noted earlier this week.

“As a legal matter, the Judiciary Committee has always had access to grand jury material involving questions of presidential misconduct, and I can’t imagine the courts ultimately deciding otherwise in this case,” said Julian Epstein, who was the committee’s chief counsel in 1998, when Democrats received Starr’s grand jury evidence. “This Republican gamesmanship of wanting an impeachment declaration is childish form over substance, and the courts will not likely bow to that kind of rhetorical legerdemain.”

The House Intelligence Committee may have a claim to the information as well, said Barb McQuade, a former U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, in a call with reporters. "One of the other exceptions to the grand jury secrecy rule is that an attorney for the government may disclose grand jury material to a federal official whose job includes foreign intelligence work," she said.

But the fight, at least publicly, has played out entirely within the Judiciary Committee so far. Nadler has pleaded with Barr to petition a court to grant Congress access to Mueller’s grand jury material. So far, Barr has not responded to this request. A former Republican chairman of the committee, Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wisc.) said he would happily join Nadler in court if the committee asks a judge to make the material public. But it’s unclear if other Republicans on the panel agree with Sensenbrenner’s position.

Committee Republicans also say Nadler’s comparison to Starr is off base. Starr was operating as an independent counsel under rules that required him to turn over to Congress anything that could be relevant to an impeachment inquiry. Those rules are no longer in effect, and Mueller was operating as an employee of the Justice Department, which prohibits the disclosure of grand jury material.

“The Democrats have no precedent for what they seem to be doing. The law is against them, and this morning’s ruling further solidified that fact,” said a Republican Judiciary Committee aide. “Why are Democrats desperate to invent new law instead of taking the clear, legal option before them?”

William Moschella, who was a Republican counsel at the time, said Democrats simply lack a legal precedent to receive grand jury material.

Barr would be violating his responsibilities if he pursued releasing grand jury evidence to Congress, GOP lawmakers say. And both Starr and Nixon special prosecutor Leon Jaworski provided material to Congress in the context of impeachment.

“If I’m right, then any theory [they] are pursuing is novel and untested,” Moschella said. “Courts don’t like novel and untested theories, particularly where significant constitutional separations of power questions are at issue.”

“Certainly,” he added, “their legal hand is strengthened if the House by resolution authorizes an impeachment inquiry.”

Darren Samuelsohn and Josh Gerstein contributed reporting.

If I were in Pelosi's place, my answer would be: Okay, you say we can only get the Mueller report if we can impeach? Fine. We'll impeach. Call the fuckers' bluff.

Edit: Because it completely makes sense that you would try every trick you can pull to keep secret something that the vast majority of the public wants to see, if it completely exonerates your side.

[FireNexus]

They could initiate impeachment proceedings for Barr. Not impeaching Trump, and the report is relevant to it. If Barr materially misconstrued the contents of the report, that is obstruction of justice.

[bilateralrope]

I say view the redacted version of the report before deciding if they want to begin impeachment just to get the grand jury stuff or if there is enough in the redacted report to impeach for other reasons.

I wouldn't be surprised to find that the Republicans want to suppress the grand jury stuff, not because they know what's in it, but because they want to fight the Democrats at every opportunity.

[The Romulan Republic]

I say view the redacted version of the report before deciding if they want to begin impeachment just to get the grand jury stuff or if there is enough in the redacted report to impeach for other reasons.

I wouldn't be surprised to find that the Republicans want to suppress the grand jury stuff, not because they know what's in it, but because they want to fight the Democrats at every opportunity.

Well, between the complaints from members of Muellers' team, and the contradictions in Barr's own summary, its pretty fucking obvious that, if not impeachable, its at the very least worse for Trump than Barr made it out to be.

They could initiate impeachment proceedings for Barr. Not impeaching Trump, and the report is relevant to it. If Barr materially misconstrued the contents of the report, that is obstruction of justice.

That's a good argument. If they don't want to go straight to impeaching Trump, impeach Barr and use that as the basis to demand the full report. There's a certainly deliciously karmic justice to it as well- Barr tries to cover up the report to protect Trump, so impeach him instead to get the report.

[bilateralrope]

Well, between the complaints from members of Muellers' team, and the contradictions in Barr's own summary, its pretty fucking obvious that, if not impeachable, its at the very least worse for Trump than Barr made it out to be.

The whole report as a whole, yes.
The grand jury specifically, that depends on how damming the rest of the report is. It's possible that the redacted report is damming enough that the redacted content isn't worth seeing. But we can't know that until the redacted report is released.

[Knife]

Obviously Congress has a stake in the reports about if Russian interfered with the election of POTUS. Congress should already have sent a lawyer to that judge to request releasing the Grand Jury Information.

[The Romulan Republic]

Obviously Congress has a stake in the reports about if Russian interfered with the election of POTUS. Congress should already have sent a lawyer to that judge to request releasing the Grand Jury Information.

One of the arguments for Congress getting the full report is that they need to know the specifics of how Russia interfered, what loopholes Russia might have exploited, etc., because it impacts on any decisions they make regarding legislation to secure future elections.

[The Romulan Republic]

Trump has initiated a sweeping purge of the Department of Homeland Security, apparently for not sufficiently grovelling to his every racist and despotic whim:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... d-security

Donald Trump announced on Monday that he will remove the Secret Service director, Randolph “Tex” Alles, from his position, as one anonymous official described “a near-systematic purge” at the Department of Homeland Security.

In a statement, the White House press secretary, Sarah Sanders, said Alles had “done a great job at the agency over the last two years, and the president was thankful for his more than 40 years of service to the country.

“Mr Alles will be leaving shortly and President Trump has selected James M Murray, a career member of the [Secret Service], to take over as director beginning in May.”

The president’s move against Alles came less than a week after Trump withdrew his Immigration and Customs Enforcement director’s nomination to stay on permanently, and a day after the homeland security secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, who oversaw the Secret Service, was forced to resign.

Alles’ departure stems from a personality conflict within the agency, three officials told the Associated Press, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss the personnel matter. The officials said Alles’ departure was unrelated to Nielsen’s resignation, or a security breach at the president’s private club in Florida.

The former Marine general was recommended to the post by the former White House chief of staff John Kelly. He had been the acting deputy commissioner of Customs and Border Protection.

In a message to the agency’s workforce, Alles insisted he had not been fired, describing the shift as part of an “orderly transition in leadership” across the Department of Homeland Secretary.

“No doubt you have seen media reports regarding my ‘firing.’ I assure you that this is not the case, and in fact was told weeks ago by the administration that transitions in leadership should be expected across the Department of Homeland Security,” Alles said in his message to Secret Service agents.

“The president has directed an orderly transition in leadership for this agency and I intend to abide by that direction,” he said.

In an initial report that said Trump had told the acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, to fire Alles, an unidentified official told CNN: “There is a near-systematic purge happening at the nation’s second-largest national security agency.”

Alles inherited an agency that had been dealing with a series of security and personnel issues. Weeks before he was nominated, a man jumped the White House fence and spent 15 minutes roaming the grounds.

His appointment was set to fulfill the recommendations of a group of former senior government officials who reviewed the Secret Service in 2014 and found that it was an “insular agency” in need of an outsider to lead it. But Alles’ unfamiliarity with the agency led to conflicts, the officials told the AP.

Alles’ forthcoming departure comes at a time of high turnover across the department. .

Last week Trump abruptly withdrew the nomination of Ron Vitiello to lead Ice, saying he wanted to go in a “tougher direction”. Stephen Miller, the immigration hawk and White House senior adviser, played a key part in that move, several news outlets reported.

An empowered Miller is also eyeing the removal of Lee Francis Cissna, according to two officials who spoke to the AP. Cissna is director of US Citizenship and Immigration Services, which runs the legal immigration system.

The Department of Homeland Security’s general counsel, John Mitnick, is expected to depart as well, CBS News reported.

Trump has given Miller the go-ahead to run the administration’s border policy “and he’s executing his plan”, the unnamed official told CNN.

The person pushing this seems to be Stephen Miller, a vicious extremist on immigration who is now apparently calling the shots on immigration policy. Trump wants a "tougher direction" than systematically taking little children from their parents and locking them in cages.

Though I honestly wonder if part of the Secret Service Director's dismissal is wanting a Trump loyalist in charge of the Secret Service when the FBI comes calling.

The firings may also be related to the push back he got when he tried to order a partial shutdown of the border:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/08/politics ... index.html

Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump has been pushing to reinstate broader family separation policies and sought to close the US-Mexico border at El Paso, Texas, as his conflict with Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen reached a boiling point.

Two Thursdays ago, in a meeting at the Oval Office with top officials -- including Nielsen, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, top aides Jared Kushner, Mercedes Schlapp and Dan Scavino, White House counsel Pat Cipollone and more -- the President, according to one attendee, was "ranting and raving, saying border security was his issue."

Senior administration officials say that Trump then ordered Nielsen and Pompeo to shut down the port of El Paso the next day, Friday, March 22, at noon. The plan was that in subsequent days the Trump administration would shut down other ports.

Nielsen told Trump that would be a bad and even dangerous idea, and that the governor of Texas, Republican Greg Abbott, has been very supportive of the President.

She proposed an alternative plan that would slow down entries at legal ports. She argued that if you close all the ports of entry all you would be doing is ending legal trade and travel, but migrants will just go between ports.

According to two people in the room, the President said: "I don't care."

Ultimately, acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney seemed to have been able to talk the President out of closing the port of El Paso. Trump, however, was insistent that his administration begin taking another action -- denying asylum seekers entry. Nielsen tried to explain to the President that the asylum laws allow migrants from Central America to come to the US and gain entry. She talked to the White House counsel to see if there were any exceptions, but he told her that her reading of the law was correct.

Neither the White House nor the Department of Homeland Security responded to official requests for comment.

Last Friday, the President visited Calexico, California, where he said, "We're full, our system's full, our country's full -- can't come in! Our country is full, what can you do? We can't handle any more, our country is full. Can't come in, I'm sorry. It's very simple."

Behind the scenes, two sources told CNN, the President told border agents to not let migrants in. Tell them we don't have the capacity, he said. If judges give you trouble, say, "Sorry, judge, I can't do it. We don't have the room."

After the President left the room, agents sought further advice from their leaders, who told them they were not giving them that direction and if they did what the President said they would take on personal liability. You have to follow the law, they were told.

Senior administration officials also told CNN that in the last four months or so, the President has been pushing Nielsen to enforce a stricter and more widespread "zero tolerance" immigration policy -- not just the original policy started by former Attorney General Jeff Sessions and undone by the President once it was criticized -- that called for the prosecution of individuals crossing the border illegally between ports of entry, resulting in the separation of parents from children.

According to multiple sources, the President wanted families separated even if they came in at a legal port of entry and were legal asylum seekers. The President wanted families separated even if they were apprehended within the US. He thinks the separations work to deter migrants from coming.

Sources told CNN that Nielsen tried to explain they could not bring the policy back because of court challenges, and White House staffers tried to explain it would be an unmitigated PR disaster.

"He just wants to separate families," said a senior administration official.

Last night, on the second floor of the East Wing of the White House residence -- in a room called the yellow oval -- Nielsen, Mulvaney and the President met. Nielsen tried to present a path forward that was legal and in compliance with US laws but the President said to her, "This isn't working." And Nielsen did not disagree.

"At the end of the day," a senior administration official said, "the President refuses to understand that the Department of Homeland Security is constrained by the laws."

CNN's Priscilla Alvarez contributed to this report.

Trump also spoke to a group of ICE personnel, and ordered them to turn away everyone coming to the border and tell the immigration judges there would be no more hearings. As soon as he left, their supervisors basically told them "What the President told you to do is illegal, and it'll be your ass if you do it."

At this point, any employee of ICR, border security, or Homeland Security with a soul should be refusing orders, or submitting their resignation. Because what's happening on the border is ethnic cleansing, even if no one has the brains or the guts to call it that, and what's happening in Washington is a political purge by a tyrant consolidating his power. And when its over, you won't be able to count on "I was just following orders" to let you off the hook. We executed Nazis who were "just following orders".

[The Romulan Republic]

The most shameful thing in America right now is that the crimes against humanity at the border are being allowed to continue. We should be seeing mass resignations, protests shutting down every city, impeachment, the 25th. Amendment, hell, maybe even a God Damn coup if nothing else will serve to bring it to a stop. And yet it seems like this is barely even a story any more. We have become used to atrocity. Numb to it.

If you don't care about this story, if you aren't enraged by this story, then your soul is broken, and you do not deserve to call yourself a citizen of a free country.

[K. A. Pital]

The most shameful thing in America right now is that the crimes against humanity at the border are being allowed to continue. We should be seeing mass resignations, protests shutting down every city, impeachment, the 25th. Amendment, hell, maybe even a God Damn coup if nothing else will serve to bring it to a stop. And yet it seems like this is barely even a story any more. We have become used to atrocity. Numb to it.

If you don't care about this story, if you aren't enraged by this story, then your soul is broken, and you do not deserve to call yourself a citizen of a free country.

I agree with yiu TRR, but as you see, most of the US public is indifferent to the suffering of these people...

[Broomstick]

I'm not indifferent, I just don't know what the hell you expect me to do about it. Sure, protest and wave signs in a town square, that I can do, but Trump doesn't give a fuck about that. Vote? Sure, I do that. Call/write my elected representatives? Sure, I do that.

But anything more than that? What? For damn sure, though I would NEVER speak of doing something illegal or violent in a public forum, or something that would call attention to my actions by unsavory elements. So if I was doing something of the sort (which of course I'm not) I would never ever post about it here, which means from your viewpoint you think I'm doing nothing and I'm indifferent. But I'm not doing anything, and if I was I'd deny it (but I'm not doing anything of the sort).

The usual catch-22, damned if you do, damned if you don't conundrum.

[The Romulan Republic]

The most shameful thing in America right now is that the crimes against humanity at the border are being allowed to continue. We should be seeing mass resignations, protests shutting down every city, impeachment, the 25th. Amendment, hell, maybe even a God Damn coup if nothing else will serve to bring it to a stop. And yet it seems like this is barely even a story any more. We have become used to atrocity. Numb to it.

If you don't care about this story, if you aren't enraged by this story, then your soul is broken, and you do not deserve to call yourself a citizen of a free country.

I agree with yiu TRR, but as you see, most of the US public is indifferent to the suffering of these people...

Or feels powerless to do anything about it (see Broomstick's post).

All someone not in a position of political power or of interacting directly with refugees can practically do (unless they are employed in a relevant government agency, in which case one's duty is civil disobedience or resignation) is to keep contact our representatives to protest, supporting campaigns to get politicians sympathetic to the humanity of immigrants elected (realistically, that generally means electing Democrats), and donating if we can to organizations that provide legal or humanitarian aid to immigrants and refugees. And never, ever allow ourselves or anyone else to start thinking or acting like this is normal, or acceptable.

To bring it to a stop immediately would be impossible, and to try would take direct, extra-legal action of some sort- either mass civil disobedience/obstruction, or armed resistance. The organization for the former is obviously lacking, and very few people are willing to entertain the latter, for which I honestly cannot fault them, as we are still at the point where allowing Trump's policies to continue would kill fewer people than attempting to end them by force.

[The Romulan Republic]

Barr testified to Congress regarding the Mueller probe today:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4791022/ ... ler-report

Apparently, he (unsurprisingly) refused to commit to releasing the full report and evaded the question of whether he had shared the report with the White House (meaning he has, and doesn't want to get nailed for lying with a flat denial).

Edit: in other news, Barr is also now opening investigations into the investigation (aka political purges of American law enforcement for the crime of disloyalty to the Dear Leader).

It looks like Trump has finally found an attorney general who will shamelessly do his Fuhrer's bidding, God help us.

[The Romulan Republic]

The orange cunt says he will be sending more military to the border, and expresses his wish that the military could be "rough" with immigrants, and expresses frustration that they cannot "act like a military would act" (presumably using armed force on unarmed refugees):

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... tary-texas

President Donald Trump has mused about closing down the US-Mexico border entirely. He’s reportedly talked about restarting the family separation policy (which he denies). And now, Trump has added another line to his stop-immigration-at-all-costs rhetoric.

The president is saddened by the fact that the military can’t be more “rough” with migrants coming to America.

After telling reporters in Texas on Wednesday that he wants more troops at the US-Mexico border, the president added, “our military, don’t forget, can’t act like a military would act. Because if they got a little rough, everybody would go crazy.”

The reason? “They have all these horrible laws that the Democrats won’t change [and] they will not change them,” the president said, without explaining what laws he means, or how his political opponents thwarted him.

It’s easy to dismiss this as another off-the-cuff, tough-guy Trump comment. But one can’t lose sight that this is the commander in chief — the head of all American forces — saying he kind of wishes the military could have more freedom to hurt men, women, and children.

That, to put it mildly, is horrifying.

The military can’t do what Trump wishes it could. That’s a good thing.
It’s unclear what laws the president was referencing when he spoke to reporters, but we do know that there are laws in place to ensure a president doesn’t use the US troops the way Trump clearly wants to.

Here’s the big one: The US military is barred from using its capabilities directly to enforce US domestic laws — including immigration laws — unless Congress specifically authorizes it to do so. This stipulation, known as “posse comitatus,” is why US troops can only support US border agents, but not take direct action themselves.

When Trump sent 5,000 troops to the border last year, Gen. Terrence O’Shaughnessy, the head of military command overseeing North American operations, said the military will conduct all of its operations at the border “in adherence to posse comitatus.”

The reason this law exists, and the military follows it, is simple: The president shouldn’t use the military for his own personal reasons to “execute the law” at home.

The military is mainly designed to fight foreign adversaries — and unarmed families looking for a better life in the US don’t come close to counting as enemies. This is why military leaders are typically clear about how they would disobey an illegal order, even if it comes from the president.

And, of course, you don’t want a military that’s wiling to do just anything the president asks, otherwise it becomes his own personal, heavily armed, well-trained police force. That’s about as undemocratic and un-freedom-y as it gets.

After I sent the full Trump quote to the Pentagon, a spokesperson simply wrote back: “Border security is a critical element of our national security. DOD is committed to supporting CBP’s border security mission with the right capabilities at the right locations.”

That’s promising. Still, that doesn’t take away Trump’s own comments which were wrongheaded, cruel — and downright scary.

The same tyrant who constantly race-baits, tore children from their families and locked them in cages as a "deterrent", treats lawful asylum seekers as criminals, declared a state of emergency to bypass Congressional oversight and build a border wall, and just purged Homeland Security for not being "tough" enough on immigrants, is now openly saying he wishes he could use military force on unarmed refugees, in violation of both posse comitatus (the law intended to prevent the President from abusing his power to declare martial law), and in violation of basic human rights and decency.

Make no mistake: genocide is the end goal. They aren't saying it openly because they don't yet have the dictatorial power to pull it off, but Hitler didn't start with gas chambers either. There was a steady ramping up of persecution, restricting of rights, more and more extreme measures, before the "Final Solution" was implemented.

Edit: On second thought, I apologize for calling Trump a cunt. Dick is far more appropriate, especially given that this tyrant is practically the embodiment of toxic masculinity.