John Ziegler is a different kind of conservative.
Trump is a TERRIBLE businessman. Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian, hosts of The Young Turks, break it down.
.. also I just wanted a note so Steve Doocymentions the leak now the New Yorktime’s apparently did not receive theactual tax returns they were able tocorroborate the information theyreceived in regard to his tax returnsbut the leak came from a person who haslegal access to the tax returns so Dulcementions the leak and questions wherethe leak came from and I think that’s animportant part of this story to followbecause this is what the right wing doesand I would argue this is what they dosuccessfully where they will deflect andand avoid actually talking about theheart of the story and then they’llstart placing the blame on the leaker Ohwho’s this leaker this terrible leakeris that someone who works for thefederal government we need to find outwho the leaker is and so then they’llstart lobbying for investigations intothe leaker instead of actually lookingat the heart of the story I mean thatwas successfully done when it came toEdward Snowden right all of theconversation that we saw in themainstream media to be fair wasn’t onlyFox but all the conversations we saw themainstream press was was this espionagewe need to talk about whether or notthis is espionage how about we talkabout the fact that the majority ofAmericans right now are indiscriminatelybeing spied onso when Republicans say racist orbigoted things they say freedom ofspeech freedom of speech when someoneleaks information about the presidentthey’re like shut it down shut it downfind the criminal who’s speaking whenthey shouldn’t be speaking which one isit okay one more clip because I love
Let’s start with question of “collusion.” It was never precisely clear what that nonlegal concept meant. If it means what Mueller reasonably took it to mean — an “agreement,” “tacit or express,” with the Russians to interfere with the 2016 presidential election, or, in effect, a conspiracy with the Russians — then it was always virtually unimaginable that collusion, so defined, would ever be found. Russian agents didn’t need Americans to help them do what they were doing — hacking and posting disinformation. If anything, involving Americans, including some apparently blockish ones, could only have fouled up their plans. “Collusion” — or, rather, “no collusion” — was bound to become a straw man for President Trump and his supporters to knock down with glee.
Yet that hardly means that the investigation (which, thanks to Paul Manafort’s largesse, actually turned a neat profit) was either a “witch hunt” or a waste of time. After all, it was a counterintelligence investigation as well as a criminal probe. A core objective — the overarching one, really — was to find out exactly what the Russians were doing. Another was to find out whether there were “links” between the Trump campaign and Russia’s activities. As matters turned out, and quite surprisingly, we now know from public sources that there were links aplenty. So who knows what we might learn on these subjects from Mueller’s still-unreleased report? As Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Monday, “Russia’s ongoing efforts to interfere with our democracy are dangerous and disturbing.” He added that he would “welcome” the special counsel’s contributions toward understanding them.
As for whether the president obstructed justice, that question was always dicey. No one should have been surprised that it raised, as Attorney General William P. Barr’s letter put it, quoting Mueller, “ ‘difficult issues’ of law and fact concerning whether the President’s actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction.” On the law, Barr was probably not wrong to suggest, as he did as a private citizen, that there’s a difference under the statutes between a president destroying evidence or encouraging a witness to lie and a presidential directive saying, “Don’t waste your time investigating that.” But that doesn’t mean the latter can’t be an impeachable offense.
On the facts, obstruction turns on what’s in a defendant’s mind — often a difficult thing to determine, and especially difficult with a mind as twisted as Trump’s. And complicating things even more, paradoxically, is the fact that some of Trump’s arguably obstructionist conduct took place in full public view — something that, with a normal person with normal moral inhibitions, would have indicated a lack of criminal intent. But in the head of Donald J. Trump, who knows?
Description: A stunning report in TIME Magazine says that Trump is all but ignoring his intelligence briefers and the information they present to him. John Walcott, who broke the story, says “for the most part, the briefings have stopped” because of this. Lawrence discusses with Walcott, Chris Whipple and Mieke Eoyang.