Loser Donald: Trump’s BIG Secret Goes Public (Young Turks)

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 Doocy
mentions the leak now the New York
time’s apparently did not receive the
actual tax returns they were able to
corroborate the information they
received in regard to his tax returns
but the leak came from a person who has
legal access to the tax returns so Dulce
mentions the leak and questions where
the leak came from and I think that’s an
important part of this story to follow
because this is what the right wing does
and I would argue this is what they do
successfully where they will deflect and
and avoid actually talking about the
heart of the story and then they’ll
start placing the blame on the leaker Oh
who’s this leaker this terrible leaker
is that someone who works for the
federal government we need to find out
who the leaker is and so then they’ll
start lobbying for investigations into
the leaker instead of actually looking
at the heart of the story I mean that
was successfully done when it came to
Edward Snowden right all of the
conversation that we saw in the
mainstream media to be fair wasn’t only
Fox but all the conversations we saw the
mainstream press was was this espionage
we need to talk about whether or not
this is espionage how about we talk
about the fact that the majority of
Americans right now are indiscriminately
being spied on
so when Republicans say racist or
bigoted things they say freedom of
speech freedom of speech when someone
leaks information about the president
they’re like shut it down shut it down
find the criminal who’s speaking when
they shouldn’t be speaking which one is
it okay one more clip because I love

George Conway: Trump is guilty — of being unfit for office

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?

So it should have come as no surprise that the obstruction case was difficult, and inconclusive. But Barr’s letterrevealed something unexpected about the obstruction issue: that Mueller said his “report does not conclude that the President committed a crime” but that “it also does not exonerate him.” The report does not exonerate the president? That’s a stunning thing for a prosecutor to say. Mueller didn’t have to say that. Indeed, making that very point, the president’s outside counsel, Rudolph W. Giuliani, called the statement a “cheap shot.”

But Mueller isn’t prone to cheap shots; he plays by the rules, every step of the way. If his report doesn’t exonerate the president, there must be something pretty damning in it about him, even if it might not suffice to prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. And in saying that the report “catalogu[ed] the President’s actions, many of which took place in public view,” Barr’s letter makes clear that the report also catalogues actions taken privately that shed light on possible obstruction, actions that the American people and Congress yet know nothing about.

At the same time, and equally remarkably, Mueller, according to Barr, said he “ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment” regarding obstruction. Reading that statement together with the no-exoneration statement, it’s hard to escape the conclusion that Mueller wrote his report to allow the American people and Congress to decide what to make of the facts. And that is what should — must — happen now.

But whether the Mueller report ever sees the light of day, there is one charge that can be resolved now. Americans should expect far more from a president than merely that he not be provably a criminal. They should expect a president to comport himself in accordance with the high duties of his office. As all presidents must, Trump swore an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, and to faithfully execute his office and the laws in accordance with the Constitution. That oath requires putting the national interests above his personal interests.

Yet virtually from the moment he took office, in his response to the Russia investigation, Trump has done precisely the opposite:

If the charge were unfitness for office, the verdict would already be in: guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Rpt: Donald Trump Has ‘Stubborn Disregard’ For Intelligence Briefings | The Last Word | MSNBC

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.