MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Trump Timeline ... Trumpocalypse
- Thread starter CdnGuy
- Start date
The United States and China have remained tight-lipped during the months-long negotiations to resolve their trade war. While several issues are at stake, the Trump administration has continually highlighted one major American concern: the explicit and implicit subsidies resulting from China’s unique, state-directed economic system. The production excesses and flood of cheap exports have created political and economic problems in a number of sectors. Global examples include steel, aluminum, and solar panels.
But as the talks draw to a close, a big worry has emerged. What if Trump eases off demands that China drop its industrial subsidies, just so he can maintain access to steep and easy tariffs?
The subsidy conflict was a growing source of unease long before Trump. And the US special tariffs targeting that Chinese problem were escalating during both the Bush and Obama administrations. China had also politically elevated the issue by challenging those US tariffs through a number of high-profile disputes at the World Trade Organization (WTO). Anxious that China might win, the Trump administration has been demanding, according to leaked documents, that Beijing back off the WTO cases. [1]
One fear of the current negotiations remains clear. The underlying subsidy problem will not have been solved if Trump’s deal only means the United States makes it easier for itself to impose special tariffs on China. Trade tensions would likely escalate again, perhaps sooner rather than later, putting the US-China conflict back to square one.
Here are five things to look out for in any Trump deal. ...
President Trump and his advisers want you to believe that the conclusion of the Mueller investigation amounts to much more than just “total exoneration.” It will also help Trump get reelected, because it validated his argument that the probe was an illegitimate effort to remove him, allowing him to go on offense against the “deep state” cabal behind it.
As one top Trump campaign official is https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/investigate-the-investigators-is-new-trump-rallying-cry-to-counter-mueller-report/2019/05/04/9319b520-6db6-11e9-be3a-33217240a539_story.html?utm_term=.43e5f717b4b0 (now boasting), “the investigators will be investigated,” and “the tables are turning,” which is something “the campaign will continue to point to.” Trump’s effort to unleash law enforcement on his political foes doesn’t just represent a newly aggressive push into authoritarianism. As Trump’s campaign is openly and casually proclaiming, it’s also key to his 2020 strategy.
It’s strange, then, that Trump does not want special counsel Robert S. Mueller III to appear before Congress. After all, if he did, Trump’s Republican allies could subject him to their typically withering cross-examination skills, mercilessly unmasking the truth about the man at the center of this deep-state plot for all the nation to see.
Why on Earth would Trump willingly pass up such a fabulous opportunity?
...
Trump probably can’t stop Mueller from testifying. Barr has previously said he’s open to it — only days ago, Trump even https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-prime-minister-pellegrini-slovak-republic-bilateral-meeting/?utm_source=link&utm_medium=header this was up to Barr to decide — but even if Barr shifted, Mueller soon will no longer be a Justice Department employee, meaning he’d likely be free to testify.
Indeed, Robert Bauer, the White House counsel under Barack Obama, pointed out to me that Trump has not said he’s directing Barr to prevent Mueller’s testimony, suggesting he sees the writing on the Capitol wall.
“I would assume his lawyers will be, or are, telling him (1) that he cannot put his attorney general, whom he would not want to lose, in the impossible position of having committed that Mueller would testify, only to be overruled by Trump and 2) resistance is futile, because eventually Mueller will testify,” Bauer emailed me.
If so, Trump’s tweets urging Mueller not to testify appear more feckless and panicky than anything else. But beyond this, Trump’s very opposition itself gives away the game.
Plot twist.
More than 370 former federal prosecutors who worked in Republican and Democratic administrations have signed on to a statement asserting special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s findings would have produced obstruction charges against President Trump — if not for the office he held.
The statement — signed by myriad former career government employees as well as high-profile political appointees — offers a rebuttal to Attorney General William P. Barr’s determination that the evidence Mueller uncovered was “not sufficient” to establish that Trump committed a crime.
Mueller had declined to say one way or the other whether Trump should have been charged, citing a Justice Department legal opinion that sitting presidents cannot be indicted, as well as concerns about the fairness of accusing someone for whom there can be no court proceeding.
“Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in https://www.amazon.com/Mueller-Report-Washington-Post/dp/1982129735 (Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report) would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice,” the former federal prosecutors wrote.
“We emphasize that these are not matters of close professional judgment,” they added. “Of course, there are potential defenses or arguments that could be raised in response to an indictment of the nature we describe here. . . . But, to look at these facts and say that a prosecutor could not probably sustain a conviction for obstruction of justice — the standard set out in Principles of Federal Prosecution — runs counter to logic and our experience.”
The statement is notable for the number of people who signed it — 375 as of Monday afternoon — and the positions and political affiliations of some on the list. It was posted online Monday afternoon; those signing it did not explicitly address what, if anything, they hope might happen next.
We are former federal prosecutors. We served under both Republican and Democratic administrations at different levels of the federal system: as line attorneys, supervisors, special prosecutors, United States Attorneys, and senior officials at the Department of Justice. The offices in which we served were small, medium, and large; urban, suburban, and rural; and located in all parts of our country.
Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice.
The Mueller report describes several acts that satisfy all of the elements for an obstruction charge: conduct that obstructed or attempted to obstruct the truth-finding process, as to which the evidence of corrupt intent and connection to pending proceedings is overwhelming. These include:
· The President’s efforts to fire Mueller and to falsify evidence about that effort;
· The President’s efforts to limit the scope of Mueller’s investigation to exclude his conduct; and
· The President’s efforts to prevent witnesses from cooperating with investigators probing him and his campaign.
...
We emphasize that these are not matters of close professional judgment. Of course, there are potential defenses or arguments that could be raised in response to an indictment of the nature we describe here. In our system, every accused person is presumed innocent and it is always the government’s burden to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. But, to look at these facts and say that a prosecutor could not probably sustain a conviction for obstruction of justice — the standard set out in Principles of Federal Prosecution — runs counter to logic and our experience.
As former federal prosecutors, we recognize that prosecuting obstruction of justice cases is critical because unchecked obstruction — which allows intentional interference with criminal investigations to go unpunished — puts our whole system of justice at risk. We believe strongly that, but for the OLC memo, the overwhelming weight of professional judgment would come down in favor of prosecution for the conduct outlined in the Mueller Report.
Last edited:
