|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
|
|
On May 03 2019 00:59 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2019 00:54 xDaunt wrote:On May 03 2019 00:49 Excludos wrote:On May 03 2019 00:46 xDaunt wrote:On May 03 2019 00:43 Nevuk wrote:Pelosi has accused Barr of lying to congress. He lied to Congress. If anybody else did that it would be considered a crime. Nobody is above the law, not the president of the United States and not the Attorney general. Being the Attorney general does not give you a badge to say whatever you want and it is the fact because you are the Attorney General. When asked if he was being jailed she said “There is a process involved here. As I said, I’ll say it again, the committee will act upon how we will proceed.” Sounds like either censure, contempt, or impeachment hearings. Pelosi's accusation is laughable. Democrats are panicking. They got nothing on Barr. xDaunt at it again with posts that has the potential to age really poorly. My posts on the Trump/Russia collusion stuff have aged very well. Yours and the posts of most of the others around here have not. The only major thing left that I have stated that has not born out is the indictment and prosecution of FBI, DOJ, and intelligence officials who started this whole mess. But the day is young for that to occur. Let's see what happens when the OIG report on all of this stuff comes out this month. We've had this discussion before and you continue to ignore them. The vast majority post based on the information available to them, you post, with a loud certainty, things that you can not possibly know. You can't possibly know that A: Democrats are panicking (Why would they? Everything indicates that the next election is going to swing wildly in their favour. Even if it doesn't, that's the indication they have to go by right now), and B: "They got nothing on Barr", which, by their own statement, they might very well do. But since you loudly proclaimed another certainty based on no information, I challenge you to find me a post from my history in this thread that has aged poorly. It should be easy, right? Since you're so certain and all. I will be waiting.
First of all, I'm the one of the very few here actually citing regulations and documents accurately. If you really don't understand this, then there isn't much point in my engaging you.
Second, your criticism of my saying that Democrats are panicking is absurd. Since when are posters not allowed to editorialize and give analysis?
Lastly, your criticism of my saying that "they got nothing on Barr" betrays a horrible ignorance on your part of what the actual issue is. Pelosi and the Democrats are accusing Barr of lying before Congress. We know what his testimony is. We know what he supposedly knew (the letter from Mueller) when he gave that testimony. There's no mystery here as to what happened. So yes, I'm quite confident that I know what the Democrats have: absolutely nothing.
|
On May 03 2019 00:52 Sermokala wrote:
The problem with any attacks on Barr is that he was never elected and will probably never seek office in the first place. Any time spent with barr in the headlines or him on TV is time not spent going against trump in any way.
I'm baffled why they haven't transitioned to full press on his tax returns connecting the two issues as if something in them will shine more light on the investigation.
What do they really have to gain from this line of attack? The integrity of the office of AG and the DoJ?
There is more to government then the polling for the next election.
|
On May 03 2019 01:01 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2019 00:58 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2019 00:48 xDaunt wrote:On May 03 2019 00:38 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2019 00:26 Gorsameth wrote:On May 03 2019 00:25 xDaunt wrote:On May 03 2019 00:07 Gorsameth wrote:
Here is something that popped into my head.
Barr stated yesterday that he was surprised Mueller didn't make a decision on Obstruction of justice.
Therefor either Barr doesn't know there is a standing guideline not to indict the President, or he doesn't care about it.
Surely an AG should know such a guideline exists when there is an ongoing investigation into the President. so the logical conclusion is he does't care about it.
Is it within his power to remove this guideline?
If so could Congress tell him to do so and then get Mueller to make an actual decision?
(ofcourse none of that is going to happen because Barr likely did know about the guideline and did know that Mueller wasn't going to give an indictment regardless of evidence but its an interesting line to follow and to ask Barr in front of the House committee, assuming he ever shows up there). This is an incorrect reading of the OLC guidelines. The OLC guideline did not prevent Mueller from making a decision on prosecution or a finding that there was a prosecutable crime. All that OLC guideline says is that the president cannot be indicted while in office. Presuming that this is enforceable (certainly not guaranteed), a president could still be indicted for the crime after leaving office. So when Barr says that he is "surprised" that Mueller didn't make a decision on obstruction, this is the legal backdrop. There wasn't a good reason for Mueller not to make a decision. Mueller was simply playing politics. And Barr knows it. fairness guidelines. Don't make a judgement when you can't indict and that person can't defend himself in court. Its in the report. Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice
Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply
an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. The
threshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person's conduct
"constitutes a federal offense." U.S . Dep't of Justice, Justice Manual§ 9-27.220 (2018) (Justice
Manual) . Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges
can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a
speedy and public trial , with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An
individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In
contrast, a prosecutor's judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought ,
affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name -clearing before an impartial adjudicator.5 There are several other references to this problem and that they cannot accuse the president of a crime due to the guidelines. But as always, the counter argument is that Mueller is biased and it is all a cover story for Mueller’s malfeasance in investigating the president. And when you ask for evidence of bias, they will tell you to look at the report, it is filled with bias. Barr is right and the report clears Trump. But it is also biased and created by a person tainted with bias. All arguments will ping pong between these too points, while calling you stupid along the way for not seeing the merits of this argument. Feel free to cite the guideline that shows that Mueller had no choice but to offer no decision on whether to prosecute. The DOJ is prohibited from indicting a sitting president. A decision to prosecute would mean they would move to indict for anyone but the president. This means a determination that the president obstructed justice would be effectively same as indicting him, even if they won’t do it until he leaves office. The only thing you got right was the bolded/underlined above. There is no regulation that barred Mueller from making a determination on whether to prosecute. This is why Barr was able to make the conclusion that he did. What you're citing and relying upon is Mueller's tortured logic to justify not coming to the decision himself. There is simply no legal basis for it.
Dude, this is civics 101 shit. The power of goverment extends far beyond direct action. If someone in the goverment says a citizen committed a crime, the citizen has the right to defend themselves even if charges are not brought. If the special counsel says that Trump committed obstruction in the report, it is the same as bringing charges even if they don't officially bring charges. Trump will still be obligated to defend himself as if he was charged.
You're an attorney and you're not stupid, don't come at me with this basic becky shit.
|
On May 03 2019 01:08 plasmidghost wrote:
I would gain so much respect for mainstream Dems and Pelosi if they follow through with their obstruction claims against Trump and Barr and try to push for them to be punished
Their case against Barr for obstructing congress is much stronger. He failed to show up for a hearing, has refused to provide documents and seems set on not providing underlying evidence surrounding the investigation. On top of that, there is some substantive stuff around the determination, including Rosenstein being involved even though he was a witness to the underlying charge of obstruction. I'm sort of surprised that Rosenstein was involved now that I am reminded of that fact, because it is basic attorney stuff that you can't be a witness in a case you are overseeing, civil or criminal. It is a conflict of interest.
|
General sentiment seems to be that it will be a contempt of congress hearing. Pretty solid ground for it (not complying with subpoena).
These are from before Pelosi's statement, which sounds harsher than a contempt charge though
|
On May 03 2019 01:13 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2019 01:01 xDaunt wrote:On May 03 2019 00:58 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2019 00:48 xDaunt wrote:On May 03 2019 00:38 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2019 00:26 Gorsameth wrote:On May 03 2019 00:25 xDaunt wrote:On May 03 2019 00:07 Gorsameth wrote:
Here is something that popped into my head.
Barr stated yesterday that he was surprised Mueller didn't make a decision on Obstruction of justice.
Therefor either Barr doesn't know there is a standing guideline not to indict the President, or he doesn't care about it.
Surely an AG should know such a guideline exists when there is an ongoing investigation into the President. so the logical conclusion is he does't care about it.
Is it within his power to remove this guideline?
If so could Congress tell him to do so and then get Mueller to make an actual decision?
(ofcourse none of that is going to happen because Barr likely did know about the guideline and did know that Mueller wasn't going to give an indictment regardless of evidence but its an interesting line to follow and to ask Barr in front of the House committee, assuming he ever shows up there). This is an incorrect reading of the OLC guidelines. The OLC guideline did not prevent Mueller from making a decision on prosecution or a finding that there was a prosecutable crime. All that OLC guideline says is that the president cannot be indicted while in office. Presuming that this is enforceable (certainly not guaranteed), a president could still be indicted for the crime after leaving office. So when Barr says that he is "surprised" that Mueller didn't make a decision on obstruction, this is the legal backdrop. There wasn't a good reason for Mueller not to make a decision. Mueller was simply playing politics. And Barr knows it. fairness guidelines. Don't make a judgement when you can't indict and that person can't defend himself in court. Its in the report. Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice
Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply
an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. The
threshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person's conduct
"constitutes a federal offense." U.S . Dep't of Justice, Justice Manual§ 9-27.220 (2018) (Justice
Manual) . Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges
can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a
speedy and public trial , with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An
individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In
contrast, a prosecutor's judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought ,
affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name -clearing before an impartial adjudicator.5 There are several other references to this problem and that they cannot accuse the president of a crime due to the guidelines. But as always, the counter argument is that Mueller is biased and it is all a cover story for Mueller’s malfeasance in investigating the president. And when you ask for evidence of bias, they will tell you to look at the report, it is filled with bias. Barr is right and the report clears Trump. But it is also biased and created by a person tainted with bias. All arguments will ping pong between these too points, while calling you stupid along the way for not seeing the merits of this argument. Feel free to cite the guideline that shows that Mueller had no choice but to offer no decision on whether to prosecute. The DOJ is prohibited from indicting a sitting president. A decision to prosecute would mean they would move to indict for anyone but the president. This means a determination that the president obstructed justice would be effectively same as indicting him, even if they won’t do it until he leaves office. The only thing you got right was the bolded/underlined above. There is no regulation that barred Mueller from making a determination on whether to prosecute. This is why Barr was able to make the conclusion that he did. What you're citing and relying upon is Mueller's tortured logic to justify not coming to the decision himself. There is simply no legal basis for it. Dude, this is civics 101 shit. The power of goverment extends far beyond direct action. If someone in the goverment says a citizen committed a crime, the citizen has the right to defend themselves even if charges are not brought. If the special counsel says that Trump committed obstruction in the report, it is the same as bringing charges even if they don't officially bring charges. Trump will still be obligated to defend himself as if he was charged. You're an attorney and you're not stupid, don't come at me with this basic becky shit.
Again, all wrong. Public policy arguments only come into play when there is an ambiguity in the law/regulation at issue. There is no such ambiguity here. The bottom line is that there is no regulation that prevented Mueller from indicting Trump or finding probable cause of a crime. We know this not only from the regulations themselves, but because Barr -- WHO IS SUBJECT TO THE SAME REGULATIONS AS MUELLER -- made the conclusion himself.
Since you already played the attorney card, let me just state the obvious: the difference in our analyses above is why I'm the attorney, and you're the paralegal.
|
The contempt charge for failing to produce the full report is bogus, too. The only thing that has not been produced is the grand jury information, which cannot be released by law. The democrats can't subpoena what they're not entitled to. They'll get laughed out of court.
|
On May 03 2019 01:29 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2019 01:13 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2019 01:01 xDaunt wrote:On May 03 2019 00:58 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2019 00:48 xDaunt wrote:On May 03 2019 00:38 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2019 00:26 Gorsameth wrote:On May 03 2019 00:25 xDaunt wrote:On May 03 2019 00:07 Gorsameth wrote:
Here is something that popped into my head.
Barr stated yesterday that he was surprised Mueller didn't make a decision on Obstruction of justice.
Therefor either Barr doesn't know there is a standing guideline not to indict the President, or he doesn't care about it.
Surely an AG should know such a guideline exists when there is an ongoing investigation into the President. so the logical conclusion is he does't care about it.
Is it within his power to remove this guideline?
If so could Congress tell him to do so and then get Mueller to make an actual decision?
(ofcourse none of that is going to happen because Barr likely did know about the guideline and did know that Mueller wasn't going to give an indictment regardless of evidence but its an interesting line to follow and to ask Barr in front of the House committee, assuming he ever shows up there). This is an incorrect reading of the OLC guidelines. The OLC guideline did not prevent Mueller from making a decision on prosecution or a finding that there was a prosecutable crime. All that OLC guideline says is that the president cannot be indicted while in office. Presuming that this is enforceable (certainly not guaranteed), a president could still be indicted for the crime after leaving office. So when Barr says that he is "surprised" that Mueller didn't make a decision on obstruction, this is the legal backdrop. There wasn't a good reason for Mueller not to make a decision. Mueller was simply playing politics. And Barr knows it. fairness guidelines. Don't make a judgement when you can't indict and that person can't defend himself in court. Its in the report. Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice
Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply
an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. The
threshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person's conduct
"constitutes a federal offense." U.S . Dep't of Justice, Justice Manual§ 9-27.220 (2018) (Justice
Manual) . Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges
can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a
speedy and public trial , with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An
individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In
contrast, a prosecutor's judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought ,
affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name -clearing before an impartial adjudicator.5 There are several other references to this problem and that they cannot accuse the president of a crime due to the guidelines. But as always, the counter argument is that Mueller is biased and it is all a cover story for Mueller’s malfeasance in investigating the president. And when you ask for evidence of bias, they will tell you to look at the report, it is filled with bias. Barr is right and the report clears Trump. But it is also biased and created by a person tainted with bias. All arguments will ping pong between these too points, while calling you stupid along the way for not seeing the merits of this argument. Feel free to cite the guideline that shows that Mueller had no choice but to offer no decision on whether to prosecute. The DOJ is prohibited from indicting a sitting president. A decision to prosecute would mean they would move to indict for anyone but the president. This means a determination that the president obstructed justice would be effectively same as indicting him, even if they won’t do it until he leaves office. The only thing you got right was the bolded/underlined above. There is no regulation that barred Mueller from making a determination on whether to prosecute. This is why Barr was able to make the conclusion that he did. What you're citing and relying upon is Mueller's tortured logic to justify not coming to the decision himself. There is simply no legal basis for it. Dude, this is civics 101 shit. The power of goverment extends far beyond direct action. If someone in the goverment says a citizen committed a crime, the citizen has the right to defend themselves even if charges are not brought. If the special counsel says that Trump committed obstruction in the report, it is the same as bringing charges even if they don't officially bring charges. Trump will still be obligated to defend himself as if he was charged. You're an attorney and you're not stupid, don't come at me with this basic becky shit. Again, all wrong. Public policy arguments only come into play when there is an ambiguity in the law/regulation at issue. There is no such ambiguity here. The bottom line is that there is no regulation that prevented Mueller from indicting Trump or finding probable cause of a crime. We know this not only from the regulations themselves, but because Barr -- WHO IS SUBJECT TO THE SAME REGULATIONS AS MUELLER -- made the conclusion himself. Since you already played the attorney card, let me just state the obvious: the difference in our analyses above is why I'm the attorney, and you're the paralegal.
Whether or not it actually prevented Mueller is irrelevant if Mueller felt it did. His opinion could be wrong, but it's still his opinion and as lead investigator he had the right to make that choice.
I, ofc, think he was wrong to not make a decision, or at least say whether he would have prosecuted but-for the whole President thing. He was also wrong not to subpoena Trump and Jr to testify.
Still, this can all be explained once Mueller testifies. Shame that frauds like Graham refuse to hear him. Thank God Dems won the House.
Edit: as for the attack on P6, they way you worded it is bogus. It implies that P6 is incapable of becoming an attorney. It's one thing to say you understand better because of your legal training, it's another to insult someone's intelligence.
|
On May 03 2019 01:29 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2019 01:13 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2019 01:01 xDaunt wrote:On May 03 2019 00:58 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2019 00:48 xDaunt wrote:On May 03 2019 00:38 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2019 00:26 Gorsameth wrote:On May 03 2019 00:25 xDaunt wrote:On May 03 2019 00:07 Gorsameth wrote:
Here is something that popped into my head.
Barr stated yesterday that he was surprised Mueller didn't make a decision on Obstruction of justice.
Therefor either Barr doesn't know there is a standing guideline not to indict the President, or he doesn't care about it.
Surely an AG should know such a guideline exists when there is an ongoing investigation into the President. so the logical conclusion is he does't care about it.
Is it within his power to remove this guideline?
If so could Congress tell him to do so and then get Mueller to make an actual decision?
(ofcourse none of that is going to happen because Barr likely did know about the guideline and did know that Mueller wasn't going to give an indictment regardless of evidence but its an interesting line to follow and to ask Barr in front of the House committee, assuming he ever shows up there). This is an incorrect reading of the OLC guidelines. The OLC guideline did not prevent Mueller from making a decision on prosecution or a finding that there was a prosecutable crime. All that OLC guideline says is that the president cannot be indicted while in office. Presuming that this is enforceable (certainly not guaranteed), a president could still be indicted for the crime after leaving office. So when Barr says that he is "surprised" that Mueller didn't make a decision on obstruction, this is the legal backdrop. There wasn't a good reason for Mueller not to make a decision. Mueller was simply playing politics. And Barr knows it. fairness guidelines. Don't make a judgement when you can't indict and that person can't defend himself in court. Its in the report. Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice
Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply
an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. The
threshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person's conduct
"constitutes a federal offense." U.S . Dep't of Justice, Justice Manual§ 9-27.220 (2018) (Justice
Manual) . Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges
can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a
speedy and public trial , with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An
individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In
contrast, a prosecutor's judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought ,
affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name -clearing before an impartial adjudicator.5 There are several other references to this problem and that they cannot accuse the president of a crime due to the guidelines. But as always, the counter argument is that Mueller is biased and it is all a cover story for Mueller’s malfeasance in investigating the president. And when you ask for evidence of bias, they will tell you to look at the report, it is filled with bias. Barr is right and the report clears Trump. But it is also biased and created by a person tainted with bias. All arguments will ping pong between these too points, while calling you stupid along the way for not seeing the merits of this argument. Feel free to cite the guideline that shows that Mueller had no choice but to offer no decision on whether to prosecute. The DOJ is prohibited from indicting a sitting president. A decision to prosecute would mean they would move to indict for anyone but the president. This means a determination that the president obstructed justice would be effectively same as indicting him, even if they won’t do it until he leaves office. The only thing you got right was the bolded/underlined above. There is no regulation that barred Mueller from making a determination on whether to prosecute. This is why Barr was able to make the conclusion that he did. What you're citing and relying upon is Mueller's tortured logic to justify not coming to the decision himself. There is simply no legal basis for it. Dude, this is civics 101 shit. The power of goverment extends far beyond direct action. If someone in the goverment says a citizen committed a crime, the citizen has the right to defend themselves even if charges are not brought. If the special counsel says that Trump committed obstruction in the report, it is the same as bringing charges even if they don't officially bring charges. Trump will still be obligated to defend himself as if he was charged. You're an attorney and you're not stupid, don't come at me with this basic becky shit. Again, all wrong. Public policy arguments only come into play when there is an ambiguity in the law/regulation at issue. There is no such ambiguity here. The bottom line is that there is no regulation that prevented Mueller from indicting Trump or finding probable cause of a crime. We know this not only from the regulations themselves, but because Barr -- WHO IS SUBJECT TO THE SAME REGULATIONS AS MUELLER -- made the conclusion himself. Since you already played the attorney card, let me just state the obvious: the difference in our analyses above is why I'm the attorney, and you're the paralegal.
I don’t think my decision to obtain a mortgage over 150K student loan factors into the discussion. But hey, if obtaining a law degree makes you feel superior to your paralegals, you do you.
And again, a regulation specifically prohibiting a determination does not need to be spelled out the current guidelines to prohibit the special counsel from making a recommendation. Law, regulations and guidelines do not function like that.
|
|
|
I welcome Pelosi and Nadler's obsession with Barr and false allegations of impropriety. Any more attention to this subject will work against the Democrats. They're only playing to their base with this, and the base is very easily satisfied. The big two-year investigation into treasonous collusion is now some Democrats whining about a few weeks between summary of conclusions release and full report release. Democrats on the House couldn't even handle interviewing Barr themselves (elected representatives interviewing a top executive appointee), and wanted their staffs to conduct it.
|
On May 03 2019 02:24 JimmiC wrote:
xDaunt do you agree with this statement.
Donald Trump cannot speak on these issues under oath because he will perjure himself.
Yep, though I'd restate it slightly to "Donald Trump cannot speak on these issues under oath because he will fall into a perjury trap." This is why Barr has no intention of appearing before Congress where the Democrats would tee up multiple litigators to go after him. The Democrats are actively trying to create crimes out of thin air. This is exactly what Mueller did to Papadopoulos and Flynn.
|
Just because Trump and the immoral/incompetent people he surrounds himself with cant talk under oath without lying does not mean the charges are coming out of thin air. It just means they are hiding something they dont want to come out. They don't get to avoid punishment because you like the policies they advocate.
Maybe you shouldn't be going to bat for people whose actions were so dubious that they felt compelled to lie to federal authorities about them? Flynn especially. Just a thought.
|
Flynn created his own crimes by doing criminal things. He was practically chased out of the NSA. This is a three star general so dumb that he thought that Trump could order the Illinois National Guard into Chicago to “deal with the crime”. Or could order the Illinois National Guard to do anything within the US, period. The idea that Mueller trapped him or created crimes to charge him with is pretty silly given his history.
|
|
|
On May 03 2019 02:46 On_Slaught wrote:
Just because Trump and the immoral/incompetent people he surrounds himself with cant talk under oath without lying does not mean the charges are coming out of thin air. It just means they are hiding something they dont want to come out. They don't get to avoid punishment because you like the policies they advocate.
Maybe you shouldn't be going to bat for people whose actions were so dubious that they felt compelled to lie to federal authorities about them? Flynn especially. Just a thought.
The statement that you're replying to reflects more on xDaunt's integrity than anything I've ever seen in this thread.
|
So we're starting the leak phase where damaging information the OIG is uncovering is leaked ahead of his report. He's investigating the start of the counterintelligence probe against the President, and whether the conduct of the investigation was above board. The latest leak was made to the New York Times. Here, the spin is that these operations were hidden from Trump for Trump's own benefit, and not that Americans would be a little peeved to find out that one administration was running overseas assets against rival politicians.
We've already had the most nutso allegations against Barr to try to make people distrust his office's results. I fear this will just get worse.
|
On May 03 2019 03:05 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2019 02:32 xDaunt wrote:On May 03 2019 02:24 JimmiC wrote:
xDaunt do you agree with this statement.
Donald Trump cannot speak on these issues under oath because he will perjure himself. Yep, though I'd restate it slightly to "Donald Trump cannot speak on these issues under oath because he will fall into a perjury trap." This is why Barr has no intention of appearing before Congress where the Democrats would tee up multiple litigators to go after him. The Democrats are actively trying to create crimes out of thin air. This is exactly what Mueller did to Papadopoulos and Flynn. I would want my leader to be both clean enough and smart enough to avoid perjuring himself. I do believe he has committed white collar crime, but even if I didn't I just don't think he is capable of being honest. I find this super concerning for a world leader (or anyone TBH).
It doesn't work that way. Barr is as seasoned and experienced as they come, yet look at how the Democrats tried to manufacture a bullshit perjury trap against him using Mueller's letter and some clumsy questioning by Crist. No one in their right mind would voluntarily appear before Congress given this current modus operandi.
|
On May 03 2019 03:22 Danglars wrote:So we're starting the leak phase where damaging information the OIG is uncovering is leaked ahead of his report. He's investigating the start of the counterintelligence probe against the President, and whether the conduct of the investigation was above board. The latest leak was made to the New York Times. Here, the spin is that these operations were hidden from Trump for Trump's own benefit, and not that Americans would be a little peeved to find out that one administration was running overseas assets against rival politicians. https://twitter.com/MZHemingway/status/1124003022273691651We've already had the most nutso allegations against Barr to try to make people distrust his office's results. I fear this will just get worse.
I see more political spin from your post than anything else.
There's no inherent reason to say that this investigation was about using these assets "against a political rival". You are making that statement purely as a subjective judgment call.
There is no entrapment even remotely evident in that article.
It also makes no sense for this to be a purely political job when they kept this extremely tight-lipped during the actual campaign. remember that the same FBI was doing an extremely public investigation into Clinton's emails, an investigation that undoubtedly damaged her electoral performance? The "political inside job" reasoning fails when that same organization did exponentially more damage to the Democratic candidate with its actions than the Republican one.
It doesn't work that way. Barr is as seasoned and experienced as they come, yet look at how the Democrats tried to manufacture a bullshit perjury trap against him using Mueller's letter and some clumsy questioning by Crist. No one in their right mind would voluntarily appear before Congress given this current modus operandi.
Pretty sure a subpoena isn't "voluntary" as would be generally understood. What happened to the "Law and Order" party respecting the rule of law?
You also treated the Clinton investigations and testimonies completely differently. It betrays a political bias in you that makes your judgment extremely suspect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
