|
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 |
|
|
A lot of reiteration of his character defects, not a lot of on point conversation. Barr said something completely uncontroversial about the Presidents reaction in his situation. Then a bunch of you act like the Mueller report didn’t matter, you simply know he’s gotta be guilty and thus he has no right to call it a witch hunt. This is such a political farce, likely born of the fear that Barr’s on track to find some real damaging things that happened at the beginning. I suggest finding real issues with Barr instead of all this tomfoolery.
|
On May 19 2019 00:47 Danglars wrote:
A lot of reiteration of his character defects, not a lot of on point conversation. Barr said something completely uncontroversial about the Presidents reaction in his situation. Then a bunch of you act like the Mueller report didn’t matter, you simply know he’s gotta be guilty and thus he has no right to call it a witch hunt. This is such a political farce, likely born of the fear that Barr’s on track to find some real damaging things that happened at the beginning. I suggest finding real issues with Barr instead of all this tomfoolery.
The witch hunt language doesn't need to be the reaction to an investigation, because it could still be a valid investigation. Trump's reaction was over the top (and it's pretty much inconceivable, given his personality, that his reaction would not be over the top), an attack on the integrity of law enforcement, which Barr says is okay. Barr is also giving a media interview in which he reveals some of the contents of his ongoing investigation (by saying that the stories being given by targets are not "hanging together" and are "inadequate"). In other words he's revealing derogatory facts about the targets while the investigation is ongoing. He claimed during his confirmation hearing that that's "not how the DOJ does business." He also implied that Democrats probably aren't going to like the results of the investigation, which is a prejudgment of the evidence on his part.
Though I would say that Democratic politicans' attacks on Barr are over the top and politically motivated.
|
|
|
An investigation that was started because the president fired the FBI director and publicly said he did so to get rid of an ongoing investigation into a colleague is not a 'Witch Hunt' under any definition of the word.
And the head of the DoJ describing it as such is yet another in a long list of examples of why he is utterly unqualified to be in that position.
|
On May 19 2019 01:20 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2019 00:47 Danglars wrote:
A lot of reiteration of his character defects, not a lot of on point conversation. Barr said something completely uncontroversial about the Presidents reaction in his situation. Then a bunch of you act like the Mueller report didn’t matter, you simply know he’s gotta be guilty and thus he has no right to call it a witch hunt. This is such a political farce, likely born of the fear that Barr’s on track to find some real damaging things that happened at the beginning. I suggest finding real issues with Barr instead of all this tomfoolery. The witch hunt language doesn't need to be the reaction to an investigation, because it could still be a valid investigation. Trump's reaction was over the top (and it's pretty much inconceivable, given his personality, that his reaction would not be over the top), an attack on the integrity of law enforcement, which Barr says is okay. Barr is also giving a media interview in which he reveals some of the contents of his ongoing investigation (by saying that the stories being given by targets are not "hanging together" and are "inadequate"). In other words he's revealing derogatory facts about the targets while the investigation is ongoing. He claimed during his confirmation hearing that that's "not how the DOJ does business." He also implied that Democrats probably aren't going to like the results of the investigation, which is a prejudgment of the evidence on his part. Though I would say that Democratic politicans' attacks on Barr are over the top and politically motivated.
I never said it needed to be a reaction. I said it was an understandable and justifiable reaction. He's innocent, knows he's innocent, and the political news media is making absurd conspiracy theories, all kinds of felony leaks left and right, and your own FBI director is pulling some J Edgar Hoover playbook moves.
Also, questions into the current investigation justify vague progress reports. We already know sworn testimony contradicts public interviews. Baker, Comey, McCabe, Brennan among them. It simply isn't news. Of course he would know in the early stages that some people are lying about what happened. It's already a matter of public record.
Now I'll give you an opportunity here to show it's about the principle and not just your hatred of Trump. You've characterized certain things as an "attack on the integrity of law enforcement."
+ Show Spoiler +
Does the same apply to Comey? For the sake of principle, will you say Comey's attacks on Barr, who is investigating Comey's role, also cases of obstructing justice and trying to delegitimize the investigation for fear of what it shows? This used to be the stupid standard you all applied to Trump's angry tweets at Mueller, so show a little courage and apply the same to Comey.
|
On May 19 2019 01:20 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2019 00:47 Danglars wrote:
A lot of reiteration of his character defects, not a lot of on point conversation. Barr said something completely uncontroversial about the Presidents reaction in his situation. Then a bunch of you act like the Mueller report didn’t matter, you simply know he’s gotta be guilty and thus he has no right to call it a witch hunt. This is such a political farce, likely born of the fear that Barr’s on track to find some real damaging things that happened at the beginning. I suggest finding real issues with Barr instead of all this tomfoolery. The witch hunt language doesn't need to be the reaction to an investigation, because it could still be a valid investigation. Trump's reaction was over the top (and it's pretty much inconceivable, given his personality, that his reaction would not be over the top), an attack on the integrity of law enforcement, which Barr says is okay. Barr is also giving a media interview in which he reveals some of the contents of his ongoing investigation (by saying that the stories being given by targets are not "hanging together" and are "inadequate"). In other words he's revealing derogatory facts about the targets while the investigation is ongoing. He claimed during his confirmation hearing that that's "not how the DOJ does business." He also implied that Democrats probably aren't going to like the results of the investigation, which is a prejudgment of the evidence on his part. Though I would say that Democratic politicans' attacks on Barr are over the top and politically motivated.
The criticisms of Trump's language pertaining to the investigations are predicated upon the proposition that the investigations were proper to begin with. That proposition is very much in doubt and is becoming even less tenable as time goes on. The weak spot has always been the Steele dossier and the FBI's usage of it to get the Carter Page FISA warrant. Not only did Mueller fail to vindicate the Steele dossier in his report, but now it is becoming clear that the FBI officials leading the investigation knew that Steele dossier was bogus before they made the initial Carter Page FISA application. There has been ample reporting over the past week about Kathleen Kavalec, a former State Department official, interviewing Steele and drafting a memo in which she raised huge red flags about his reliability as a source. Just minor stuff like his claims that Russia was running operations out of a consulate in Miami when there is no Russian consulate in Miami. I have little doubt that she also checked in on the claim that Cohen went to Prague and verified that it was false (unsurprisingly, there's a redaction in the written memo and in her handwritten notes where this information likely is) This memo made its way to Strzok before the FISA application was filed, yet the investigators still swore to the FISA court that they had no derogatory information on Steele at all. That's a big, big problem.
Reports are that the Horowitz has pretty much wrapped up his review, so I have no doubt that Barr has already been briefed on what Horowitz found. I highly doubt that the news leaking of Durham's appointment to look into this stuff would have come out unless criminal investigations and indictments were going to come out of this.
|
But Comey, atleast its a change from But Hillary
Comey is, last time I checked, a citizen and not a representative of the government responding in an official capacity.
|
On May 19 2019 01:57 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2019 00:47 Danglars wrote:
A lot of reiteration of his character defects, not a lot of on point conversation. Barr said something completely uncontroversial about the Presidents reaction in his situation. Then a bunch of you act like the Mueller report didn’t matter, you simply know he’s gotta be guilty and thus he has no right to call it a witch hunt. This is such a political farce, likely born of the fear that Barr’s on track to find some real damaging things that happened at the beginning. I suggest finding real issues with Barr instead of all this tomfoolery. The undersell continues. Hiring someone under investigation, and then publicly lying about being told about. These are not minor character flaws, it is at best incredible incompetence by the most important person in your party and goverment. It is loud chewing.
I just faulted people like you of making non-substantive responses on the issue by drawing things back to his character or other things about Trump you don't like. If you have something on topic that shows Barr isn't 100% correct in his comments, share it. I'm not interested in all the reasons you say Trump's incompetent, which doesn't bear on Barr's truthful comments, and the general political hackery surrounding the accusers of Barr.
On May 19 2019 02:01 Gorsameth wrote:
An investigation that was started because the president fired the FBI director and publicly said he did so to get rid of an ongoing investigation into a colleague is not a 'Witch Hunt' under any definition of the word.
And the head of the DoJ describing it as such is yet another in a long list of examples of why he is utterly unqualified to be in that position.
Sadly, you're off base again. Citation needed. Trump referred vaguely to a "Russia thing." For all we know, it could refer to Comey briefing Trump on the pee tape part of dossier, assuring Trump he was not under investigation, and then seeing that meeting immediately leak to back the credibility of the dossier. You're missing a glaringly obvious point: if this investigation that Comey so mismanaged was bullshit from the start, it presents Trump with obvious reasons to fire the guy most involved in it. It's this hand-waving which is so comical ... asking people to narrowly interpret the Mueller investigation, and never look back into the investigation preceding that as well.
|
|
|
On May 19 2019 02:47 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2019 01:57 JimmiC wrote:On May 19 2019 00:47 Danglars wrote:
A lot of reiteration of his character defects, not a lot of on point conversation. Barr said something completely uncontroversial about the Presidents reaction in his situation. Then a bunch of you act like the Mueller report didn’t matter, you simply know he’s gotta be guilty and thus he has no right to call it a witch hunt. This is such a political farce, likely born of the fear that Barr’s on track to find some real damaging things that happened at the beginning. I suggest finding real issues with Barr instead of all this tomfoolery. The undersell continues. Hiring someone under investigation, and then publicly lying about being told about. These are not minor character flaws, it is at best incredible incompetence by the most important person in your party and goverment. It is loud chewing. I just faulted people like you of making non-substantive responses on the issue by drawing things back to his character or other things about Trump you don't like. If you have something on topic that shows Barr isn't 100% correct in his comments, share it. I'm not interested in all the reasons you say Trump's incompetent, which doesn't bear on Barr's truthful comments, and the general political hackery surrounding the accusers of Barr. Show nested quote +On May 19 2019 02:01 Gorsameth wrote:
An investigation that was started because the president fired the FBI director and publicly said he did so to get rid of an ongoing investigation into a colleague is not a 'Witch Hunt' under any definition of the word.
And the head of the DoJ describing it as such is yet another in a long list of examples of why he is utterly unqualified to be in that position. Sadly, you're off base again. Citation needed. Trump referred vaguely to a "Russia thing." For all we know, it could refer to Comey briefing Trump on the pee tape part of dossier, assuring Trump he was not under investigation, and then seeing that meeting immediately leak to back the credibility of the dossier. You're missing a glaringly obvious point: if this investigation that Comey so mismanaged was bullshit from the start, it presents Trump with obvious reasons to fire the guy most involved in it. It's this hand-waving which is so comical ... asking people to narrowly interpret the Mueller investigation, and never look back into the investigation preceding that as well. Right never look back.
Except for that I have, several times, said that I have no problem with them taking a look at how the initial investigation started. Because I care about things being done properly, no matter who is on which side.
And Obstruction of Justice doesn't care about the details of the investigation your obstructing, merely that you are obstructing.
|
On May 19 2019 02:57 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2019 02:47 Danglars wrote:On May 19 2019 01:57 JimmiC wrote:On May 19 2019 00:47 Danglars wrote:
A lot of reiteration of his character defects, not a lot of on point conversation. Barr said something completely uncontroversial about the Presidents reaction in his situation. Then a bunch of you act like the Mueller report didn’t matter, you simply know he’s gotta be guilty and thus he has no right to call it a witch hunt. This is such a political farce, likely born of the fear that Barr’s on track to find some real damaging things that happened at the beginning. I suggest finding real issues with Barr instead of all this tomfoolery. The undersell continues. Hiring someone under investigation, and then publicly lying about being told about. These are not minor character flaws, it is at best incredible incompetence by the most important person in your party and goverment. It is loud chewing. I just faulted people like you of making non-substantive responses on the issue by drawing things back to his character or other things about Trump you don't like. If you have something on topic that shows Barr isn't 100% correct in his comments, share it. I'm not interested in all the reasons you say Trump's incompetent, which doesn't bear on Barr's truthful comments, and the general political hackery surrounding the accusers of Barr. On May 19 2019 02:01 Gorsameth wrote:
An investigation that was started because the president fired the FBI director and publicly said he did so to get rid of an ongoing investigation into a colleague is not a 'Witch Hunt' under any definition of the word.
And the head of the DoJ describing it as such is yet another in a long list of examples of why he is utterly unqualified to be in that position. Sadly, you're off base again. Citation needed. Trump referred vaguely to a "Russia thing." For all we know, it could refer to Comey briefing Trump on the pee tape part of dossier, assuring Trump he was not under investigation, and then seeing that meeting immediately leak to back the credibility of the dossier. You're missing a glaringly obvious point: if this investigation that Comey so mismanaged was bullshit from the start, it presents Trump with obvious reasons to fire the guy most involved in it. It's this hand-waving which is so comical ... asking people to narrowly interpret the Mueller investigation, and never look back into the investigation preceding that as well. Right never look back. Except for that I have, several times, said that I have no problem with them taking a look at how the initial investigation started. Because I care about things being done properly, no matter who is on which side. And Obstruction of Justice doesn't care about the details of the investigation your obstructing, merely that you are obstructing.
Maybe you should connect what you're saying now with your phantom looks back at the start of the investigation that got Comey fired. Or maybe spot some time on the reasons I just said were legitimate reasons to fire Comey. I mean, you're quoting me, but going off on sidings like how you care about things being done properly, and what obstruction cares and doesn't care about. If you have no response but to claim you care and actually were better about these things in the past, then I'll just conclude that you really do think Trump's in the right and wish he weren't.
|
On May 19 2019 03:14 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2019 02:57 Gorsameth wrote:On May 19 2019 02:47 Danglars wrote:On May 19 2019 01:57 JimmiC wrote:On May 19 2019 00:47 Danglars wrote:
A lot of reiteration of his character defects, not a lot of on point conversation. Barr said something completely uncontroversial about the Presidents reaction in his situation. Then a bunch of you act like the Mueller report didn’t matter, you simply know he’s gotta be guilty and thus he has no right to call it a witch hunt. This is such a political farce, likely born of the fear that Barr’s on track to find some real damaging things that happened at the beginning. I suggest finding real issues with Barr instead of all this tomfoolery. The undersell continues. Hiring someone under investigation, and then publicly lying about being told about. These are not minor character flaws, it is at best incredible incompetence by the most important person in your party and goverment. It is loud chewing. I just faulted people like you of making non-substantive responses on the issue by drawing things back to his character or other things about Trump you don't like. If you have something on topic that shows Barr isn't 100% correct in his comments, share it. I'm not interested in all the reasons you say Trump's incompetent, which doesn't bear on Barr's truthful comments, and the general political hackery surrounding the accusers of Barr. On May 19 2019 02:01 Gorsameth wrote:
An investigation that was started because the president fired the FBI director and publicly said he did so to get rid of an ongoing investigation into a colleague is not a 'Witch Hunt' under any definition of the word.
And the head of the DoJ describing it as such is yet another in a long list of examples of why he is utterly unqualified to be in that position. Sadly, you're off base again. Citation needed. Trump referred vaguely to a "Russia thing." For all we know, it could refer to Comey briefing Trump on the pee tape part of dossier, assuring Trump he was not under investigation, and then seeing that meeting immediately leak to back the credibility of the dossier. You're missing a glaringly obvious point: if this investigation that Comey so mismanaged was bullshit from the start, it presents Trump with obvious reasons to fire the guy most involved in it. It's this hand-waving which is so comical ... asking people to narrowly interpret the Mueller investigation, and never look back into the investigation preceding that as well. Right never look back. Except for that I have, several times, said that I have no problem with them taking a look at how the initial investigation started. Because I care about things being done properly, no matter who is on which side. And Obstruction of Justice doesn't care about the details of the investigation your obstructing, merely that you are obstructing. Maybe you should connect what you're saying now with your phantom looks back at the start of the investigation that got Comey fired. Or maybe spot some time on the reasons I just said were legitimate reasons to fire Comey. I mean, you're quoting me, but going off on sidings like how you care about things being done properly, and what obstruction cares and doesn't care about. If you have no response but to claim you care and actually were better about these things in the past, then I'll just conclude that you really do think Trump's in the right and wish he weren't. I didn't spell it out clear enough?
Firing Comey was (potential) obstruction of justice regardless of the legitimacy of the underlying investigation and therefor the Mueller investigation into said (potential) obstruction of justice is not a witch hunt and the head of the DoJ should never call it that.
Period. full stop.
|
|
|
On May 19 2019 03:38 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2019 02:39 xDaunt wrote:On May 19 2019 01:20 Doodsmack wrote:On May 19 2019 00:47 Danglars wrote:
A lot of reiteration of his character defects, not a lot of on point conversation. Barr said something completely uncontroversial about the Presidents reaction in his situation. Then a bunch of you act like the Mueller report didn’t matter, you simply know he’s gotta be guilty and thus he has no right to call it a witch hunt. This is such a political farce, likely born of the fear that Barr’s on track to find some real damaging things that happened at the beginning. I suggest finding real issues with Barr instead of all this tomfoolery. The witch hunt language doesn't need to be the reaction to an investigation, because it could still be a valid investigation. Trump's reaction was over the top (and it's pretty much inconceivable, given his personality, that his reaction would not be over the top), an attack on the integrity of law enforcement, which Barr says is okay. Barr is also giving a media interview in which he reveals some of the contents of his ongoing investigation (by saying that the stories being given by targets are not "hanging together" and are "inadequate"). In other words he's revealing derogatory facts about the targets while the investigation is ongoing. He claimed during his confirmation hearing that that's "not how the DOJ does business." He also implied that Democrats probably aren't going to like the results of the investigation, which is a prejudgment of the evidence on his part. Though I would say that Democratic politicans' attacks on Barr are over the top and politically motivated. The criticisms of Trump's language pertaining to the investigations are predicated upon the proposition that the investigations were proper to begin with. That proposition is very much in doubt and is becoming even less tenable as time goes on. The weak spot has always been the Steele dossier and the FBI's usage of it to get the Carter Page FISA warrant. Not only did Mueller fail to vindicate the Steele dossier in his report, but now it is becoming clear that the FBI officials leading the investigation knew that Steele dossier was bogus before they made the initial Carter Page FISA application. There has been ample reporting over the past week about Kathleen Kavalec, a former State Department official, interviewing Steele and drafting a memo in which she raised huge red flags about his reliability as a source. Just minor stuff like his claims that Russia was running operations out of a consulate in Miami when there is no Russian consulate in Miami. I have little doubt that she also checked in on the claim that Cohen went to Prague and verified that it was false (unsurprisingly, there's a redaction in the written memo and in her handwritten notes where this information likely is) This memo made its way to Strzok before the FISA application was filed, yet the investigators still swore to the FISA court that they had no derogatory information on Steele at all. That's a big, big problem. Reports are that the Horowitz has pretty much wrapped up his review, so I have no doubt that Barr has already been briefed on what Horowitz found. I highly doubt that the news leaking of Durham's appointment to look into this stuff would have come out unless criminal investigations and indictments were going to come out of this. I thought your and common thought of the right was that the ends justify the means sort of approach. That he isn't a "choir boy" or however you put it (I just don't want to misquote but I think it was this or boy scout or some term) but everything he is doing makes it worthwhile. So by that logic even if the investigation was not perfect from the start, all the criminals it caught, and it more then paid for itself, make it worth while?
Overlooking some personal deficiencies is not on the same level as overlooking the criminal violation of constitutional rights..
|
On May 19 2019 03:54 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2019 03:38 JimmiC wrote:On May 19 2019 02:39 xDaunt wrote:On May 19 2019 01:20 Doodsmack wrote:On May 19 2019 00:47 Danglars wrote:
A lot of reiteration of his character defects, not a lot of on point conversation. Barr said something completely uncontroversial about the Presidents reaction in his situation. Then a bunch of you act like the Mueller report didn’t matter, you simply know he’s gotta be guilty and thus he has no right to call it a witch hunt. This is such a political farce, likely born of the fear that Barr’s on track to find some real damaging things that happened at the beginning. I suggest finding real issues with Barr instead of all this tomfoolery. The witch hunt language doesn't need to be the reaction to an investigation, because it could still be a valid investigation. Trump's reaction was over the top (and it's pretty much inconceivable, given his personality, that his reaction would not be over the top), an attack on the integrity of law enforcement, which Barr says is okay. Barr is also giving a media interview in which he reveals some of the contents of his ongoing investigation (by saying that the stories being given by targets are not "hanging together" and are "inadequate"). In other words he's revealing derogatory facts about the targets while the investigation is ongoing. He claimed during his confirmation hearing that that's "not how the DOJ does business." He also implied that Democrats probably aren't going to like the results of the investigation, which is a prejudgment of the evidence on his part. Though I would say that Democratic politicans' attacks on Barr are over the top and politically motivated. The criticisms of Trump's language pertaining to the investigations are predicated upon the proposition that the investigations were proper to begin with. That proposition is very much in doubt and is becoming even less tenable as time goes on. The weak spot has always been the Steele dossier and the FBI's usage of it to get the Carter Page FISA warrant. Not only did Mueller fail to vindicate the Steele dossier in his report, but now it is becoming clear that the FBI officials leading the investigation knew that Steele dossier was bogus before they made the initial Carter Page FISA application. There has been ample reporting over the past week about Kathleen Kavalec, a former State Department official, interviewing Steele and drafting a memo in which she raised huge red flags about his reliability as a source. Just minor stuff like his claims that Russia was running operations out of a consulate in Miami when there is no Russian consulate in Miami. I have little doubt that she also checked in on the claim that Cohen went to Prague and verified that it was false (unsurprisingly, there's a redaction in the written memo and in her handwritten notes where this information likely is) This memo made its way to Strzok before the FISA application was filed, yet the investigators still swore to the FISA court that they had no derogatory information on Steele at all. That's a big, big problem. Reports are that the Horowitz has pretty much wrapped up his review, so I have no doubt that Barr has already been briefed on what Horowitz found. I highly doubt that the news leaking of Durham's appointment to look into this stuff would have come out unless criminal investigations and indictments were going to come out of this. I thought your and common thought of the right was that the ends justify the means sort of approach. That he isn't a "choir boy" or however you put it (I just don't want to misquote but I think it was this or boy scout or some term) but everything he is doing makes it worthwhile. So by that logic even if the investigation was not perfect from the start, all the criminals it caught, and it more then paid for itself, make it worth while? Overlooking some personal deficiencies is not on the same level as overlooking the criminal violation of constitutional rights..
Qualifying Trump’s dumpster fire of a presidency, his constant and unprecedented barrage of lies, his disdain for democratic norms and total ignorance of the constitution, and utterly corrupt and morally bankrupt ways, as « some personal deficiencies » is absolutely hysterical.
As someone said earlier, he could take a dump on your desk, you would defend him and find him excuses.
|
Maybe two or three more criticisms of the language used and we'll be up to our quota of "you aren't outraged enough and I'm the judge!" for the week. Question on Issue A, no answer just dumpster-fire-unprecedented-disdain-ignorance-corruption. It's like bringing a big bowl of word salad to a debate, and throwing it all over everyone until they get pissed off at you and leave.
On May 19 2019 03:20 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2019 03:14 Danglars wrote:On May 19 2019 02:57 Gorsameth wrote:On May 19 2019 02:47 Danglars wrote:On May 19 2019 01:57 JimmiC wrote:On May 19 2019 00:47 Danglars wrote:
A lot of reiteration of his character defects, not a lot of on point conversation. Barr said something completely uncontroversial about the Presidents reaction in his situation. Then a bunch of you act like the Mueller report didn’t matter, you simply know he’s gotta be guilty and thus he has no right to call it a witch hunt. This is such a political farce, likely born of the fear that Barr’s on track to find some real damaging things that happened at the beginning. I suggest finding real issues with Barr instead of all this tomfoolery. The undersell continues. Hiring someone under investigation, and then publicly lying about being told about. These are not minor character flaws, it is at best incredible incompetence by the most important person in your party and goverment. It is loud chewing. I just faulted people like you of making non-substantive responses on the issue by drawing things back to his character or other things about Trump you don't like. If you have something on topic that shows Barr isn't 100% correct in his comments, share it. I'm not interested in all the reasons you say Trump's incompetent, which doesn't bear on Barr's truthful comments, and the general political hackery surrounding the accusers of Barr. On May 19 2019 02:01 Gorsameth wrote:
An investigation that was started because the president fired the FBI director and publicly said he did so to get rid of an ongoing investigation into a colleague is not a 'Witch Hunt' under any definition of the word.
And the head of the DoJ describing it as such is yet another in a long list of examples of why he is utterly unqualified to be in that position. Sadly, you're off base again. Citation needed. Trump referred vaguely to a "Russia thing." For all we know, it could refer to Comey briefing Trump on the pee tape part of dossier, assuring Trump he was not under investigation, and then seeing that meeting immediately leak to back the credibility of the dossier. You're missing a glaringly obvious point: if this investigation that Comey so mismanaged was bullshit from the start, it presents Trump with obvious reasons to fire the guy most involved in it. It's this hand-waving which is so comical ... asking people to narrowly interpret the Mueller investigation, and never look back into the investigation preceding that as well. Right never look back. Except for that I have, several times, said that I have no problem with them taking a look at how the initial investigation started. Because I care about things being done properly, no matter who is on which side. And Obstruction of Justice doesn't care about the details of the investigation your obstructing, merely that you are obstructing. Maybe you should connect what you're saying now with your phantom looks back at the start of the investigation that got Comey fired. Or maybe spot some time on the reasons I just said were legitimate reasons to fire Comey. I mean, you're quoting me, but going off on sidings like how you care about things being done properly, and what obstruction cares and doesn't care about. If you have no response but to claim you care and actually were better about these things in the past, then I'll just conclude that you really do think Trump's in the right and wish he weren't. I didn't spell it out clear enough? Firing Comey was (potential) obstruction of justice regardless of the legitimacy of the underlying investigation and therefor the Mueller investigation into said (potential) obstruction of justice is not a witch hunt and the head of the DoJ should never call it that. Period. full stop.
The course, length, leaks, and coverage of an investigation into Russian collusion and (potential) obstruction of justice, in this case you're focusing on Comey's firing, when you're innocent and had perfectly acceptable reasoning for the firing that was known to everyone one month in, is adequately described as a witch hunt. Period, full stop. Mueller should've issued a memo attesting to that fact within the first three months of the start. Pick your favorite explanation between stupidity, personally partisan alliances, incompetent and biased underlings/friends, pressure from the biases of outside groups. Barr's in the right here, and I suspect you know it.
|
On May 19 2019 00:47 Danglars wrote:
A lot of reiteration of his character defects, not a lot of on point conversation. Barr said something completely uncontroversial about the Presidents reaction in his situation. Then a bunch of you act like the Mueller report didn’t matter, you simply know he’s gotta be guilty and thus he has no right to call it a witch hunt. This is such a political farce, likely born of the fear that Barr’s on track to find some real damaging things that happened at the beginning. I suggest finding real issues with Barr instead of all this tomfoolery.
He literally lied and said the investigation showed that Trump unequivocally did not conspire with the Russians. That lie, ofc, originated with the WH itself.
Your bar for the attorney general is apparently as low as your bar for President.
|
|
|
On May 19 2019 05:28 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2019 03:54 xDaunt wrote:On May 19 2019 03:38 JimmiC wrote:On May 19 2019 02:39 xDaunt wrote:On May 19 2019 01:20 Doodsmack wrote:On May 19 2019 00:47 Danglars wrote:
A lot of reiteration of his character defects, not a lot of on point conversation. Barr said something completely uncontroversial about the Presidents reaction in his situation. Then a bunch of you act like the Mueller report didn’t matter, you simply know he’s gotta be guilty and thus he has no right to call it a witch hunt. This is such a political farce, likely born of the fear that Barr’s on track to find some real damaging things that happened at the beginning. I suggest finding real issues with Barr instead of all this tomfoolery. The witch hunt language doesn't need to be the reaction to an investigation, because it could still be a valid investigation. Trump's reaction was over the top (and it's pretty much inconceivable, given his personality, that his reaction would not be over the top), an attack on the integrity of law enforcement, which Barr says is okay. Barr is also giving a media interview in which he reveals some of the contents of his ongoing investigation (by saying that the stories being given by targets are not "hanging together" and are "inadequate"). In other words he's revealing derogatory facts about the targets while the investigation is ongoing. He claimed during his confirmation hearing that that's "not how the DOJ does business." He also implied that Democrats probably aren't going to like the results of the investigation, which is a prejudgment of the evidence on his part. Though I would say that Democratic politicans' attacks on Barr are over the top and politically motivated. The criticisms of Trump's language pertaining to the investigations are predicated upon the proposition that the investigations were proper to begin with. That proposition is very much in doubt and is becoming even less tenable as time goes on. The weak spot has always been the Steele dossier and the FBI's usage of it to get the Carter Page FISA warrant. Not only did Mueller fail to vindicate the Steele dossier in his report, but now it is becoming clear that the FBI officials leading the investigation knew that Steele dossier was bogus before they made the initial Carter Page FISA application. There has been ample reporting over the past week about Kathleen Kavalec, a former State Department official, interviewing Steele and drafting a memo in which she raised huge red flags about his reliability as a source. Just minor stuff like his claims that Russia was running operations out of a consulate in Miami when there is no Russian consulate in Miami. I have little doubt that she also checked in on the claim that Cohen went to Prague and verified that it was false (unsurprisingly, there's a redaction in the written memo and in her handwritten notes where this information likely is) This memo made its way to Strzok before the FISA application was filed, yet the investigators still swore to the FISA court that they had no derogatory information on Steele at all. That's a big, big problem. Reports are that the Horowitz has pretty much wrapped up his review, so I have no doubt that Barr has already been briefed on what Horowitz found. I highly doubt that the news leaking of Durham's appointment to look into this stuff would have come out unless criminal investigations and indictments were going to come out of this. I thought your and common thought of the right was that the ends justify the means sort of approach. That he isn't a "choir boy" or however you put it (I just don't want to misquote but I think it was this or boy scout or some term) but everything he is doing makes it worthwhile. So by that logic even if the investigation was not perfect from the start, all the criminals it caught, and it more then paid for itself, make it worth while? Overlooking some personal deficiencies is not on the same level as overlooking the criminal violation of constitutional rights.. That is probably the lawyer in you talking, there is a reason so many hero's on shows draw outside the lines to catch criminals and it is the bad guys that get away on the technicalities of bad searches or warrants. That being said if what you're saying happened, happened. And it looks like it is getting investigated by a guy very motivated to look everywhere. I would also hope those people that were found to be corrupt be caught as well.
For sure. If what xDaunt and the President says is true, then there should absolutely be changes brought. And with Barr being a blatant political, you can bet there will be if he can.
However my guess of what will happen is that they will announce that the FBI's conduct was overly aggressive and unbecoming, but not illegal. Could be wrong but we'll see. And I'm talking about the Durham investigation, not the one by IG Horowitz which likely wont result in any charges or anything regardless of what he finds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
