From Mueller Time to Barr Time

At least it's more civilized nowadays. Back in my day leftists called us "Baby killers." From what I can tell, all too many of them still think it and believe it; but most of them no longer say it. Progress!

 

Barr said four types of information, as defined by Barr, would be redacted from the report he submits to Congress: grand jury material, classified information, material tied to ongoing investigation, and information that could harm "peripheral third parties."

Grand jury material and classified information? Because only Congress can declare war and, according to the War Powers Resolution, Congress can end a war started by the President, Congress receives the most up-to-date intelligence produced by our intell agencies. However, according to Trump's hired gun, parts of the Mueller Report are too sensitive for Congressional ears.

Does that make sense to anyone?

Material tied to ongoing investigation? Barr is telling Congress he will withhold from Congress any evidence of Trump's involvement with hush money payoffs to a porn star and a playboy bunny, money laundering, tax fraud, and campaign fraud because those are matters of "ongoing investigations."

Gotta admit, Barr has balls.

Information that could harm "peripheral third parties?" This creative rule from Barr is of far more concern than the others, and that is saying something. This rule allows Barr to withhold any or all evidence regarding Trump. He does not define "third parties." He does not define second parties, or first parties. Is Trump a "third party" by Barr's own definition of a third party? We do not know. Barr never mentions Trump.

That, in and of itself, is problematic. The DOJ has two rules. The first rule is, the DOJ will not indict a sitting President. The second rule is, they will not make public incriminating evidence of a person if they are not going to indict that person. Barr has never mentioned Trump.

Does that mean Trump could be that "person." Even though nearly the entire focus of the Mueller investigation was on the President, Barr has never made the distinction between some mythical "person" and the President of the United States.

There is one thing we know from Barr's testimony today. Because he regarded the Mueller Report as "fatally misconceived" and his belief of the "unitary executive," Barr is doing his level best to protect Trump.

This could backfire on Trump. By nature, Americans are suspicious. They immediately become suspicious when a politician hides behind a lawyer and legal hocus-pocus.

 

It should be clear to everyone by now Barr lied during his confirmation hearing (almost all Trump nominees have) when he said he would be as transparent as possible in his handling of Mueller's report. If that were so he would have gone to the grand jury to request their material be made available to Congress. But he has chosen not to.

 

You're the one consciously choosing blind partisanship over accountability for your agenda, so you own that.

You're the one ignoring GRAVE risks to national security for orange daddy. You chose to fail, not me.

I am NOT saying you should blindly believe 25 security clearane overrides is an EXTREME danger, but to be just "fine with it" Nothing to see here" is phony patritism if I ever have seen it. It's a choice, and to be fine with it swept under the rug is at best blind partisan nationalism. Hope you ****s are proud when the smoke clears. There won't be major jheads rolling for Spying on Trump, but the damage he'll do, will have a long aftermath. Congrats on selling out your ideals for this

 

We naturally assume the Department of Justice and its chief, the attorney general, will protect our Constitution and that he works for the American people.

That is not true in the case of William P. Barr. Barr works for Donald J.Trump.

 

Yes, it is relatively simple process for the A.G., if he were interested in justice. As things stand now, Nadler is forced to subpoena the grand jury testimony and Barr will fight it for months in the courts.

Barr is not the least bit interested in justice. He is interested only in protecting Trump. Only he know why, for God's sake.

 

In your fantasies

BTW why IS it OK with you that other than having a home server, "Javanka" have, and after being warned, have (allegedly) continued to engage in EXACTLY what makes you so furious that Ms. Clinton did? Fake NOOS?

No, it's PHONY patriotism. Your frenzy of partisan nationallism that allows you to thow out principles for a demgogue to make you feel secure. Sickening really, and when Trump is gone I think someday you'll realize that.

I never discounted your years of service, but to throw out your principles now is, very sad indded. I've a feeling you are NOT one who will be able to blind yourself to that forever. IDK why, I just do.

BTW FWIW I'd be happy to see Ms Clinton have more troubele over some of this. If the case was there, and it wasn't. Urunaium One, is and always has been an alt-right fantasy CT, so you can cry about that to me now if you like, if it helps? Still bullshit.

 

Well having been the one to take out the Iran Contra "catbox", it should have been apparent exactly what type of partisan trash underseving of a law degree the man is. Hopefully someday he will be William DisBarred, if justice prevails.

 

We will see once Mueller & Barr testify.

I am unaware of charges they are continuing to engage in any behavior. Show me what you're talking about. Clinton had a private server, she mishandled classified information, she transmitted it, she deleted emails under subpoena and so on. I haven't heard any such charges against the Kushners.

I am not a nationalist. What principles have I thrown out? What demogaug?

Again, what principles? Why am I not allowed to think for myself or hold reasonable conservative views?

You can be 100% positive that Uranium One didn't happen. I am 100% certain it did.

 

What do you believe happened?

Meanwhile..........the DOJ has lied about being used as a political arm of the WH.

It Exists: DOJ Finds Letter Ordering Scrutiny of Uranium One, Hillary Clinton

https://www.thedailybeast.com/doj-f...ering-scrutiny-of-uranium-one-hillary-clinton

 

We sold uranium to our enemy Russia.



The DOJ, FBI, NSA & CIA were used in a political #WitchHunt and used to spy on the opposition. Don't tell me the DOJ can't investigate Democrats because it's political when the pay for play Uranium One scandal has been reported on for years.

 

I linked the Javanka story, but I guess if it's not an offical alt-right politcal porn site it's "fake noos"?

Unranium one happenend, just there was no scandal, nothing untoward, a creation of your right wing media machine to get orange buffoon elected. A figment of your adoring admiration....

 

The big question is this: Bill Barr or John Goodman?

 

https://www.politifact.com/facebook...x-tale-involving-hillary-clinton-uranium-rus/

 

https://www.factcheck.org/2016/06/trumps-attack-on-clintons-character/

https://genius.com/discussions/1532...illary-cash-russians-uranium-is-pretty-unfair

 

Imagine. A Progressive owned and operated "fact" site determines one of it's own is innocent.

Golly, that would be like a jury of paid Mafioso's finding Gotti not guilty....

 

Actually he looks like a friend of mine. I'm going to start calling him AG.

 

Exactly.

Yes, Politifact Has a Liberal Bias

https://bongino.com/yes-politifact-has-a-liberal-bias/

Politifact bills itself as an independent fact checker, and they’ve scored all kinds of accolades for their efforts. Not only did they win a Pulitzer Prize for their work, they have a “fact checking partnership” with Facebook to combat “fake news.” The supposedly independent Politifact is a project of the Tampa Bay Times, which endorsed Hillary Clinton’s 2016 Presidential campaign.

While Politifact does fact check statements from politicians (and pundits) of both parties, those who frequent the site may have noticed that there does appear to be a different standard in evaluating claims from Republicans and Democrats. For one, there seems to be selection bias, in that they only bother to fact-check Republican claims that seem the most egregious (and thus least likely to be true), while a Democrat could claim that 2+2=4 and Politifact would pretend to fact check the claim so they can award his statement as “true.”...

I’m being hyperbolic, of course, but just take the following example where Ron Paul (a Republican) and Jim Webb (a Democrat who really ought to be a Republican) made a nearly identical statement, and received different rulings from the site. Ron Paul’s statement was only determined to be “half-true,” while Webb’s was “mostly true.”

 

Democrats are the least qualified since the investigation was part of their temper tantrum over losing an election their skewed pollsters told them was a lock. Grand Jury testimony is all one sided ,,, including testimony that was disproven. Democrats will build the lies into their 2020 campaigns even as Barr is in the process of prosecuting those who lied under oath.

Perhaps after Barr time, when the source and nature of the Mueller investigation is known by everyone and perjurers, spies, and conspirators are behind Barrs, I will change my opinion.

 

Lolz ... The scandal was minimized by the direct intervention of FBI director Bob Mueller, and his lead prosecutor Rod Rosenstein. Mueller conveniently allowed 11 of 12 Russian agents to return to the Kremlin, and in fact expelled them -vs- allowed them. Mikerin was left holding the bag, however the bag being very, very tiny. Mueller wilfully ignored Clinton's relationships with the Russian escapees, and Rosenstein muzzled the would be congressional whislteblower, who was the FBI's own Uranium 1 informant. Better get woke, the shows 'bout to start.

 

People never take the time to learn something about the outfits they bank on to support their views and ideology.

How many know that PolitiFact is owned by the Tampa Bay Times, which itself is owned by the alt-left, Soro's connected Poynter Institute?

Do the well trained ever think to look into independent reviews of outfits like PolitiFact? They are banking everything on them after all. Wouldn't it make sense to know if they could be trusted?

Apparently not.

When someone uses Media Matters, Think Progress, Salon, Vox, PolitiFact, etc., as their references, there is no need to waste any time considering the message.

 

The Times has been a mullet wrapper for decades. Every Floridian knows this.

 

It's not a scandal to sell uranium to a Russian owned business?

I guess I missed your link, but I'll take your word it's #FakeNews.

 

Did you get your false assertions from a book?

https://www.factcheck.org/2015/04/no-veto-power-for-clinton-on-uranium-deal/

 

That unbiased link discuss Rosenstein silencing the FBI informant, Doug Campbell, turned congressional whistleblower, when Campbell insisted the uranium 1 panel be informed before signing off?