The corruption of the Justice Dept. by AG Barr

This corruption in this administration is so pervasive it is hard to comprehend it all.

But, here's a taste, looking at the Justice Dept. under Bill Barr.

 

Spammers are gonna spam

 

Name them.

 

You

 

Says the guy who spams propaganda

 

The moderators do not like it when you call a liar a liar or a lie a lie. As a matter of fact it's verboten. They prefer that you use language that masks what you're saying under the guise of etiquette so we can play a semantic game of pretend.
You don't even have to go so far as to point out a poster lies when they lie to draw the mod's ire. For example, I was sent to the cooler for 3 months for making the unforgivable observation a poster had lost touch with reality. It genuinely seemed to me to be a relatively gentle, acceptable way of pointing out the truth. Nurse Ratchet disagreed. Be careful.

 

The OP is making false statements.

 

Jesus Christ dude.

Vox
The Atlantic
Vice
Restore Public Trust
National Review
The New Yorker
Bloomberg
Prospect
NPR

Almost all opinion pieces. Could you illustrate the lefts echo chamber any more perfectly?

 

It isn't opinion that Barr booked the event at Trump's hotel nor is it opinion that Trump is using taxpayer dollars to defend himself in the emoluments case through the use of attorneys working for the DOJ (meaning working for us, not him). IOW, while it is in the public's interest to make sure the prez is not profiting from owning a biz while prez, this prez is using the public's money to ward off the lawsuit.
In what world other than Trumpworld is what Trump is doing not an ethical violation and a corrupt conflict of interest?

 

Nice list of opinion pieces.
Demonstrate the claim to be true.
Note the word "demonstrate" - - your opinions, suppositions, prejudices, and fallacies need not apply.

 

"Mr. Barr has criticized the Mueller investigation and has been vocal in his criticism of independent counsel law. How can the American people trust that the Mueller investigation won’t be tampered with if Mr. Barr is confirmed as Attorney General?"
https://restorepublictrust.org/tbt-barrs-past-disqualifies-him-from-serving-as-attorney-general/

It just doesn't get any more prescient than that.

 

Wow...you have complied a bunch of old debunked articles and put them together......

The left is certainly getting desperate in the wake of Obamagate.

 

Court orders an unredacted version of Russia investigation’s findings after Barr’s ‘misleading public statements’ in favor of President Trump
https://www.ajc.com/news/judge-scolds-barr-over-handling-mueller-report/rxBf2swt3tWbbCzjjamKyJ/

Anyone who read Barr's audition letter for the AG's job knew he very much wanted to act as Don's defender. It's a marriage borne of corrupt intent.

 

Most of the time when someone is incorrect, I say "false" or 'incorrect' or you are making stuff up.

But when someone accuse you of spamming, you gotta admit, is it that gross of an injustice to hit back with the commensurate 'then you are a liar" ?

Okay, I accept that it is against the rules, but still.

When you tell me that I gotta be nice when someone is calling me a liar, that just encourages that behavior more.

I am against calling people liars willy nilly, and that's where the rule makes sense. If someone is intentionally and willfully making an absurd accusation, noting that 'spamming' always has a profit motive of some kind, and all I did was support my argument, which in no way can constitute 'spam'. and calling me a spammer is an affront to my entire being, my sensibilities.

I think should explore the possibility of allowing a more firm response with an obvious false allegation, when someone is being egregiously falsely accused, so as to give an incentive not to do it in the future.

Calling someone a 'spammer' when it is false, is just as bad as calling someone a liar when it is true, no? I should think it be worse.

Where is the justice, here?

Here's an idea, Accused will report the false allegation, and you get the accuser of the falsehood ( provided it is, indeed, false ) to remove offending post and PM the accused with an apology. Would that be fair? I'm not talking about your run of the mill falsehoods, only when someone is giving an egregious ad hominem, like 'you are a spammer', or 'spammers will spam'. Spamming has a long history on the internet, and spammers are pariahs, and to be accused of it is a big deal, really, it is. You surely must have some policy against it, no? I know you have a policy against spam, I'm talking 'accusing someone being a spammer' ( when in fact it's false ).

 

Y'all have no clue as what real corruption is.

 

That's the new normal for the partisan, Democrat media, speculative assumptions, personal opinions, repeating rumors and conspiracy theories, that's all they have. Oh that, and quoting unnamed sources who are doing nothing but repeating their own speculative assumptions and the rumors that they've heard.

That is a summation of the entire Trump Russia collusion hoax. And every hoax that's come after it, to include the Ukraine hoax and now the new hoax of blaming the coronavirus on Trump

 

If that's what you're looking for you've come to the wrong place. BTW, I enjoy your posts.

 

How about this. Try to establish some credibility by not using one of Trump's lazy meme's to refute the overwhelming evidence of obstruction of justice and collusion that walks to the water's edge of a conspiracy in Mueller's report. Actually refute something is detail.
For example, explain why you think it was acceptable for Manafort to share proprietary polling data with a Russian operative who had Kremlin connections. Or why you think Stone's role as intermediary between the campaign and Wikileaks isn't, at the least, a violation of campaign rules. Using the word "hoax" only tells me you accept everything Trump says without question.

 

We're not in a court of law here. The articles make a compelling case, citing known events, actual words spoken, documents, etc, to make their case.

Ignoring them doesn't support your argument anywhere near as much as theirs support their arguments given the depth of reportage, and the volume of articles supporting my argument. And "National Review" is not a leftist echo chamber. .

Try reading them, or pick a few.

 

This is not a court of law, opinions are all we have.

You are, in a effect saying, 'prove it' but don't use words, because words are opinions.
You might be able to do that in a court of law with forensic evidence proving an act of violence, but that's not what this is.
Try reading a few of the articles. they make a compelling case.

Of course, you can choose ignorance.

 

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

And thus, you cannot demonstrate your claim to be true.
Common theme with you.

 

You mad? Don't worry, you can hire Muellar again when Biden wins the 2020 election.

 

Incompetent rebuttal

 

Fingers in ears and La la la la la I can't hear you!