Barr and the endless search for the obvious

Barr/Trump Right
Berman wrong/unfit

There’s not even a pretense of consistency in their virtue-signaling. If Group A gets to have Woke Woodstock in the streets of New York with no complaints from authorities then Group B gets to have 20 people at an outdoor religious service.

It would have been painfully easy for Cuomo to reconcile all of these glaring hypocrisies with a new executive order quietly expanding the capacity rules for non-political outdoor gatherings. And, as the court says, it would have been even easier for him and de Blasio to just clam up and not egg on massive mass gatherings while riding herd on much smaller ones that are far less of a risk to ignite a new outbreak. The fact that they wouldn’t do either is solid evidence that bona fide religious discrimination was at work here. Well done by the court for calling them on it.

 

Berman was afraid to go after Soros........ But the new guy that was quietly placed into the SDNY isn't.........

 

I assure you the investigations are very real. And removing Berman backfired. But removing anybody is not going to erase the crimes. If the Trump-Barr crime team managed to impede the investigations, there will be a future administration that is not corrupt.

First of all, if it's a false narrative it's your narrative. I didn't mention the SDNY.

Of the 14 matters referred, only two were not redacted. So.... who knows. Point is they are ongoing.

The functions of the Special Council have ended. The investigation of the matters it discovered have not.

Suggestion: keeping ad hominems to yourself is one way to shorten posts. I struggle to keep this short, and you keep extending it unnecessarily. Stick to the point!

I could almost recite it by heart. At least the second volume. The first one I've only read about three times. I (unlike you) admit I haven't read the redacted parts. But I love discussing it with those who claim to have read it. Even though, more then likely, they haven't. So far you seem to be one of those.

I'll allow Mr. Mueller to respond to that.

Mueller (P. 180): "...this Office evaluated potentially criminal conduct that involved the collective action of multiple individuals not under the rubric of "collusion," but through the lens of conspiracy law."​

This clarification is repeated multiple times throughout the document.

Mueller identified a total of (at least) 10 instances of Obstruction by President Trump. In four of those ten he found ample evidence of the three elements typically needed to convict (act, nexus, intent). In the others, one of these elements was missing. But, most likely knowing that Trump would obstruct any further investigation during his administration, he provided a road map to how the missing elements could be confirmed (or discarded)

Now I KNOW for a fact that you didn't read the Mueller Report. It's obvious the President has the power to fire the FBI Director. How could he abuse power that he didn't have?

It's obvious now that you are just repeating wingnut media talking points.

Oh! This is going to hurt you more than it hurts me.

(d) The Special Counsel may be disciplined or removed from office only by the personal action of the Attorney General.
28 CFR § 600.7​

And please don't embarrass yourself by trying to argue that Trump can order him fired. It would not be legal for Rosenstein to fire him if Mueller had not shown misconduct or dereliction of duty or... something like that. To obstruct the investigation would not be a good cause. "The President ordered me" would also not be good cause because government officials are not allowed to follow illegal orders.

What the hell are you talking about? How the hell does that make them less redacted?

Who's Hillary?

 

Wow! I can't believe the number of errors in just one paragraph. First of all it was Medvedev, not Putin. Second, it was in 2012. Third... he was the f***ing sitting President! Trump was not! Fourth, he did not tell him that he could help him more or less or anything of the kind. And fifth..... who's Obama? And what the hell does he or she (whoever that is) have to do with the Mueller investigation that we are discussing?

This and the rest of your post have made me start to wonder if I'm giving you waaaay too much credit. Am I wasting my time trying to hold a serious discussion with you when you just throw crap out you know nothing about?

 

Yup. Berman wasn't sufficiently committed to equal rights. Trump and Barr are cleaning up the politicized mess that Obama made of the "Justice" Department.

Judging FBI Conduct: The D.C. Circuit becomes the first court to acknowledge the FBI’s 2016 abuse.

House Judiciary Committee Democrats were back at their “politicized Justice Department” theme this week, calling a disgruntled former lieutenant of special counsel Robert Mueller to accuse the department of giving special treatment to President Trump’s allies. Too bad the testimony came on the very day a federal court confirmed that Mr. Mueller’s team and the Federal Bureau of Investigation engaged in misconduct.​

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit did so via an order requiring Judge Emmet Sullivan to dismiss charges against former national security adviser Mike Flynn. Most of the focus has been on the legal merits of the ruling. Judge Neomi Rao’s compelling opinion rebuked Judge Sullivan for ignoring the department’s call to drop the case and instead setting himself up as both prosecutor and jury. This was a win for the separation of powers, even as it was a step toward justice for Mr. Flynn.​

Largely overlooked was the decision’s rebuke of the FBI and the Mueller team. The D.C. Circuit became the first federal court to acknowledge the misconduct that Attorney General William Barr is trying to bring to light. Most of the courts that oversaw Mr. Mueller’s prosecutions were asked to do no more than rubber-stamp a plea deal or sign off on a jury verdict. But Mr. Flynn, backed by tenacious lawyer Sidney Powell, fought the charges—forcing the Justice Department to review its actions, acknowledge its bad acts, and move to dismiss its case. Democrats and the press cast this outcome as evidence of Mr. Barr’s “politicization.” The circuit court begs to differ.​

The Justice Department’s credibility was at stake here. Judge Sullivan bought into the same Democrat conspiracy theories, which is why he refused Justice’s motion to dismiss and appointed retired judge John Gleeson to act as shadow prosecutor. He argued the Justice Department wasn’t entitled to the usual “presumption of regularity.” And if the circuit judges thought there was anything to claims that Mr. Barr was playing political favorites, it could have allowed the process to continue.​

 

Berman wasn't committed to equal rights. Trump/Barr were right to can him. The politicized justice under Obama will no continue under Trump.

The Court Speaks:

Instead they bluntly noted that there was no “legitimate basis” to question the department’s behavior. They even slapped Mr. Gleeson for relying on “news stories, tweets and other facts outside the record.” By contrast, Judge Rao’s opinion notes: “The government’s motion includes an extensive discussion of newly discovered evidence casting Flynn’s guilt into doubt.” It points out that this includes “evidence of misconduct by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.” It finishes by noting that each government branch must be encouraged to “self correct when it errs.”​

The court’s conclusion is obvious. All it had to do was look at the voluminous evidence the Justice Department supplied. Its briefs proved the FBI had improperly pursued Mr. Flynn, keeping open an investigation that produced no evidence, ginning up a “violation” of the seldom-enforced Logan Act, sandbagging Mr. Flynn with an interview that had no “legitimate investigative basis.” It even provided new FBI notes this week suggesting that then-President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden were improperly engaged in the investigation. The department’s filings showed that the Mueller team had consistently denied defense attorneys exculpatory information. And it explained the straightforward process by which it had reached its decision to withdraw: Mr. Barr in February appointed veteran U.S. Attorney Jeff Jensen to review the case, and in May Mr. Jensen concluded dismissal was “the proper and just course.”​

But Nadler will run interference for this, with the media’s help, because they’re all on the same OrangeManBad team.

 

What crime are you referring to. The only prosecutions that Mueller initiated were known as housekeeping charges. Primarily a claim of "perjury". Most of those cases, like Flynn and Manafort, are clearly questionable. Let's remember that the FBI collusion investigation was based on lies, and omissions. Michael Horowitz was appointed by President Obama. He conducted 170 interviews of 100 witnesses. He determined that the FBI committed violations of the Foreign Information Service Act. According to the report, the Steel's fake Dossier was instrumental in obtaining the FISA Warrants. He also determined that the investigation of Carter Page was illegally conducted and unwarranted. Page was a confidential informant for the CIA. The fake investigation outed Page as a CIA asset. Kind of like Scooter Libby outing Valerie Plame Wilson. Incase you do not remember Libby was convicted and imprisoned. So, why wouldn't Comey, McCabe, Lynch, Biden and Obama be subject to the same charge? If the investigation was illegally initiated then it should never been opened. Therefore Mueller never should have been hired. https://oig.justice.gov/press/2019/2019-12-09.pdf

In a previous post you claimed that the Mueller investigations were transfered to the SDNY. In fact the fake SDNY investigation was started prior to the 2016 election. As I stated the Mueller Prosecutions were transfered to the DC US Attorney's office.
https://www.washingtonpost.com

The Democrats are claiming that there are 14 issues for other prosecutors. Not 14 redactions. That 12 of these were redacted is dated on April 2019. After that, Barr issued a far less redacted copy of the report. This is another false claim for you. As far as these ongoing, The fact that the investigation was illegal and unwarranted, these investigations will not see the light of day. Right now, I can not find any report that a US Attorney office has taken up these fake criminal investigation. Remember that the DOJ handbook states that the POTUS can not be investigated for a crime while in office. By the next Administration, starting in 2024, these cases will be ended. There is a precedence that the next Administration does not charge a former President with a crime. Otherwise the next opposition Administration would charge the next former President with a crime. If they did prosecute a former President, then Obama would have been convicted for numerous crimes. But he hasn't been.

Your source?

As I said the last time you made that claim, I will respond to every false claim you make until you start repeating debunked claims, or become irrelevant that it is no longer worth responding to.

Everything I have posted related to the firing of Berman. Also, all the comments have been based on your false claims. If you want me to shorten my posts, do some research before you post. Then you might, though I doubt it, stop making these false claims, and parroting the left wing narrative.

There you go. You just disproved your false narrative that the Mueller investigation did not investigate Collusion. Further, the claims of collusion was based on perfectly legal and normal communications during the Administration Transition. It was false to claim that these communications were illegal or evidence of collusion. Remember these communications took place after Trump was already sworn in. Therefore they are not proof collusion by the Trump Campaign to steal the elections. That was the claim that the illegal investigation was based on. Prior to the Trump Presidential election win, the Obama Administration initiated the illegal investigation. They illegally obtained the FISA warrants to spy on the Trump Campaign. So, the fake conspiracy claim is not supportable by the facts. If they were, then these individuals would have been indicted by the Mueller Team, but they weren't. The only prosecutions were for fake perjury claims.

See, another time you repeat an already debunked false narrative. The Trump President can not be charged with a crime, and he legally could have ended the fake investigation. Remember that Comey was fired by President Trump. This was recommended by the Obama Appointed DOJ IG, and the Democrats in Congress were pushing for Comey's firing. This was for illegally sending a memo containing classified information to a professor friend of his. He thought that the professor could forward that memo to the media without implication himself. Of course it did not work. McCabe was fired by Comey for leaking information about the fake Trump investigation that was designed to cover his posterior end, and make Trump look guilty. The Trump hating members of the Mueller investigation, such as the cheating Strzok and Page, were fired by Mueller. As you have stated that the President had the legal authority to fire Comey, so how did the President or the 10 individuals obstruct the investigation. By law they didn't.


Now I KNOW for a fact that you didn't read the Mueller Report. It's obvious the President has the power to fire the FBI Director. How could he abuse power that he didn't have?[/quote]

If the President has the authority, then he can not abuse that authority. If you want to talk about an abuse of authority, then you need to review how Obama enacted the DACA law, and how he illegally issued new EPA standards. You also should notice how the Appeals court issued the Writ of Mandamus for Sullivan abusing this authority as a Judge. It is funny that you would claim that the Trump abused his Constitution ordained authority, but ignores the abuses that the liberal commit. That is what they call hypocrisy. A cornerstone of the left wing narrative.

And it is obvious that you are just repeating the left wingnut media talking points. The only difference is that I have facts to support me. All you have is false narratives.

Another false narrative. Your really full of them. Who does the AG work for? Hint: It is the President. Since, Sessions recused himself, then Rosenstein did have the authority. But remember that Rosenstein offered to wear a wire to prove that the President was not stable. He also got into a shouting match with GOP Congressmen that said that the fake investigation was illegal, and should be dropped. (Facts that have proven to be true. When President fired Sessions, and appointed his replace, the President could have order the AG to end the investigation. This was also true of Barr. But both the President and his appointed AG's decided to allow the fake investigation to play out. BTW, the firing of Sessions was not obstructive since he had unnecessarily recused himself. His firing did not affect the investigation in any way.

The only one that should be embarrassed is you. But being a liberal, you don't have the ability to be embarrassed by providing false narrative.

I have provided you with the current copy of the Mueller Report. If you bothered to read it, you would see that it is less redacted then the original report. The rest of the redactions are required by law, and was cleared by the NSA, CIA, FBI and Mueller himself. Mueller stated in his televised statement on the report that he completely agreed with Barr's statements on the report, and with what was redacted. So this is another false narrative. Stop making them, and I will not be forced to respond.

Are you really trying to prove your clueless. You actually do not know who Hillary Clinton is? She is often referred to by her first name to ensure she is not confused with her degenerate, rapist husband Impeached husband. In case you really are that clueless, let me inform you of who she is. She is the wife and enabler of rapist Bill Clinton (former President). As an attorney she was also the behind the illegal White water affair. As first lady, she obstructed justice by hiding exculpatory evidence on White Water from the Star investigation. As SOS, she committed espionage. This was proven by Comey, but he illegally ignored the law. He did this by refusing to charge her. She also had Susan Rice provide a narrative that she knew was fake of the Benghazi assault that cost the US Ambassador his life. As Presidential Candidate she funded the Steel fake dossier, and had Susan Rice illegally forward the information obtained from the illegal wiretaps to the Hillary Campaign.

Now, do you know who she is? If not, try this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton

 

Ok, so it was Medvedev, but that changes nothing. It was a colluding statement by the President. Obama was stating that he was going to work with Russia if he got reelected. Why would he make that statement unless he wanted Russia to help him get reelected. Remember, Russians were providing fake narratives to help Obama get elected, but the fact was never investigated by Obama's biased DOJ.

Additionally, Obama was monitoring and directing the FBI's fake investigation. This was proven by the fact that he knew information that should have remained classified even for the President. In the Flynn Case, Comey memo revealed that Obama directed Comey to ensure that the right people were investigating Flynn. This was in spite of Comey informing the President that the original investigation showed that Comey was innocent. During that same meeting, Biden told Comey that the FBI should use the untried and unconstitutional Logan Act to continue the investigation. They wanted to force Flynn to make false statements to get him fired, and to prosecute him. So, it is clear to anyone with a room temperature IQ that Obama was instrumental in the Mueller report.

If you determination of who gets credit is based on repeating or accepting left wingnut's fake narrative, then I am thankful that you do not give me much credit. I am sure that you are aware that I give you no credit at all. Not because that you do not parrot the Conservative narratives, but because you consistently ignore facts.

 

I thought I saw on TV somewhere the new guy is actually a gal? It showed her face, but that was a week or more ago.

 

All of them. I'd re-send my famous "Trump crime sheet", but this post is already too long. Here's the link though.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...t-mean-to-kneel.573748/page-4#post-1071778400

Does that mean that the soap they give you in prison is not as slippery, or something like that?

And yet, it was. And yet, he was. And his findings cannot be un-found. Too late! Sorry...

I have no idea what "the Democrats" are claiming. I only know what Mueller wrote on his report. You would have known this if you had read it. Obviously you didn't.

The new unredacted portion is relevant mostly to the Roger Stone investigation. And it only shows more collusion by Trump. If you have a link to any unredacted portion about the referrals, provide a link.

The Mueller Report!!!

Didn't you say you read it?

That's OK. I'll eliminate the irrelevant parts for you.

I just quoted one of the many parts in the report where he explicitly states that he didn't. You can respond to it or ignore it. Looks like you chose the latter.

Mueller did not investigate collusion, because collusion is not a legal prosecutable matter. And yet he found tons of it. He found it n the form of the Republican campaign seeking information from the Trump campaign (examples: Trump Tower meeting, Papadopolous, Gates' efforts to share polling data with the Russians,.... ), and of the ulterior coverup.

Normal? Not normal for a campaign to seek the aid from a foreign government to win the elections.

Not even the Trump campaign believed it was "normal", or they wouldn't have tried to cover it up. You're on your own.

As a side note: It's false that it was illegally obtained, but I have ZERO interest in falling into your strawman. So you can go ahead and lock up anybody who did anything illegal, for all I care. But it does not excuse a single one of Trump's crimes or those of anybody in his campaign.

If it's a false narrative that Mueller reported those 10 instances of obstruction, and that he proved at a "criminal court level" standard four of them, it's Mueller's narrative. Nobody in the Justice Department or in the government has denied it. And how could they? It's in the Mueller Report.... black ink, white paper. So you're on your own in your denial of reality.

Trump had the power to fire Comey. Trump did not have the power to legally fire Mueller.

That name again! Who is this O'Bama fella? Some Irish guy, I'm pressuming. Maybe has to do with the other guy you keep mentioning? Larry Hill? No.. wait! Hill Larry.... Hilary! That's the name!

Whoever they are I'm sure they're in prison after all those crimes you mention. And given that Trump had control of the House, Senate, Presidency, Supreme Court, ... and scores of U.S. attorneys he appointed, rght?

Right! The "he's the King" excuse. The President has the authority to order the army to shut down districts where Democrats are majority in Florida, Michigan, Ohio.... all the swing states, on election day, so they couldn't go out to vote. And the Monarchists (formerly known as "Republicans") would claim that that's not abuse of power.

That name again! Thank God he's in jail now, right?

Ah! Your projection indicates that you are finally realizing (although maybe subconsciously) that I have provided links, quotes and references for everything I've said. While you.... nothing!

For "we the people". We pay his salary.

That's what I just quoted from the law. Rsenstein has the authority. Not Trump.

Not complicated at all...

I'm actually a bit embarrassed for having misjudged you by thinking I could have a serious conversation. I guess I should have lowered my expectations when it was clear you hadn't read the Mueller Report because you didn't even know some of the most basic aspects it contains.

That's hilarious!

Now I'm really having fun! Unfortunately, duty calls. And there are too many serious debates going on to be wasting my time with somebody who doesn't know what they're talking about.

 

Why should there be 'special' courts in a country where everyone and every institution is supposed to be equal under the law?

 

And what exactly do those links entail? You do know a "link" can simply be being in the same building on X date at Y time right? Or simply talking about nonconsequential stuff because they happened to strike up a conversation? In the end Mueller stated that there was no proof of collusion... err sorry..."conspiracy". That is a fact.

 

Huh? He told Medvedev that they would talk after the elections because he wanted Russia to help him get reelected????

What a mischievous plan! Have Medvedev help him win the elections AFTER he has already won the elections! I guess by not receiving the help before the elections, there is less of a chance of getting caught, right?

Genius!

 

Democrats are petrified of what Barr is going to find.

 

For the most part, collusion. But I'm not counting the unredacted portions released last week. I'm pretty sure that puts it near 300.

I didn't say "link". I said "contacts". As in "interacting with them". i.e. engaging in a conversation be it by phone, email, in person, letter, etc...

 

So, is Trump still a Russian asset?

 

A fake narrative presented by you with no provided source, and you claim that it is a source that you claim are evidence of President's crimes. All it shows is that you love the fake news left wing narrative. Here is an article that compares President Obama's sandals to President Trump's. I am sure that you will not agree with the results, but they are indisputable.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/a...ma_scandals_what_the_numbers_show_141375.html
(you should pay special attention to the graph)

There are reliable sources that claims Obama committed as many as 29 crimes while in office. Frankly, I find far more. But I know you only want to talk about the fake narrative of Trump's crimes. And Obama's crimes are not relevant. Of course that is a completely hypocritical position.

No. It means that Mueller Investigation did not indict anyone for these supposed crimes.

If it is ruled that the investigation was, as it was, fake then the results do not matter. Additionally, I have reread the report for the third time. You realize the Report's conclusions were based on the same 17 omissions, fake information and altered documents used to illegally obtain the FISA Warrants. Mueller should have investigated the precursors to his investigation, the funding for the Steel Dossier, the use of the illegal FISA warrants to spy on the Trump Campaign among just a few issues. Every person indicted by the Mueller investigation got far less time the mandated by law.

Another false assumption. I have read the full report three times, and you obviously haven't. If you read what I posted above you will see why the report's results are totally irrelevant.

Of course I have no links about the redactions. If you bothered to read the report, you would see that the majority of the redactions are for Harm to ongoing matters (HOM). Now, I know that you liberals don't care about harming ongoing matters, but the law requires that this material be redacted. But since you pointed out that the case against the President was based on actions within his Constitutional authority, and do not constitute a crime, then why investigate it?

Obama told Medvedev that he would have more flexibility if he got reelected. That would mean that he needed to be reelected in order to bow down to Russia's desires. Strange that they now claim that Trump is an agent of Russia, and that the Russian leadership tried to interfere with the 2016 elections. There is clear evidence that the Russians did the same thing during the 2012 elections, but that of course is ignored by the liberal fake news media.

 

Mueller said no....

 

Prove it. Show the collusion. Funny that Mueller said he couldn't prove such occurred. If he couldn't, what makes you think you can? He had access to millions of documents, hundreds of subpoena's willingly complied with, international help, 40 some odd forensic accountants and dozes of FBI agents working for him. Yet he admits he couldn't prove collusion. Yet you think you have all the evidence? LMAO!

You said contacts. The Mueller report said links.

Directly from the Mueller report as reported by LINK:CNN on page 9.

And even with the "contacts" you have no clue what was said.

 

You should learn that just calling something "fake" is not going to make you look good in the debates. I have been adding to that chart since mid 2017. For everything included there was a thread in which the evidence was presented and amply discussed on this forum. Every single item there has been quite thoroughly researched and documented. If you have a specific and REASONABLE question you can either use the search function or you can ask.

"Obama"? Is that the Irish guy?

Look... this thread is related to how Barr has been covering up for Trump. If you have any other things to discuss, go for it. Off-topic subjects, open a thread. But if your only argument is that Trump can break the law because ,.... somebody else broke it... you're out of luck. You'll have to find somebody who falls for strawman arguments. But that's not me.

Here is the way you reason: (this is you in your subconscious) "Since I am a blind partisan who will defend any other blind partisans even if they commit crimes. Therefore, my opponent must also be a blind partisan who will defends his side even if they commit crimes"

And you are wrong. Anybody who commits a crime should pay for it. I don't care if their name is Trump, Clinton, Abraham Lincoln, Mother Theresa, or O'Bama.... Unlike you, I don't sell my soul to any party or any political figure. And I say: "Lock them all up!"

So you're the only one here trying to defend a proven criminal based on purely partisan reasons, and not on facts, references, links,... and real arguments.

Got it?

It might not matter to you, but it sure matters to those who are, have been and will be in jail. And it also matters to non-blind partisan Americans who want to know the names of those in their government who are criminals.

The Steele Dossier (not a word of which has been debunked) has like 10 different threads. Learn to use "Search". About five oro six for the Horowitz report that debunked all the myths about FISA. BUT, if you want to learn about any of those, refer to the open threads or open a new one. The same goes for Obama, Hillary, and... any other distraction you have in mind (one distraction per thread, please) Be advised that it's unlikely you will fare any better on those matters than you did on this one.

They are relevant to me. Because they allowed me to prove you wrong.

 

Oh... so many to choose from. Let's do... this one...

Mueller wasn't investigating collusion.

If you have something to take up with Mueller, I won't stop you. I said and I MEANT "contacts"

Don't make me bring back my regular sig to remind you. I'm trying to perform a public service here.

 

Today's America is clearly different than when Obama was in office. Just as they're clearly different today than during George W. Bush's two terms in office. The result is placement of things under a microscope which were not subjected to that kind of scrutiny before. Frankly, I also find the speed at which society is changing to be disconcerting. However, as I understand it, Republicans voted for Trump largely because they wanted change. Well, 3.5 years in, they sure have it.

 

Now you prove yourself irrelevant, and totally indoctrinated by he left wingnut false narrative. As I said before, I will debate you until you become irrelevant. There you go!

 

Fake News: Jonathon Turley: https://jonathanturley.org/2020/06/...-barr-left-the-relevant-facts-and-law-behind/

 

Mueller referred evidence of 14 other potential crimes to federal officials. Only two of them are publicly known
"The discovery of Cohen’s potential crimes is the second item on the 14-item list. “During the course of the investigation, the Special Counsel’s Office uncovered evidence of potential wire fraud and [Federal Election Campaign Act] violations pertaining to Michael Cohen. That evidence was referred to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York and the FBI’s New York Field Office,” wrote the special counsel."
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/18/mueller-evidence-14-potential-crimes-only-two-publicly-known.html