The Donald doesn't seem be be getting the impartial, fair treatment that was awarded to Bill Clinton.
This Halper saga is a fascinating one. Stefan Halper played a key role in a sophisticated counterintelligence operation that involved the FBI, the CIA British Intelligence and the media. The ultimate target was Donald Trump. Halper’s part of the operation focused on using an innocent woman who had the misfortune of being born in Russia, Svetlana Lokhova, to destroy General Michael Flynn. Halper and Mifsud both were involved in targeting General Michael Flynn. Not a conspiracy? Halper’s nefarious activities included manufacturing and publishing numerous false and defamatory statements. Halper, for example, falsely claimed that Svetlana Lokhova was a “Russian spy” and a traitor to her country. He also circulated the lie that Lokhova had an affair with General Flynn on the orders of Russian intelligence. Not content to use the unwitting Svetlana as a weapon against General Flynn, Stefan Halper also acted with malice to destroy Svetlana Lokhova’s professional career and business by asserting that she was not a real academic and that her research was provided by Russian intelligence on the orders of Vladimir Putin. https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...y-to-throw-the-cia-and-clapper-under-the-bus/
It was warranted because several of Trump's behaviors & actions during the campaign, raised concerns that demanded resolution. It was worthwhile because it found wrongdoing in several places, incarcerated several close Trump associates for wrongdoing, & established a strong, disturbing connection between Trump & Russia. I believe it failed to charge Trump because of a Dept of Justice policy that no sitting President can be charged with a crime--which I personally disagree with.
Was that the official reason that was given for why the investigation started? Even though Mueller said that his report was NOT saying, that but for the OLC opinion he would've found obstruction?
I believe Mueller said that at the stage the report was written, there was insufficient evidence to rise to the level of beyond a reasonable doubt. That combined with the DoJ policy led him to document what evidence he had at that point for possible future investigation, a change in DoJ policy, and/or action by Congress. He intentionally avoided ANY final determination on obstruction of justice and passed the decision on to his boss, AG Barr. Barr said he made the decision not to pursue the obstruction of justice investigation based on lack of evidence and not because of the DoJ policy and said they both agreed on that point. Mueller didn't refute the remark. Of course, prosecutorial efforts continue b beyond the report (i.e. the Roger Stone trial).
So you think the notion that Barr would protect his benefactor and direct employer who has the power to hire and fire him or make his life miserable, constitutes a 'conspiracy theory'? Conspiracy theories are rather convoluted matters involving lots of moving parts, players and obscure and indirect connections. This is based on a very direct relationship and a clear motive. Its his boss and his boss wants unequivocal loyalty in matters of grave legal concern and he has a history of punitive statements and actions against subordinants who do not behave accordingly in like circumstances.
It depends on whether you mean that he is protecting him CORRUPTLY. Did you apply the same standard to Obama's AG, Eric Holder? Was he protecting Obama? After all, Obama referred to him as his "wingman!" Who has this history, Trump or Barr?
I have no idea what Barr is thinking. I believe he had a record of supporting a "unitary presidency" prior to his appointment as AG under Trump and he'd written a lengthy letter as advice to Trump, which Trump liked, also prior to his appointment. I disagree with some of his thinking and believe he may have lied to Congress...will he go further and reject the rule of law? I have no idea.
It was the comment to Harris...he was evasive...never answered the question. But, to be sure, I'd have to go back over the transcript...and he's not that important to me.
Do YOU? Again, did Holder protect Obama? "Solidify them?" Solidify what? That's your opinion on why he was picked, isn't it? That's your interpretation of Barr's actions as AG, isn't it?
Are you sure that you don't mean when he was accused of lying under oath by the stupid Mazie Hirono? It concerned his response to a question about whether Mueller expressed to Barr that he was unhappy about Barr's letter.
Most of this really just requires you to reread the post. I know better than to let you put a line by line workload on me while we parse words, lines and phrases. You do way too much of this. Obama was never in so much trouble that he really needed the AG to protect him and I don't think he anticipated he would be. On the other hand Trump absolutely knew he needed an ally to protect him on so many fronts already. Barr was definitely picked because he made his views very clear to Trump on the nature and scope of executive power compared to Congress and he had given Trump a heads up by critiquing Mueller and Sessions prior. Those are organic views that held prior to his position and pure. But as a direct result of the kind of treatment he saw his predecessor received and the kind of embattled environment he went into, those views hardened very quickly into a total advocacy of this President. There is no space whatsoever between how he sees Trump and Trumps legal problems and how he sees his roll as advocate for his department and the constitution. That is exceedingly - odd considering the number and scope of interactions between Trump's incredibly frequent and deeply personal/ presidential legal needs and Barr's professional role as AG. I will answer two questions at most about this paragraph, not five, not three but two and they have to be broad enough to warrant attention and they must suggest a real curiosity, and they cannot be about semantics. Chris, you need to be rationed so I don't want to hire a hitman just to get out of the colloquy.
Barr's views of executive power and privledge that Barr already had and expressed prior to his nomination and confirmation. Barr has had very expansionist views of executive power and the scope of executive privilege under the constitution compared to his views of the relative power of the other two branches. He's the sort of guy who might have defended Nixon's right to keep those Watergate tapes regardless of Congress or the Courts respective interests and duties. The President is NUMBER 1 and the founders wanted him kept whole and potent in the face of challenges to his authority. That kind of legal vision.
Well you have ever seen any evidence of Barr's professionally expressed opinions on law, on the constitution or the DOJ role that was ever inconsistent with Trump's best interests as president or his economic or personal interests? Have you seen any space since Barr was confirmed? Feel free to consult any sources to see if they have found any even your favorites. We are looking for anything that says that Barr disagrees with a position taken by his boss as a matter of law. Considering that Trump is no lawyer and has no legal background but has intensive legal concerns,its hardly likely there would not be discrepancies. Both Sessions and Rosenstein acted in ways that displeased or contradicted Trump and they show independence. Name a couple like that with Barr and Trump.
Did Sessions and Rosenstein act in ways that displeased or contradicted Trump within the first 8 months of their tenure?
Not reasonable doubt to his guilt but of his innocence. He said that had there been no indication of possible guilt he would have said so. He did not comment on his guilt because it would be unfair to except in a trial Trump could defend his innocence.
