• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Status
Not open for further replies.
Those are all debatable points. Feel free to debate them if you want. But if you're just going to declare stuff, in order to preempt debate, I can play that game too.
I don't think so. You're staking out positions so outrageous, so spectacularly oblivious of reality, that it's flat out surreal.
 
I think Trump bears some responsibility for the actions of those in his cabinet, and I don't for one second believe that Barr is the sole instigator of this plan of defense. I'm not saying he's being coerced, but I'm confident that the choice in his approach can be traced back to Trump.
As far as I can tell, Barr, then a private citizen, sent an unsolicited memo to people in the Justice Department that all but screamed "MEEE! PICK MEEEE, Teacher! I know this one!! No Obstruction!!!"

Barr authored memo last year ruling out obstruction of justice


In legal/investigatory terms, he has sinned: A prosecutor dismissing charges before any evidence has been presented. It makes him look like a chump. He's an embarrassment to his fellow lawyers. And he volunteered for this duty.

Some lawyers really are attached to the rule of law. That doesn't mean they're all honest, obviously, but you at least go through the motions. Barr cut through all the formalities, which is lethal because formalities are what the profession makes its living doing.

I don't know if I'm expressing myself well here, but the stupidity of this situation is that Trump didn't even have to ask. Barr should be about as welcome among lawyers right now as an amateur giving it away while honest sex workers across the street toil to earn a living.
 
As far as I can tell, Barr, then a private citizen, sent an unsolicited memo to people in the Justice Department that all but screamed "MEEE! PICK MEEEE, Teacher! I know this one!! No Obstruction!!!"

Barr authored memo last year ruling out obstruction of justice


In legal/investigatory terms, he has sinned: A prosecutor dismissing charges before any evidence has been presented. It makes him look like a chump. He's an embarrassment to his fellow lawyers. And he volunteered for this duty.

Some lawyers really are attached to the rule of law. That doesn't mean they're all honest, obviously, but you at least go through the motions. Barr cut through all the formalities, which is lethal because formalities are what the profession makes its living doing.

I don't know if I'm expressing myself well here, but the stupidity of this situation is that Trump didn't even have to ask. Barr should be about as welcome among lawyers right now as an amateur giving it away while honest sex workers across the street toil to earn a living.

I'm not defending Barr but it looks to me like you're trying to defend Trump. Sure, Barr made some noise indicating he would be loyal to Trump, and...guess what...Trump picked him! That makes Trump complicit, as I have been saying.
 
I can't help myself, I gotta post this little summary of my recent part of the debate:

Me: Trump is bad.
theprestige: He's not uniquely bad.
Me: I didn't say he's uniquely bad.
theprestige: But if he isn't uniquely bad why are you even complaining?*
Me: All right then. Here's two unique things.
theprestige: (silence)

*This was the turn that so surprised me I feel I should now document it. Otherwise, I doubt people will believe me:

Claim: Trump is especially catastrophic.

Counter-Claim: Trump is no more catastrophic than other politicians.

Case Study: Disaster preparedness and response, specifically hurricanes.


---

If Trump isn't unique in this regard, why even bother to complain?
 
I'm not defending Barr but it looks to me like you're trying to defend Trump. Sure, Barr made some noise indicating he would be loyal to Trump, and...guess what...Trump picked him! That makes Trump complicit, as I have been saying.
Nothing I wrote is intended to defend Trump to the slightest degree. There's a reason all other living presidents despise him: He's despicable.

He never pretended to have ethics, though. Barr did.

So, hmm, maybe I am giving Trump a pass on this one.
 
Nothing I wrote is intended to defend Trump to the slightest degree. There's a reason all other living presidents despise him: He's despicable.

He never pretended to have ethics, though. Barr did.

So, hmm, maybe I am giving Trump a pass on this one.

Sorry, I didn't honestly think that you were trying to defend Trump, but even so, it kind of had that feel for me since you seemed to be going out of your way to absolve Trump on this particular issue.

And never pretending to have ethics does not justify not having ethics (or make it any more acceptable) (which I'm also sure you know).
 
Wow. alt.universe.

Call in the laughing dogs in numbers never previously conceived by human or canine imagination.

No ****** That's some heavy duty denial there. :eek:

I don't think so. You're staking out positions so outrageous, so spectacularly oblivious of reality, that it's flat out surreal.

I can't help myself, I gotta post this little summary of my recent part of the debate:

Me: Trump is bad.
theprestige: He's not uniquely bad.
Me: I didn't say he's uniquely bad.
theprestige: But if he isn't uniquely bad why are you even complaining?*
Me: All right then. Here's two unique things.
theprestige: (silence)

*This was the turn that so surprised me I feel I should now document it. Otherwise, I doubt people will believe me:


...and speaking of dogs, it looks like theprestige is making a concerted bid to step up to The Big Dog's plate!
 
Last edited:
https://pjmedia.com/trending/cnn-po...investigation-into-obama-doj-spying-of-trump/


“The American public increasingly feels that Democrats in Congress are going too far in investigating the President,” CNN reports. “44% say Democrats are doing too much on that score, up from 38% saying so in March. That shift stems largely from independents, 46% of whom now say congressional Democrats are going too far.” And that was before Democrats wasted a whole day moaning and groaning about Attorney General William Barr’s memo about the Mueller report, which Robert Mueller told Barr was accurate.

But the most interesting part of the is that “69% think Congress ought to investigate the origins of the Justice Department's inquiry into Russian interference in the 2016 election, including 76% of Democrats, 69% of independents and 62% of Republicans.” In other words, an overwhelming majority of Americans believe that the Obama Justice Department’s actions in 2016 should be investigated. The American people want answers about the Steele dossier, the FISA court approval of the wiretap, everything. What did Obama know, and when did he know it? Why did the Obama administration not do more to prevent or stop Russian cyber attacks?"

Oh my.

Chris B.
 
I don't find accurate but lacking important context as acceptable. If I asked our admins to summarize a meeting, and he or she wrote an accurate summary but omitted context, that is a not acceptable.

You feel Barr should have released the report and skipped the summary? Or do you feel Barr's summary of the report is accurate from a legal standpoint but lacking the juicy political details that would play well for Democrats and ease their disappointment with the findings? Hint, Barr's job description does not imply the latter. He's there to make a legal determination.

A summary is a summary. At the end of the day Barr's summary of the report found there is insufficient evidence to charge the President with any crime. In spite of what you may be reading in the fake news tabloids whose ratings have dipped to Marianas Trench depths, Mueller agreed with Barr's summary.

Chris B.
 
Mitch McConnell.
Which is why the GOP don't actually want it investigated.



Indeed.
Beware what you wish for...

I think we're going to find out.

I want the truth of exactly what happened. It appears I'm not alone.

Chris B.
 
If you want the truth, having witnesses questioned by lawyers during hearings is the best way.
Barr has demonstrated repeatedly that he doesn't want the truth to come out
 
If you want the truth, having witnesses questioned by lawyers during hearings is the best way.
Barr has demonstrated repeatedly that he doesn't want the truth to come out
What Barr wants is not the issue : Barr is merely protecting the interests of his client, Donald Trump, as any lawyer should. That's what attorneys general are meant to do, isn't it?
 
What Barr wants is not the issue : Barr is merely protecting the interests of his client, Donald Trump, as any lawyer should. That's what attorneys general are meant to do, isn't it?

But Barr doesn't see himself as the AG, but as the Defender of the Office of the Presidency, even if it is currently occupied by a baby with diarrhea. If he lets anyone bring Trump down, how is the Next Great Republican President (NGRP) going to rule the land with an iron fist?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom