Mueller Investigation pt 6

[Baylor]

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

Do you have any evidence for this? I hope you provide some evidence for this.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Do you have any evidence for this? I hope you provide some evidence for this.

his memo.
And his summary.

 

[Belz...]

Kinda looks like they bounce off the fence around the perimeter of the playground, and go back to running around the yard like a jackass. Maybe they bounce off the fence a few more times before recess is over.

...I'm sorry, what?

Trudeau's not a Hitler wannabe, either, but what happens to Canada if the next PM is, and a vote of no confidence fails to remove him?

A similarily-good question. It does, however, not answer mine.

No there is not. Or rather, there may be quite a bit of overlap in priorities and outlook, but there is still zero overlap in powers.

If they are aligned, then their powers are at each other's disposal, which was my point.

And that is as it should be.

Then the president is above the law. Not above impeachment, but above the law.

 

[Baylor]

his memo.
And his summary.

Where did he say he didn't see himself as the AG?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Where did he say he didn't see himself as the AG?

Barr knows what the job of the AG is - hell, he swore an oath on it, twice.
And yet, he is doing the work of Trump's personal lawyer instead.
His priorities are clear: Protect the Presidency, even at the cost of the country.

 

[Baylor]

Barr knows what the job of the AG is - hell, he swore an oath on it, twice.
And yet, he is doing the work of Trump's personal lawyer instead.
His priorities are clear: Protect the Presidency, even at the cost of the country.

I asked you for evidence to support your claims and you haven't done so. You just said a few minutes ago you weren't going to speculate and now you're speculating.

I'll ask again, do you have any evidence Barr does not seem himself as the US attorney general?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

What does it matter, except to score a point for you?
Here is a jar full of Internet Points - help yourself.

There are guidelines and prescedent about an AG staying independent from the WH in matters related to the President - Republicans screamed about Holder or Lynch when they thought they were getting too cosy with the Administration.
Barr doesn't even pretend to be neutral.

 

[Upchurch]

Those are all debatable points.

Sorry, do you not read special council reports? At least one of those points has been spelled out in black-and-white gory detail. There is an entire volume dedicated to it.

You are now the second poster on this board that I have seen make a statement equivalent to, “if Trump has committed a crime, I would turn against him.” Both of you have said this after the report was released, outlining Trump’s crimes. The condition has been met. Where is the follow through on the consequence?

 

[Craig4]

https://pjmedia.com/trending/dont-believe-the-headlines-mueller-said-barr-memo-was-accurate/

"Don't Believe the Headlines: Mueller Said Barr Memo Was Accurate"

Oh my.

Chris B.

But that's from a Trump supporter. That has no value.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Trump Tweets

Finally, Mainstream Media is getting involved - too “hot” to avoid. Pulitzer Prize anyone? The New York Times, on front page (finally), “Details effort to spy on Trump Campaign.” @foxandfriends
This is bigger than WATERGATE, but the reverse!

 

[Belz...]

Sorry, do you not read special council reports? At least one of those points has been spelled out in black-and-white gory detail. There is an entire volume dedicated to it.

You are now the second poster on this board that I have seen make a statement equivalent to, “if Trump has committed a crime, I would turn against him.” Both of you have said this after the report was released, outlining Trump’s crimes. The condition has been met. Where is the follow through on the consequence?

Well, it's easy. If Trump had committed a crime, I'd turn against him in a heartbeat, so you can trust that I'm not being partisan here. However, nothing he ever does will be considered by me to be a crime, so it's all good.

Best of both worlds. You get to not betray your side while outwardly appearing reasonable.

 

[Tero]

Amy Klobuchar has contacted Mueller directly. Can he testify to Congress without Barr approval? She wanted any Trump tax info. He was to send them to her!

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Mueller can do whatever he wants.

 

[newyorkguy]

Trump Tweets

Finally, Mainstream Media is getting involved - too “hot” to avoid. Pulitzer Prize anyone? The New York Times, on front page (finally), “Details effort to spy on Trump Campaign.” @foxandfriends
This is bigger than WATERGATE, but the reverse!

From the Times article:

The conversation at a London bar in September 2016 took a strange turn when the woman sitting across from George Papadopoulos, a Trump campaign adviser, asked a direct question: Was the Trump campaign working with Russia? The woman had set up the meeting to discuss foreign policy issues. But she was actually a government investigator posing as a research assistant, according to people familiar with the operation. The F.B.I. sent her to London as part of the counterintelligence inquiry opened that summer to better understand the Trump campaign’s links to Russia. article link

Two ways to look at this.

The decision to use Ms. Turk in the operation aimed at a presidential campaign official shows the level of alarm inside the F.B.I. during a frantic period when the bureau was trying to determine the scope of Russia’s attempts to disrupt the 2016 election, but could also give ammunition to Mr. Trump and his allies for their spying claims.

There was genuine concern over Russia's attempts to disrupt the 2016 election. Trump's campaign officials were meeting with Russians. Some of Trump's campaign officials were people who had existing ties to Russia. Trump had (has) a reputation for questionable ethics. Trump and his supporters will try to deflect all of that by only discussing the accusation that the Obama administration was orchestrating spying on the Trump campaign.

Sad!

 

[Aridas]

Close enough. I figured it would be more of a continuation of an already well-entrenched institution of corruption, rather than a substantial deepening of that trench (even I don't think Hillary is *that* scary!), but it's close enough that I see no need to quibble.

ETA: And obviously it's a complex question. There were other factors as well, but that was one of them, or close enough.

Thank you for the correction, even so. I think I recall that being something that you repeated a few times here, either way, though, and it also happens to somewhat handily address some of the lines of questioning that seem to have been posed to you, in my opinion.

Wow. alt.universe.

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

Hmm? For the former, he's really not more bigoted or racist than a sizable chunk of the population. A sizable chunk that just happens to tend to vote Republican.

For the latter, of course, there's not much defense. Trump's disregard for the law and attempts to abuse his power are remarkably bad. It certainly would be worse, of course, if there hadn't been a lot of people directly refusing to carry out his orders (most of whom are seemingly gone, these days, which makes it all the worse).

A state of emergency to get a few billion dollars for "steel slats" is histrionic but not necessarily catastrophic. Meanwhile there (ironically?) really is a humanitarian emergency on the border, but a fence IMO isn't the best way to fix it.

Given that the Trump Administration's policies have literally gummed up the workings at the border very significantly there, on purpose, no less? A huge portion, if not all of what can reasonably be described as an actual humanitarian emergency, has been outright created by them. Yeah, of course, a fence that can be beaten by easily obtainable tools isn't a good solution.

...and speaking of dogs, it looks like theprestige is making a concerted bid to step up to The Big Dog's plate!

Nah. theprestige isn't going anywhere close to the trolling employed by TBD, at this point.

But that's from a Trump supporter. That has no value.

Sarcasm or not, it really doesn't matter. Not because it's from a Trump supporter, but because it's ignoring important and relevant facts to try to push a false narrative.

 

[phiwum]

Special pleading. Also not as risky as you make it out to be. I think people are putting a lot of effort into getting hysterical about Trump - more effort than is actually warranted by the man himself. I think the mainstream media has done far more to harm the "psychological health of the country"* than anything President Tweetcheeks has actually done.

What do you mean when you dismiss a claim as "special pleading"?

Venom said that Trump emboldens racists and this is particularly troubling. In what way is she guilty of any fallacy at all?

Trump's behavior is genuinely different than other presidents'. Those differences are precisely what make people concerned. It is not a fallacy to point them out.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

There is only one way to look at this: the FBI doing its Counter-Intelligence duty.

 

[theprestige]

There is only one way to look at this: the FBI doing its Counter-Intelligence duty.

I bet they've even got some kind of COunter INTELligence PROgram.

 

[BobTheCoward]

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.

Mueller objected to the quality of the summary. Accurate is not an acceptable standard.

 

[newyorkguy]

There is only one way to look at this: the FBI doing its Counter-Intelligence duty.

I agree. But the problem is, there are a sizable number of Americans -- not a majority to be sure, but a sizable number -- who give their political leanings precedent over the well-being of the United States.