Bob in Mich

How in the hell is this a dem vs repub issue? This is more of a divide between cautious vs careless, imo. The cautious are not the foolish ones, imo. There seems to be this bravado among a lot of folks that this is nothing to fear and that they are not going to change their behavior. This mindset is going to cost lives. You may be strong and healthy and if you get the virus, you may have a 99% chance of beating it. You may not even feel the symptoms. That is good news for you. Congrats. The problem though is that this bravado of yours endangers others. You may be fine but how many others will you have exposed? How many others are now in danger because you felt brave enough to go out and get the virus and carefree enough to spread it around in all your brave travels? Consider how you would feel when it dawns on you that your 'bravery' has resulted in your elderly friend, neighbor, or relative passing away.

NFL and NFLPA are currently discussing possible new collective bargaining agreement. The current agreement runs through the 2021 season but they are negotiating over possibly getting it done early. Changes to the NFL cannabis policy are being considered. https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomangell/2020/02/20/nfl-would-end-marijuana-suspensions-in-deal-circulated-by-players-union/#39a06920536a

No amount of other wrongdoing by anyone else changes the facts of the Trump tower meeting, right? Trump may win the next election. This PPP board alone is proof plenty that his defenders will believe any and all of his lies so he will get lots of votes. Tell me please, the person's name that could accuse Trump of wrongdoing or even seriously criticize Trump, and remain a credible, respected person in your eyes. Name? Remember a few days ago when you admitted that you didn't really know too much about this politics stuff? Yeah, me too.

Agreed, not illegal, according to Mueller. Does the 'I love it' and accepting the meeting prove Don Jr's willingness to accept dirt on Hillary though? I say it certainly does. That fact alone invalidates the claim that there was absolutely no wrongdoing there. Any suspicious details that get tossed around here about the scheduling of the meeting do not invalidate that fact. So, illegal? No. Innocent? No. That is what I have been disputing, these claims of 'nothing found by Mueller'.

No, I know. I was in the ***** room with Putin, B-Man, DR, Trump, and Barr when it all went down. Of course I am speculating. WTF do you think I am doing? It is a discussion board. You guys get ridiculous some times. Of course, Trump should not be directing specific actions by the Justice Dept. Wasn't that one of Nixon's wrongs? I simply don't believe that you all believe these actions by Trump/Barr/Justice are fine. Many of you seem to be so dug in defending every action that no other possible course exists. How can this be OK?

No, we don't agree there and I have been meaning to mention this. You have a bad habit of telling me what we agree to, when we don't. Please use more care in these types of assumptions, if you would. There surely is a downside of the President or AG using their power to direct our law enforcement agencies to investigate and essentially attempt to punish any of their personal or political enemies. Stop being ridiculous please. Some around here are foolish enough to accept that silly argument. I am pretty sure you are not that foolish and I am assuredly not.

I am not going to rehash Mueller's failure to exonerate. The Ukraine incident just proved beyond any doubt, a political acquittal in no way guarantees innocence. Trump walking free from Mueller is not really proof of complete sainthood but of wrongdoing short of provably illegal. We know Trump was not indicted or impeached after Mueller. Post Mueller, I have never stated that Trump should be charged with conspiring with the Russians. If Mueller says he should not, good enough for me. What I have consistently pushed against however, is this notion that the whole investigation was a completely unfounded coup attempt and that Trump's team was completely innocent of any wrongdoing. The Trump tower Don Jr meeting alone is proof of willingness to accept aid from the Russian Govt. All the other suspicious nuggets around that meeting that I see stated here, in no way undo Don Jr's 'I love it'....willingness, plain and simple.

So you believed that? HAHAHAHAHAHA To claim the president's prior statements and tweets did not already inform Barr of Trump's thoughts On Comey, McCabe, Strzok, and Page is a totally unrealistic assumption. Beyond that really but it is President's day so I am watching my language. So, what new evidence recently came to light to now necessitate this new investigation? Be specific please. Imo, you should be ashamed and sorry yourself for trying to perpetuate such blatantly obvious drivel as Barr and Trump don't communicate about cases.

I don't know. The timing is a bit suspect certainly but I don't claim to know as much as some here. Time and hopefully more clues will eventually tell us about the justification. Coming the same week that even Barr has complained about Trump trying to push him, one has to wonder if this is a legitimate investigation brought about now by some newly uncovered case facts. Or, is it the type of investigation that many have been warning about.....Trump/Barr's political use of the Justice Dept to punish the president's enemies

The repetition around here that Mueller discovered absolutely no wrong doing has worked well. I will give credit for that trick. Many posters here repeat it now, like they might actually believe that. Hard to tell Maybe review some of the findings and myths about those Mueller findings that persist, in spite of facts to the contrary. https://time.com/5610317/mueller-report-myths-breakdown/ While Mueller was unable to establish a conspiracy between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians involved in this activity, he made it clear that “[a] statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.” In fact, Mueller also wrote that the “investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.” To find conspiracy, a prosecutor must establish beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of the crime: an agreement between at least two people, to commit a criminal offense and an overt act in furtherance of that agreement. One of the underlying criminal offenses that Mueller reviewed for conspiracy was campaign-finance violations. Mueller found that Trump campaign members Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner met with Russian nationals in Trump Tower in New York June 2016 for the purpose of receiving disparaging information about Clinton as part of “Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump,” according to an email message arranging the meeting. This meeting did not amount to a criminal offense, in part, because Mueller was unable to establish “willfulness,” that is, that the participants knew that their conduct was illegal. Mueller was also unable to conclude that the information was a “thing of value” that exceeded $25,000, the requirement for campaign finance to be a felony, as opposed to a civil violation of law. But the fact that the conduct did not technically amount to conspiracy does not mean that it was acceptable. Trump campaign members welcomed foreign influence into our election and then compromised themselves with the Russian government by covering it up. Mueller found other contacts with Russia, such as the sharing of polling data about Midwestern states where Trump later won upset victories, conversations with the Russian ambassador to influence Russia’s response to sanctions imposed by the U.S. government in response to election interference, and communications with Wikileaks after it had received emails stolen by Russia. While none of these acts amounted to the crime of conspiracy, all could be described as “collusion.” PS Now I am off listening to Jim Croce. What a tragedy for his family and friends of course but for all of us that only knew his music too

I suspect the vast majority of cases are delegated to lower Justice Dept personnel and are closed without the AG's input. Barr's personal review of Flynn, Stone, and now McCabe decisions are because Trump did not like the way the courts and/or Justice were deciding the issue. Trump is directing the Justice Dept to attempt to reward his cronies and to punish his perceived enemies. That slope is slippery and treacherous.

Pulease! Barr re-examining cases for Trump's guys is pretty strong indication that Barr is acting upon Trump's wishes. Does Trump wish to charge McCabe? Of course, and Trump would not say to Barr, 'Ah, might as well let a guilty McCabe stay out of jail until later', would he? Mr Vindictive? The only reason Barr didn't overrule the McCabe decision was that he could find no way to legally justify doing that. As much as he wants to please the boss, so far anyway, he still seems to care a smidge about appearances.

Barr has shown no reluctance in jumping into ongoing cases, right? He has just done that with two cases, right? Why would he not jump in on the McCabe decision, for example, if it was just a bad investigation/conclusion done by deep staters covering for their co-conspirators?

Note: 'even handed' and 'just' are synonyms so I don't understand your point there. After saying that I want those found guilty of wrongdoing by Durham to be prosecuted, what actually am I trying to sweep under the rug? Ok, say you get your nuggets and extrapolation here from DR and B-Man rather than FoxNews. It is the same thing. The nugget may be irrefutable but the story built around the nugget, after investigation, seems to be less devastating than was implied. So, after the investigations what can we conclude when the supposed coup plotters are not charged with plotting? Well, I suggest that the extrapolation involved all sorts of suspicion of evil that upon investigation, was not found to be as bad as implied - by DR or FoxNews or Trump. Thus the charges against the accused don't amount to much. Grassley and you are implying that not only were those originally accused still guilty of massive wrongdoing but now, post investigation, those investigating in Barr's Justice Department today are still in on the coup attempt.

These accusations of uneven justice are a bit rich, especially coming now. Without arguing the charges and sentencing again, I doubt any of us here would have the AG intervening on our behalf in our cases regardless of any injustices. Also, Durham is still investigating some of these folks, right? If chargeable misdeeds are uncovered I hope those deserving are charged. The investigations need to be even handed though. Another possible reason these deep state bad guys don't get thrown in jail after investigation is that the accusations were overblown initially. FoxNews, like the other MSM networks, operates to make money. Just like those other networks, FoxNews chooses its programming to keep Trump supporters coming back nightly. Perhaps, constantly beating the drum that everyone has conspired in a years long coup attempt was hyping up the facts? As an example, nuggets of suspicious texts from Page/Strzok were extrapolated into a massive conspiracy to overthrow the President. After IG investigating, bias was found but not in their work, right? The nugget was factual but the extrapolation was not. That seems to be a bit of a pattern and so we see repeated disappointment here in bringing the supposed deep state plotters to justice.

Deek, just in case some here don't know why the police like to use so many officers on many arrests, I thought I would just explain briefly, as I understand it. In many cases, a person about to be arrested for anything serious, starts to consider his/her options. Is it possible to get out of this situation by overpowering the arresting officer? If I run, might I get away? The police tactic of using lots of officers (overwhelming force) is designed to answer those questions emphatically. Clearly, to any rational person, resistance is futile. If the arrestee turns irrational, all of those police guns gain control quickly. The tactic itself is effective but I think we agree, it is overused. I mentioned earlier, I think SWAT teams like to practice

The arrest was recorded. There was no one shot, no dead pets, no one thrown down to the ground, no violence at all. It was very tame. Was it necessary to have that many officers? No, but that is how it is done all the time. Not unusual.

Len, the point is Stone's treatment was no way rough, compared with what I described as common arrest tactics. The Stone arrest looked like they had more force than was necessary, true, but a very common tactic and so, not unusual. Again, my point is, that no knock arrests happen all the time and to an even worse degree, as demonstrated by the cannabis raids. Right, no. Unusual or especially rough for Stone, no. What I recall seeing was very tame

Lenny, do you intentionally miss my points? I am in no way condoning the aggressive tactics. In fact, the complete opposite. The point was that the early morning arrest of Stone was far from rough or unusual. The SWAT raids on suspected basement pot growers endanger police, pets, and homeowners. They are completely unnecessary given the size of a basement operation, the inability of any actual grower to dispose of evidence (like a cocaine toilet flush), the statistical likelihood of violent resistance from home cannabis growers, and perhaps most importantly, the ease of arresting the accused away from home in a traffic stop with backup. Now, a large warehouse operation involving gang members is a completely different case and SWAT may be appropriate but not for small scale growers. I once saw a COPS program where I heard what I believe to be a primary reason these cannabis raids use SWAT teams. The head of the unit said, we like to get the boys some practice in a generally safe operation so they are ready for when they are really needed. While that makes sense on the surface, when you consider that they are unnecessarily endangering citizens with these live fire practices, the raids make far less sense. If interested, the article below mentions a number of other police motives for the no knock raids https://www.vox.com/2014/10/29/7083371/swat-no-knock-raids-police-killed-civilians-dangerous-work-drugs

Well, if Barr did this publicly because he thought it was now starting to appear like Trump was directing his actions, the Dems and the media are no more moronic than Barr for making that same observation. I agree though that the press and our Congress were also meant to hear the message from Barr. Trump is impulsive and so self important that I doubt this guidance from Barr restrains his improper tweeting for long. Guess time will tell.

Certainly Barr's statement was meant to be heard by more than Trump though, right? With a lot less fanfare he could have picked up the phone to tell Trump, if that was his audience. So, making a public call for Trump to stop this tweeting was meant to inform who.... that Barr will be what .....independent or what? The Justice Dept? The public? I am unsure of what was behind a public statement but something was. Why do you folks think this was done publicly?

Understood. It must seem as though every liberal is an idiot when you attribute every foolish lefty statement to every person on the left. In fact, a similar level of foolishness can be found in some on the right. If I attributed every stupid right leaning statement to every righty poster here, I am sure they would look like even bigger morons to me. Since I have no more control over left leaning foolishness than you have over right leaning foolishness, we are going to have to learn to be more discerning......unless you like the frustration and anger. Here's a thought..... sort of like addressing racial prejudice, why not talk to individual posters, ask for their individual views, and try to resist stereotyping? Or, since you claim to enjoy the national divide, keep doing what you are doing I guess.

To cut some of those safety net programs while boosting military spending is where we are going wrong, imo. I wrote this earlier

Gotta run so don't invest too much in a reply...... Similar to the point I just made to GG, a valid point but basically immaterial as to whether Trump was attempting to interfere in sentencing

Yeah, we are just going to have to agree to disagree. I agree that we should try to see reality rather than trying to bend it. You disagree apparently. Gotta go. Thx. Have a good day!