Operation Boomerang AG Barr's Investigation of Acts of Treason by Federal Employees

[Bob in Mich]

3 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

Incorrect spin.

 

Barr specifically said that President Trump had never contacted or spoke with him about any case..............but his tweets were unhelpful.

 

sorry.

 

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. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

37 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

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

 

 

Uh boy.  Time?  Ok, I'll try.

 

Um...in reading the Myth List, I'm immediately skeptical when the author of the story has a 400 page, 200,000 word document to draw on and feels the need to knit together a narrative.  Why Bob?  Serious question, why wouldn't the author just type the following:

 

See Page 211, Paragraph 3, Subparagraph A for Mueller's evidence of collusion against Donal J. Trump; and 

See Page 391, Paragraph 4, Subparagraph J for Mueller's evidence of obstruction of justice against Donald J. Trump

 

Shouldn't that be easy to do?  He/She could even hyperlink it, like you did for me, so I can see what Joe Schmoe thinks I should think about the Mueller report.  Why all the gymnastics in light of the fact that Trump walked away scottso freezo from the 4 year investigation?  

 

As for "exoneration" Bob in Michigan aka Bob in Libchigan aka Bob who swims in Lake Libchigan...there are an estimated 7,800,000,000 people on the planet today.  Of the 7,800,000,000, how many have been officially and ceremoniously been exonerated as outlined in the Mueller Report?  Feel free to round up, or round down as you see fit. 

 

And, how dare you use Jim Croce to try and tug at my heart strings after I already did it to you.  

 

 

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

41 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

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

 

What warning?  Where is the potential for harm here?  You have emphatically stated that more information is better, at one point lobbying for a reconsideration of the rules of Senate investigations into impeachment so that all facts can be known?  Witnesses, Bob, what about people with a story to tell?  Why would anyone be concerned about 'punishment'  if they have nothing to hide?  I'd think they would want AG Barr to look into every aspect of their collective life, professional and personal, with an eye toward their total vindication and exoneration?  I'd think these noble and trusted public servants would run to embrace this like a Kardashian to a rap artist. 

 

I think we both agree that so long as the investigation is handled fairly, there is no downside for anyone.

[snafu]

21 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

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. 

 

They may communicate about cases, or they may not.

(A) that’s not improper.

(B) the only thing we know about whether they communicate or not is Barr’s statement — which says they’re not.

 

Do you have any indication that says they do?

If they do communicate about cases, do you have any indication that Trump is abusing his authority?

 

Seems a lot like you’re speculating — and repeating facts over and over, like you believe them. Isn’t that something you complained about other posters doing?  You’re either a blind partisan who doesn’t want to see any other explanation that what you’ve concocted in your mind; or you’re a troll.

 

15 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Um...in reading the Myth List, I'm immediately skeptical when the author of the story has a 400 page, 200,000 word document to draw on and feels the need to knit together a narrative.  Why Bob?  Serious question, why wouldn't the author just type the following:

 

See Page 211, Paragraph 3, Subparagraph A for Mueller's evidence of collusion against Donal J. Trump; and 

See Page 391, Paragraph 4, Subparagraph J for Mueller's evidence of obstruction of justice against Donald J. Trump

 

 

Even easier — why didn’t Congress issue a third Article of Impeachment for collusion — and a fourth Article of Impeachment for obstruction of justice?

 

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

4 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

They may communicate about cases, or they may not.

(A) that’s not improper.

(B) the only thing we know about whether they communicate or not is Barr’s statement — which says they’re not.

 

Do you have any indication that says they do?

If they do communicate about cases, do you have any indication that Trump is abusing his authority?

 

Seems a lot like you’re speculating — and repeating facts over and over, like you believe them. Isn’t that something you complained about other posters doing?  You’re either a blind partisan who doesn’t want to see any other explanation that what you’ve concocted in your mind; or you’re a troll.

 

 

Even easier — why didn’t Congress issue a third Article of Impeachment for collusion — and a fourth Article of Impeachment for obstruction of justice?

 

 

That sounds harder because of all the extra words but sure Mr. Fancypants Constitution Guy. ?

[Deranged Rhino]

7 minutes ago, snafu said:

Even easier — why didn’t Congress issue a third Article of Impeachment for collusion — and a fourth Article of Impeachment for obstruction of justice?

 

Even easier than that, if there was collusion/conspiracy, why wasn't a single person charged or indicted with it? 

 

@Nineforty wrongly states the OLC opinion prevents this (it does not), but even if it did and the ONLY reason Trump wasn't charged was because he was in office that wouldn't extend to any of the others involved in the plot. 

 

But @Bob in Mich and the low information folk don't want to think. They want to be told what to think.

[3rdnlng]

2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Even easier than that, if there was collusion/conspiracy, why wasn't a single person charged or indicted with it? 

 

@Nineforty wrongly states the OLC opinion prevents this (it does not), but even if it did and the ONLY reason Trump wasn't charged was because he was in office that wouldn't extend to any of the others involved in the plot. 

 

But @Bob in Mich and the low information folk don't want to think. They want to be told what to think.

Like one person can collude with himself.

[snafu]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Even easier than that, if there was collusion/conspiracy, why wasn't a single person charged or indicted with it? 

 

@Nineforty wrongly states the OLC opinion prevents this (it does not), but even if it did and the ONLY reason Trump wasn't charged was because he was in office that wouldn't extend to any of the others involved in the plot. 

 

But @Bob in Mich and the low information folk don't want to think. They want to be told what to think.

 

Well then each of those brainwashed blind partisans should remember that impeachment is a political proceeding. 

Boy oh boy, I guess Congress missed a golden opportunity, didn’t they!

 

 

[Bob in Mich]

2 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Uh boy.  Time?  Ok, I'll try.

 

Um...in reading the Myth List, I'm immediately skeptical when the author of the story has a 400 page, 200,000 word document to draw on and feels the need to knit together a narrative.  Why Bob?  Serious question, why wouldn't the author just type the following:

 

See Page 211, Paragraph 3, Subparagraph A for Mueller's evidence of collusion against Donal J. Trump; and 

See Page 391, Paragraph 4, Subparagraph J for Mueller's evidence of obstruction of justice against Donald J. Trump

 

Shouldn't that be easy to do?  He/She could even hyperlink it, like you did for me, so I can see what Joe Schmoe thinks I should think about the Mueller report.  Why all the gymnastics in light of the fact that Trump walked away scottso freezo from the 4 year investigation?  

 

As for "exoneration" Bob in Michigan aka Bob in Libchigan aka Bob who swims in Lake Libchigan...there are an estimated 7,800,000,000 people on the planet today.  Of the 7,800,000,000, how many have been officially and ceremoniously been exonerated as outlined in the Mueller Report?  Feel free to round up, or round down as you see fit. 

 

And, how dare you use Jim Croce to try and tug at my heart strings after I already did it to you.  

 

 

 

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.

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, Bob in Mich said:

I am not going to rehash Mueller's failure to exonerate. 

 

Not a real thing. Prosecutors do not exonerate, that's not the job nor how our system of justice is supposed to work. Stating this proves you either do not know this, or do not care enough to understand what you're advocating for is a complete undoing of the rule of law. 

 

 

1 minute ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

 

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.  

 

17+ times the FBI/DOJ committed fraud in their warrant applications to the FISC proves you wrong. 

 

But you don't want to talk about evidence or fact, you only want to talk about what you've been instructed to talk about by those who programmed your feeble mind.

2 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

The Trump tower Don Jr meeting alone is proof of willingness to accept aid from the Russian Govt. 

 

1) That's not illegal. 

2) The Trump Tower meeting proves that it was a set up. 

 

You've been had. Because you're a very dumb person.

[Bob in Mich]

35 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

 

What warning?  Where is the potential for harm here?  You have emphatically stated that more information is better, at one point lobbying for a reconsideration of the rules of Senate investigations into impeachment so that all facts can be known?  Witnesses, Bob, what about people with a story to tell?  Why would anyone be concerned about 'punishment'  if they have nothing to hide?  I'd think they would want AG Barr to look into every aspect of their collective life, professional and personal, with an eye toward their total vindication and exoneration?  I'd think these noble and trusted public servants would run to embrace this like a Kardashian to a rap artist. 

 

I think we both agree that so long as the investigation is handled fairly, there is no downside for anyone.

 

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.

Edited February 17, 2020 by Bob in Mich

[njbuff]

7 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Not a real thing. Prosecutors do not exonerate, that's not the job nor how our system of justice is supposed to work. Stating this proves you either do not know this, or do not care enough to understand what you're advocating for is a complete undoing of the rule of law. 

 

 

 

17+ times the FBI/DOJ committed fraud in their warrant applications to the FISC proves you wrong. 

 

But you don't want to talk about evidence or fact, you only want to talk about what you've been instructed to talk about by those who programmed your feeble mind.

 

1) That's not illegal. 

2) The Trump Tower meeting proves that it was a set up. 

 

You've been had. Because you're a very dumb person.

 

I laugh at how these Trump-hating fools go back to a Trump Tower meeting that means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in terms of being legal or illegal.

 

Even after three + years of this crap, the disingenuousness of these people never cease to amaze me.

[Bob in Mich]

23 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

They may communicate about cases, or they may not.

(A) that’s not improper.

(B) the only thing we know about whether they communicate or not is Barr’s statement — which says they’re not.

 

Do you have any indication that says they do?

If they do communicate about cases, do you have any indication that Trump is abusing his authority?

 

Seems a lot like you’re speculating — and repeating facts over and over, like you believe them. Isn’t that something you complained about other posters doing?  You’re either a blind partisan who doesn’t want to see any other explanation that what you’ve concocted in your mind; or you’re a troll.

 

 

Even easier — why didn’t Congress issue a third Article of Impeachment for collusion — and a fourth Article of Impeachment for obstruction of justice?

 

 

 

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? 

[Bob in Mich]

8 minutes ago, njbuff said:

 

I laugh at how these Trump-hating fools go back to a Trump Tower meeting that means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in terms of being legal or illegal.

 

Even after three + years of this crap, the disingenuousness of these people never cease to amaze me.

 

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'.

 

 

 

[B-Man]

 

What’s Really Going on With McCabe?

On Friday, J.P. Cooney, the Chief of DoJ’s Public Fraud and Corruption Section, sent a memorandum to Michael Bromwich, Andrew McCabe’s lawyer, stating that “the Government has decided not to pursue criminal charges” against McCabe stemming from a referral from the DoJ inspector general in 2018 concerning illegal leaks to the media and lying about it.

 

{snip}

 

 

That decision has generated much consternation among independent journalists and conservative commentators, as the public evidence was pretty clear that McCabe committed the acts of which he was accused (he even ADMITTED to FBI investigators that he lied to them multiple times!). Just to review, DoJ IG found that McCabe lied multiple times – including at least three times under oath – on 31 Oct 2016, 9 May 2017, 28 July 2017, and 27 Nov 2017. McCabe also blamed two FBI Executives (the head of the Washington Field Office & the Head of the New York Field Office) for his own leaks.

 

What are the possibilities in explaining that decision? There are several that have been bandied about since the decision was announced. Let’s make a deal:

 

Door #1. The prosecutors assigned to the case were corrupt and only half-heartedly presented evidence to the grand jury, which failed to deliver an indictment. The pessimists – and gaslighters – are sure that this is the reason since the evidence on the public record alone was so apparently damning.

 

Door #2. The prosecutors presented the evidence in good faith, but the DC-area grand jury (filled with politically-aware Democrats as they all are) simply refused to indict a demonstrably high-profile anti-Trump figure like McCabe. This is a troubling possibility, but one could simply point to the trial jury in Greg Craig’s trial as evidence of similar political taint in DC-area juries. That fact would explain AG Barr’s decision to move politically-charged cases outside DC, as well as to initiate external reviews of a few ongoing cases in the US attorney’s office in DC.

 

Door #3. For whatever reason, the prosecutors could not get an indictment and decided to let the departmental sanctions against McCabe ride as sufficient punishment. That might seem like a pretty weak option, but a friend of mine with deep connections in federal law enforcement weighed in with supporting rationale that makes a lot of sense.

In his opinion,

McCabe broke departmental guidelines more than clearly violating the perjury statute.

As a former whistleblower myself, I can attest to the fact that not being truthful to an IG is a “misstatement of fact,” not criminal perjury. If I gave the IG a purposeful misstatement, I could not have been in jeopardy of perjury. Federal IGs are not federal law enforcement (LE) when acting in an IG role even if they’re credentialed LE. IGs don’t do criminal investigations; they investigate agency regulation violations. If they suspect criminal violations, those are referred to jurisdictional LE. McCabe violated agency policy, including misstatements of fact, and was severely sanctioned with termination for cause, loss of all pay and benefits, and loss of pension. Not a wrist slap by any means. Even the folks that I got fired kept their retirements.

Lastly, if McCabe was indicted and convicted, as a first offender, he’d likely get probation and have retained his pension. The agency sanction is worse; which is likely why Sessions went that route.

I believe Door #3 is the correct assessment, and that no DC-area grand jury was going to indict the high-profile McCabe.

McCabe and his lawyer were quick to bray their know-it-all condescension that this decision was inevitable. McCabe chose to spin the whole case as “political retribution” in line with the Democrats’ current strategy to paint AG Barr’s DoJ as “hopelessly subservient to President Trump’s political interests.”

Here is a quote from McCabe on CNN on Friday: “The pursuit of political enemies and the use of the political justice system and criminal investigations to exact some sort of revenge on those political enemies is not something that should be happening in the United States.”

 

Whatever. Those are pretty brave words coming from a man who still faces serious legal jeopardy for signing off on at least one of those false FISA warrant applications on Carter Page. It will be a lot easier to indict him for defrauding the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court since his signature is on one of those applications than it apparently was in convincing a DC-area grand jury that his “misstatement of facts” was indeed perjury.

Oh, and the Spygate grand jury is likely to be up and running in Connecticut, not DC, Andrew. Good luck with that (not).

 

 

 

.

[njbuff]

1 minute ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

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'.

 

 

 

 

Well if you think the Trump Tower meeting was dirty................

 

What about the Hillary paid-for fake Dossier on Trump?

 

You wanna keep playing these stupid political games, but nothing is going to change the fact that Trump will be in office till 2024 to drive the leftists nuts for another 4 years.

 

Nothing WILL EVER change that fact.

 

Democrats wanna keep making up dirt on Trump instead of finding facts of criminality on him. Why? Because the left is too stupid to find REAL CRIMES on Trump. This has been proven over and over again. Find REAL wrongdoings on Trump, then let's talk. Otherwise, you leftists need to shut the fvck up and work with the guy because he will be around till January of 2025.

[Bob in Mich]

1 minute ago, njbuff said:

 

Well if you think the Trump Tower meeting was dirty................

 

What about the Hillary paid-for fake Dossier on Trump?

 

You wanna keep playing these stupid political games, but nothing is going to change the fact that Trump will be in office till 2024 to drive the leftists nuts for another 4 years.

 

Nothing WILL EVER change that fact.

 

Democrats wanna keep making up dirt on Trump instead of finding facts of criminality on him. Why? Because the left is too stupid to find REAL CRIMES on Trump. This has been proven over and over again. Find REAL wrongdoings on Trump, then let's talk. Otherwise, you leftists need to shut the fvck up and work with the guy because he will be around till January of 2025.

 

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. 

[snafu]

33 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

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? 

 

So you’re both.

Enjoy your day.

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

24 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

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.

 

You might as state you are not going to rehash Pee Wee Herman's failure to exonerate.  That was not the role Mueller was selected to play.  I remain steadfast----and reading between the lines believe that you completely concur----of the 7,800,000,000 people on the planet, not one was exonerated in the Mueller report.  You. Me. Everyone. 

 

No one in this circus of hilarity ever implied Trump=sainthood, nor is that a job requirement, nor is it relevant here.

 

While I think it's obvious the investigation and subsequent accusations of Russian puppetry were unfounded, I get that you felt it was worth impacting the votes of 60+ million Americans by necessarily hamstringing the administration in pursuit of a narrative that would evolve as those running it saw fit. Had Mueller proven the case as you saw it, you rightly could have claimed vindication and I would have acknowledged you were correct and I was wrong.

 

That said, I am at a complete loss as to why you would be suddenly squeamish that an investigation would be launched into Messrs McCabe et al, especially in light of McCabe's discharge from the bureau for being less than candid and forthcoming.   It's like you think it's all political (suddenly), but shouldn't the 60m+ centrists who support the president be reassured that the hierarchy of the FBI is squeaky clean?  If, say Andy McCabe is clean, isn't it worth knocking on a few doors, rooting through the hefty garbage bags, checking over the personal bank accounts of his immediate family to follow the money trail ? Seems like a small price to pay, and certainly having been on the other side of it when he thumped a few skulls, he'd understand why it's important for prosecutors with unlimited resources to be thorough.  Not for him, of course, but the people who see his actions as proof that he's dirty?  He relied on what many consider to be Russian disinformation, isn't it fair to assume he did so willingly?  Maybe he's even be exonerated?  

 

Just some of the things I wonder. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

51 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

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. 

 

And yet, you are pretending that didn't happen in 2016. 

29 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

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. 

 

Except it doesn't invalidate it -- as accepting dirt in and of itself STILL wouldn't be a crime or "wrong doing". 

30 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

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'.

 

Still missing the point. 

 

If the meeting was a set up, it is relevant no? 

15 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

No amount of other wrongdoing by anyone else changes the facts of the Trump tower meeting, right?

 

False. 

 

If the entire premise of the meeting was to entrap a political rival in a smear campaign it absolutely matters and changes the entire story.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

47 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

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 don't think you're foolish, but this is just the way I work things out.  Your style, if I may be so bold, is to ask perpetually open-ended questions, with more questions to follow and an  "we just need to know more".  That line of questioning can be taken to infinity, is the framework of the democrats assault on the Trump presidency, and it's political muckraking 101.  Even now, you're stubborn in your willingness to wither on the vine of Trump/Russia in spite of the numerous problems with the narrative.  

 

I absolutely agree that there is a "downside to 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".    I just don't know why you support it when used against Trump, and why you feel it's not worth investigating a guy canned for lying. 

  

[snafu]

8 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I just don't know why you support it when used against Trump, and why you feel it's not worth investigating a guy canned for lying. 

 

Lack of candor.

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

Just now, snafu said:

 

Lack of candor.

 

This made me laugh actually, though I don't think that is the case with Bob.  I try and take everyone at their word, at least, those I haven't written off as silly hearts or worse.  

 

I don't understand him on this one, it just seems incredibly obvious that he's applying two different standards to two political investigations.  I could understand him accusing me of doing the same thing, but while the Russia narrative seemed really far-fetched to me, I did listen early on to what was being said with a reasonable, but very skeptical open-mind. The simple analysis-- I could never square "TRUMP = RUSSIAN" with a gang of prosecutors with unlimited power allowing him to destroy the country while they trudged along like the keystone cops.   I'd have thought they would bust him out of office in 15 minutes if they had the goods on him, as was alleged by a guy like John Brennan.  

 

We all have our blind spots, I suppose. 

 

 

 

 

 

[njbuff]

46 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

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. 

 

I have no idea. There has been everybody and their brother investigating Trump and yet they still have to make up shyt about him in the end.

 

And I don't know politics that well at all. All I know is that what I have learned the last three years is that the left is full of shyt and you people continue to cry because Hillary isn't president. Sad.

 

Like I said, you have something REAL on Trump, by all means let me know. Stop making up shyt just because you hate the guy.

[snafu]

42 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

This made me laugh actually, though I don't think that is the case with Bob.  I try and take everyone at their word, at least, those I haven't written off as silly hearts or worse.  

 

I don't understand him on this one, it just seems incredibly obvious that he's applying two different standards to two political investigations.  I could understand him accusing me of doing the same thing, but while the Russia narrative seemed really far-fetched to me, I did listen early on to what was being said with a reasonable, but very skeptical open-mind. The simple analysis-- I could never square "TRUMP = RUSSIAN" with a gang of prosecutors with unlimited power allowing him to destroy the country while they trudged along like the keystone cops.   I'd have thought they would bust him out of office in 15 minutes if they had the goods on him, as was alleged by a guy like John Brennan.  

 

We all have our blind spots, I suppose. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have blind spots.  I just don’t see them. I do believe that Trump gets things wrong and that he’s often his own worst enemy in very obvious ways.  Nothing sets my hair on fire like I see with the TDS set. I do believe that at the point when Trump/Russia got started there was actually something to investigate. That investigation obviously (to me) quickly unraveled.  That didn’t stop the investigators.  

 

I’m not willing to let people crap on the current administration without having them acknowledge how the prior administration and it’s leftover players bent and broke rules to effectuate an “insurance policy”. I’m not willing to let people give the prior administration’s bad actors a pass.  I’m not willing to hear that one group of people shrug off bad acts by bad actors as “conspiracy”. 

 

I’m not willing to call for the President’s ouster at every hair trigger turn of events. It paralyzes the normal functioning of government. Unfortunately, there are too many people who want to see him gone so badly that they’ll lower any standard applicable to the acceptability of this particular President’s conduct. These people are willfully blind to the future and what lower standards will mean.  Maybe they believe that things will go back to “normal” after this particular President is gone.   They’re probably right that any future President won’t behave like the most powerful juvenile on the planet.  What they might not see, however, is how focusing on bad behavior is not as important as making sure the President is acting within the confines of his power.  Too many times these things get conflated. It doesn’t work now, and it won’t work in the future.

 

 

 

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

Barr taps network of prosecutors to review Russia-Ukraine cases

By Brooke Singman | Fox News   FEB. 17, 2020

 

 

Attorney General Bill Barr has tapped a growing number of federal prosecutors across the country to review high-profile Russia probes involving Trump associates and consider emerging allegations tied to Ukraine, in a bold but risky move that comes as he faces mounting criticism and even resignation calls from congressional Democrats who allege he's protecting the president.

On Friday, Fox News reported that Barr appointed Jeff Jensen, the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri, to review the case of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. Justice Department officials told Fox News Jensen would be working hand-in-hand with Brandon Van Grack, the lead prosecutor in the case. It marked the latest example of Barr bringing on a federal prosecutor to examine a politically charged case.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/barr-taps-network-of-prosecutors-to-review-russia-ukraine-investigations

 

 

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

1 hour ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

Barr taps network of prosecutors to review Russia-Ukraine cases

By Brooke Singman | Fox News   FEB. 17, 2020

 

 

Attorney General Bill Barr has tapped a growing number of federal prosecutors across the country to review high-profile Russia probes involving Trump associates and consider emerging allegations tied to Ukraine, in a bold but risky move that comes as he faces mounting criticism and even resignation calls from congressional Democrats who allege he's protecting the president.

On Friday, Fox News reported that Barr appointed Jeff Jensen, the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri, to review the case of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. Justice Department officials told Fox News Jensen would be working hand-in-hand with Brandon Van Grack, the lead prosecutor in the case. It marked the latest example of Barr bringing on a federal prosecutor to examine a politically charged case.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/barr-taps-network-of-prosecutors-to-review-russia-ukraine-investigations

 

 

 

...don't despair!...the highly acclaimed resignation petition is in circulation.....he's getting "too close for DOJ comfort"....he'll be labeled a partisan hack and a "Trump lackey" no doubt...so let's look at "Bull" Durham......assigned significant high profile cases as a US Attorney under the honorable and credible Eric Holder.....so now is the table set to cast HIM as a partisan, political hack as a matter of "convenience"?....naw, not a chance............

[LSHMEAB]

23 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Even easier than that, if there was collusion/conspiracy, why wasn't a single person charged or indicted with it? 

 

 

 

It was pretty obvious Mueller wasn't going to find some grand conspiracy on Trump's part from the early goings in that investigation.

 

The media had already spent a year "investigating" and they came up with a single meeting with a lawyer. A single meeting of little or no consequence. Logic dictates that the media would have discovered SOMETHING "better" along the way than an individual meeting with some lawyer who appeared to have little or no connection to the Kremlin. It ALWAYS smacked of weaksauce.

 

"But wait for Mueller I was told" by my liberal pals. MMkay. I waited. And when you launch that kind of investigation and make those kind of implicit promises, it will almost certainly backfire. They handed Trump a pretty big political score there.

 

On this particular issue, zero disagreement.

[Hedge]

Sorry Leftists.

 

 

So much fake news:

 

 

-----------------------------------------------

 

 

Edited February 19, 2020 by Hedge

[4merper4mer]

6 hours ago, Hedge said:

Sorry Leftists.

 

 

So much fake news:

 

 

-----------------------------------------------

 

 

Imagine the outrage by Waters if Barr or Durham actually did anything.  Don't get me wrong, obviously they won't, but imagine if they did.

[Buffalo_Gal]

4 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

Imagine the outrage by Waters if Barr or Durham actually did anything.  Don't get me wrong, obviously they won't, but imagine if they did.

See, all the outrage gives me (some) hope.  Barr/Durham are over-target,  they said spring/summer, and the outrage machine is again working in overdrive.

Look at Maxine's crazy tweet (redundant, I know) - that is everything the Barr/Durham is investigating. It is the old, "the Democrats are doing what they are accusing the Trump Administration of doing" down to a T.

[4merper4mer]

4 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

See, all the outrage gives me (some) hope.  Barr/Durham are over-target,  they said spring/summer, and the outrage machine is again working in overdrive.

Look at Maxine's crazy tweet (redundant, I know) - that is everything the Barr/Durham is investigating. It is the old, "the Democrats are doing what they are accusing the Trump Administration of doing" down to a T.

Maybe Waters isn't clued into the obvious fact that Huber, Barr, Durham, Nunes, Horowitz and the parade of other blatherers aren't ever going to do anything but talk.

[Warren Zevon]

33 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

Maybe Waters isn't clued into the obvious fact that Huber, Barr, Durham, Nunes, Horowitz and the parade of other blatherers aren't ever going to do anything but talk.

 

Huber did something - he closed the Hillary case

[Nanker]

50 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

See, all the outrage gives me (some) hope.  Barr/Durham are over-target,  they said spring/summer, and the outrage machine is again working in overdrive.

Look at Maxine's crazy tweet (redundant, I know) - that is everything the Barr/Durham is investigating. It is the old, "the Democrats are doing what they are accusing the Trump Administration of doing" down to a T.

To understand what they fear, watch Seasons 6 and 7 of Homeland on Showtime. 

Edited February 19, 2020 by Nanker

[Tiberius]

If Trump loses, I wonder who the next Democratic Attorney General will be? 

 

Hillary? 

[B-Man]

Fake,fake,fake news

 

 

 

DOJ pushes back at reports Barr considered quitting over Trump tweets

by Morgan Phillips *

 

Original Article

 

.

[3rdnlng]

Hillary Clinton's law license was suspended in 2002 and she was fired from the House Judiciary Committee's legal team back in Watergate days. The reason for her firing? She fabricated a court ruling in order to meet her narrative. This makes her very qualified for any democrat position but even more so for the chief law enforcement officer for the country. -)

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[B-Man]

 

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, B-Man said:

 

 

Can confirm that sentiment from people at DOJ.