• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Senate confirms Trump nominee William Barr as attorney general

Cardinal said:
See post 5.

FWIW, I expect every single Republican who had a problem with the tarmac meeting to burn thousands of calories avoiding why they found it problematic, because if they honestly answered that question here then they'd be forced to confront why Whitaker and Barr are a problem for the public's trust in their supervision of the SC investigation.
Click to expand...

The Mueller investigation is pretty much over.

he found nothing because there was nothing to find.

This was the WMD of political corruption.
 
Harshaw said:
State the "conflict of interest" with Barr. And make it one which parallels the Clinton/Lynch meeting. 'Coz you need to do both in order to make the point Cardinal refuses to back up.

If you want to carry Cardinal's water, that's what you'll need to do.
Click to expand...

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink.
 
Verax said:
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink.
Click to expand...

So . . . you have as little answer as Cardinal does. OK.

If you're going to carry water for a friend, make sure the bucket doesn't have a gaping hole in it before you pick it up.
 
code1211 said:
Is it your assertion, then, that the Attorney General is to make law instead of enforcing the laws that are passed by our law makers?
Click to expand...

I did not say that, what I said was expect that behavior championed from the Reagan/Bush 41 era that saw massive upticks in how we deal with incarceration mashed with today's Republican ideology of handling immigrants at the border (or anywhere else for that matter.)
 
Cardinal said:
The rapid fire succession of both the Whitaker and Barr appointments breaks trust in the outcome of the Mueller investigation. The public's trust in either outcome is key, and now with two Trump toadies in a row appointed to supervise the Special Counsel investigation, literally the only way we'll know that supervision was fair and honest is if Mueller concludes impeachable crimes on the part of the President. Anything less and it will be assumed that Whitaker and/or Barr interfered with the investigation.

The only remaining trust is in the outcomes of the SDNY and House Committee investigations.
Click to expand...
:lamo:lamo:lamo So Mueller lies if no impeachable crime is found and we are supposed to believe him if he finds impeachable crimes. :lamo:lamo Thanks you just started my day off by laughing out loud.
 
Cardinal said:
See post 5.

FWIW, I expect every single Republican who had a problem with the tarmac meeting to burn thousands of calories avoiding why they found it problematic, because if they honestly answered that question here then they'd be forced to confront why Whitaker and Barr are a problem for the public's trust in their supervision of the SC investigation.
Click to expand...

Verax said:
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink.
Click to expand...

Since I'm obviously not going to get an answer out of either one of you as to how exactly there's any parallel here, I'll simply note that and move on to the obvious next question:

If Barr's appointment does indeed present a conflict of interest comparable to the meeting on the tarmac . . .

You must be suddenly now arguing that the meeting did present a conflict of interest. If you are not arguing that, and the situations are parallel, as you say they are, then there's no conflict of interest with Barr.

So, don't tell me what "Republicans" said -- what do you say? Was the tarmac meeting a conflict of interest or not?

If you say it was, then a dive into your posts from June/July of 2016 will most certainly be in order. How will that come out for you?
 
SLC said:
:lamo:lamo:lamo So Mueller lies if no impeachable crime is found and we are supposed to believe him if he finds impeachable crimes. :lamo:lamo Thanks you just started my day off by laughing out loud.
Click to expand...

That has been his obvious take from the beginning.
 
OrphanSlug said:
I did not say that, what I said was expect that behavior championed from the Reagan/Bush 41 era that saw massive upticks in how we deal with incarceration mashed with today's Republican ideology of handling immigrants at the border (or anywhere else for that matter.)
Click to expand...

The problem is that there are laws that indicate the illegal entry into the USA is illegal.

This hardly seems like it need be stated.
 
Cardinal said:
The rapid fire succession of both the Whitaker and Barr appointments breaks trust in the outcome of the Mueller investigation. The public's trust in either outcome is key, and now with two Trump toadies in a row appointed to supervise the Special Counsel investigation, literally the only way we'll know that supervision was fair and honest is if Mueller concludes impeachable crimes on the part of the President. Anything less and it will be assumed that Whitaker and/or Barr interfered with the investigation.

The only remaining trust is in the outcomes of the SDNY and House Committee investigations.
Click to expand...

Only if you're a liberal. Conservatives have lost trust in Mueller long ago. The recent revelations of a coup attempt by the same people that engineered the Mueller investigation only reinforced that impression.
 
code1211 said:
The problem is that there are laws that indicate the illegal entry into the USA is illegal.

This hardly seems like it need be stated.
Click to expand...

You are missing the point, but ramble on about legal and so forth all you would like.

Unless you have read what I was talking about your attempt to misrepresent what I am getting at will end up ignored.
 
code1211 said:
It was problematic because she met with the husband of a person being investigated that was subsequently cited for a number of crimes AND exonerated.
Click to expand...

So under those circumstances, were you obligated to accept that exoneration?
 
Cardinal said:
So under those circumstances, were you obligated to accept that exoneration?
Click to expand...

Was I obliged?

My acceptance or rejection of the exoneration has no impact on whether or not the exoneration stands or falls.

Who do you think it is that posting under my little Code1211 handle? I'll give you a hint: He has no power or authority.

That said, though, when a corrupt and lying political hack like Comey cites a litany of crimes committed by Clinton and exonerates her and cannot cite a single crime committed by Trump and launches an investigation, anybody except you would see the problem.
 
Hopefully William Barr will take a good look at problems within the DOJ and FBI. It is clear the upper levels of both agencies were working to intervene in the election in 2016. Democratic law professor Alan Dershowitz says it was a coup and should be looked at for prosecution. Only way to clean up our swamp is go after the problems in control.
 
Cardinal said:
The rapid fire succession of both the Whitaker and Barr appointments breaks trust in the outcome of the Mueller investigation. The public's trust in either outcome is key, and now with two Trump toadies in a row appointed to supervise the Special Counsel investigation, literally the only way we'll know that supervision was fair and honest is if Mueller concludes impeachable crimes on the part of the President. Anything less and it will be assumed that Whitaker and/or Barr interfered with the investigation.

The only remaining trust is in the outcomes of the SDNY and House Committee investigations.
Click to expand...

So, if she's a witch, she'll float and we'll burn her. If she's not a witch, she'll sink and drown. Liberal logic,
 
code1211 said:
Was I obliged?

My acceptance or rejection of the exoneration has no impact on whether or not the exoneration stands or falls.

Who do you think it is that posting under my little Code1211 handle? I'll give you a hint: He has no power or authority.

That said, though, when a corrupt and lying political hack like Comey cites a litany of crimes committed by Clinton and exonerates her and cannot cite a single crime committed by Trump and launches an investigation, anybody except you would see the problem.
Click to expand...

You were this close to accepting what would have been a perfectly reasonable point in your favor, but like kalstang you choked at the last moment and retreated unnecessarily. Your new post just undid any previous effort to make the point that the tarmac meeting was problematic in any way.

Because I'm a generous guy, I'll allow you to reset the clock and remake the point that the tarmac meeting was, in fact, problematic.

If, however, you insist that Clinton's exoneration made no difference to you nor was it required to, then you'll necessarily be arguing that the tarmac meeting was a neutral matter and therefore not problematic. Are you sure this is the position you want to adopt?
 
Cardinal said:
You were this close to accepting what would have been a perfectly reasonable point in your favor, but like kalstang you choked at the last moment and retreated unnecessarily. Your new post just undid any previous effort to make the point that the tarmac meeting was problematic in any way.

Because I'm a generous guy, I'll allow you to reset the clock and remake the point that the tarmac meeting was, in fact, problematic.

If, however, you insist that Clinton's exoneration made no difference to you nor was it required to, then you'll necessarily be arguing that the tarmac meeting was a neutral matter and therefore not problematic. Are you sure this is the position you want to adopt?
Click to expand...

You, once again, have wandered off the sane train and entered the looney yard.

Maybe when we make our next stop, you can jump on board again.
 
Cardinal said:
Before anybody asks me to "prove" that either Whitaker or Barr interfered or intends to interfere with the SC investigation, first provide an honest explanation for why the tarmac meeting between Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton was problematic. When you've thoroughly and honestly answered that question, you'll be well on your way to understanding my point.
Click to expand...

Well the first clue is the meeting was done in secret and they did not want photos. Then the FBI swore under oath they didn't have records of the meeting then OOPS they admit they had over 30 pages of records.

FBI's August 10 2017 Letter Tarmac - Judicial Watch

The other thing was that the secret Tarmac meeting immediately preceded the FBI decision not to prosecute Hillary.

What Lynch and Clinton did was unethical and she and he knew it they just didn't think they would be seen meeting on a tarmac in Phoenix.

Nothing concerning Whitaker or Barr has been done in secret. Mueller has not complained or suggested he has been interfered with. The Mueller investigation continues. Nothing that Whitaker or Barr has done has been unethical.
 
Last edited:
SLC said:
Well the first clue is the meeting was done in secret and they did not want photos. Then the FBI swore under oath they didn't have records of the meeting then OOPS they admit they had over 30 pages of records.

FBI's August 10 2017 Letter Tarmac - Judicial Watch

The other thing was the secret Tarmac meeting immediately preceded the FBI decision not to prosecute Hillary.

What Lynch did was unethical

Nothing concerning Whitaker or Barr has been done in secret. Mueller has not complained or suggested he has been interfered with. The Mueller investigation continues. Nothing that Whitaker or Barr has done has been unethical.
Click to expand...

Like Kalstang you're unnecessarily adding "extra" facts (i.e. made up claims) where none are necessary. Your position would have been sufficiently strong without embellishing the events.
 
Cardinal said:
So under those circumstances, were you obligated to accept that exoneration?
Click to expand...

You still haven't presented anything to either show that Barr has a conflict of interest, and even if he does, that it parallels the tarmac meeting.

We'll leave that aside, and we'll also leave aside the obvious point that you're necessarily, and suddenly, arguing that the tarmac meeting WAS a conflict of interest . . .

We'll point out a THIRD problem with your line of argument argument here.

You have been arguing for a long time about Mueller's sterling, irreproachable integrity.

Do you think such a man would 1) allow such interference in his investigation, and 2) actually go through with delivering a faulty report because of it?

An answer of "yes" to either one is bad enough, but for your premise to hold, you'd have to answer yes to BOTH, and that would mean all of your declarations of Mueller's integrity were, in fact, political bull****, because you don't think he has that integrity at all.

So for you, Mueller has integrity if he does what you want -- deliver impeachment -- and if he doesn't do what you want, it's proof-positive he doesn't have that integrity.

Which puts you in the exact same category as the Trumpkins you railed against while insisting upon Mueller's integrity. (Never mind that it puts EVERYTHING Mueller has done into doubt, all those indictments and convictions that you salivate over.)

Do you feel this thread has gone well for you?
 
Harshaw said:
So . . . you have as little answer as Cardinal does. OK.

If you're going to carry water for a friend, make sure the bucket doesn't have a gaping hole in it before you pick it up.
Click to expand...

You really can't connect the dots?
 
Verax said:
You really can't connect the dots?
Click to expand...

This is just you continuing to admit you can't actually answer the question. It's not up to me to make your argument for you.
 
Harshaw said:
Since I'm obviously not going to get an answer out of either one of you as to how exactly there's any parallel here, I'll simply note that and move on to the obvious next question:

If Barr's appointment does indeed present a conflict of interest comparable to the meeting on the tarmac . . .

You must be suddenly now arguing that the meeting did present a conflict of interest. If you are not arguing that, and the situations are parallel, as you say they are, then there's no conflict of interest with Barr.

So, don't tell me what "Republicans" said -- what do you say? Was the tarmac meeting a conflict of interest or not?

If you say it was, then a dive into your posts from June/July of 2016 will most certainly be in order. How will that come out for you?
Click to expand...
Great point very well said. Which is it Cardinal?
 
Cardinal said:
Like Kalstang you're unnecessarily adding "extra" facts (i.e. made up claims) where none are necessary. Your position would have been sufficiently strong without embellishing the events.
Click to expand...
Oh really? What "extra" facts are those in your opinion.
 
Harshaw said:
This is just you continuing to admit you can't actually answer the question. It's not up to me to make your argument for you.
Click to expand...

Let's just pretend the tables were turned and Hillary appointed a Democratic operative with a history of protecting a Democratic presidential administration to oversee an investigation into her. Now let's pretend this Democratic operative has staunchly defended her in the years leading up to this claiming that she has done nothing wrong and that the investigation is erroneous.

So now is the million dollar question. Do you think with a president choosing who oversees an investigation into themselves and picks a partisan operative who has a history of protecting criminals in presidential administrations there is a conflict of interest?

Remember, pretend this is Democrats and Hillary doing all of this so that you're able to bypass the partisan filter.
 
SLC said:
Oh really? What "extra" facts are those in your opinion.
Click to expand...

Separate the things you know from the things you assume, and you'll have your answer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom