• 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!

AG William Barr says 'spying did occur' on Trump campaign, is reviewing whether it was lawful

Tanngrisnir said:
LOL! BRING IT!

You should try bringing some reading comprehenion skillz. I sad 'so many', not 'the particular poster trixare4kids'. Self-importance is so unbecoming.

RIF!
Click to expand...
Trump got over 60 million votes exactly what percentage do you think those "so many" white nationalist represent?
 
prometeus said:
In which law school did you learn that?
Click to expand...

Berkeley, Cornell, and Cincinati. Why, you yourself could also find it at Harvard, Yale, Stanford, UVA, and any other number of law schools that suit your fancy. Or alternatively, you could listen to any number of highly esteemed legal commentators who have attended or teach at such places.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
Electronic eavesdropping with a court order is "legal". Got it?
Click to expand...
If the reasons for the warrant applications were presented LEGALLY to the FISA judge. Its time to see if the FISA Judge was lied to by the FBI and the DOJ. Democrats LOVE investigations so much they should not mind the predicate for the electronic eavesdropping being investigated. If everything was on the up and up there is nothing to worry about it. While Barr is looking into things he could look into Stefan Halper's role and the other attempts to spy on Trump. He also should look into the massive increase in unmasking to see if that relates to unmasking campaign officials.
 
Fletch said:
Thanks for the history lesson Captain Obvious. Just so you know, no one is questioning the right of people to do these things, people are questioning whether it is right to do these things. You have the right to do any number of idiotic things. Everyone else has the right to call those things idiotic.
Click to expand...

Of course it is right to do those things!

There is absolutely no reason why they shouldn't.

What they are doing is not in the least bit idiotic.
 
LouC said:
Of course it is right to do those things!

There is absolutely no reason why they shouldn't.

What they are doing is not in the least bit idiotic.
Click to expand...

It is, actually, but im not the least bit surprised you support it.
 
humbolt said:
Berkeley, Cornell, and Cincinati. Why, you yourself could also find it at Harvard, Yale, Stanford, UVA, and any other number of law schools that suit your fancy. Or alternatively, you could listen to any number of highly esteemed legal commentators who have attended or teach at such places.
Click to expand...
Ah, you went to three of them. Ask for a refund.
 
Conservative said:
Ok, what if gotten illegally?
Click to expand...

In his case, I'm guessing it depends on who got it.

If, for example, the Cardinal of the FBI got it, why, it can't be illegal because he's the Cardinal. Just ask him.
 
SLC said:
That is the conclusion that Barr came to also.
Click to expand...

It is, and it reflects common thoughts of legal scholars and the fundamentals of logic, which is why the left has problems with it, as we can see.
 
humbolt said:
You guys still haven't figured out that without an underlying crime, obstruction isn't possible.
Click to expand...

You are still pretending you've read Mueller's work. You 4 sentence fragments. Why couldn't Barr find a complete sentence? TOTAL EXONERATION was never so tenuous...:lol:
 
humbolt said:
Uh huh. I've been reading your posts now and then for quite some time. Don't claim you're above it all and think That's going to fly.
Click to expand...

Great then you're aware I voted for the president and have since jumped ship. When I start running around making claims that DJT has been 100% cleared or that Barr is going to sink the people involved in the "witch hunt" get back to me. :cheers:
 
<alt>doxygen said:
You are still pretending you've read Mueller's work. You 4 sentence fragments. Why couldn't Barr find a complete sentence? TOTAL EXONERATION was never so tenuous...:lol:
Click to expand...

I don't have to pretend. If Mueller had made a referral for conspiracy to collude, he most certainly could have done the same for obstruction. Mueller did not make the former, and therefore could not make the latter. You can refuse to accept that if you wish. It won't change the outcome. This is not based on Barr's opinion. It's based on logic and precedent.

I encourage you folks to get Nadler to subpoena Mueller and Barr.
 
SkyFox76 said:
Great then you're aware I voted for the president and have since jumped ship. When I start running around making claims that DJT has been 100% cleared or that Barr is going to sink the people involved in the "witch hunt" get back to me. :cheers:
Click to expand...

In general I make it a practice not to get back to you. You're generally on all sides of every issue.
 
ObamacareFail said:
I think the democrats sit in smoke fill rooms and conference calls on a regular basis discussing which propaganda narrative to push next.
Click to expand...
I don't think you are correct. I think they smoke outside the door.
 
JustHanging said:
Wrong.

He was respected on both sides of the table.

At that last hearing he started a conspiracy theory, and when specifically asked if he had any evidence, admitted he had none. You really think anyone is going to respect an AG who is going around starting conspiracy theories without any evidence?

Maybe in the USA, you have a failed educational system. But in Canada we laugh at such fools. And at the USA lately, wft is the matter with your country?
Click to expand...

Barr worked 4 years in the CIA, and has a pretty good eye for that kind of action. We'll see soon enough, if the "evidence " used to secure the FISA warrant was legit. Never the less, I doubt Clinton or Obama will ever be touched by this. As for laughing at the U.S., continue to enjoy the freedom provided by the most powerful military in the world. Your welcome.:peace
 
humbolt said:
I didn't say I attended any law school, and if you go back and read your question, that's not what you asked, genius.
Click to expand...
I asked in which law school did you learn that without a crime there is no obstruction, genius. Now if you could just learn to read also we could make progress.
 
mrdeltoid said:
Barr worked 4 years in the CIA, and has a pretty good eye for that kind of action.
Click to expand...

Whoopy. When specifically asked, he said he had no evidence. Wouldn't you agree that no government official should start conspiracy theories without any evidence? Don't you think that should go double for the AG of the USA?

Like I said, that is something you expect from North Korea or Russia, not the USA.

We'll see soon enough, if the "evidence " used to secure the FISA warrant was legit.
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with anything. Barr was specifically asked if he had any evidence to support his conspiracy theory. He said "No". That means the AG of the USA is starting bat**** crazy conspiracy theories. Is that acceptable to you?

As for laughing at the U.S., continue to enjoy the freedom provided by the most powerful military in the world.
Click to expand...

I'm from Canada, everybody loves us, so we don't need your "protection". And to be honest, these days the greatest threat I see to our (Canada's) freedom is our Southern neighbour.

Your welcome.:peace
Click to expand...

For being a joke the world can laugh at? Why thank you, and I'm sure the orange clown will continue his good work in that regard.
 
prometeus said:
I asked in which law school did you learn that without a crime there is no obstruction, genius. Now if you could just learn to read also we could make progress.
Click to expand...

You seem to have some difficulty reading and comprehending your own words. That's not my problem there, big boy. Many law schools publish online. Why, I imagine even you could read at their sites. Given your attitude, I assume you've attended a highly prestigious law school yourself, graduated, passed the bar, were recruited
by an equally prestigious firm, and have risen to a principle in some such firm. I'm sure you can confirm that for me and present your credentials.
 
SkyFox76 said:
Yes that seems to be your statement loud and clear. Generally, when I see someone looking silly I steer clear of falling into that same hole. Clearly you're good with playing on an even field with those people you've been laughing at, so I hope it's as enjoyable for you as it was them.

From this end it's just entertainment. :happy:
Click to expand...

Yeah, wherever the wind blows ya....
:fly:
 
ObamacareFail said:
They actually started that habit during the GW Bush administration. It's very well coordinated. I recall one particular week where every DNC strategist or talking head worked in the term" gravita's or lack thereof. Talk radio played a montages of at least 15 of them working in the term in the same week. It's almost amusing.
Click to expand...

I was not into politics during the Bush admin. Admittedly, I was still an on the fence Republican. I still hold very liberal social views as far as individual rights go and think nanny government ought to leave us to self-governance. Thank you for telling me when all the :bs started.
It's been about the last 10 or more that I finally have gotten attuned to their games.
 
mrdeltoid said:
Barr worked 4 years in the CIA, and has a pretty good eye for that kind of action.
Click to expand...

Lol. Barr was an agency liaison to Congress.

He wouldn't know spycraft from origami.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom