• 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!

Barr assigns US attorney in Connecticut to look into government surveillance involving Trump campaig

Athanasius68 said:
It doesn't read that way at all. Every step along the way is either the campaign being excited about the release, or trying to find out about the release.
It's not even conspiracy with Wikileaks, never mind Russia.
Click to expand...

Wow..... It doesn't read that way? Really?

I copied directly from the Mueller report. Just because you want to keep your head in your ass doesn't mean the truth changes. Facts are facts no matter what you think. I suggest you go back and read the Mueller report for yourself because you are obviously just being told what to believe. I started quoting from page 52 of the report. If you don't believe me, read it yourself.

Here is another quote for you (page5):

The presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump ("Trump Campaign" or "Campaign") showed interest in WikiLeaks' s releases of documents and welcomed their potential to damage candidate Clinton.
Click to expand...

So instead of informing the FBI that someone had hacked the DNC, the Trump campaign decided to use that material for political gain. Think about it. A foreign country hacked into an American candidates emails and instead of giving that information to the FBI, Trump decided to keep it secret. Is that really how Americans should conduct themselves?


https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf
 
TheDeplorable said:
Respectfully, although I am on your side, I believe you to be mistaken on the point of "the non-redacted report has been delivered to congress". As per my previous post, I believe the copy offered to members of the judiciary committee was redacted by 3 items. Ongoing investigations, grand jury testimony and methods. The DOJ removed the methods I believe but I could be mistaken on that one. But no there is no fully unredacted copy for congress to see. Also the subpoena asks for much more than just the report as a side note.
Click to expand...
I am not 100% sure on the unredacted copy. It shows all that is legal to release. Even the publicly released copy is only about 6% redacted.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 
BlackJackal said:
Wow..... It doesn't read that way? Really?

I copied directly from the Mueller report. Just because you want to keep your head in your ass doesn't mean the truth changes. Facts are facts no matter what you think. I suggest you go back and read the Mueller report for yourself because you are obviously just being told what to believe. I started quoting from page 52 of the report. If you don't believe me, read it yourself.

Here is another quote for you (page5):



So instead of informing the FBI that someone had hacked the DNC, the Trump campaign decided to use that material for political gain. Think about it. A foreign country hacked into an American candidates emails and instead of giving that information to the FBI, Trump decided to keep it secret. Is that really how Americans should conduct themselves?


https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf
Click to expand...

How does Trump showing interest in Wikileaks releasing of the DNC files and its potential benefit to his campaign relate with a need to tell the FBI about their release?
IT WAS ALREADY RELEASED!
 
Athanasius68 said:
Not only was there not a meeting of the minds between Russia, there was not even a meeting. Mueller was not able to show conspiracy between Trump and Wikileaks; we are supposed to believe the deleted or redacted showed the proof of conspiracy between Trump and Russia?
Be serious.

As far as obstruction, maybe one (McGahan) is realistic, but even that can be chalked up to differing recollections.

As far as the Cohen conviction, that does pose a legal risk to Trump, but not that great.
Click to expand...

A great enough risk that requires jail time. So are you ok with a felon serving as president?

If he can't run a charity you think he is fit enough to run a country?

Also, to be clear, Trump doesn't have to be convicted of a crime to lose his job. Clinton was impeached because he lied about having sex with an intern. Trump tells worse lies on a daily basis.

The point is that America deserves someone better than Trump as president. He is morally flawed (If he has morals at all.) The president is supposed to be our leader, he is supposed to represent the best of us. Would you tell your kid to conduct themselves as Trump conducts himself?

"Son, I want you to act like Trump. Lie to me, get good at lying. It doesn't matter what you say, all that matters is the results you get."

Is that really the America you love?

Plus, on top of all of this, Trump is under investigation for 29 other issues. Even when Republicans tried their hardest to bring Hillary down they couldn't find that much to go on. Think about it, what other politico has ever been under this many criminal investigations?

Bottom line, Trump is not fit to be president. No one is saying Clinton should be there. Remove Trump and put Pence in place and everyone will be happy. Republicans still have the presidency and America regains its soul.
 
Athanasius68 said:
How does Trump showing interest in Wikileaks releasing of the DNC files and its potential benefit to his campaign relate with a need to tell the FBI about their release?
IT WAS ALREADY RELEASED!
Click to expand...

Dude, you said you read the report....... I am only providing quotes not the full report. But to be clear, the Trump campaign was told by Russia that Russia had Clinton's emails.

Specifically, Papadopoulos told the group that he had learned through his contacts in London that Putin wanted to meet with candidate Trump and that these connections could help arrange that meeting. Trump and Sessions both reacted to Papadopoulos's statement. Papadopoulos and Campaign advisor J.D. Gordon- who told investigators in an interview that he had a "crystal clear" recollection of the meeting-have stated that Trump was interested in and receptive to the idea of a meeting with Putin.
Click to expand...

Throughout April 2016, Papadopoulos continued to correspond with, meet with, and seek Russia contacts through Mifsud and, at times, Polonskaya
Click to expand...

Papadopoulos stated in reply that he thought "a good step" would be to introduce him to "the Russian Ambassador in London," and that he would like to talk to the ambassador, "or anyone else you recommend, about a potential foreign policy trip to Russia
Click to expand...

During that meeting, Mifsud told Papadopoulos that he had met with high-level Russian government officials during his recent trip to Moscow. Mifsud also said that, on the trip, he learned that the Russians had obtained "dirt" on candidate Hillary Clinton. As Papadopoulos later stated to the FBI, Mifsud said that the "dirt" was in the form of " emails of Clinton," and that they "have thousands of emails."464 On May 6, 2016, 10 days after that meeting with Mifsud, Papadopoulos suggested to a representative of a foreign government that the Trump Campaign had received indications from the Russian government that it could assist the Campaign through the anonymous release of information that would be damaging to Hillary Clinton.
Click to expand...


These quotes are from pages 86-88 of the report. Please read the rest of the text for a greater understanding.
 
jmotivator said:
Who said they are going to prison? Move goal posts much? :roll:

The point your are incapable of following is that when an investigation leads to that many adverse outcomes for the investigators it is time to question the investigation itself.
Click to expand...

The person you responded to was speaking about people going to prison. So why did you mention the name of people who aren't going to prison then? Moving the goal posts? Deflecting?
 
TamleeB said:
The less redacted report has been available to the 12 members of congress. Nadler can go read 99% of the report, yet he has made the decision to bother. I believe 5 Republicans have made the effort to view the copy made available to them.
Click to expand...

The less redacted version still redacts the most important parts. Congress needs the full report, minus the grand jury information, plus the underlying evidence so that they may correctly conduct their oversight responsibilities.

If I remember correctly, weren't the Republicans were completely ok with Congress's right to subpoena information from the executive when it came to Benghazi..... But now, no, Congress doesn't have that right. Give me a break.

House Republicans Issued More Than 70 Subpoenas and Letters Investigating Hillary Clinton Just Since the FBI’s Decision on Emails in July | House Committee on Oversight and Reform
 
vesper said:
All last week there were reports that Horowitz found the three renewals on the Carter Page FISA to have been illegally obtained and was still investigating the original in light of new evidence. Notes from a state dept. employee warning the FBI that Steele was not to be trusted 10 days before the first FISA was filed. If you are interested in searching yourself try FOX news, The Hill, Washington Examiner, National Review.

It is being reported this morning that Durham has been checking into all of this for weeks. We just learned about it yesterday.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen anything from Horowitz. Can you link to something that shows what he found, and him saying what he found? Because I looked everywhere and nothing is coming up. I looked at Fox News etc, and there is nothing from Horowitz to be found. Last I heard he had not released his report.
 
BlackJackal said:
The less redacted version still redacts the most important parts. Congress needs the full report, minus the grand jury information, plus the underlying evidence so that they may correctly conduct their oversight responsibilities.

If I remember correctly, weren't the Republicans were completely ok with Congress's right to subpoena information from the executive when it came to Benghazi..... But now, no, Congress doesn't have that right. Give me a break.

House Republicans Issued More Than 70 Subpoenas and Letters Investigating Hillary Clinton Just Since the FBI’s Decision on Emails in July | House Committee on Oversight and Reform
Click to expand...

Aww come on. 99% is available. Barr is following the law as written. Congress is free to change 6e. Yes, this latest attempt to smear Barr is totally political, as was the attempts made by the Rebuplicans in the past.
 
BlackJackal said:
Dude, you said you read the report....... I am only providing quotes not the full report. But to be clear, the Trump campaign was told by Russia that Russia had Clinton's emails.










These quotes are from pages 86-88 of the report. Please read the rest of the text for a greater understanding.
Click to expand...

Mifsud denied telling PapaD that Russia had the Clinton emails.
Mifsud was never charged with perjury.
 
So before I try to read all posts on here, has anyone yet said why the 2 ongoing investigations weren't good enough, and now we need to open a third?
 
BlackJackal said:
Sorry, you are wrong. The non-redacted report has NOT been delivered to Congress.

Barr offered a LESS-REDACTED report to just 12 members of Congress (6 Republicans, 6 Democrats). Only two of those have seen the less-redacted version. According to them, the newly unredacted items did not give any more insight into Muellers decisions.

Just 2 lawmakers have seen less-redacted Mueller report - POLITICO
Click to expand...
I stand corrected. However releasing anymore would be an illegal act.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 
ocean515 said:
I've read the report
Click to expand...
So when you say things that are not true and directly contradicted by the Mueller Report, then that means you are lying and not just ignorant?

Interesting...
Athanasius68 said:
1. It does. So what?

2. PapaD was indeed approached by someone claiming to have dirt on Clinton. And nothing was ever received. And he did seek to facilitate a meeting between Trump and Putin. Again, so what?

3. Manafort did, true.

4. I guess you mean that the Trump transition didn't want to sink relations with Russia prior to inauguration.
Click to expand...
"So Trump colluded with a hostile foreign government...what's the big deal?"
 
Helix said:
I understand that you support cover ups as long as they temporarily benefit the spray painted orange clown. However, he won’t always be able to hide behind the presidency.
Click to expand...
I support the rule of law and the US Constitution. If Trump desires not to release his tax returns, he has the right not to...just like you and I.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 
BlackJackal said:
I suppose you are a constitutional lawyer? Oh your not? Really? Well how in the world can you claim that the obstruction charges are "nonsense"? Especially considering how over 800 former prosecutors from both sides of the aisle say that if these charges were filed against anyone other than the president they would be charged?
Click to expand...

AG Barr has the power and made the call no obstruction....don’t like his decision.....whining about 800 former prosecutors which have no power Silly logic.

Pound the table when you can’t pound the law.
 
Slyfox696 said:
So when you say things that are not true and directly contradicted by the Mueller Report, then that means you are lying and not just ignorant?

Interesting...
"So Trump colluded with a hostile foreign government...what's the big deal?"
Click to expand...

If you want to hit Manafort, go right ahead.
If you want to complain that the Trump campaign looked to set up a meeting with Putin, fair enough. But bear in mind:
1. The Obama himself, during campaign of 2008 actually met with foreign heads of state and government.
2. In 2012, Obama thought Romney was nuts to think that Russia was a geo-strategic threat to the USA. One is free to think Obama was wrong back then, but the concept is hardly scandalous.
 
Athanasius68 said:
Because the problem is as Mueller describes it: Trump has legitimate defenses against the claims. And that would be based upon the facts that the claims are from his exercising his legitimate authority.
Click to expand...

Can you provide a link to Mueller saying this?
 
Grand Mal said:
Barr did the censoring. He's on record saying a sitting President can't be indicted- that's probably part of the reason he has that job. The censoring was done to cover things up. Like I said, you can quibble over the reasons for the cover-ups but you can't deny they have been.
'Less redacted' doesn't cut it. The fact is the people who have read the complete report are keeping the contents secret. And they know how it looks but they still won't allow the uncensored version to be seen.
Click to expand...

You prove my point. Grand Jury material, as well as methods and sources, may be viewed by the intel committee, but by law, can't be released to the public. Following the law is not a "cover up". and to do so is disingenuous. Barr was considered a man of integrity, until he didn't toe the democrat line. Now he a "lackey", according to the left. The IG is wrapping up his investigation, and was working with John Durham for the past 3-4 weeks. His specialty is exposing dirty cops, especially dirty FBI agents. His record is stellar. I wonder how long it will take the liberal media to turn on him.

Here's the reason the the foot soldiers in the "Comey cabal " are getting nervous...; "In December 2000, Durham revealed secret FBI documents that convinced a judge to vacate the 1968 murder convictions of Enrico Tameleo, Joseph Salvati, Peter Limone and Louis Greco because they had been framed by the agency. In 2007, the documents helped Salvati, Limone, and the families of the two other men, who had died in prison, win a $101.7 million civil judgment against the government."
 
tres borrachos said:
So before I try to read all posts on here, has anyone yet said why the 2 ongoing investigations weren't good enough, and now we need to open a third?
Click to expand...

Because Hillary, Obama, and Deep State. Duh.
 
Persons of interest for Durham.

small-group-11.jpg
 
Athanasius68 said:
Not only was there not a meeting of the minds between Russia, there was not even a meeting. Mueller was not able to show conspiracy between Trump and Wikileaks; we are supposed to believe the deleted or redacted showed the proof of conspiracy between Trump and Russia?
Be serious.

As far as obstruction, maybe one (McGahan) is realistic, but even that can be chalked up to differing recollections.

As far as the Cohen conviction, that does pose a legal risk to Trump, but not that great.
Click to expand...
They former director of the FEC said the Stormy Daniels NDA wasn’t a in kind campaign contribution because Trump would have made the same payment if he wasn’t running for President to his the affair from his family and to protect the Trump brand name. The guy is a law professor and teaches FEC law.
 
mrdeltoid said:
Barr was considered a man of integrity, until he didn't toe the democrat line. Now he a "lackey", according to the left.
Click to expand...

Just to that point:
Mike Jones, Worked in technology for over 30 years.
Answered May 8
What reputation does Barr have to risk, exactly?

He’s best known for helping another Republican administration cover up the Iran-Contra scandal. He advised President Bush to pardon Caspar Weinberger and several other people.
He refused to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the run-up to the Iraq war, which was started under false pretenses. That was enough that conservative columnist William Safire began calling him “Coverup-General Barr.”
In 2017, he said he thought there was nothing wrong with Trump calling for an investigation into Hillary Clinton and promoted the Uranium One conspiracy as a reason why.
He wrote an unsolicited 20-page memo and sent it to Trump’s legal team arguing the position that Mueller should not be investigating Trump for obstruction because his actions were within the powers of the executive. This has been widely viewed as essentially an audition for the Attorney General position.
Barr has no significant reputation other than as a partisan hack always ready to defend Republican politicians. I don’t know why he does this — what’s in it for him — but it’s what he is. It’s what he’s been for a long time.
Click to expand...

What’s in it for AG William Barr? What incentive is so valuable that he’s willing to risk his reputation, credibility and a possible Constitutional crisis to cover for the president. It can’t be money. What is he getting in return for risking it all? - Quora

Sure seems like a partisan hack to me, and I remember most of that stuff - it's not "fake news".
 
SLC said:
They former director of the FEC said the Stormy Daniels NDA wasn’t a in kind campaign contribution because Trump would have made the same payment if he wasn’t running for President to his the affair from his family and to protect the Trump brand name. The guy is a law professor and teaches FEC law.
Click to expand...

It's still legal jeopardy for the president. The objective is to not to wind up in some prosecutors crosshairs.
 
Trump said:
AG Barr has the power and made the call no obstruction....don’t like his decision.....whining about 800 former prosecutors which have no power Silly logic.

Pound the table when you can’t pound the law.
Click to expand...

Just because Barr is the AG, that doesn't make his word the gospel. Barr is a man, men can be corrupt. Based off of his op-ed written before he was named AG, it is apparent that Barr has opinions outside the norm. Also, he showed via this op-ed that he was biased and should have recused himself from the Mueller probe altogether. Why? Because that is how our legal system is designed to work. Our legal system is based on impartiality. Barr made it clear that he was anything but impartial. Him not recusing himself will in all probability lead to legal issues for him in the future.

So on one side of the equation we have one man, William Barr, who is clearly working to protect Trump and his interests. Hell, he intentionally misled the American people via his summary. On the other we have, now over 1000, former federal prosecutors saying the Trump should be prosecuted. And yet, you still choose to believe that one man. What does that say about you? What does that say about your ability to make logical decisions? Please, by all means explain to me and everyone here how on earth you think the opinions of one clearly partisan individual outweigh that of over 1000 other lawyers? How do you make that logical leap?

Silly logic indeed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom