• 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!

After Trump’s Attacks on Justice Dept., Barr Says He Will Not ‘Be Bullied’

Erod said:
LOL, the constant freak-outs from you guys must be exhausting. Do you ever sleep or get anything productive done?
Click to expand...

It does appear the constant spin and whataboutisms have wore the rabid right down to the point some can barely type a two sentence taunt.... :roll:

If the rabid right did try more than two sentences per new tRump and his cabal's abuses they would never leave the website.

Barr is this generation's Bork. The Don probably does believe he can shoot someone in broad daylight and no one touch him...

I thought the Nixon Watergate mess was our low point... well now tRump can boast he has beat out every other president at something... :peace
 
TomFitz said:
Again, not to suggest that I support Barr at all, but just imagine what we might get of Barr quits. Roy Moore? Jay Sekulow? Rudy Guliani? (Yes, we all know Trump is that stupid).

Most likely, the post will sit unrolled, and Trump will go through several “actings” before November.
Click to expand...

In other words, nothing will change because Trump is the actual problem. Agreed.
 
jpn said:
Hmm. What to make of this?

I say it's B.S. Let's review the record:

January 30, 2020, Tim Shay, long-time advisor to Barr, was named interim USA for Wash. D.C. which oversees the:

--Mike Flynn case. Recently changed its recommendation from jail time to probation. Very, very unusual.
--Stone case. Changed recommendation to less time. Very, very unusual.
--James Comey leak case. Based on very thin predicate.
--Andrew McCabe case. Grand jury declined to indict, but DOJ hasn't moved to clear him. Very, very unusual.
--Eric Prince case referred by Intel Committee for lying to Congress. No movement.

And now Barr claims to be innocent as a rose and upset at Trump's "meddling?" Color me skeptical. If anything, Barr feels that Trump is being too blatant about it, and desires the corruption of the Justice Department to continue a little less visibly.
Click to expand...

But a completely contrived investigation into the Trump campaign and illegally obtained FISA warrants to support it are just fine. LOL! Democrats are so funny.
 
Integrityrespec said:
But a completely contrived investigation into the Trump campaign and illegally obtained FISA warrants to support it are just fine. LOL! Democrats are so funny.
Click to expand...

All lies. You have nothing to back up your lies. Because they're lies.

Why do you lie and defend liars?
 
Jay Falcon said:
All lies. You have nothing to back up your lies. Because they're lies.

Why do you lie and defend liars?
Click to expand...

What are you talking about?
Trump didn't conspire with Russia.
Exculpatory evidence was ignored.
FISA warrants were fraudulently obtained.
Its no longer subject to debate.
The issue is whether the travesty happened due to incompetence or corruption or other factors.
 
Athanasius68 said:
The reason why Barr was in the position of overruling the recommendations of the prosecutors is because the DOJ was the direct supervisor of the trial. One might recall that this trial was based upon charges filed by Mr. Mueller, the special counsel, and thus was outside the normal chain of command of the DOJ.
These kinds of discussions and determinations happen all the time between a DA and the prosecutors who are directly involved in a trial.
Barr was annoyed because Trump's tweets made it harder for him to make that decision that it is his direct job to do.
Click to expand...

The DOJ is no more or less the "direct supervisor" of this trial than any other conducted at the US Attorney Washington DC office or any other office in the country.

That's why the four prosecutors withdrew from the case--in protest of this outrageous intervention in favor of one of the president's goon.

Under Barr, the Justice Department is becoming a tool of presidential vendettas, protecting people who commit crimes on Trump’s behalf while launching investigations into his enemies.
Click to expand...
 
Integrityrespec said:
But a completely contrived investigation into the Trump campaign and illegally obtained FISA warrants to support it are just fine.
Click to expand...

In conservative world if you repeat a lie continually, it become true. To conservatives.

Everyone else just goes on with their lives in the real world.
 
Athanasius68 said:
The reason why Barr was in the position of overruling the recommendations of the prosecutors is because the DOJ was the direct supervisor of the trial. One might recall that this trial was based upon charges filed by Mr. Mueller, the special counsel, and thus was outside the normal chain of command of the DOJ.

These kinds of discussions and determinations happen all the time between a DA and the prosecutors who are directly involved in a trial.
Barr was annoyed because Trump's tweets made it harder for him to make that decision that it is his direct job to do.
Click to expand...

Yes, ultimately ALL those decisions are Barr's to make. He's the boss and the buck stops with him. But don't pretend this is business as usual. We know all the career prosecutors resigned in protest of the meddling.

1) Trump tweets about it
2) Trump attacks the judge and the foreperson on the jury
3) Barr kisses Trump's ass and reduces the recommended sentence
4) Trump congratulates Barr for doing his bidding.
5) The entire team of prosecutors leaves the case in protest.

Now we're supposed to believe this is how the DoJ is supposed to work? :2rofll:

What I couldn't believe is the interviewer treated Barr's comments as somehow a rebuke of Trump, and the NYT repeats that line to lead off their story on it. They cannot be that dumb. At best/worst, Barr's complaints are more along the line of "Damnit Trump! DON'T SAY THE QUIET PARTS OUT LOUD!!! Makes me acting as your consigliere, errand boy, so much more publicly difficult when you admit what we're doing to the world!"
 
jpn said:
Athanasius68 said:
The DOJ is no more or less the "direct supervisor" of this trial than any other conducted at the US Attorney Washington DC office or any other office in the country.

That's why the four prosecutors withdrew from the case--in protest of this outrageous intervention in favor of one of the president's goon.

Under Barr, the Justice Department is becoming a tool of presidential vendettas, protecting people who commit crimes on Trump’s behalf while launching investigations into his enemies.
Click to expand...

No. It was run out of the DC district, but it was run by the old Mueller crew. Thats why we had attorneys from other districts (Baltimore, I believe one is from) who were participating.
It was not done through the normal chain of command.
And that's because it was a prosecution originating under the special counsel, an investigation outside the scope the DC DA.
Which is why Barr had direct responsibility, not the DC DA, to supervise and review the work of those prosecutors.
Click to expand...
 
JasperL said:
Yes, ultimately ALL those decisions are Barr's to make. He's the boss and the buck stops with him. But don't pretend this is business as usual. We know all the career prosecutors resigned in protest of the meddling.
Click to expand...

The prosecutors were not working under the juristiction of the DC DA. They were part of the Mueller investigation which occurred OUTSIDE of the normal chain of command.
As such, the prosecution was also outside the normal chain of command.
Which places Barr in a position of having to supervise the prosecution.
Prosecutors aren't free agents; they have supervisors who may tell them what to to do and what not to do.
It's standard management.

1) Trump tweets about it
2) Trump attacks the judge and the foreperson on the jury
3) Barr kisses Trump's ass and reduces the recommended sentence
4) Trump congratulates Barr for doing his bidding.
5) The entire team of prosecutors leaves the case in protest.
Click to expand...

Yes-- Trump shouldn't have said anything. As Barr stated, it makes it impossible to do his job in this instance ie review the sentencing recommendation from his direct reports.
They don't have the final say on the subject.

Now we're supposed to believe this is how the DoJ is supposed to work? :2rofll:
Click to expand...

Had Trump said nothing, Barr would still have had to review the recommendation as, again, the prosecution occurred outside the normal chains of command within the DOJ.

What I couldn't believe is the interviewer treated Barr's comments as somehow a rebuke of Trump, and the NYT repeats that line to lead off their story on it. They cannot be that dumb. At best/worst, Barr's complaints are more along the line of "Damnit Trump! DON'T SAY THE QUIET PARTS OUT LOUD!!! Makes me acting as your consigliere, errand boy, so much more publicly difficult when you admit what we're doing to the world!"
Click to expand...

Your guys paranoia has already led to a few years of investigations into nonsense (Trump conspiring with Russia) and absurdities (impeaching over what Trump was thinking). Now you trying to argue that career prosecutors, and not the politically accountable supervisors, have the final say. Its more absurdity.
Click to expand...
 
Athanasius68 said:
Had Trump said nothing, Barr would still have had to review the recommendation as, again, the prosecution occurred outside the normal chains of command within the DOJ.
Click to expand...

False. The prosecution occurred within the normal chain of command in the US Attorney of Washington DC office.

The recommended sentence fell within the guidelines. No review was called for. The only time there has to be a review is when the recommended sentence falls outside the federal sentencing guidelines.

Barr and his DOJ flipped the procedure on its head.

If you were right, Athanasius, then four attorneys withdrew and one resigned because they didn't understand basic procedure. They understood the basic procedure. They withdrew in protest because it hadn't been followed.
 
Athanasius68 said:
Your guys paranoia has already led to a few years of investigations into nonsense (Trump conspiring with Russia) and absurdities (impeaching over what Trump was thinking).
Click to expand...

US intelligence agencies concluded with high confidence that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to attack Hillary Clinton's campaign, helping Trump.

Trump's first National Security Adviser was convicted of lying to the FBI about contacts with the Russian government.

Trump's henchman, Roger Stone and others coordinated leaks of emails through Wikileaks that were obtained by Russia.

Trump's son accepted a meeting with representatives of the Russian government to get dirt on Clinton.

Due to obstruction and a refusal to cooperate with the special prosecutor, Mueller was unable to find sufficient proof that Trump himself conspired with Russia. But the investigate was a long, long way from "nonsense."
 
Athanasius68 said:
jpn said:
No. It was run out of the DC district, but it was run by the old Mueller crew. Thats why we had attorneys from other districts (Baltimore, I believe one is from) who were participating.
It was not done through the normal chain of command.
And that's because it was a prosecution originating under the special counsel, an investigation outside the scope the DC DA.
Which is why Barr had direct responsibility, not the DC DA, to supervise and review the work of those prosecutors.
Click to expand...

Can you provide a single shred of evidence that this was the case? A single link?

After all, if Barr had direct responsibility, as you so dubiously claim, why did the sentencing have to be changed?

Why did the attorneys withdraw?
Click to expand...
 
jpn said:
Hmm. What to make of this?

I say it's B.S. Let's review the record:

January 30, 2020, Tim Shay, long-time advisor to Barr, was named interim USA for Wash. D.C. which oversees the:

--Mike Flynn case. Recently changed its recommendation from jail time to probation. Very, very unusual.
--Stone case. Changed recommendation to less time. Very, very unusual.
--James Comey leak case. Based on very thin predicate.
--Andrew McCabe case. Grand jury declined to indict, but DOJ hasn't moved to clear him. Very, very unusual.
--Eric Prince case referred by Intel Committee for lying to Congress. No movement.

And now Barr claims to be innocent as a rose and upset at Trump's "meddling?" Color me skeptical. If anything, Barr feels that Trump is being too blatant about it, and desires the corruption of the Justice Department to continue a little less visibly.
Click to expand...



Yup....
 
jpn said:
False. The prosecution occurred within the normal chain of command in the US Attorney of Washington DC office.

The recommended sentence fell within the guidelines. No review was called for. The only time there has to be a review is when the recommended sentence falls outside the federal sentencing guidelines.

Barr and his DOJ flipped the procedure on its head.

If you were right, Athanasius, then four attorneys withdrew and one resigned because they didn't understand basic procedure. They understood the basic procedure. They withdrew in protest because it hadn't been followed.
Click to expand...

False. It was outside the DC DA scope.
A review is of course called for.
Its called management, the person whose job it is to ensure that that the person under him or her is doing the job properly.
 
Athanasius68 said:
The prosecutors were not working under the juristiction of the DC DA. They were part of the Mueller investigation which occurred OUTSIDE of the normal chain of command.
Click to expand...

I'll just stop you there. The U.S.A. for D.C signed the sentencing memo. If you cannot get that right, there's no point addressing the rest of your comment. The memo is here. Check the last page. I'll quote it:

Respectfully submitted,

TIMOTHY SHEA
U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia
Click to expand...
Federal Prosecutors Recommend Sentencing Roger Stone to Seven to Nine Years - Lawfare
 
Athanasius68 said:
False. It was outside the DC DA scope.
A review is of course called for.
Its called management, the person whose job it is to ensure that that the person under him or her is doing the job properly.
Click to expand...

LOL. FALSE!! :lamo
 
jpn said:
False. The prosecution occurred within the normal chain of command in the US Attorney of Washington DC office.

The recommended sentence fell within the guidelines. No review was called for. The only time there has to be a review is when the recommended sentence falls outside the federal sentencing guidelines.

Barr and his DOJ flipped the procedure on its head.

If you were right, Athanasius, then four attorneys withdrew and one resigned because they didn't understand basic procedure. They understood the basic procedure. They withdrew in protest because it hadn't been followed.
Click to expand...

That's exactly right. All anyone needs to do is find the original sentencing memo and see who signed it - the USA for D.C. It's incredible people can make up things so easily disproved with 2 minutes of 'research.'
 
jpn said:
Hmm. What to make of this?

I say it's B.S. Let's review the record:

January 30, 2020, Tim Shay, long-time advisor to Barr, was named interim USA for Wash. D.C. which oversees the:

--Mike Flynn case. Recently changed its recommendation from jail time to probation. Very, very unusual.
--Stone case. Changed recommendation to less time. Very, very unusual.
--James Comey leak case. Based on very thin predicate.
--Andrew McCabe case. Grand jury declined to indict, but DOJ hasn't moved to clear him. Very, very unusual.
--Eric Prince case referred by Intel Committee for lying to Congress. No movement.

And now Barr claims to be innocent as a rose and upset at Trump's "meddling?" Color me skeptical. If anything, Barr feels that Trump is being too blatant about it, and desires the corruption of the Justice Department to continue a little less visibly.
Click to expand...

Let's put it this way. It's hard to hide the fact you are being a stooge when your boss is telling twitter you are being a stooge.
 
jpn said:
US intelligence agencies concluded with high confidence that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to attack Hillary Clinton's campaign
Click to expand...

Yes. And...?

helping Trump.
Click to expand...

The anonymous Russian sourced anti-Trump Steele dossier was designed to help Trump?
I don't think so.

Remember-- the problem wasn't people thought that Russia was trying to screw with the election.
The problem was that it was thought that Mr. Trump with conspiring with Russia in that effort.

Trump's first National Security Adviser was convicted of lying to the FBI about contacts with the Russian government.
Click to expand...

This is true. And...?

T
rump's henchman, Roger Stone and others coordinated leaks of emails through Wikileaks that were obtained by Russia.
Click to expand...

That was an allegation against Stone-- that he was trying to coordinate with wikileaks with regards to the anti-Clinton stuff they had.
Its a far cry from Trump conspiring with Russia to fix the election, though.

Trump's son accepted a meeting with representatives of the Russian government to get dirt on Clinton.
Click to expand...

And no information was received.
Meanwhile, anti-Trump information from anonymous Russian sources was received by the the Obama Admin (via the Clinton campaign) and it was used in FISA warrants as well as on Congress against Mr Trump.

Due to obstruction and a refusal to cooperate with the special prosecutor, Mueller was unable to find sufficient proof that Trump himself conspired with Russia. But the investigate was a long, long way from "nonsense."
Click to expand...

Mr. Mueller testified that he had cooperation from the White House. He received information as requested and his investigation was not in anyway impeded. Mr Mueller said that he wished he could have interviewed Mr. Trump directly, but chose not spend the time necessary to compel such testimony.
Click to expand...
 
Athanasius68 said:
False. It was outside the DC DA scope.
A review is of course called for.
Its called management, the person whose job it is to ensure that that the person under him or her is doing the job properly.
Click to expand...

You keep repeating this as though it's true.
Prove it.
Provide a single shred of evidence.

I'm skeptical because:
If that was the case, why was the original sentencing recommendation made in the first place?
It's surprisingly coincidental that the recommendation was changed one day after Trump's tweet storm.
There's a pattern of Barr's DOJ interfering with justice. Flynn, e.g.
Barr made an unprecedented personnel change to get his hand-picked lackey as his chief of staff.
Four prosecutors quit in protest. Doesn't sound routine to me.

Evidence please.
 
Athanasius68 said:
And no information was received.
Click to expand...
So you agree that a member of the Trump election campaign conspired with a foreign government to interfere with the 2016 election.

Progress! And here just a few posts ago you were calling the investigation "nonsense." I'm sure you won't do that again, right? Because after all, you always discuss these issues so honestly and fairly. :roll:

Athanasius68 said:
Mr. Mueller testified that he had cooperation from the White House. He received information as requested and his investigation was not in anyway impeded. Mr Mueller said that he wished he could have interviewed Mr. Trump directly, but chose not spend the time necessary to compel such testimony.
Click to expand...

The entire second section of the Mueller Report details how Trump obstructed justice over and over and over and over. Mueller said that he couldn't issue indictments to a sitting president and left it to Congress.
 
Last edited:
[
QUOTE=jpn;1071351186]So you agree that a member of the Trump election campaign conspired with a foreign government to interfere with the 2016 election.
Click to expand...

Its quite clear Russia played the Trump campaign.

Progress! And here just a few posts ago you were calling the investigation "nonsense." I'm sure you won't do that again, right? Because after all, you always discuss these issues so honestly and fairly. :roll:
Click to expand...

The main issue wasn't whether Russia sought to interfere in the election. The issue was whether Mr. Trump conspired with Russia in its efforts.
The Obama Admin was quick to jump on the latter while more than happy to utilize information from anonymous Russian sources. in support of such a belief.

Russia played both the Trump campaign, the Clinton campaign and the Obama Admin.




The entire second section of the Mueller Report details how Trump obstructed justice over and over and over and over. Mueller said that he couldn't issue indictments to a sitting president and left it to Congress.
Click to expand...

Theoretical claims of obstruction. On their own terms they were baseless.
 
jpn said:
You keep repeating this as though it's true.
Prove it.
Provide a single shred of evidence.

I'm skeptical because:
If that was the case, why was the original sentencing recommendation made in the first place?
It's surprisingly coincidental that the recommendation was changed one day after Trump's tweet storm.
There's a pattern of Barr's DOJ interfering with justice. Flynn, e.g.
Barr made an unprecedented personnel change to get his hand-picked lackey as his chief of staff.
Four prosecutors quit in protest. Doesn't sound routine to me.

Evidence please.
Click to expand...

There is always going to be a sentencing recommendation.
Debates surrounding what the recommendation ought to be are always going to occur.
The judge is not mandated to accept the recommendation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom