• 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, suspecially quick conclusion

Sand Castle said:
Following two years of investigations and indictments. Along with Trump's lies and appearance of obstruction,

Barr in 48 hours supposedly reads all documents and reviews all evidence and then exonerates Trump.

This has the appearance that Trump's appointee had made his conclusion in his job interview.

And Rosenstein made his when Trump allowed him to keep his job and pension.
Click to expand...

Argument from incredulity.
 
TheGoverness said:
Yeah, due to like privacy and security concerns, I'm sure.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but a lot has to do with required redactions relating to grand jury proceedings.
 
Moderate Right said:
You guys are just too funny. Don't you remember, just a few short months ago Rosenstein was your hero because he supposedly was asking about invoking the 25th amendment? Now you say he was in Trump's back pocket right from the beginning. And it wasn't Barr, it was Mueller himself who reported that there was no evidence of collusion, even though Russia tried. And, Mueller laid out the left's reasoning for Trump obstructing justice and the right's reasoning as to why he didn't, failing to find any evidence strong enough to raise past the level of reasonable doubt. Trump's actions can be interpretted in different ways, meaning there is no clear evidence of how to successfully interpret what Trump said and did.
Click to expand...

Who considered Rosenstein a hero? If anything there were legitimate questions raised with regard to what the frigg Rosenstein was talking about. He didn't have a dog in the 25th Amendment fight. So I have no idea where you are getting "Rosenstein the hero" over his 25th Amendment position. If anything it was Rosenstein might be drinking too much coffee in the morning coupled with feeling wounded about being played in the Comey letter affair.
 
Sand Castle said:
Following two years of investigations and indictments. Along with Trump's lies and appearance of obstruction,

Barr in 48 hours supposedly reads all documents and reviews all evidence and then exonerates Trump.

This has the appearance that Trump's appointee had made his conclusion in his job interview.

And Rosenstein made his when Trump allowed him to keep his job and pension.
Click to expand...

What makes you think Barr read all the documents and reviewed all the evidence?

His letter is simply a statement of "principal conclusions".

The fact is, Barr...in his letter to Congress...makes the point that he and his people HAVEN'T read the whole thing. They have yet to identify what specific information they can give to Congress (public) and what they cannot.
 
Mycroft said:
What makes you think Barr read all the documents and reviewed all the evidence?

His letter is simply a statement of "principal conclusions".

The fact is, Barr...in his letter to Congress...makes the point that he and his people HAVEN'T read the whole thing. They have yet to identify what specific information they can give to Congress (public) and what they cannot.
Click to expand...

Then Barr shouldn't have taken obstruction off the table
 
Sand Castle said:
Then Barr shouldn't have taken obstruction off the table
Click to expand...

I don't see why?

Barr didn't say he DIDN'T read all the information pertaining to obstruction of justice. Just because he didn't read ALL of Mueller's stuff doesn't mean he didn't read ANY of Mueller's stuff.
 
Mycroft said:
I don't see why?

Barr didn't say he DIDN'T read all the information pertaining to obstruction of justice. Just because he didn't read ALL of Mueller's stuff doesn't mean he didn't read ANY of Mueller's stuff.
Click to expand...
Political cover 2020
 
Sand Castle said:
Political cover 2020
Click to expand...

So...all of your wild speculation about Trump has been tossed in the trash, so now you are going to wildly speculate about Barr?

What makes you think Barr is interested in providing anyone political cover?
 
Sand Castle said:
Especially when Barr politically embellished Meuller's report.

I never thought Trump would be found guilty of the Russia connection.

But, never expected Barr would create the appearance of Trump being innocent completely with Meuller findings.
Click to expand...

What did AG Barr embellish? And where is your proof of this happening. Seems you are just throwing up some more mud!
The American public has been lied too for over 2 years about Russian collusion. Now you want to make up stuff about AG Barr?
 
Mycroft said:
So...all of your wild speculation about Trump has been tossed in the trash, so now you are going to wildly speculate about Barr?

What makes you think Barr is interested in providing anyone political cover?
Click to expand...

Never have I once thought or posted Trump would be guilty of Russia stuff.
Even a bafoon like Trump is able to tell his cronies to work with Russia and leave him officially out, do what you need to do.
But, I never expected a blatant spin from Barr, not on Russia but Trump's obstructive behavior
 
Common Sense 1 said:
What did AG Barr embellish? And where is your proof of this happening. Seems you are just throwing up some more mud!
The American public has been lied too for over 2 years about Russian collusion. Now you want to make up stuff about AG Barr?
Click to expand...
Very simple fact:
1. Meuller 2 years states he cannot discount Trump obstruction

2. Barr in 48 hours exonarates Trump.
No mud, these are the facts presented and the facts I'm presenting
 
Airyaman said:
What I find odd is that Barr summarized 485 pages into 4 pages, while he wrote 19 pages about Mueller's investigation while he was a private citizen and knew next to nothing about Mueller's findings.
Click to expand...

Was he on a deadline then? ;)
 
Sand Castle said:
Never have I once thought or posted Trump would be guilty of Russia stuff.
Even a bafoon like Trump is able to tell his cronies to work with Russia and leave him officially out, do what you need to do.
But, I never expected a blatant spin from Barr, not on Russia but Trump's obstructive behavior
Click to expand...

What do you perceive as "blatant spin" from Barr?
 
Mycroft said:
What do you perceive as "blatant spin" from Barr?
Click to expand...
investigation” into these matters, the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards regarding prosecution and conviction but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion — one way or the other — as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as “difficult issues” of law and fact concerning whether the President’s actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction
 
Sand Castle said:
Following two years of investigations and indictments. Along with Trump's lies and appearance of obstruction,

Barr in 48 hours supposedly reads all documents and reviews all evidence and then exonerates Trump.

This has the appearance that Trump's appointee had made his conclusion in his job interview.

And Rosenstein made his when Trump allowed him to keep his job and pension.
Click to expand...

This is one of the most absurd, brain dead observations I've seen come out of the butthurt media.

Let me ask you a question, how much time did it take you to copy someone else's math homework when you were in school? That's what happened here. Barr didn't have to re-investigate the whole thing. He had to take Meuller's findings and come up with a conclusion. The fact that you don't like the conclusion doesn't mean it's wrong and doesn't mean it's suspicious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom