• 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!

Harris puts Barr in the hots seat

ajn678 said:
That's actually not at all what happened.
Click to expand...

you have to realize that these people no longer live in reality. they live in their own little world
where nothing exists except for what they think.

What barr wanted was the results. he got the results and then summarized the results.
what barr wrote for the results was exactly what mueller put in his own report.
 
tres borrachos said:
I don't hate Trump. I don't even know him. I don't want to know about your emotional attachment (love) for the man. That's private.

Barr didn't read the report. He admitted that today. I remember a time when adults actually expected a through job from someone like the AG. I guess that's only when the AG isn't appointed by Trump.

Herr Mueller? Please keep your hatred for a war hero to yourself. I'm not a Trump lover. I don't enjoy the spectacle of watching war heroes get denigrated because of partisanship. I leave that to President Trump and his loyal fan club of veteran haters.
Click to expand...

Lmfao you literally lie in every post you make now. Imagine actually trying to get anyone to believe that.
 
Idiometer said:
He may explain it that way, but that isn't normal. And she should know, after so many years as a prosecutor.

She caught him with his pants down. He was at a complete loss for how to spin an answer to a clear, reasonable, and uncomplicated question.
Click to expand...

he answered her prefectly because harris has little to 0 credibility.
he is right. as the AG he wants to see the conclusion.

he expects that the people doing the investigation has done their due diligence and that the content in the report supports the conclusion.
in fact that all that matters is the conclusion.

the conclusions were 2 fold.

1. There was no evidence that the trump campaign colluded or coordinated with russia.
2. There was no opinion on obstruction and deferred it to the AG.

the AGs found not enough evidence to support obstruction as obstruction requires criminal intent.
 
ajn678 said:
Lmfao you literally lie in every post you make now. Imagine actually trying to get anyone to believe that.
Click to expand...

I'm not lying. You want to have an emotional attachment to Trump, that's your choice. But it's ignorant to project your emotions on others.

And I have way too much class and integrity to attack a war hero.
 
ajn678 said:
It wasn't. They were discussing the things outside of Mueller's report. Specifically evidence that were not included in the report. Once again, you are wrong.
Click to expand...

No, I'm right. But you love Trump too much to be truthful.

Do you send him love letters?
 
ludin said:
you have to realize that these people no longer live in reality. they live in their own little world
where nothing exists except for what they think.

What barr wanted was the results. he got the results and then summarized the results.
what barr wrote for the results was exactly what mueller put in his own report.
Click to expand...

Tell us more about how Mueller exonerated Trump of obstruction.
 
Idiometer said:
You see? You proved my point. She did not say that she thought the incarcerated should vote from jail.
Click to expand...

She also did not say the incarcerated should not vote from jail. She left the door open for a discussion which she may or may not support the right to vote from jail.

Like I said, she straddled the fence.
 
tres borrachos said:
I'm not lying. You want to have an emotional attachment to Trump, that's your choice. But it's ignorant to project your emotions on others.

And I have way too much class and integrity to attack a war hero.
Click to expand...

Your entire persona on this forum is screeching about Trump 24/7. If you don't see it, then its much worse than I initially thought.
 
Her best question was whether Rosenstein had been cleared by ethics officials to make a charging decision in a case in which he is also a witness. That just blew Barr’s mind after spending so much time emphasizing that it was a joint decision.
 
bearpoker said:
No supervisor would look at the underlying evidence? Really??!!! If they didn't want to be informed and just put out their own opinion, I suppose that would be true.
Click to expand...

Or...

If they trusted Mueller.

Don't you trust Mueller?
 
tres borrachos said:
No, I'm right. But you love Trump too much to be truthful.

Do you send him love letters?
Click to expand...

Ad hominem bull****. You were factually incorrect. Once again your ignorance on the subject leads you to wipe the egg off your face. Sadly you just keep pouring more and more on rather than admit your mistakes.
 
ajn678 said:
Your entire persona on this forum is screeching about Trump 24/7. If you don't see it, then its much worse than I initially thought.
Click to expand...

I'm not here 24/7. Just when I'm at my work computer. And never on weekends.

I really don't need to know how much you love Trump and hate Mueller the war hero. That's private,
 
ajn678 said:
Ad hominem bull****. You were factually incorrect. Once again your ignorance on the subject leads you to wipe the egg off your face. Sadly you just keep pouring more and more on rather than admit your mistakes.
Click to expand...

Did you email Trump and ask him to send you a pair of his dirty tighty whities to chew on? Because I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone in love with a man who is a total stranger like this. I had crushes when I was a teenager, but I outgrew them at 13 when I cancelled my subscription to Tiger Beat.
 
Mycroft said:
Or...

If they trusted Mueller.

Don't you trust Mueller?
Click to expand...

Mueller didn't exonerate Trump of obstruction. So your concept is false.

They didn't look at the evidence, and Barr looked very, very incompetent today for having to admit that. Partisan, too.
 
Idiometer said:
He may explain it that way, but that isn't normal. And she should know, after so many years as a prosecutor.
Click to expand...

The ends justify any means...even if the means is to spin **** to her advantage. Which is what she is doing.

btw, I'm betting Barr has a lot more years as a prosecutor than she does.
 
tres borrachos said:
Did you email Trump and ask him to send you a pair of his dirty tighty whities to chew on? Because I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone in love with a man who is a total stranger like this. I had crushes when I was a teenager, but I outgrew them at 13 when I cancelled my subscription to Tiger Beat.
Click to expand...

Do you have anything else to say other than your sick fetishes regarding Trump and people on the forum? Rather sad that this is what you fall back on after looking badly.
 
Napoleon said:
Her best question was whether Rosenstein had been cleared by ethics officials to make a charging decision in a case in which he is also a witness. That just blew Barr’s mind after spending so much time emphasizing that it was a joint decision.
Click to expand...

That was another really stupid play on her part.

After all this time...now she questions whether Rosenstein had a conflict of interest. Why didn't she question that when he started the whole Mueller nonsense?

Again...the ends justify any means. Even if she has to spin **** to achieve her ends.
 
ajn678 said:
Do you have anything else to say other than your sick fetishes regarding Trump and people on the forum? Rather sad that this is what you fall back on after looking badly.
Click to expand...

I'm not the one who has an emotional attachment to Trump. That's you. You are projecting your love of Trump on me, and saying I hate him. The opposite of hate is love. I really, really don't want to know about your schoolgirl crush on a very large old man.

Maybe there is a forum where you can talk about loving Trump and having others also share their fantasies. This isn't the board for that.
 
Mycroft said:
That was another really stupid play on her part.

After all this time...now she questions whether Rosenstein had a conflict of interest. Why didn't she question that when he started the whole Mueller nonsense?

Again...the ends justify any means. Even if she has to spin **** to achieve her ends.
Click to expand...

Actually it was pretty smart. Not only did Barr usurp decision making that Mueller clearly intended for Congress, but he justifies it on the basis that it was a joint decision involving a person who never should have been involved.
 
Mycroft said:
The ends justify any means...even if the means is to spin **** to her advantage. Which is what she is doing.

btw, I'm betting Barr has a lot more years as a prosecutor than she does.
Click to expand...

When was Barr a prosecutor? What years and what jurisdiction?
 
Napoleon said:
Actually it was pretty smart. Not only did Barr usurp decision making that Mueller clearly intended for Congress, but he justifies it on the basis that it was a joint decision involving a person who never should have been involved.
Click to expand...

1. It wasn't Mueller's job to intend anything for Congress. You fail.

2. If Rosenstein had never been involved, there would be no Mueller investigation. You fail.

Just like Harris failed and got slapped upside the head.

But then...the useful idiots don't care about reason, do they Napoleon?
 
tres borrachos said:
I'm not the one who has an emotional attachment to Trump. That's you. You are projecting your love of Trump on me, and saying I hate him. The opposite of hate is love. I really, really don't want to know about your schoolgirl crush on a very large old man.

Maybe there is a forum where you can talk about loving Trump and having others also share their fantasies. This isn't the board for that.
Click to expand...

Again, you fall back on ad hominem attacks when you can't backup your postings. Rather sad. Pointless to try and save you from it also. Better to just let you embarrass yourself.
 
ajn678 said:
Again, you fall back on ad hominem attacks when you can't backup your postings. Rather sad. Pointless to try and save you from it also. Better to just let you embarrass yourself.
Click to expand...

Are you going to keep derailing this thread and posting about me? I understand you're fascinated with me and all that, but your obsession is rather creepy. Please post about the topic, which isn't me.
 
mike2810 said:
I find her question to be rather naïve. There is a great difference from being asked/directed to investigate someone and suggesting that someone should be looked into.

I really dislike yes or no questions.
Click to expand...

She asked him if someone suggested ( yes, acknowledging the difference ) but he still said "I don't know ( recall )"

She wasn't debating on the propriety of it, she was just asking a simple question.

Might as well ask Harris if she has ever talked dirt about someone or suggested dirt be talked about someone. Yes or No, please.
Click to expand...


Moot point, she allowed for nuance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom