Barr.
Barr stated that.
Why should we believe anything he says?
We have a direct quote from Mueller that doesn't say that at all.
Russia Collusion Scandal (aka A Leftist fantasy)
- Thread starter Runnin
- Start date
Barr.
Barr stated that.
Why should we believe anything he says?
We have a direct quote from Mueller that doesn't say that at all.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
I think it’s worth pointing out that these people are both lawyers and public officials, thus very careful with words. Something can be “accurate,” and still misleading and distorted in context.
57Brave
Well-known member
The Rude Pundit
@rudepundit
3m3 minutes ago
Goddamn, William Barr really is just a bulbous piece of ****.
If you're someone who believed his summary of the Mueller report,
you got hoodwinked by a piece of ****.
And that says something about you, too.
Runnin
Well-known member
Have you read it?
I'm only halfway through the first part and it very plainly lays out the international conspiracy to keep Hillary Clinton out of the WH. And the Trump campaign, in their own bumbling, incompetent way, was a very willing participant. Period.
It's pretty obvious what Barr and Trump's gameplan was.
- Mueller report is released.
- Immediately control the headlines and release Barr's summary instead of the 4 summaries the Team wrote up.
- Wait to release the report, but the damage was done. They wanted to get out in front of the story first by giving the "conclusions".
- Barr did same thing by holding the Press Conference before he even released the report, so nobody could ask him questions about the substance.
The more they stall, the more people will be distracted by Game of Thrones, Avengers, and other things to care less about it.
They've moved the goalposts continuously to control the narrative. The narrative they want isn't let's talk about how awful the things that were done in the report are, the narrative they want is, people haven't read it. Trumps' supporters definitely not have read it, so the longer we stall the more we can make this look like the Dems are just playing Benghazi card and dragging this out. It's now become Barr/Trump's word vs. Dems/House. Instead of releasing it first and giving people time to objectively analyze it, it was crucial for Barr to come out the opening weekend and say we found nothing and we're all good here. They controlled the message from the onset. Now it's up to the Dems to prove them wrong without looking like the GOP did for Benghazi. But the more they stall and the more they play ignorant the worse it looks for Dems because unfortunately a lot of people have short term memory and don't care. Unlike Hillary testifying in the House ****show for 13 hours.
- Mueller report is released.
- Immediately control the headlines and release Barr's summary instead of the 4 summaries the Team wrote up.
- Wait to release the report, but the damage was done. They wanted to get out in front of the story first by giving the "conclusions".
- Barr did same thing by holding the Press Conference before he even released the report, so nobody could ask him questions about the substance.
The more they stall, the more people will be distracted by Game of Thrones, Avengers, and other things to care less about it.
They've moved the goalposts continuously to control the narrative. The narrative they want isn't let's talk about how awful the things that were done in the report are, the narrative they want is, people haven't read it. Trumps' supporters definitely not have read it, so the longer we stall the more we can make this look like the Dems are just playing Benghazi card and dragging this out. It's now become Barr/Trump's word vs. Dems/House. Instead of releasing it first and giving people time to objectively analyze it, it was crucial for Barr to come out the opening weekend and say we found nothing and we're all good here. They controlled the message from the onset. Now it's up to the Dems to prove them wrong without looking like the GOP did for Benghazi. But the more they stall and the more they play ignorant the worse it looks for Dems because unfortunately a lot of people have short term memory and don't care. Unlike Hillary testifying in the House ****show for 13 hours.
sturg33
I
Of course I havent read it.
I accept his conclusions that there was no conspiracy. I dont care about potential obstruction of a non crime.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
So I have been looking and can someone point out to me what the media got wrong about the Russia investigation. I can find about 3 stories that turned out to be false relating to Russia. The only thing it looks to me they got wrong waa that Mueller was looking at financial crimes.
So please, anyone, point out to me ehat the mwdia fot wrong before the report was released.
So please, anyone, point out to me ehat the mwdia fot wrong before the report was released.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
the two stories I can think of that have not panned out are McClatchy's about signals from Cohen's cellphone being detected in Prague and Luke Harding's about Manafartov visiting Assange at the Ecuadorean Embassy.
Runnin
Well-known member
"Of course" ??
"I accept his conclusions" Really?
It's plainly clear that his conclusions come from the liar in the WH.
sturg33
I
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
I have found a couple as well but its not anything close to what people are portraying it as. The media interpreted Trumps behavior as circumstancial evidence of his guilt, which is perfectly reasonable.
I just dont understand how the Russia investigation was a hoax by the media but Bengahzi was a legitimate investigation. Fox news pimped that all day long.
The media 100% colludes against candidates and actively use their channels for propoganda, but Trump is not a victim in this case in the least bit. In fact he got an estimated 2 billion in free media coverage by the media.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
There was a lot of smoke and the media did its job trying to find the source of the fire. And the findings are significant:
1) The Russians' social media operation
2) The Russians' hacking operation
3) The handover of the stolen emails from the Russians to Wikileaks
4) Trump's negotiations over the Moscow Tower
5) Trump directing his campaign aides to find Hillary's emails
5) Flynn following up on Trump's directions by arranging for Peter W Smith and others to act as cutouts in the search for those emails
6) Smith's search for those emails, including outreach to certain parties who turned out to be Russian
7) The Trump campaign's efforts to influence the timing of the Wikileaks releases to maximize their political impact
8) Manafartov's sharing of internal polling data, with instructions to Kilimnik to pass it on to various oligarchs
Even if Mueller concluded that the evidence did not support his bringing a criminal case for conspiracy there is a lot there that in the end adds up to a major scandal. And I would not sweep the subsequent obstruction and abuse of power under the rug. All of this happened. There is no longer any dispute. The question now is what to do about it.
Last edited:
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
I think appointing Barr in itself was obstruction. He was hired specifically because his view on obstruction of justice by a President was favorable for Trump.
I also think there is a larger scandal building about Trump indirectly colluding with Russian election meddling in 2020 by resisting any and all attempts to safeguard the election knowing that Russia will be tampering in his favor.
I also think there is a larger scandal building about Trump indirectly colluding with Russian election meddling in 2020 by resisting any and all attempts to safeguard the election knowing that Russia will be tampering in his favor.
goldfly
<B>if my thought dreams could be seen</B>
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
Ben Wittes on Barr:
I was willing to give Bill Barr a chance. Consider me burned.
When Barr was nominated, I wrote a cautious piece for this magazine declining to give him “a character reference” and acknowledging “legitimate reasons to be concerned about [his] nomination,” but nonetheless concluding that “I suspect that he is likely as good as we’re going to get. And he might well be good enough. Because most of all, what the department needs right now is honest leadership that will insulate it from the predations of the president.”
When he wrote his first letter to Congress announcing the principal conclusions of the Mueller report, I wrote another piece saying, “For the next two weeks, let’s give Attorney General William Barr the benefit of the doubt” on the question of releasing the report in a timely and not-too-redacted fashion.
I took a lot of criticism for these pieces—particularly the second one, in which I specifically said we should evaluate Barr’s actual performance in regard to releasing the Mueller report, and thus wait for him to act, rather than denouncing him preemptively.
Barr has now acted, and we can now evaluate his actual, rather than his hypothesized, performance.
It has been catastrophic. Not in my memory has a sitting attorney general more diminished the credibility of his department on any subject. It is a kind of trope of political opposition in every administration that the attorney general—whoever he or she is—is politicizing the Justice Department and acting as a defense lawyer for the president. In this case it is true.
Ironically, the redactions on the report—the matter on which I urged giving Barr the benefit of the doubt—are the one major area where his performance has been respectable. On this matter, he laid out a time frame for the release of the report. He met it. His redactions, as best as I can tell, were not unreasonable, though they were aggressive in some specific areas. To whatever extent he went overboard, Congress has a far-less-redacted version. The public, in any event, has access to a detailed account of Mueller’s conclusions. On this point, Barr did as he said he would.
Where Barr has utterly failed, by contrast, is in providing “honest leadership that insulates [the department] from the predations of the president.” I confess I am surprised by this. I have never known Barr well, but I thought better of him than that.
The core of the problem is not that Barr moved, as many people worried he would, to suppress the report; it is what he has said about it. I have spent a great deal of time with the Mueller report, about which Barr’s public statements are simply indefensible. The mischaracterizations began in his first letter. They got worse during his press conference the morning he released the document. And they grew worse still yesterday in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Barr did not lie in any of these statements. He did not, as some people insist, commit perjury. I haven’t found a sentence he has written or said that cannot be defended as truthful on its own terms, if only in some literal sense. But it is possible to mislead without lying. One can be dishonest before Congress without perjury. And one can convey sweeping untruths without substantial factual misstatement. This is what Barr has been doing since that first letter. And it is utterly beneath the United States Department of Justice.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...ntent=edit-promo&utm_term=2019-05-02T14:48:07
I would add that in addition to being appalling Barr's performance has been ineffective and indeed counterproductive in terms of helping his master.
I was willing to give Bill Barr a chance. Consider me burned.
When Barr was nominated, I wrote a cautious piece for this magazine declining to give him “a character reference” and acknowledging “legitimate reasons to be concerned about [his] nomination,” but nonetheless concluding that “I suspect that he is likely as good as we’re going to get. And he might well be good enough. Because most of all, what the department needs right now is honest leadership that will insulate it from the predations of the president.”
When he wrote his first letter to Congress announcing the principal conclusions of the Mueller report, I wrote another piece saying, “For the next two weeks, let’s give Attorney General William Barr the benefit of the doubt” on the question of releasing the report in a timely and not-too-redacted fashion.
I took a lot of criticism for these pieces—particularly the second one, in which I specifically said we should evaluate Barr’s actual performance in regard to releasing the Mueller report, and thus wait for him to act, rather than denouncing him preemptively.
Barr has now acted, and we can now evaluate his actual, rather than his hypothesized, performance.
It has been catastrophic. Not in my memory has a sitting attorney general more diminished the credibility of his department on any subject. It is a kind of trope of political opposition in every administration that the attorney general—whoever he or she is—is politicizing the Justice Department and acting as a defense lawyer for the president. In this case it is true.
Ironically, the redactions on the report—the matter on which I urged giving Barr the benefit of the doubt—are the one major area where his performance has been respectable. On this matter, he laid out a time frame for the release of the report. He met it. His redactions, as best as I can tell, were not unreasonable, though they were aggressive in some specific areas. To whatever extent he went overboard, Congress has a far-less-redacted version. The public, in any event, has access to a detailed account of Mueller’s conclusions. On this point, Barr did as he said he would.
Where Barr has utterly failed, by contrast, is in providing “honest leadership that insulates [the department] from the predations of the president.” I confess I am surprised by this. I have never known Barr well, but I thought better of him than that.
The core of the problem is not that Barr moved, as many people worried he would, to suppress the report; it is what he has said about it. I have spent a great deal of time with the Mueller report, about which Barr’s public statements are simply indefensible. The mischaracterizations began in his first letter. They got worse during his press conference the morning he released the document. And they grew worse still yesterday in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Barr did not lie in any of these statements. He did not, as some people insist, commit perjury. I haven’t found a sentence he has written or said that cannot be defended as truthful on its own terms, if only in some literal sense. But it is possible to mislead without lying. One can be dishonest before Congress without perjury. And one can convey sweeping untruths without substantial factual misstatement. This is what Barr has been doing since that first letter. And it is utterly beneath the United States Department of Justice.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...ntent=edit-promo&utm_term=2019-05-02T14:48:07
I would add that in addition to being appalling Barr's performance has been ineffective and indeed counterproductive in terms of helping his master.
Last edited: