Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

 

Edited by ignatius
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

shit. Barr throwing Mueller under the bus. this will be good. 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/barr-blames-mueller-for-not-reaching-conclusion-on-charging-president-174428571.html

 

Quote

 

Attorney General William Barr criticized Robert Mueller on Wednesday for failing to exercise his “responsibility” as a prosecutor to decide whether President Trump violated the law by obstructing the Russia investigation.

“Was it the special counsel’s responsibility to make a charging decision?” Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, asked Barr at a contentious hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“I think the Deputy Attorney General [Rod Rosenstein] and I thought it was,” Barr replied. He then suggested Mueller had no authority to even investigate the president for obstruction — using the powers of the grand jury — if he wasn’t prepared to charge him.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Nebraska said:

^^ and he just refused to testify in front of the house judiciary committee. let's see whether nancy does anything about this since she said he'd be obstructing justice if he failed to appear

uOuu25h.png

 

Whatever happened to having an editor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

she pretty much says it all.  watch the video for her statement before she asks him questions. he's a prick. she's right. she calls him out on all his bullshit. 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/01/politics/mazie-hirono-barr-senate-judiciary/index.html

Quote

"But now we know more about your deep involvement and trying to cover up for Donald Trump," Hirono said. "Being attorney general of the United States is a sacred trust. You have betrayed that trust. America deserves better. You should resign."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good thing Barr totally sucks at this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

hirono, booker, blumenthal, and sasse all delivered powerful performances. harris, whitehouse, and klobuchar also notable, among others

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by very honest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

tbh, i thought booker was awful. haven't seen all the others. but most of the dems I've seen were basically preaching for their own church without landing any real punches. hardly any moment where barr was exposed to the extent that even his supporters should start to sweat. nothing.

booker was awful in the sense that he wasn't able to trap bar with his own words. even though his argument about normalisation was a valid one. he was supposed to make barr come to that conclusion - on the record. instead it was just about booker and his opinions. perhaps it happened in the end of the clip, but when i saw it live, i had to switch it off because of all the cringes. 

sorry, hardly any powerful performances seen imo. harris was good, but too short. blumenthal and klobuchar were good as well. but again, nothing really landed imo.

Edited by goDel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Barr's tone and actual voice is more annoying than even possibly trump's.  i find i turn him off even quicker than i turn off trump.  he's quite a prick. 

i don't think anyone is going to trap him in some way. he just reverts to legalese and splitting hairs.  all this is simply an opportunity to bring him out and show him to be a liar and an asshole who is trump's henchman. 

the senator from hawaii got it right i think. she registers genuine disgust and anger at this fucking contemptuous pig.

Edited by ignatius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, she said she was bullshit

 

yeah.... cool. how about this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Nebraska said:

well, she said she was bullshit

 

yeah.... cool. how about this

yeah but what will they do about it? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nadler is right to want 30 mins segments. using actual lawyers to wrestle with all the legal hairsplitting. that's really the only way to trap barr, imo.

otherwise it's just dems voicing their opinions. the only thing barr needs to do is to shrug and explain (repeat) his own opinion. which will only work in his favor. the more he can repeat his own conclusions, the more people will accept it as actual reality. he's currently basically replacing giuliani as trumps public legal council. and he's way more effective as well. double win for trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i really dislike the 5 minute sermon style of hearing. 30 min with actual counsel sounds so much more productive. It's frustrating watching congress members taking turns soapboxing with no clear group agenda, even when what they say makes sense. it's a horrible format for any meeting.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, luke viia said:

i really dislike the 5 minute sermon style of hearing. 30 min with actual counsel sounds so much more productive. It's frustrating watching congress members taking turns soapboxing with no clear group agenda, even when what they say makes sense. it's a horrible format for any meeting.

100% agreed. if they'd planned ahead and divvied questioning/follow up, they might've been able to get a lot more done. not surprised tho. ego > results, they're politicians after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This barr gif is so...wow

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

i thought booker did well. i like 6:37 in that video i posted above where booker tells barr polling data was shared and barr asks "with who" and booker laughs. the mueller report says it was given to kilimnik, the guy with russian intelligence connections

 

meant to post blumenthal's second round time, as well. this is the one where barr just decides fuck it, lets call mueller a bitch

 

 

here's mueller's letter to barr, complaining about his misrepresentations, and asking him to release the executive summaries he had already redacted and made for public release (weeks before the report was released):

 

 

 

 

Dear Attorney General Barr:

I previously sent you a letter dated March 25, 2019, that enclosed the introduction and
executive summary for each volume of the Special Counsel's report marked with redactions
to
remove any information that potentially could be protected by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure
that concerned declination decisions; or that related to a charged case. We also had marked
an additional two sentences for review and have now confirmed that these sentences can be
released publicly.

Accordingly, the enclosed documents are in a form that can be released to the public
consistent with legal requirements and Department policies. I am requesting that you provide these
materials to Congress and authorize their public release at this time.

As we stated in our meeting of March 5 and reiterated to the Department early in the
afternoon of March 24, the introductions and executive summaries of our two-volume report
accurately summarize this Office's work and conclusions. The summary letter the Department
sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture
the context, nature, and substance of this Office's work and conclusions. We communicated that
concern to the Department on the morning of March 25. There is now public confusion about
critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose
for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the
outcome of the investigations.
See Department of Justice, Press Release (May 17, 2017).

While we understand that the Department is reviewing the full report to determine what is
appropriate for public release - a process that our Office is working with you to complete - that
process need not delay release of the enclosed materials. Release at this time would alleviate the
misunderstandings that have arisen and would answer congressional and public questions about
the nature and outcome of our investigation. It would also accord with the standard for public
release of notifications to Congress cited in your letter. See 28 C.F.R. 609(c) ("the Attorney
General may determine that public release" of congressional notifications "would be in the public
interest").

Sincerely yours,

WMA. 

 

 

 

 

dated march 27. bold added by me

Edited by very honest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ interesting side note in that article about Trump refusing to leave the white house if he loses in 2020. I'm sure he won't believe the election results if he loses, but makes me wonder what if he tries to turn it into a bizarro Venezuela situation? I could see him asking for Russian military support to help keep him in power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump would have been charged with obstruction were he not president, hundreds of former federal prosecutors assert

Quote

More than 370 former federal prosecutors who worked in Republican and Democratic administrations have signed on to a statement asserting special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s findings would have produced obstruction charges against President Trump — if not for the office he held.

Quote

“Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice,” the former federal prosecutors wrote.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-would-have-been-charged-with-obstruction-were-he-not-president-hundreds-of-former-federal-prosecutors-assert/2019/05/06/e4946a1a-7006-11e9-9f06-5fc2ee80027a_story.html?utm_term=.529980ec6fb2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Geez, is pressure really on Trump for real this time?

Really makes the sudden attention Bolton has on Iran a lot more eerie and alarming. US Navy is sending a carrier, another wag the dog airstrike op on call I'm sure. The USAF had B-1 bombers in Qatar removed recently. The fact that they'd switch from a land base in a country like Qatar, and the local political consequences it'd bring, to air strikes out of international waters is quite a coincidence. 

 

edit: nvrmd, some B-1s are going back to Dyess but DoD said another rotation is on it's way

Edited by joshuatxuk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, joshuatxuk said:

Geez, is pressure really on Trump for real this time?

Really makes the sudden attention Bolton has on Iran a lot more eerie and alarming. US Navy is sending a carrier, another wag the dog airstrike op on call I'm sure. The USAF had B-1 bombers in Qatar removed recently. The fact that they'd switch from a land base in a country like Qatar, and the local political consequences it'd bring, to air strikes out of international waters is quite a coincidence. 

 

edit: nvrmd, some B-1s are going back to Dyess but DoD said another rotation is on it's way

 

trumps' actions toward iran spell out an antagonistic intent. 

  • leaving the nuclear deal, which had brought relative stability
  • putting sanctions on iran, which had been lifted
  • designating their military a terrorist group
  • sending this carrier strike group and bomber group

 

it is alarming that we have trump, in the presidency, getting cornered by law enforcement. cohen testified to congress that trump would fight a peaceful transfer of power. people should be concerned.

Edited by very honest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn, Trump's also a world snooker champion now. Did the Russians hack the tournament? Lots of russian oligarchs in the audience this year. And don't forget the chinese. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Newly obtained tax information reveals that from 1985 to 1994, Donald J. Trump’s businesses were in far bleaker condition than was previously known.

The numbers show that in 1985, Mr. Trump reported losses of $46.1 million from his core businesses — largely casinos, hotels and retail space in apartment buildings. They continued to lose money every year, totaling $1.17 billion in losses for the decade.

In fact, year after year, Mr. Trump appears to have lost more money than nearly any other individual American taxpayer, The Times found when it compared his results with detailed information the I.R.S. compiles on an annual sampling of high-income earners.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/05/07/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...